Page 3285 - Week 10 - Thursday, 19 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
restaurants, would affect that, because that car park is used currently by people in Green Square, just across the road, who go to the Durham or to the other bars and restaurants in that area. So the noise and the effect on amenity are not affected in that sense. That car park, unless it were removed totally as a car park, which would obviously be a concern because there are not that many places to park close by in Kingston, will continue to be used.
How you manage the effect on amenity is a separate issue. I do not think it will make any difference whether you have restaurants on Jardine Street or not. There are people coming through that area and making noise late at night. That needs to be taken into account as well.
The other issue is that the noise from the restaurants will be managed. We will certainly be holding the government to account to ensure that there is not an adverse impact and that the noise management plans are sufficient to protect residents’ amenity. That is crucially important.
One of the things that also came up in committee deliberations was that it did not seem clear, certainly when we questioned ACTPLA, how those plans were enforced. They said that it was in the area of the environment and that ACTPLA did not have any specific ability. But there did seem a bit of confusion amongst some of the agencies on how that was enforced and the triggers for that. I would like that clarified a little better so that these noise management plans are enforced and we can ensure that, if they are breached or if the noise starts to reach an unacceptable level in that area when new restaurants, if they do go ahead, come on line, that is properly enforced. We certainly want to ensure that there is not undue noise.
One of the big concerns, apart from waste collection, is the opening up of the back doors in the restaurants and currently in the Belgian Beer Cafe. That needs to be managed. That is a legitimate concern. Staff coming out there late at night or on their breaks or whatever can certainly have an impact on residents. That is something I am mindful of. It is something the committee was mindful of. That is something which we want to see the noise management plans take account of. They need to be enforceable. If we have restaurant operators down the track who are not complying with those noise management plans, we certainly want to see action taken.
We cannot support this disallowance motion. It would be, at least in the short term, a backward step. It would potentially allow bars and clubs. This strikes a reasonable balance. It is important that we enforce these noise management plans, that the recommendations of the committee are taken into account and that the noise that comes from waste collection is considered and limited to reasonable hours so that residents can enjoy reasonable amenity and not have their standard of living too greatly affected. We will not be supporting it, for the reasons put.
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella) (11.27): Variation No 256 proposes to introduce additional land use restrictions into the territory plan by extending the commercial group centre land use policy precinct B to include part of section 22 Kingston. As we have heard, clubs and drinking establishments had been permitted in the commercial part of section 22 since the territory plan was introduced in 1993. Although the original territory plan policies for the Kingston Group Centre were amended in 2002 as a result of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .