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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (20 April) . . Page.. 1015 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

implemented in an appropriate manner and in a sensitive manner. My colleague Mr Hird has already dealt with the issue of the real estate industry. I will leave those comments where he left them. I think the point has been made adequately.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude on this point: Variation No. 109 will allow, I believe, the process of redevelopment to occur in the inner north in a way which respects the amenity of existing residents and the integrity of the areas affected. I have met people from both sides of the fence who have lived in the area. I have met people in their sixties and seventies who have lived in some of these areas for a very long period of time. They are vehemently opposed to any form of redevelopment. Conversely, I have met residents in their sixties and seventies - one couple in particular who have lived in Braddon for 40 years and were there when Braddon was "the end of Canberra" - who are adamant that the uncertainty must be resolved and that they need to know what is going to happen in their suburb. They would like to see provisions that allow for some level of redevelopment in their suburb.

Variation No. 109 can achieve the mix, but only if it is implemented sensitively, only if it is implemented with adequate resources and only if the consultation processes at work in the inner north work in a way which are open and transparent to all concerned. The challenge is now with the Government. I hope that the Government will implement the recommendations that the committee has put forward. I am hopeful that we will see a resolution of some of the level of uncertainty that the city as a whole faces in these areas.

MR RUGENDYKE (5.11): I rise briefly to commend this fine report to the house. It is what I would consider to be a benchmark report for future development and an example of how the committee process works appropriately. I would also like to commend the work of the officers of PALM who did an excellent job throughout the hearings of this committee inquiry - Mr Calnan, Mr Collett and Ms Graham. As Mr Corbell mentioned, those three officers of PALM were more than helpful, bending over backwards to assist us in understanding the intricacies of what was required in this variation to the plan.

Mr Speaker, the other important aspect is that this committee report ratifies the urban housing code - a code that will prevent outrageous development; for example, developments that would cause residents concern with overshadowing. The urban housing code is something that the entire development industry can look to and work within. I am sure that that will happen with the assistance of PALM. Mr Speaker, it is a good report. Variation No. 109 is a good variation to the Territory Plan. I commend it to the house.

MS TUCKER (5.13): I would like to make a few comments on this report. I must say that it is with some frustration that I speak about the committee's report into draft variation No. 109. The existing provisions in the Territory Plan to allow three-storey urban consolidation in the Northbourne Avenue corridor, better known as the B1 zone, has been controversial ever since it was introduced by the former Labor Government. This planning debacle has dragged on for far too long. I am afraid that the Government's latest attempt to resolve this issue through plan variation No. 109 will hardly reduce the controversy.

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