Page 1040 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In principle, what we have been able to do through the activities of organisations such as the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee is increase the awareness of developers, whether they are single house developers or larger-scale developers, of the need to provide far better amenity in the development of particular subdivisions. As an example, I regard Palmerston as approaching one of the better examples of urban landscape in the ACT. When I look at what has happened in some areas in Tuggeranong, such as Conder and Banks, and the way in which the treescape has been planted and compare it to the stage that Palmerston is now at, there is no comparison. It is almost as stark as the difference Ms Szuty saw between Robina and Palmerston.
We need to take into account that we are talking about a number of levels of streetscape and treescape, and this is where the difficulty in implementing what Mr Humphries is talking about comes into play. I do not think we should be doing anything which would prevent any householder from having on their land whatever type of garden they wish, whether it is a native garden or an exotic garden; but I do believe that it is essential that we help create characteristics of suburbs. I only need to draw your attention to the older inner south and inner north areas of Canberra, where we have quite distinct suburban features that have been able to be created because of the way in which the planting regimes for those areas were implemented when those suburbs were developed. That was quite deliberately done, and I think it has been extremely successful.
If we look at the arrangements for, say, Aranda, they are quite different from the inner north and inner south areas, but there is a central theme and the strategy upon which those plantings were based was devised for the entire suburb. It is extremely difficult to say, on a one-out basis, that because we have added half a street at the end of one of the areas we can necessarily depart from that regime. That is one of the concerns I have, not about the sentiment of the motion but certainly about the implementation of that sentiment.
When we look at what is happening, even in areas of urban accretion or urban consolidation, we generally find that there is a requirement now placed on the land developer to have mature streetscapes and treescapes in place almost prior to the blocks being sold. This is to provide a break in the traditional suburban development, again with no disrespect to Conder and Banks, that we see so starkly in those two areas. It is important that we do not deny the opportunity to provide those mature streetscapes and treescapes by the time those buildings are occupied.
It is extremely difficult, I acknowledge, in areas such as the golf course estate in Tuggeranong, where some streets have been occupied for some considerable time and new streets are being brought in, to ensure that you match the consistency of the growing form across the suburb. In Palmerston, say, if we were to go to the extent that is implied in Mr Humphries's motion, we would not be planting trees in most of that area because over a third of Palmerston is not yet built.
Mr Humphries: I am not saying that you should do that.
MR LAMONT: How then do you take into account the views of the neighbours and the views of the street?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .