Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2170 ..
MR SMYTH
(continuing):I believe the government has got it right. I believe the government has put on the table something that will retain what we all value in the Red Hill housing precinct. I believe that the property rights of existing owners can be addressed by allowing dual occupancies to go ahead where they are appropriate, where they meet the guidelines as outlined and where they take into account controls relating to streetscape, landscape, building and demolition that will protect the heritage values of the precinct. Should this motion get up today-and it would appear that there are the numbers for it to get up-we will conduct the review that has been asked for by the Assembly. My opinion and the opinion of the government, as is clear through the variation, is that we have got the balance right. But if it is the will of the Assembly, I will have a review carried out.
MR CORBELL
(4.30), in reply: I thank those members who have indicated their support for this motion. But I want to place very clearly and strongly on the record my view as to how the government should respond to this motion, assuming that the Assembly votes shortly to pass it. My recommendation to the minister is very explicit, in that it asks the minister to direct the ACT Planning Authority to review the Territory Plan as it relates to Old Red Hill to provide for a development intensity of no more than one dwelling on any block in the Red Hill housing precinct. It is an explicit recommendation. It is an explicit review.I do not want the minister to go away from this place thinking he can undertake a review and come back to this place and say there is no need to change it. I believe the majority of members in this place feel strongly that dual occupancy development cannot be allowed in the Old Red Hill precinct if its heritage significance is to be properly protected. I would like the minister, if and when he undertakes this review-assuming that the Assembly supports my motion-to know that that is the very clear wish of this place. Our wish is that he not just conduct a review but conduct a review recognising that this Assembly believes that there should be no dual occupancy development in the Old Red Hill precinct. It is incumbent upon him to treat that very seriously.
There is no doubt in my mind or, I believe, in the minds of the majority of members in this place that to allow additional dwellings in that precinct will significantly undermine the heritage significance of the place. This place is special. It is special not just for those who live there. It is special not just because the people who live there enjoy living there. It is special because it encapsulates a stage in Canberra's development which is past and a vision for Canberra's development, which has, quite naturally, evolved and changed. Old Red Hill encapsulates a vision for a city as a garden, as a park. It encapsulates a vision of large blocks, well treed, with the provision for people to live self-sufficiently. Those, of course, are not patterns of living which many people in our city would think are appropriate for today's lifestyle, but they were at the time that suburb was built. As Ms Tucker said, they represent a snapshot of a time past and of values and views of living in a city which are of an era that has passed us by. That is what makes it important and significant for us, and it is what makes it important and significant for those who look at issues such as town planning and the heritage and history of town planning not only in Australia but overseas.
Many Canberrans enjoy the Old Red Hill precinct. Many Canberrans who do not live there enjoy it. We have all heard the stories of tourist coaches and others driving around the precinct showing people the beautiful tree-lined streets, the large leafy blocks, a style of urban subdivision very different to that in many other parts of Canberra or, indeed,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .