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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (20 August) . . Page.. 2474 ..

MS GALLAGHER (continuing):

The ACT branch of the National Heritage Trust recognised this danger to the garden city nature of Canberra and was supported in its nomination of these suburbs by various community groups and local area planning advisory committees. However, on 12 August this year these nine suburbs were removed from the endangered list.

As a resident of one of these suburbs, I am relieved to see work being done to protect the unique nature of these areas. I am also proud to say that the reason these suburbs have been removed from the list, and deemed to be no longer endangered, is due to the work being done by the ACT government.

The report of the trust refers specifically to draft variation 192, which limits dual and triple occupancy housing, and to draft variation 200, which is designed to protect our garden suburbs. These measures, and draft variation 200 in particular, recognise that Canberra has a unique heritage in its garden suburbs and that, with careful guidelines, community consultation and respect for the vision of Walter Burley Griffin, development can continue without threatening the very special quality of these suburbs.

Responsible and sustainable planning, in consultation with the community, was a core part of the Labor Party's election platform last year. I am pleased to see that it has already produced positive results.

The Australian Council of National Trusts views these initiatives as a substantial achievement from the 2001 nominations, and as an excellent example of "how constructive a community-driven government response can be". It says that the new government has responded quickly to legitimate community concerns regarding rampant development and is now working with the community and industry to develop a comprehensive plan to establish future planning arrangements for Canberra.

Draft variation 200 forms a core part of this process. This is a process which the trust suggests could be adopted by other states in relation to urban precincts still at risk. It is great to see the ACT leading the way in this area and making it clear that there is such a thing as sustainable development which respects heritage, history and the concerns of residents. It is also heartening to see the ACT government clearly demonstrating that it is possible to generate planning policies which allow for community consultation, sustained and sustainable development, and the preservation of heritage and residential amenity.

I think what members need to consider now, Mr Speaker, is that we have been very fortunate to have had the heritage of Canberra recognised, and held up as an example, and that we have-for now anyway-managed to preserve that heritage for the people who live here, and for Canberra more broadly. We need to continue this work.

We should recognise that sustainability, heritage and community consultation is not necessarily anti-development. The ACT government is not anti-development, by any means. We want to ensure that successful development is done in line with social, economic and environmentally responsible planning principles, developed after widespread and thorough community and industry consultation.

We need to recognise that the protection afforded the garden suburbs should be extended to all of Canberra, because all Canberrans have a right to residential amenity, private open space and privacy. They have a right to well planned developments, with access to

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