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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1517 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

provided by PALM, based on a survey conducted by them on the issue in late 1996, showed that 57% of residents opposed dual occupancy development in the area. I don't accept that this is an argument, in itself, for not allowing dual occupancy to proceed but, in conjunction with the heritage matters I have already outlined, it certainly highlights the importance of the issue.

It really does appear to me that arguments supporting dual occupancy in the area, based on so-called increased housing choice, really have more to do with the potential value of the land in the area than with providing opportunities for existing residents to live in the area in a smaller residence. There are areas very close to Old Red Hill precinct that do offer a variety of housing choice, not just the large homes that we see in Red Hill, and really those demands can be accommodated in that way without compromising the heritage qualities of the area in the process.

The final issue that I don't believe the majority report has identified is the adequacy of the draft variation itself. Professor Weirick, Dr Robert Boden, who gave evidence, Mr Eric Martin and Professor Ken Taylor all highlighted that the requirement for a conservation plan for the precinct had not been addressed as part of the draft variation process.

Professor Taylor, in particular, highlighted the fact that the current heritage study on which the draft variation was based confined itself solely to streetscape and landscape issues, not to broader conservation issues. He also highlighted that the draft variation still contained some issues of lack of clarity, in relation to the heritage values of the precinct, and that a more detailed analysis was required, an analysis that did not consider solely streetscape or landscape issues. I agree with these comments: unfortunately they have not been reflected in the majority report.

That aside, there were some calls for the draft variation to not proceed. I do not agree with that because the draft variation, despite these shortcomings, still provides a greater level of protection for the area than currently exists through the interim heritage listing. I believe that the draft variation should be amended to take account of my recommendation one, that we remove provision for additional dwellings in the precinct, and instead provide for only one dwelling on each block. Then once that has been done, I recommend that further work be done to put in place the more detailed heritage analysis, the need for which has been identified by a range of witnesses.

It is true that subdivisions have previously occurred in the precinct, notably between the 1930s and the 1960s. However, it is clear that this subdivision has already resulted in a change to the heritage values of the area. What was once a much larger area of semirural residential estate has become a smaller area of that type of estate, plus a more conventional prestige suburb area. As I have already identified, and as experts to the committee identified, it is the semirural residential estate areas that are unique in being part of the garden city concept, and they, above all, are what give the area its heritage significance. Therefore, to allow further subdivision of those estates would result in an undermining of the heritage significance of the area.

The real concern is that once additional dwellings are allowed and the character of the area has changed, including a loss of treescape, there will be further pressure to allow still higher density dwellings in the area. By approving dual occupancy development in

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