Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (14 February) . . Page.. 167 ..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
and subsequently endorsed by him recommended that there was no need to limit dwellings in the Red Hill precinct to only one per block.
Mr Speaker, we really should not be debating this motion this evening. The will of the Assembly was made quite clear less than 12 months ago. At the time I made some comments about the process that was being conducted and we were considering when I presented my original motion. I want to quote from the Hansard of my speech at that time. I said:
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.
that is, to change variation 114-
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.
A number of other members, including Mr Kaine and Ms Tucker, expressed similar sentiments. Why, back then, did we move the motion in the first place? The motion was moved and supported by a majority of members of this place because we believed that allowing dual occupancy development in the Old Red Hill precinct would destroy the heritage significance of that place. Mr Speaker, that was not just a whim; it was not just a view of a number of politicians in this place. It was backed up by advice and evidence presented by a number of pre-eminent individuals in the Planning and Urban Services Committee inquiry into the listing of the Old Red Hill precinct on the Heritage Places Register.
The Old Red Hill Preservation Group, the Manuka Local Area Planning Advisory Committee and the National Trust all argued in favour of restricting development in the heritage area of Old Red Hill to only one dwelling. But the most important evidence came from Professor James Weirick, a professor of landscape architecture at the University of New South Wales. Amongst other positions, he was recently on the panel put together by the National Capital Authority in the competition for a design for the new lake foreshore area between the National Library and the High Court. He is recognised as one of the pre-eminent experts on the work of Walter Burley Griffin, particularly as it relates to the development of Canberra.
His evidence was such that this Assembly recognised the need not to allow dual occupancy development in the Old Red Hill precinct. In his evidence he stated that the Red Hill area warranted heritage protection because it was a 20th century garden suburb of immense interest and importance. He suggested that to find anything comparable to Red Hill would require viewing examples in the United States dating from the 19th century. He highlighted the fact that the Red Hill precinct is, in effect, divided into three areas. He went on to say that to allow dual occupancy development would result in a significance change to the heritage values of the place. In particular, it would result in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .