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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2169 ..

MR SMYTH

(Minister for Urban Services) (4.25): Mr Kaine asked how this has it come about. It comes about because the original interim listing on the heritage register of what was then called the Old Red Hill precinct was basically a document that had flaws in it and was often argued over in the AAT. It was with that in mind that the decision was taken that we would start a public process that would once and for all resolve the issues that arose so often in the AAT.

There is no simple answer to dual occupancy in heritage areas. Some people who own blocks in those areas and have lived there for a long time believe they have certain rights that would allow them to develop their blocks. Clearly, others who live in the area do not want that to happen. As Ms Tucker said, the majority report of the committee said the middle path would be to limit dual occupancy on each block.

I thank Mr Corbell for his acknowledgment that there is much that he can agree with in the variation. There are stronger controls on plot ratios. There is protection for trees, streetscape, landscape and many things. The intention of the variation is to make sure we have as little impact as possible on people's personal property rights in protecting those features of Red Hill that are special to all us. It is a special area. It is what was done in 1994 that led to so much contention and the process being started. The process started in March last year, when the variation was released. Since then we have had the very open, very public and very long process that has taken 15 months and ended with the variation here in the Assembly today.

The protection of the rights of residents, as well as the protection of the nature of Red Hill for all of us, is something we have to consider in balance. I consider that what the government has tabled here achieves that balance. I also understand that others would consider that it does not. We all know of developers who would like to forward plans to put multiunit developments on some of these sites. There are those at the other end of the spectrum as well.

In the main, I think the agreement in this place is that we have got it right; that there are better protections; that it does give a way forward. The contention would simply be on the issue of dual occupancy. I would acknowledge the work that was done by some of those who were against dual occupancy during the briefings. Mr Corbell quoted largely from his dissenting report. He referred to Professor Weirick and to Dr Boden, who are both respected in their field. There are others who believe that you can have some form of limited, sympathetic redevelopment, in this case dual occupancies, without destroying the intrinsic value of the area. It is with that in mind that the government tabled the variation.

Mr Corbell's motion asks the government to review its decision. That is something we can do. I believe there is no need for it after a 15-month process which has been very open and very public. It has resulted in a large number of submissions. As with the process to vary the Territory Plan, it has ended with the Planning and Urban Services Committee giving us a report. The majority report, with a few changes, backed what the government believed was the appropriate path forward. Mr Corbell, as is his right, wrote a dissenting report that said that we should remove dual occupancy.

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