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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3320 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

between the indicative boundary-I accept that it is an indicative boundary-between residential development in Kinlyside and Hall is not adequate and there is a capacity for residential development to come within about 100 metres of the Hall Showground.

If that were to proceed it would have a considerable impact on the amenity of Hall and the rural setting of Hall as a village. That needs to be better protected. I think the recommendation for an improved buffer zone is a very important one. That should proceed regardless of any government decision on rural residential development at Hall/Kinlyside.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the issue of rural residential development is a very interesting one, but in all of the evidence that was presented to the committee inquiry it became very clear that it would have, in my view at least, considerable impacts on the relationship of the territory with the region, it would have considerable impacts in terms of the loss of areas for perhaps more formal or more routine, if that is the right word, suburban subdivision, and clearly it would have major concerns in relation to environmental impact and in terms of cost to the territory in the servicing and provision of facilities.

I think that the problem we have is that the government has not clearly articulated its case about exactly what it wants. Until it does that and until it puts forward a formal definition of what it is about and a new definition in the Territory Plan for rural residential land use which can be considered by this place, I really think that the government has a lot more work to do. I commend the report to the Assembly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

MR HIRD (4.29): I present report No 58 of the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services, entitled Monitoring the implementation of Variation No 64 to the Territory Plan: Latham Shops, together with extracts of the minutes of proceedings, and I move:

Mr Deputy Speaker, this report is part of the committee's self-initiated inquiry into monitoring the way in which variation No 64 to the Territory Plan is implemented. Members will recall that variation No 64 widened the uses permitted in local shopping centres in an effort to enhance their viability. The variation is in accordance with guidelines prepared by PALM, which provide supplementary information to aid the interpretation of variation No 64. In particular, the guidelines set out the way in which the viability of a local shopping centre will be assessed by officers of PALM.

Members will not be surprised to learn that this part of the guidelines has come in for considerable criticism by those who are distressed to see any part of their local centre being used for anything other than retailing. This is the case in the application of variation No 64 to the Latham local centre. The committee's report notes that various proposals for redeveloping the Latham local centre have been around for years. In fact,

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