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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 588 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

to be the same height as the powerhouse building. That is very positive and that is reflected in recommendation No. 3, Mr Speaker, the establishment of a maximum building height of 20 metres or RL578m, whichever is the lesser. So, certainly there will be nothing higher than four storeys, but, perhaps more pertinently, nothing higher than the powerhouse building, and that is very important.

The public transport arrangements are obviously things that the Government is going to have to work on as part of this development, but I think that there is capacity there to ensure that public transport works effectively through the site.

There are some issues about the availability of facilities at the site. I notice that the Property Council raised them. It is concerned about access to ATM facilities, as an example, which seems strange, but it is something which is important if it is going to be an effective mixed use precinct with restaurants and cafes and those types of facilities. That is something that will need to be properly addressed as well.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the Labor Party endorses this development. It is a positive one for the ACT, but it must be done in a way which protects the integrity of the site. It must be done in a way which does not impose on the landscape and, as Walter Burley Griffin did in designing Canberra, makes it part of the landscape in which it sits. Hopefully, that will be achieved, and, hopefully, the Government will be able to give this place a commitment that no high-rise will be considered on the site now or in the future because, quite frankly, that would be a desecration of the site and the principles that have driven this draft variation and, as a consequence, this committee's report today.

MS TUCKER (12.01): I am pleased to hear what Mr Corbell has said about the response from the committee to the proposals for high-rise development. I would like to contribute to this debate by reminding members of the community consultation process which was undertaken by the Government. I believe that the Government did a good job with the process of consulting the community. They developed a community brief which had as its aims: To articulate community values, hopes and aspirations for the future use and development of the Kingston foreshore area; to present these community views in a format which will feed readily into a brief to entrants of the design competition; and to provide a statement or platform representing community views as a basis for future consultations during the preparation of an interim management plan for the site and during the preparation of a master plan for the site.

Basically, I think the Government did a good job with this consultation process. What interests me is what came out of that consultation process. There was a broadly representative group of people. More than 200 people put in submissions. Many individuals came forward, both local residents and people from the wider community, and others represented a spectrum of professional, business, community or recreational or sporting organisations. Thus the one voice was representing a much larger constituency.

The key principles that came out of that consultation process were, firstly, access and equity - that is that everyone should be able to freely use and enjoy the site. There should be no obvious enclaves. The development should be fully integrated, with transport links including pedestrian and cycle paths, ferry and bus services. Through traffic should be kept off the site, with car parking on the periphery.

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