Page 1351 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 10 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Appropriate comments about protecting verges and street trees during servicing work, which Mr Berry has mentioned, the significance of street frontages, the importance of maintaining high standards of building design, and the appropriateness of building development harmonising with the existing environment could all have been included in the guidelines.
Specifically in relation to the objective "to retain the design character and quality of existing streets and to secure the conservation of heritage values for listed areas", one of the performance measures relates to front setbacks, and I quote the particular part:
In parts of the Red Hill area where established building lines are up to 30m from the front property boundaries a set back of 20m or an average of 20m will be sought.
It would also be appropriate to include that in some circumstances setbacks of 30 metres may be sought. Such a requirement would indicate that the Planning Authority has the flexibility to impose such requirements where they are deemed to be appropriate. Additional comments about the need for proposed development to be predominantly built of brick and masonry materials of an appropriate colour palette also seem applicable to the area. Further comments about the appropriate protection of adequate sunlight, open space and environmental amenity of new and existing residents, energy efficiency requirements for new buildings, scope for vehicle parking and access to service areas may also have been appropriate for inclusion in the final guidelines.
Finally, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, in relation to the listed submission requirements, the committee should also have included the statement made in the other finalised guidelines, namely, "The assessments should cover both short and long term impacts". Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I should apologise to the Assembly for these sections and comments not appearing in the guidelines. Certain matters have been taken up in the Planning Committee's report. However, I fear that these will not be sufficient to ensure the protection of residential amenity of new and existing residents to the standard that perhaps others living in the B1 and B2 areas will experience. Perhaps the Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning may wish to consider the issues I have raised in greater detail. I would certainly be happy to discuss them with him at an appropriate opportunity. In future where I have reservations as to the completeness of the committee's work in considering issues, I will endeavour to ensure that sufficient time is taken to deal adequately with them.
MR CORNWELL (3.33): The Opposition certainly supports this report No. 27 of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee. We believe that the decision to proceed with the guidelines for the Forrest, Red Hill, Deakin, Griffith historic areas is sensible. However, we also strongly support the decision that the area known as Old Red Hill should await a report of the Heritage Council. I do not think anybody would oppose such a sensible decision, given that this report is coming down in the near future. In fact, we have asked that it be sent to the committee by the end of July so that a decision can be taken on the Old Red Hill area.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .