Page 50 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 22 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Body Corporate Committee has other objections to the proposed variation in relation to traffic, parking and streetscape. However, our overriding concern is that the people of Canberra can have little faith in any Territory Plan in the future if the present plan is varied to permit blatant overdevelopment of the Kingston site because of the pressure applied by a single developer.
I think that states the arguments quite succinctly. I come back to the question of what is in the public interest. Is the public interest best served by providing a minimum number of publicly available car parking spaces and at the same time significantly exceeding current planning guidelines in the existing provisions of the Territory Plan, or is the public interest best served by not proceeding with the proposed draft variation in its current form while seeking alternatives to resolve the shortage of publicly available car parking in the area, enabling development which does meet existing planning guidelines and the existing provisions of the Territory Plan? In my judgment, the public interest is best served by the second scenario, and I therefore did not support the decision of the majority of the members of the Planning Committee, who have recommended that the draft variation be approved by the Executive. Madam Speaker, before I conclude I would like to indicate to Assembly members that I will be proceeding with a motion of disallowance with regard to this draft variation, which no doubt will be addressed during these sittings of the Assembly.
MR DE DOMENICO (5.06): I support the draft variation, mainly because I was the one who in the committee moved for its endorsement. I was delighted to so move. As Ms Szuty said, it was a matter of opinion as to what committee members thought was more important - public interest or keeping - - -
Mr Moore: Planning.
MR DE DOMENICO: No. Mr Moore says "planning". Mr Moore was not a member of the committee. Had he been there he would have realised that the committee thought long and hard before it made its decision.
As Mr Lamont, Ms Szuty and Mr Kaine said, the major objections came from people living in Kingston Tower. Ms Szuty quoted their letter referring to "blatant overdevelopment". People living in Kingston Tower are saying, "We have a magnificent view from our tower; but Gary Willemsen or somebody else is not going to be able to build, because we do not like it". That boils down to the incredible NIMBY situation in the ACT at its best - "You cannot build a big tower; but you cannot build a small one either, because I who live in the big tower do not like it". Hopefully, this Assembly will not accept that sort of argument. Let us look further at the argument. The guidelines allow for a plot ratio of 0.8. These people say, "We will allow 1.2". After all, they are only guidelines, so why not stick to the 0.8 in their letter to us? No, they are quite prepared to accept 1.2. My answer to that is: Why not 1.1, 1.4, or 1.5 perhaps? Whom are we going to let make that decision? That is why the committee deliberated long and hard.
There are other things that I think need to be said. There was mention of some imposition on the developer, some forcing of the developer to build public car spaces. That is not so.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .