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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3331 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

If we do so, we will have the opportunity to create models for the future direction of urban infrastructure and living in Australia. However, if we do not exercise that political will correctly, there will be no innovative urban infrastructure and we will not have a model of urban living that people would want to emulate.

This government's approach to urban planning has included many things that go against the concept of sustainability. We have to reverse that process so that we can find ourselves in a situation, a few years down the track, when we can have a viable, appealing and approachable public transport system that people want to use. This will be to the benefit of the whole community.

Draft variation 200 was mostly designed to look after heritage areas. I think that the heritage areas, in many ways, are sacrosanct and those areas should be protected. However, they should be protected in a sensitive way that looks after their needs and, at the same time, the needs of those areas around them, which may be different. Draft variation 200, despite designating areas around commercial centres, does not adequately define the planning agenda for higher density development within, and adjacent to, the commercial centres.

The draft variation tightens planning controls within suburban areas, but does not anticipate higher density development within the commercial circle. Higher density development is required to address housing choice and affordability problems, as well as to achieve more effective use of the existing infrastructure, including, as I have said before, public transport, but also open space, schools, retail outlets and other services. Ideally, commercial centres should be allocated a higher development density to compensate for the loss of development potential in other parts of the suburban area.

The objectives of high-density development around commercial centres should be improving housing choice and affordability, increasing pedestrian access to commercial centres and boosting local trade catchments. The adoption of the 200 and 300-metre radius for general zones around commercial centres is inconsistent with accepted planning guidelines for aged care, for instance, which say that acceptable walking distances to aged care facilities and to public transport are, in both cases, 400 metres. On this basis, there is a strong case for the application of a 400-metre radius for higher density development adjacent to all commercial centres.

I think that the general rule of thumb that we have seen with the 200 and 300-metre radius has created a whole lot of spatial inconsistencies that have to be rationalised in a more careful restatement of the policy. There are a few examples of the inclusion of a whole block-that is, a whole street block, the whole section-where only one part falls within the 300-metre radius. This creates spatial anomalies in some locations that are unacceptable to the members of the community. We have seen that in Downer.

This situation could be excluded by adopting the 400-metre rule of thumb and then adjusting backwards, rather than forwards. This would involve excluding sections, rather than including them if only a small part is within the radius, or adopting natural breaks and natural catchments as barriers.

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