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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 582 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

We closely questioned PALM and were fully assured that anything different would require a new draft variation application. Any proposal for high-rise development in the Kingston area would go through a similar process as draft variation No. 113. PALM officers and the executive officer of the Kingston Foreshore Authority, Mr Lowe, when he briefed the committee, said that high-rise was a very sensitive issue and the development would not be any higher than the existing powerhouse building which is within this development.

Mr Speaker, the committee noted that the existing residents in the suburb of Causeway should have some protection to make certain that any development was sensitive to their requirements. In other words, the new development should not overshadow their own residences and make it impossible for them to go about their business.

We consider that the draft variation should be endorsed. It certainly fits within community values. It meets community concerns, particularly in regard to building heights, as I have indicated. It will create a new urban environment in place of what currently is an eyesore and, more importantly, it will provide jobs. This development will slot in with other developments that are currently under way, such as section 56 in the city area and the work at Regatta Point which is being carried out for in excess of $4m. These are opportunities that come along now at a good time in respect to the completion of the re-fit of Russell Offices and the conclusion next year of the Museum of Australia.

If this parliament accepts our recommendation, and I think it will, there will be continuity of work within the construction industry, and that will flow on to other areas. We find ourselves in the healthy situation of being able to provide jobs for those involved in that industry. Once again, on behalf of the committee, I thank all those who gave their support.

Another important point is that the committee also endorses the proposal to list the powerhouse on the heritage places register. I think I can speak for my other colleagues as well when I say that Canberra has very little history like other jurisdictions where they have buildings which have some significance. The powerhouse is of significance to future generations and it is pleasing that it will be placed on the heritage places register. I thank all and I recommend that this report be accepted by the parliament.

MR CORBELL (11.39): I join with my colleague Mr Hird, the chairman of the committee, in endorsing this report today. This is an important report. Whilst it is not as large as some of the other reports that come from the Planning and Urban Services Committee, it nevertheless deals with an important issue. The fact that very little public concern and comment is coming through to the Urban Services Committee reflects the generally positive process that this proposal for the redevelopment of the Kingston foreshore has gone through. I believe that that is a vindication of the effective public consultation process which the Interim Kingston Foreshore Authority has gone through to date.

One issue which has been quite topical in recent days in relation to this draft variation is the proposal being put forward by a number of industry groups in the city for the possibility of high-rise development on the Kingston foreshore site. Mr Speaker,

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