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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2164 ..

MR CORBELL

Mr Speaker, what has this got to do with dual occupancy? The answer to the question is that the introduction of dual occupancy or multiunit development into this area is completely inappropriate. It is completely inappropriate because it would undoubtedly fundamentally compromise the heritage qualities of this distinctive area. This evidence has not been properly taken into account in the variation tabled by the minister.

I understand that in speaking to the media earlier today the minister said that this issue was done for; that it was resolved. He said that there had been consultation and that I was trying to bring back to life an issue which he believes has been satisfactorily dealt with. It has not been satisfactorily dealt with, for the very simple reason that the minister and the government failed to take into account very significant evidence given by a leading expert on the work of Walter Burley Griffin and a leading expert on the heritage significance of garden city suburbs in Canberra.

The design of the Red Hill precinct is directly connected with the original plan of Walter Burley Griffin from 1911. Griffin identified in his original plan the key streets which we now know as Mugga Way, Monaro Crescent and Arthur Circle. When the suburb was built, it was designed in accordance with the work of Griffin and was influenced heavily by the views of Sir John Sulman. It was developed as a garden city suburb and very much in the garden city tradition. There is no doubt that the precinct and its design have a direct historical link with the planners of early Canberra and their philosophies.

Issues relating to treescape and provision of housing choice are two of the key issues associated with whether or not it is appropriate to seek dual occupancy development in this precinct. A leading arborist and commentator on tree issues, Dr Robert Boden, gave evidence to the Planning and Urban Services Committee that highlighted the fact the loss of large trees and wooded landscape which would inevitably occur from the addition of extra dwellings. He highlighted further that to remove large trees and the wooded landscape of the precinct would put the existing landscape at risk. Dr Boden highlighted the fact that the area represents an important stage in Canberra's urban development and warrants protection, and in comparisons with other areas of residential development the precinct is unique in Canberra in providing for very large trees to be grown to maturity.

The Planning and Land Management Group and the government generally have argued that dual occupancy should be allowed in this area because it provides for greater housing choice for existing residents. This was a view supported by a number of other witnesses who gave evidence to the inquiry. However, it is important to note that figures based on a survey conducted by PALM on the issue of dual occupancy in late 1996 showed that 57 per cent of residents in the precinct opposed dual occupancy development in the area.

It would appear from my perspective that arguments supporting dual occupancy in the precinct on the basis of greater housing choice have more to do with the value of the land in the area than with providing opportunities for existing residents to remain in the area in smaller residences. This is particularly emphasised by the fact that the nearby suburbs of Griffith and Forrest can easily accommodate the demand for smaller residences. I do not accept the argument that the expansion of housing choice for existing residents is a legitimate reason for allowing dual occupancy development in this heritage area.

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