Page 49 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 22 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The site has an interesting history which has created difficulties from the planning perspective because of certain anomalies. The site was leased in 1979 by Grace Bros. It did not develop the site but instead allowed members of the public to park their vehicles there. The site is quite large and can accommodate 160 vehicles. Because of these longstanding arrangements, members of the public have become used to parking on the site and accessing the Kingston shops and other services and facilities in the area.
In May 1992 the leases of blocks 4 to 6 were offered for sale by auction. In order to ensure the continued availability of sufficient public car parking, the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning entered into negotiations with the vendor's agent. It was agreed that prospective bidders would be advised that in any redevelopment of the site a public car park of at least 70 spaces would be required in addition to any parking provision generated by the new development. As Mr Kaine has said, that was a fairly unilateral decision by the ACT Planning Authority at that time. The ramifications of that decision are borne out by the documentation of the draft variation released for public comment in August 1993, which states on page ii:
However, for the proposed development to proceed it will be necessary to vary the Territory Plan as it applies to the site in respect of building height, public car parking, plot ratio, site coverage, building setbacks and open space provision.
Twenty-five written responses were received as a result of the public consultation, and representations were made to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee by a number of key individuals opposed to the draft variation. I have recently received a letter from Mr Stuart Saunders on behalf of the body corporate committee of the Kingston Tower in Jardine Street in Kingston. I believe that other members have also received a copy of this particular letter. It states:
We have not argued against some deviation from the guidelines in order to meet the reasonable goals of both Planning Authority and the developer of this site, in particular, the provision of public car parking spaces at the developer's expense, in addition to those required by the residential and commercial development (a requirement made known at the time of the auction). We have argued, however, that the development should be constrained within appropriate limits. We have suggested that the aims of the developer and the Authority could be met if:
the plot ratio is not allowed to exceed 1.2 as approved for the Somerset development opposite.
reasonable setback is provided on Giles and Tench Streets.
non-retail commercial development is not allowed to extend into Jardine Street north of Giles Street.
building height is limited to tree canopy level.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .