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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 3 Hansard (23 March) . . Page.. 692 ..

MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, variation No. 115 to the Territory Plan will permit the enclosure of a ground at section 50, block 46, Holt - part of the Holt district playing fields; and a ground at section 24, block 73, Stirling - part of the Stirling district playing fields. Mr Speaker, the purpose of the variation is to provide for a high standard playing surface for the current user groups, in which the existing and proposed investments in amenities and equipment can be protected from the threat of damage and possible loss. The proposal will benefit particularly cricket and football by protecting equipment from theft and vandalism and by protecting the playing surfaces of the ground.

The enclosure of the grounds may also allow for spectator admission fees to matches, which will assist in the financial viability and maintenance of the grounds. This variation also means that the grounds will be managed and maintained to an approved standard, in accordance with the management plan. However, the proposal provides the opportunity for the Government to share maintenance costs more directly with user groups, thereby reducing overall costs to the wider community.

Mr Speaker, the Standing Committee on Urban Services considered the draft variation and, in report No. 20 of 5 March 1999, endorsed the draft variation proposal.

Mr Speaker, variation No. 123 to the Territory Plan proposes to change the land use policy for part of block 18, section 39, Griffith, from urban open space to residential to enable medium-density residential development to be integrated with the existing development on block 3. Mr Speaker, the block is flanked by medium- to high-density housing and, therefore, any medium-density development on the block would be compatible with surrounding uses. Direct vehicle access off Canberra Avenue would not be permitted, due to the proximity to the Giles Street intersection, the gradient of the verge and the presence of a large utility pit. Consequently, it would not be possible to sell the site as a separate lease because the Territory could not guarantee access to the site as required under section 216 of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991.

In addition, design options may be limited if the block was developed in isolation. The proposal to increase the area of the lease of block 3 to include part of block 18 will enable development to occur, and for this development to be accessed through an internal driveway linked to block 3. Mr Speaker, the urban design aspects of development on the block would also be subject to the special requirements under the National Capital Plan for developments flanking main avenues and approach routes.

The Standing Committee on Urban Services considered the draft variation and, in report 21 of 5 March 1999, endorsed the draft variation proposals. I would thank again the Urban Services Committee for the hard work that it does and for the sheer number of reports that it gets through.

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