Page 239 - Week 01 - Thursday, 24 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is another area that I think has been misrepresented by Mr Lamont. He did not have the variation with him, so I presume that it was accidental; I will accept that it was not deliberate. On page 8 of the material that goes with the variation, there is a comparison with the development opposite. Mr Lamont said that the plot ratio for that development was 1.2 - this paper shows it as 1.26, but that is fine - and that that had been allowed and there was no problem at all with it; whereas in this situation we are talking about a plot ratio - as my memory serves me, and I am very clear about this - of 0.8, according to Mr Lamont. In reality, it is double that; it is 1.5.
Mr De Domenico: No, he did not say that at all. He said that the guideline was 0.8.
MR MOORE: Okay. I have been corrected, Madam Speaker, and I would like it to appear on the record that he said that it was effectively an additional 0.8.
Mr De Domenico: No, he said that the guideline was 0.8. The Territory Plan says 0.8. That is what he said.
MR MOORE: Thank you. We have clarified that. The guideline provides 0.8, but the current proposal is 1.54. I do not think I have misrepresented him now; that is correct. The plot ratio is actually 1.54. So it is substantially more than the 1.26 of the Somerset and nearly double what the guideline says - from 0.8 to 1.54. It is clear that we are talking about a very substantial difference. When you do a comparison of the site coverages, the Somerset is presented at 36 per cent and in this case it is 52 per cent without the podium and 68 per cent with the podium.
What we have is a substantial difference, a substantial increase, an incremental increase over what is going to happen on the site opposite. What happens at the next site that comes up in Kingston? Do we take another step or not? I accept that, if that is the case, it goes through the Planning Committee and it comes through this process. I am not a great believer in incrementalism, as a rule; but I think it is important to clarify that this is a substantially more dense development than the one across the road and that the guidelines are being exceeded in a substantial way. It seems to me that that was not presented clearly, and that is why I wanted to deal with it.
When we are dealing with the public interest, one has to determine to what extent we are going to allow that intensity. Where does it stop? That is the real concern over this issue. Where is the line drawn? The line was originally drawn at 0.8, as has been shown here, in terms of the guidelines; it has gone to 1.26, and now it is at 1.54. We have to make the decision as to what is going to be in the interests of appropriate living space for the community.
Ms Szuty has argued very strongly, I believe, that this is an inappropriate development, that it is the appropriate time to say, "Enough. It is time to draw the line". Clearly, other members of the committee have, at least to a certain extent, agreed with her. Trevor Kaine has made it clear that he was not one of the people who voted in support of this development. Other members of the committee clearly believe that this is not the right spot at which to draw the line at this stage. That is a difference of opinion, and it seems to me that that is what the issue is about. The local residents' perspective has to take into account the impact that such a development is likely to have on their surroundings.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .