Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (12 October) . . Page.. 2986 ..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
That is conflicting advice on the notion of a precinct and its access, and to suggest that it is both isolated but highly accessible suggests that principle 3.2 is certainly not being interpreted in any consistent manner. Further, there was the principle of the appropriate location of higher density housing types. Principle 3.6 of the Territory Plan highlights that:
While encouraging a wider range of housing types in all density housing will be adjacent to town centres, principal public transport routes and group and local shopping centres.
In the first public hearing PALM confirmed that the development proposal was of a high density. Yet in subsequent public hearings PALM advised that "the proposed development could not be considered high density". Here we have a direct contradiction from PALM officers who were meant to be briefing the committee on the consistency of the proposal in relation to the Territory Plan. In the first public hearing, yes, it was of high density. In the second public hearing, the proposal could not be considered to be of high density. Mr Speaker, it is of considerable concern to me that the majority report has not picked up this inconsistency and it is of even greater concern that PALM was unable to properly define the density level of the proposed development in any consistent way, let alone deal with the consistency of placing a high-density or higher density development away from public transport routes and appropriate commercial, retail and social facilities.
Finally, Mr Speaker, there is the issue of open space. It is of major concern that the majority report has not taken into account in any way the recognition and the advocacy from almost every single submission opposed to this proposal that it would impinge on an area which is seen to be part of the open space system under the Territory Plan. In fact, Mr Speaker, the Territory Plan itself says:
In addition to the areas of land indicated on the Territory Plan as Urban Open Space there are other areas of open space in the City. These areas include the hills and ridges around Canberra, golf courses and incidental open spaces which may fall into other Land Use Policies.
Note, Mr Speaker, that golf courses are mentioned in the Territory Plan as areas of open space which complement the formal national capital open space system. In fact, PALM in evidence to the committee said that the proposal would occupy an area which could be interpreted as contributing to the intertown open space and, as such, as impacting on the separation between Canberra central and Woden.
Mr Speaker, we have PALM themselves saying that it could impact on the open space system and therefore be in contradiction to the principles of the Territory Plan. Yet the Government and PALM then go on to say that it is irrelevant to consider this particular principle and that the proposal would not have an impact on open space. Either it would or it would not, Mr Speaker, and it needs to be interpreted in some consistent way. It certainly has not been. That inconsistency, again, was not addressed in the majority report of the Urban Services Committee.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .