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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (14 February) . . Page.. 174 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

I saw what was done. Clearly, we will disagree on the value of that work. But what is it that we are attempting to protect through variation 114 in the Old Red Hill precinct? We are attempting to protect, in the main, the streetscape, the landscape values, the bits that we actually see as we drive along that define the precinct as Old Red Hill.

The reviewer decided that although the controls that had been put in place were strong, they were not strong enough. The reviewer recommended the introduction of additional side and rear setback requirements and front setbacks specific to each street to protect that landscape value, the bit that we all enjoy, the bit that the public can go to see and enjoy. The owners can enjoy the entire block. I cannot; I do not live there. I might get invited to a house there, but I cannot enjoy the value of the entire block. The heritage value as it relates to the city is the part that we can all enjoy. That is what the review should have concentrated on and that is the part of the review that I think is most important.

Mr Speaker, it is important that we understand what it was that we were trying to achieve and how best to go about achieving that. This government has worked very hard on heritage values in this city. Past mistakes have led to the Heritage Council spending an awful amount of its time and effort in the AAT because citations in the register are ineffective, airy-fairy and do not protect the heritage values. This one has taken almost seven years of hard work by a lot of people to try to come to a point where we can agree on what it is that is worth saving and how we would go about saving it.

The government is committed to heritage protection. The government have put more money into the heritage unit, we have given them extra staff, we have given them clear direction and we have asked them to get on with the job, but the advice of the Heritage Council is that they are hindered by things done before that have left them in a position where they end up in the AAT defending wishy-washy words that are the subject of differing interpretations by lawyers. We are seeking to fix that by having a review of all the citations to make sure that we get them right for our precincts, which are incredibly valuable, the all-up heritage of this city.

But the issue here for tonight is about a review as it relates to variation 114 with an outcome that is to provide for no more than one dwelling on any block. If there is to be an honest review, then that outcome may be one of several things. I appreciate that some people wanted an outcome that said one dwelling to a block. That is clearly an outcome. Another outcome is that variation 114 as presented to the Assembly actually got it right.

If Mr Kaine, Ms Tucker and the Labor party actually want to put on the record that their definition of a review is "do as I tell you, not do what I ask you", that is fine; they will be known for what they are. As minister, I was asked by the Assembly to conduct a review and, rightly, we conducted a review. The reviewing officer determined that the outcome in the context of variation 114 was that additional strengthening of the guidelines would achieve that aim.

There are some residents in the Old Red Hill precinct that do not want any further development in their area. There are some residents in the Old Red Hill area who would like to have it. We have to balance the needs of those who live there, who have invested in there, and who may want to stay in their suburb when they retire against protecting the heritage values of the Old Red Hill precinct. Mr Speaker, that involves a bit of a juggling

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