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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 586 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, this draft variation also raises a couple of other issues that I feel it is important to raise. The first is the consistency of the development with the National Capital Plan. In the documents received by the committee the Planning Authority notes:

Mr Speaker, that is absolutely right because the Territory Plan cannot be inconsistent with the National Capital Plan. However, I am interested to hear how the Government is going to handle this now that the committee has reported. Will the Government simply be holding off on this draft variation and not gazetting it and not tabling it in this place formally as a formal variation until the National Capital Plan has been amended, and what is the Government's understanding of how long that process will take? I think those are important issues that we need to be aware of.

Another issue that was raised before the committee that is very important is that there are people who live adjacent to this development. Of particular concern to the committee are the residents of the Causeway. The Causeway is a very old and established area of Canberra and it has always been an area where people on lower incomes have lived. Mr Speaker, they are obviously concerned too. They were very concerned about the high-rise development proposal when it came to light because the MBA and the HIA said that the high-rise development could be at the eastern end of the site. The eastern end of the site, Mr Speaker, is right by the Causeway. Quite understandably, people living in single-storey dwellings in the Causeway would be pretty concerned about a 10- or 15-storey tower only a block away from them towering over their neighbourhood. It is unfortunate that the MBA or the HIA did not think about that before they wrote their letters.

The high-rise tower issue aside, there is also the issue of the interface between the development and the Causeway. The development at the moment does allow four-storey development right along the Causeway. (Extension of time granted) The Causeway runs parallel along one side of the foreshore development site. Buildings on the foreshore development side of the Causeway will be able to be four storeys. Buildings on the other side of the Causeway are single storey. It is important, Mr Speaker, that the Kingston Foreshore Authority handle that interface sensitively. We must ensure that there are effective and strong setbacks for development on the foreshore site so that you do not have four-storey buildings immediately facing and over-crowding, aesthetically and visually, single dwellings on the other side of the road. That interface must be managed sensitively, and that is the committee's second recommendation - that that interface work well. Whilst a higher level of density is appropriate for this site, it still must respect the existing Causeway residents and their homes. Mr Speaker, that is a very important recommendation.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion I certainly endorse this development proposal and this draft variation. This is probably the largest single development that the ACT Government will be responsible for in the history since self-government. I understand that over $375m

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