Page 475 - Week 02 - Thursday, 3 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The committee made a number of comments in relation to the density that should apply at North Watson and it put an absolute ceiling on residential-style development in the area. It will provide for up to 650 standard residential-type dwellings; but it will allow, on specified sites, the maximum of another 650. There is an example on a site that Mr Moore talked about. I think it was the Red Cedars site and the motel in front of it. There will have to be an absolute maximum placed upon those two sites as to the serviced apartment and permanent-style accommodation allowed. So in looking at the question of what the densities should be as far as the North Canberra area strategy is concerned, that position quite clearly was endorsed unanimously by the members of the committee.
Another question that we identified as a key issue was the use of the defined land provisions. We have outlined our recommendation in relation to the defined land issues. We were not happy that this area was going to be included as defined land, but we were mindful of why the defined land provision is used in subdivisions such as this. We have made a number of comments to the Government in relation to that. One of those is along the line that where you allow defined land provisions to be used there must be a sunset clause to say that at a particular time the defined land provision ceases to exist and the land's use must be more clearly identified.
One of the other key issues was the impact of the proposal on the ACT's tourist potential. As I read out, there was a particular comment in "Tomorrow's Canberra", published by the NCDC, outlining one of the important things for this area, which is tourism related development. So, what did we do? We had a look at it. We obtained information from the ACT Tourism Commission and the Economic Development Division. The committee commented for the public record that we were not happy with the way in which the view about the tourism potential for this area - - -
Mr De Domenico: I think we used other words, but that was the - - -
MR LAMONT: I do not think we want to be quite as ungenerous as we were necessarily on the public record of those hearings. Madam Speaker, we said that those areas should be excluded. Three particular areas where there is unleased land should be retained for tourism, recreation and so forth, so that we maintain enough land in that area for long-term use. It was indicated that it would be long-term use as nobody was aware of any proposals to develop those areas for that purpose. We believed it appropriate that we keep that aside for future use.
Another key issue was the financial viability of the draft variation. I have only a minute or so left, Madam Speaker. The decision of the committee was unanimous, despite the fact that there was some argy-bargy about whether or not that was an appropriate recommendation. At the end of the day we worked through that process within the committee. We said, "Look, on the one hand we have a test which says, in a financial sense, that these are the issues which will bring it out on the downside, and on the other side we have the Planning Authority saying that it will come out on the upside". As a result of all of that we said, "We will agree to do it, but in terms of the timing it is appropriate that the report be presented during the disallowance period". (Extension of time granted)
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .