Page 2936 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
redevelopment at a higher density is permitted and, secondly, where redevelopment has occurred in these areas it has been at a lower density.
The third policy issue, given the accessibility of the area to employment and good public transport services, is that the restriction really is not consistent with the strategic planning direction of the development of a more compact city.
Fourthly, data from the 2006 journey-to-work census indicated that some 40 per cent of workers living in Turner and Braddon—the area most subject to redevelopment—walked, cycled or caught public transport to work. This compares to the Canberra average of about 12 per cent.
Fifthly, as a result of neighbourhood planning in Turner, there is a moratorium on redevelopment in Turner sections 47 and part of section 63. This moratorium is at odds with the broader planning policy, including the policy issues at question, and whether it is desirable to maintain this moratorium is worthy of further consideration. Sixthly, the review might also consider the infrastructure capacity available in north Canberra and the demand for redevelopment dwellings.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion there is an implicit acknowledgement in both the Greens’ and Liberals’ policies in this area that higher density residential development is important. There is also implicit acknowledgement that higher density development along transport corridors is important and something that we should work towards. So this inquiry also provides a great opportunity for detailed consideration of the merits of broadening residential redevelopment policies to other major transport corridors. I would encourage the committee to form a view on this issue as well.
If we, as MLAs, are serious about a more compact, sustainable city, then residential density is a threshold issue. You cannot have a sustainable city that relies solely on everyone driving their cars from their quarter acre block in the outer suburbs. You cannot ban cars either. Not everyone in Canberra wants to live in the Space apartments, but if we are serious about sustainability then we have to make it easy for those that want to live near the city or on major transport corridors to do so.
You could have a bus for every household or a billion dollar tram system, but the one thing that gets people on their feet and into public transport is convenience. If work is 10 minutes away or the bus down Northbourne Avenue comes every five minutes, then in every practical sense it is easier to walk or use the bus than to drive your car. That, Mr Speaker, is what will get people out of their cars.
I will shortly provide a full copy of the report I have referred to in my speech to the committee. I ask my colleagues in this Assembly to support this important inquiry and join with the government in dealing with this tough but crucial issue for the future of our city. I commend the motion to the Assembly.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (10.57): Mr Speaker, I am very pleased that Andrew Barr is again coming on board with our policies. It is becoming Orwellian when Mr Barr speaks; every time he speaks and refers to taking politics out of planning, he puts politics into planning. Claiming that the Labor Party
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .