Page 236 - Week 01 - Thursday, 24 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to explain it. Whether that was right or wrong is a matter of conjecture and depends upon your view as to whether or not there should be any towers in Kingston, or whether there should be two or three. The simple fact then was that, through negotiation following that, and a statutory consultation process, the proponent and the Planning Authority were able to agree substantially on a proposal to come forward.
Ms Szuty has said that it has exceeded this range of guidelines and therefore, as a matter of course, it should be dismissed. Ms Szuty, as a member of the Planning Committee, also was involved in the planning approval process for the block immediately opposite this one. It has a density of 1.2, which means that, in terms of the land area, the actual mass of the building is 120 per cent. It has zero setback on all of the turrets surrounding that building. It has a design which was regarded by both the Planning Authority and our committee as being appropriate for this area. One could say that, if the proponent were required to construct another one of those in exactly the same way on the site we are talking about now, there would not be an objection. It would be inconsistent of Ms Szuty to argue against such a proposition on this block.
We are at a position where, on a block of land in close proximity - directly opposite - to this block, Ms Szuty has agreed that the density, planning requirements and regime are totally acceptable, and that is with a plot ratio of 1.2 and with zero setbacks. Yet on this site, when we are required as a Planning Committee, as an Assembly, to adjudge whether it should be approved after the consultation process, where it has been quite clearly identified in all the documents that the proposal exceeds the height by about a metre, exceeds the guideline for plot ratio of 0.8, and has zero setbacks, she says that we should automatically say, "No, it has exceeded all that; go away".
The Planning Committee and this Assembly are here to judge whether, consistent with the block across the road, we are prepared to allow for an increase in the plot ratio; whether, consistent with the block across the road, we are prepared to allow zero setbacks; and whether we are prepared to allow that to occur because, in the public interest, the developer has been required to provide public car parking. The simple test is whether the public interest is served by allowing this project to proceed or whether it is served by saying to the developer, the Planning Authority, the Government and the people of Canberra, "No, your interest is not served by allowing this to proceed; your interest is served by having a rigid approach to development in this area".
Quite simply, when I weigh that up, I have some concerns about the fact that guidelines are exceeded. Any planning authority coming before the committee I chair to argue that point would want to have fairly substantial reasons for doing so. The simple judgment of the majority of members of the committee was that on this occasion they do. It is as simple as that. The Government indicated, when responding to our report, that they were not prepared to accept one part of our recommendation, and that was in relation to allowing for retail activities to occur on the ground floor, where in the original variation the proposal was for commercial.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .