Page 54 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 22 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What has been proposed in the body of the recommendations by the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee is that the area in the variation that was proposed for residential be allowed to be developed for that purpose but that one lease be granted for the entire 32 hectares; that there be an absolute requirement that the built form, that is, the heritage built form, on the site, in accordance with the heritage citation issued, should be maintained and enhanced to an appropriate level; and that the people who are involved in the maintenance, preservation and usage of that area be as inclusive as possible, including, amongst others, but not exclusively, organisations such as the Minders of Tuggeranong Homestead, the Australian War Memorial and the Conservation Council of the South-East Region and Canberra. We have attempted to identify that the community should be involved in an ongoing way not only in the preservation, promotion and utilisation of the built form on this site but also in ensuring public access to and participation in activities around those essential heritage characteristics identified in the heritage citation.
In relation to the built form, the residential area, we would expect that the horticultural nature of a development outlined in the Permaculture report would be the basis of the housing development in the area, and that all housing would be highly energy efficient and, to use an oft misused term, would be the greenest of green. It would provide for the principles and philosophy of permaculture, that is, the use of fruit-bearing trees instead of ornamental trees. It would provide separations between dwellings by, as an example, fruit-growing vines and other types of edible landscape - I think that was the term coined - which would provide a unique slant to this development. We believe that it is absolutely essential to do that for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is then appropriate to have that in context with the rest of the proposals for the site; and, secondly, it is consistent with the original theme of the site as a working farm.
I know that you have read in great detail, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Conservation, Heritage and Environment Committee's report. It is essential that the contribution to Australia of Charles Bean in writing the official war history of Australians in the First World War be recognised in a substantial way. We believe that, notwithstanding that Charles Bean himself removed a number of the original items of built form on this site, what does remain that was developed by Charles Bean and by successive users of the site should be retained and utilised by the community for the community.
The holistic approach we have taken to this development, I believe, is an appropriate way for us to deal with the issues raised by both the Minders of Tuggeranong Homestead and the other community groups and individuals who appeared before us. Suffice it to say that following the conclusion of the public hearings the committee had extensive deliberations as to how we should frame our report and our recommendations. As I have indicated, on page 22 of our report we outline those essential characteristics that I have already alluded to. We have also said that a number of other things should occur. We said:
... the committee reiterates its support for that aspect of the draft Variation which would require proponents interested in developing the site to demonstrate a commitment to adequately fund the conservation and maintenance works identified in the Citation of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .