Page 3179 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
9 storey tower) to high density 6 storeys to be allowed to be developed over the entire site (with set back of 50 m) and a 10 storey tower, flies in the face of all the years of earlier consultation with WVCC. It is a similar example to the disregard given by ACTPLA to the Woden Town Centre Master Plan after at least 3 years intense consultation with the community.
Yes, there was significant community consultation. However, I think that a lot of the community feels that they were not listened to in that consultation. The 10-storey element which Ms Porter mentioned is one of the areas where they feel significant concern. That is the reason why, after much soul searching, I have decided in my dissenting report not to support the 10-storey element. Yes, I am very concerned about densification of this site. However, as I said before, two-thirds of the site is covered with single-storey development; so the government is clearly not concerned about densification on the site.
It seems to me they were trying to use the 10-storey element as a get-out-of-jail-free card because of what they did on the rest of the site. Their other reason for doing it was that it would be a gateway to the Woden town centre and provide a stronger visual impact. I think everyone would agree it would provide a stronger visual impact but that does not mean it is a good idea.
The 10-storey element is also planned to be on the north-east corner of the site. As we are all aware, putting things on the north means that you are going to be overshadowing the rest of the development. I suppose the only positive thing is that at least you are not overshadowing someone else’s development. But a number of people in their evidence pointed out to the committee that, if you are going to put a 10-storey tower anywhere, the site chosen by the proponents seems to be the worst possible site for it.
Getting back to community consultation, I think that, if we are serious about consulting the community, we also need to listen to what the community says. In this case, it said clearly that the 10-storey element was not wanted. Given that it only seems to be there because of other planning issues with the site, I felt that it was not reasonable to support it.
I also note that the rest of the development, which has still to be developed, will be six-storey. The difference in the number of units between six and 10-storey over such a small area, because the 10-storey element is only allowed at one corner, is not actually going to be significant.
I would now like to talk about my recommendation with respect to the information that ACTPLA provides. Unfortunately, Ms Porter misinterpreted what I said. One of the things that were obvious in the comments on the site was that most people were commenting on what effectively would be the DA, because ACTPLA had provided some pretty pictures of a possible development there. That is what people commented on, because that is what people could understand.
Most people cannot understand the wording of territory plan variations. I count myself as someone who finds this hard to understand. What they commented on was the pictures they saw. What I am saying is that the pictures that they see should be consistent with the territory plan variation. That is what my recommendation says—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .