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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1516 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Weirick, who is the Professor of Landscape Architecture at the University of New South Wales. He highlighted a couple of very important factors that the majority report simply has not considered.

The first is that the Red Hill precinct, as it's been identified in the draft variation, is a remarkable example of a garden suburb of the 1920s in the garden city tradition, so it is already quite distinct. What makes it distinct and unique in terms of being part of the garden city tradition? Professor Weirick makes the point that, in particular for the semirural residential areas, blocks of up to or more than 10,000 square metres are, indeed, quite significant. In fact he has gone so far as to consider that, in heritage conservation terms, the rural residential areas are rare, particularly in a location so close to a city centre. He goes on to make the point that, to find anything comparable to these areas, you would really have to go and view examples in the United States dating from the 19th century.

So there is no doubt that the element of Red Hill that makes it particularly distinctive is its very large blocks, planned by prominent early planners of Canberra in the garden city tradition. Professor Weirick went on to indicate that all three areas within the precinct-the semirural residential area, the dress circle area and the conventional prestige suburb area-are fine examples of Australian middle-class suburbia in the 20th century, to use his phrase. He confirmed that, in his view, the introduction of dual occupancy or multiunit development in the area was inappropriate, and that to allow dual occupancies-these are his words-"would really compromise the qualities of this distinctive area".

Mr Speaker, I don't believe that this evidence has been properly taken into account in the majority report. We heard during our public hearings that the design of the Red Hill precinct is directly connected with the original plan of Walter Burley Griffin from 1911, which identified the key streets that became known as Mugga Way, Monaro Crescent and Arthur Circle. We also heard that, when the precinct was built, it was designed very much in ways that were consistent with the views of Sir John Sulman, and laid out by staff, working under his direction, as a garden city suburb. So there is no doubt in my mind that the precinct and its design have a direct historical link with the planners of early Canberra and their philosophies.

If we accept all that to be true, and indeed the majority report does accept it to be true, then any move to all multiunit or dual occupancy development in the area would directly undermine the heritage significance of the precinct. It would result in the loss of large trees and wooded landscape, and in this particular precinct it is the landscape that is the dominant form, not the houses within it. The area does represent an important stage in Canberra's urban development, it does warrant protection and PALM are to be commended for moving to provide protection for the area. To allow dual occupancy development or other forms of development in the area really does put at risk the heritage significance of the site, and means that we run the very real risk of losing an area of residential development that represents an important stage in Canberra's urban growth.

During the committee's hearing, officers of PALM said that the argument for providing additional dwellings in the precinct was partially based on providing greater housing choice for existing residents. This was supported by a number of other witnesses. Figures

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