Page 803 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 13 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, I would like to address briefly some of the matters that are described in the report on the B1 guidelines. Mr De Domenico in his opening remarks mentioned that 27 submissions in all had been received from the community on the three sets of guidelines for residential development. It is worth noting that at the hearing on the three sets of guidelines the Institute of Architects, the Royal Australian Planning Institute, the Institute of Landscape Architects and the National Trust put in a joint submission and appeared together in a public hearing for the first time in response to this issue. I see that as very significant, and I think it is worthy of note by the community at large that such eminent people are prepared to come along and jointly address the members of the Planning Committee on what they consider to be a very significant issue.
We have spent more time than I would have expected considering these guidelines. When we all agreed at the end of last year that it was a good idea to have something to say on them, little did we realise that well into April 1994 we would still be considering them. The task so far has been very enjoyable, and I believe that we will be finalising our consideration of all the guidelines in the very near future. Members will note that under "General Comment" in the report it is stated:
The Committee has critically examined many examples of medium density residential development and redevelopment in Canberra, Brisbane, Adelaide and Melbourne.
It was with this in mind that we approached our task of looking at the guidelines for the B1 area. What most members of the Planning Committee have realised is that very good redevelopment is happening in other parts of Australia. Members who travelled interstate in recent times were surprised at how good some of the redevelopments in other major cities around Australia were and how much better redevelopment could be in the ACT. Our response to the guidelines for the B1 area is one indication that we believe, as Mr Lamont has said, that we need to encourage design excellence. We need to create the sort of community in terms of landscape design and building design that the city can be proud of.
In our consideration of the B1 guidelines, we commented principally on three areas: The architecture, the landscape foreground and the landscape background of the community we were looking for. I will not go over what Mr De Domenico has already said, but it is perhaps worth drawing to members' attention the contrast between what this community will look like in the future and Kingston as it exists at the moment. The committee has made a conscious effort to come up with planning guidelines which will give a sense of pride to the people of the Canberra community for years to come.
Not only did we deal with those three major issues in some detail; we also provided in our report more detailed comment on a number of issues. They include street trees, front setbacks, ground floor relationships to natural ground level, block amalgamation and isolated blocks, attics, a sunset clause, assessment requirements, social mix and enclosed courtyards. I shall comment on a couple of those very briefly, as Mr De Domenico has addressed some of those matters already.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .