Page 3282 - Week 10 - Thursday, 19 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
comments related to fears that additional restrictions on land use would have a detrimental impact on the area’s activity and opportunity for use. Those were the two issues. On the one hand, residents were rightly concerned about the need for a greater range of restriction on use but, on the other hand, other users of the centre were concerned that this proposal could limit uses in ways that were previously allowed. The issue was one of achieving a balance.
The exhibited draft variation was revised in response to submissions and discussions with other ACT agencies. The amendments to the draft variation are necessary, as the imposition of hours of operation by the ACT Planning and Land Authority through the territory plan were very difficult if not impossible to enforce through the planning system. The requirements for a noise management plan will ensure that, once a plan is endorsed, it will place regulation of any breaches with the appropriate government agency which has the skills and the resources to monitor any potential breaches, the Environment Protection Authority. The Liquor Licensing Board also has within its disciplinary powers the ability to limit the hours of trade of licensed premises if it believes that is appropriate.
The common terminology for the definition of restaurant in the territory plan has been deleted to avoid any association with activities commonly related to alcohol consumption, such as a brasserie or bistro.
The changes to precinct boundaries and additional land use controls are considered a good outcome for establishing a buffer between the commercial centre and residential properties and for providing the most effective means of regulating some business activities in the precinct.
There were also further opportunities to comment on this issue during the public consultation conducted by the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment during its deliberations. A site inspection was held by the committee on 11 April this year, and a public hearing was held on 16 May. Similar concerns and objections to those received by ACTPLA itself were received during this process. The planning and environment committee issued its report in May 2006. It supported the proposed policy change to land use. The committee itself acknowledged the fact that the territory plan has permitted entertainment land uses in Jardine and Giles streets since it took effect in 1993.
In response to Dr Foskey’s motion to reject the variation, it should be noted that this will have the effect of reverting the land use policies to those which the surrounding residents expressly raised concerns about, allowing clubs and drink establishments to operate along Jardine Street.
There is no doubt this is a difficult issue—a difficult issue for residents and a difficult issue for the government—but Kingston is a centre that serves more than a local neighbourhood purpose. That is the nature of the place and it is one of the reasons why so many Canberrans value that place as a place to visit, to use, to enjoy and to meet friends and family and so on. It is not the government’s wish to change the nature of that place or revert it to a place that it was, perhaps, when it was simply a local neighbourhood centre servicing its local neighbourhood.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .