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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2165 ..

MR CORBELL

Professor Weirick and Dr Boden, as well as a number of other witnesses, raised the adequacy of the variation that has since been tabled in this place by the minister. The Planning and Urban Services Committee had highlighted to it the fact that the requirement for a conservation plan for the precincts was still to be addressed. Professor Ken Taylor of the University of Canberra highlighted that the current heritage study confined itself to streetscape and landscape only. He highlighted that the variation still lacked clarity in relation to the heritage values of the precinct and that more detailed analysis is required-analysis which does not consider solely streetscape or landscape issues. I agree with those comments. However, aside from providing for dual occupancy development in the precinct, I think it is also clear that the variation as tabled by the minister provides for a higher level of protection of landscape than exists under the existing planning regime.

I move to the purpose of my motion. I had originally hoped that it would be possible to amend the variation to replace the words "two dwellings" under the development intensity guideline of the variation with the words "one dwelling". It would have been clear and simple what the wishes of this Assembly were. Unfortunately, it is not possible under the land act to amend the variation in that way. The Assembly can only choose to reject all or any part of a variation.

To reject the development intensity provision of variation 114 as tabled by the minister would leave open the prospect of more than two dwellings being built on any block in the Old Red Hill precinct. I think that is clearly an outcome which I and many other members would not be prepared to countenance. Instead, I have chosen to use subsection 37(2) of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act, which provides for this Assembly to recommend to the minister that he direct the ACT planning authority-that is, the Planning and Land Management Group-to review the Territory Plan to ensure that development intensity for the Old Red Hill precinct does not exceed one dwelling. It is not the most satisfactory outcome, but it is the only course of action available to this place if it believes that dual occupancy in Old Red Hill needs to be addressed now.

The variation proposed by the government for Old Red Hill should not allow for dual occupancy development. Whilst it is true that subdivisions have previously occurred in the precinct, notably between the 1930s and 1960s, it is clear that this subdivision has already resulted in a change to the heritage values of the area. This can be seen in the conversion of semirural blocks into areas of what Professor Weirick described as the conventional prestige suburb area.

Therefore, if we allow for what are not technically but effectively further subdivisions by allowing additional dwellings and dual occupancy, the precinct will only further change in its character and in its heritage significance. That change, resulting in a loss of treescape, will diminish the heritage significance of the place, and it will result inevitably in further pressure to allow still higher levels of density in the area.

I can hear the argument now: "We have changed the area already. What makes it different from the rest of Canberra? Surely we can allow for higher density, development." By approving dual occupancy development in the precinct, however limited it is, as a city we will be moving towards a slow but gradual undermining of the heritage significance of the precinct and its place in the planning heritage of the garden

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