Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4729 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

The decision to sell off the car park and allow the site to be redeveloped is really the key decision that must be assessed. I hope that Mr Humphries is listening to this and will address this particular issue of concern. The Government cannot really expect the public to believe that a preliminary assessment of a development proposal already selected by the Government and for which the developer has already paid a deposit on the site will make any difference to the final result.

Either way, it is very questionable whether this proposal conforms to the Territory Plan. The Manuka car park is currently zoned, appropriately, as car parking. (Quorum formed) I will start that again. The Manuka car park is currently zoned as car parking. The Territory Plan - - -

Mr Humphries: It is not zoned as a car park. That is not true.

MS HORODNY: Yes, it is. Here it is. It is zoned as car parking.

Mr Humphries: It is designated as a car park. That is different from it being labelled in the Territory Plan as car parking.

MS HORODNY: Yes, that is true. We will get to that, Mr Humphries. The Territory Plan states that shops are permitted in this zone only where associated with a car parking structure. I think the Government has made a very liberal interpretation of this clause by assuming that just because the site will still contain car parking areas it conforms to the Territory Plan. The car parking that will be provided may well be a shortfall on what is required with the additional shops. In other words, the whole supposed solution to car parking problems in Manuka may well create more problems than it solves. (Extension of time granted) (Quorum formed) I believe that this interpretation of car parking is false when you compare this proposal with similar car parking zones in other parts of Canberra. The structured car park at the other end of Manuka has some offices at the front of it; but they are, obviously, ancillary to the main purpose of the structure, which is an enclosed car park. Similarly, the structured car park opposite the Canberra Centre in Civic has shops on the ground level, but there are four levels of car parking above them and the building is obviously designed as a structured car park.

This Manuka proposal, on the other hand, quite clearly will be a shopping mall, not a structured car park. The expressions of interest submitted most certainly all look like shopping malls. Most of the car parking on the site is being provided only to support the new shops. The shopping mall, as proposed by the Government, will require at least 325 cars by itself, under the Planning and Land Management Group's parking guidelines. There may be even more car parking spaces required, depending on what other uses are proposed for the site. This is in addition to the requirement to provide 200 car parking spaces to replace the existing car park, and I note that one of the expressions of interest provided 600 car parking spaces.

Through this motion we are calling on the Government to rethink this whole proposal. The Government needs to begin an open and consultative process to determine the future of the car park site. We are not saying that there should never be any development on this site. We also acknowledge that there are parking problems in Manuka and that

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .