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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1611 ..

MR SYMTH (continuing):

The overall landscape of Red Hill is significant and highly valued by the community for its distinctively high ratio of garden areas to buildings and the mix of mature, deciduous and evergreen trees. The blocks within the precinct represent some of the largest within Canberra, many exceeding four times the average size.

There are conflicting public views between property owners and other residents within the precinct. Some Red Hill property owners wish to utilise the very large blocks within the precinct for multiple occupancy. This is opposed by other property owners wishing to retain the existing streetscape and broader landscape character of low-density development with extensive gardens and stands of mature trees enveloping dwellings and prominent street plantings.

The draft variation released for comment included new controls on tree removal, subdivision, building height and plot ratios. It also proposed to prohibit the subdivision of blocks and limit multi-unit development to no more than two dwellings per block dual occupancy. The proposal aimed to balance the need to preserve the heritage value of the precinct, which includes large blocks and established landscapes, against the need to retain some opportunities for additional development, particularly in relation to dual occupancy development.

In total, 42 submissions were received as a result of consultation on the draft variation. While the limit of two dwellings per block has been retained in the revised variation, the plot ratio controls included in the original draft variation would preclude some existing and recently approved developments that are considered to be satisfactory and create inequities at the thresholds. Consequently, PALM has developed a more appropriate control on the maximum gross floor area, based on a sliding scale which directly relates to block size. In response to concerns expressed by the Heritage Council, a new control has been developed for hard paving and surfacing.

The Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services called for further submissions and held three public hearings. Following consideration of the issues raised during this process, some additional changes were recommended. These changes were tabled at the committee hearing on 23 March this year and the variation was further revised. The committee's report, No 45 of April 2000, recommends by majority that draft variation No 114 to the Territory Plan be endorsed.

In its report, the committee states that it is aware that the opinions on the draft variation are strongly held and range from those who favour a policy of one house per block to those who favour multi-unit developments in the area. The committee considers that the amended draft variation represents a middle path between these viewpoints. The committee also considers that the draft variation needs to take effect as quickly as possible to address current uncertainties.

A dissenting report from Mr Corbell proposes that the variation be further revised to provide for only one dwelling per block. I do not support this proposal. The complete exclusion of dual occupancy from particular areas would seriously infringe on the legitimate expectations of some of the existing residents. While I recognise the need to

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