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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 590 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Also, the community was clear on the landscape issue - that the development should create the impression of buildings with an open bush or garden setting. Once again, high-rise buildings would not sit too well in that. Safety issues were also raised. Safety is always an issue with walls of buildings. Safety can suffer.

The last but really important point that also came from the community was urban design. The design should be tasteful, creative and original, giving a sense of identity to the site which is unique yet reflects its historic importance. Development should be open and at human scale, generally to the tree canopy and not dominating the powerhouse. Obviously this proposal for high-rise is inconsistent with that. The design should recognise the high visibility of and views from the site. There should be all-year-round use, with a mix of indoor and outdoor spaces and appropriate landscaping. Sustainable environmental principles should make this site an example of world best practice development, and the design should encourage people to use the site in multiple ways.

Basically, I think it is really important, when we are looking at what is happening at Kingston foreshore, to remember that this work was done. The Government did it well. They got a community brief which was very representative of the broad community. There is a danger that we will see these sentiments watered down bit by bit. We already have, as I said, in terms of environmental best practice. This is a good reference point to come back to if this committee or this Assembly have to make any more judgments about what is happening on the site. If we do not do that, once again you will see even more growing cynicism from the community about why they should ever bother with a consultation process if they see it disregarded in the final outcome. As I said, and I am happy to give credit where it is due, the Government did a good job with this consultation, but now they have to stick to the ethic of that commitment to listening to the community by ensuring that what happens there fits with what the community said.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (12.10): I want to reiterate a couple of the points that were made. I am concerned at the seed of doubt that the Minister did plant on behalf of the Government in relation to its intentions or its views or its vision for lakeside development. I think many of us who have lived in Canberra over a number of years have often thought about the extent to which Lake Burley Griffin, a beautiful lake with a beautiful amenity, is not utilised to the extent that it could be or should be by those of us who have made Canberra home. It is in that framework or with that view that we have come to embrace and support and be excited about the prospect of the development of Kingston foreshore.

I have long felt, as a resident of over 30 years standing, that one of the most unfortunate aspects of the planning of Canberra has been the extent to which we have not appropriately utilised as living space the shores of any of our lakes. I think the best efforts made in relation to any of the three lakes have been made at Tuggeranong. Attempts have been made to make the lake edge or the lake shore at Tuggeranong a genuine livable space where people can go for a coffee or for relaxation rather than just pursue those recreational pursuits that we are restricted to in relation to the lakes, namely, walking, jogging, sightseeing and those other enjoyable things that we do. So the

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