Page 1527 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 18 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The private sector developer has stated that his company will proceed with or without assistance. It is basically a commercial venture which the Housing Trust hopes will reap it some increase in dwelling units. Even then the Housing Trust has apparently had to forgo some of its "better public housing" criteria. In several forums the Government has stated its commitment to solar orientation and energy efficiency, and in its own guidelines the Housing Trust lists such things as environmental sensitivity, private open space, winter sun penetration, security, convenient waste disposal, communal open space, and satisfaction of adults' and children's needs as some of the criteria for good medium density dwelling. In section 3 of the better cities agreement outcomes section, at page 12 of the schedule, the Government agrees to "the adoption, 'as appropriate', of AMCUH (AMCORD URBAN) and AMCORD principles for the ACT after community consultation". Under an AMCORD style of development, Madam Speaker, this development would not proceed, as AMCORD, and its complementary draft code, AMCORD URBAN, set principles for sustainable development which take into account social structure, residential amenity and convenience.
Since this project has been in train, property speculation has become a problem for other property owners on section 22. Developers and their agents have approached residents, paradoxically, to warn of the dire prospect of being surrounded by three-storey residential developments, explaining to residents that their amenity will be lost, that there will be no sunshine in their yards, that their yards will be overlooked by three-storey buildings and that there will be increased noise and traffic. This is a farcical situation, Madam Speaker. These are the things that the Territory Planning Authority has assured residents that its building guidelines prevent.
The Government, to its credit, has stated that it will move to stop speculation on properties adjoining Housing Trust properties; but how do we ensure that residents who purchase their homes with certain expectations of the neighbourhood they are moving into are not frightened into selling their homes because our planning process offers them no way of securing their own residential amenity? I understand that Canberra cannot stand still and that development will happen and should happen, but residents can be powerful allies when they are informed, consulted and allowed access to the process. Without these essentials we have government and bureaucrats in conflict with ratepayers, and expensive and time-wasting resistance to change. Madam Speaker, I call for the planning processes within the Territory to be made transparent; that is, made readily understandable to residents. It is no consolation to have planners state that they understand the process. They are not lay people coming to planning issues for the first time, and that is the situation that most objectors find themselves in. Most people do not experience more than one or two occasions on which they object to developments.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the need for an inquiry into the redevelopment of section 22 in Braddon. This inquiry is timely in that it raises a number of issues which will be elaborated on when the amended Territory Plan is tabled by the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee on Thursday, and Mr Kaine has already commented on that. However, Madam Speaker, I believe that it would be a useful exercise to revisit the processes which occurred in relation to section 22 in Braddon in order to ensure that in future the process better meets the needs and expectations of all concerned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .