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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 3689 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I remember, Mr Rugendyke, when you and I were at Latham at a public meeting two or three years ago, that you stood up and you said to the crowd, "We don't just want to see pavement and buildings in these areas." You said that, and that is what this motion is about. It is not saying that we cannot have residential development at an increased density; it is saying that the plot ratio of 2:1 is inappropriate. Mr Smyth seemed to be saying that if you are going to live there you cop it. If you are going to live there you cannot expect to have the amenity that other people have. Well, that is a very unsatisfactory response from the minister.

I want to point out what the motion says. I wondered whether Mr Stefaniak knew what the motion was. My motion is not saying that we cannot look at having some residential development in the local areas. What my motion says is that the ACT Planning Authority be directed to review the design and siting controls that apply to residential development on commercial land in local and group centres to ensure consistency with the controls on multi-unit development in residential areas, and we call on the government to defer the land-

Mr Stefaniak: Which one have you supported though, Kerrie?

MS TUCKER: You are supporting that?

Mr Stefaniak: No, no; which development in the local centre have you actually supported? That is my question.

MS TUCKER: I am calling for it to be reviewed. You can have a look at the notice paper, Mr Stefaniak.

Mr Stefaniak: Tell me.

MS TUCKER: I have written it. I have read it. We are recommending to the executive that the ACT Planning Authority be directed to review it because, as I pointed out at length in my speech, it is not appropriate to have that plot ratio applied to residential development. In the second part we call on the government to defer the sale of land in local and group centres, in particular blocks 21, 23, and 24 section 44 Kaleen, and block 3 section 79 Giralang, for residential development until this review is completed, and I explained why in my speech.

I think it is really a clear case of having respect for the fact that you have to have sensitive development. That is what the Greens have consistently said. It is what Mr Corbell has said the Labor Party is recognising. It is what the community is saying loudly. It is why we now have people running specifically on planning issues in this coming election, because they see that the government, this government, has not done that. This government has taken an approach to development that is not considered and does not take into account community values.

All I am asking for is that the revitalisation of those local areas is done in a sensitive way, and that we review what is basically an anomaly. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to be asking for, and I hope members will support the motion.

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