Page 1526 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 18 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Committee draws attention to the fact that some objectors, while supporting development in this area, have concerns about aspects of the original design and siting requirements applying to the proposal.
I think, Madam Speaker, it is clear that the committee had a clear expectation that the views of the objectors to the proposal for section 22, Braddon, would be taken into consideration by the Minister and the Executive when considering the final design and siting of the proposal. I have been heartened today to hear the Minister say that there has still been no final determination on the design and siting of the development.
Madam Speaker, I have taken the opportunity to look at the plans which are on display at the John Overall Offices, and these, Madam Speaker, are little different in content from the indicative drawings which raised the original concerns of the objectors. I might note also that the said drawings actually site the development on section 21, Braddon, not section 22 - a minor error which I did draw to the Minister's office's attention. The objectors had hoped to meet with the Minister, Mr Wood, to discuss their concerns. However, the meeting did not eventuate because an application had been lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to appeal against the decision to allow the variation to proceed. The application has subsequently been withdrawn; so it would still be possible for the objectors to meet with the Minister to discuss their concerns. I personally hope that the issue can be resolved to the satisfaction of all involved without further confrontation.
The objection, as I have said before, is to the design and siting of this development. It has been put forward as a better cities agreement project and discussed in glowing terms. I quote from the schedule to that agreement:
It -
the section 22 development -
will constitute a demonstration model of well integrated medium density residential development providing a benchmark for the private sector to follow.
The range of likely benefits - I quote again - was to have included:
Better solar orientation of buildings to improve energy efficiency; the use of cost effective building materials and techniques; achievement of a mix of public and private housing; and sensitive design to create an integrated streetscape unifying this development with adjacent land uses.
Since the agreement was signed in December, and in the wake of criticism of the project, it has been suggested that better cities money will not be used in conjunction with this development. The better cities agreement sets as a criterion for selection of proposals strategic urban changes that can be achieved, but which would not occur, or not occur as soon, without joint Commonwealth-Territory support. Once criticism of the project was made public, the joint venturers stated that they were not dependent on better cities support. So why, then, was this project included in the schedule?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .