Page 1446 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
enhancing. I think a big part of why Mr Pratt has brought this motion forward is that Albert Hall is important to many members of the community—people who use the hall now and people who have used it in the past.
I remember as a child attending eisteddfods there, and I know there would be many Canberrans who have wonderful memories associated with this building. Unfortunately, at the moment the main reason for going to Albert Hall is to attend coat sales, rug sales and fashion sales. I think I bought one of my good winter coats from a sale at Albert Hall. It seems that this is becoming its main use. It is clear from going to sales and from attending the meeting that was held recently that Albert Hall is a building in need of significant repair, and that is an important part of this motion as well.
DA53 has caused some concern in the community. I understand and share some of that concern. I was pleased to see that the NCA has amended the draft amendment by removing reference to an eight-storey building. That was a positive step in that I do not think we need a tallish building as part of this precinct. Also, the NCD has confirmed that the buildings will not be used primarily for commercial purposes. I think it is important that we get a balance. If the redevelopment in this precinct goes ahead we would want to see things of cultural and artistic merit. In particular, we want to see a lot of open space. We would also want to see some incidental commercial uses that enhance the area. I think that is important. Also, open space needs to be protected. We need to find that balance.
I do not think the traffic issues have been resolved yet. Getting the traffic issues right is going to be of real significance and concern to the community. I think the idea of removing Flynn Drive and creating a park has some merit but it may have unintended consequences. It may slow down traffic significantly.
Dr Foskey: You can’t slow down traffic.
MR SESELJA: Dr Foskey interjects, “You can’t slow down traffic.” Preferably, where possible, we like to keep traffic flowing and I think most people in the community would prefer to see that. I have said to the NCA that it is important that they get these issues right. But this proposal does have potential, and I am not necessarily anti all of the amendment.
Mr Hargreaves: The motion is not about DA53.
MR SESELJA: I understand that. I am giving some background, Mr Hargreaves. But it is important that they get this right. It is important when we talk about the value of Albert Hall that we look at these issues. If they get this right there will be the potential to enhance Albert Hall and to appreciate its heritage value. At the moment this building is hidden behind a row of pine trees and is accessed by an off ramp. It is simply not able to be utilised as well as it could be if they get this right.
Let me turn to a couple of the provisions within Mr Pratt’s motion. Paragraph (1) (d) refers to the “disappointment of the meeting with a failure of the government to send a representative competent to comment on the tender process”. It would have been apparent to any of the several hundred Canberrans who were at the meeting that night
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .