Page 3817 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is what we have seen with some of the flawed core area policy, and that is why there have had to be modifications made, because a number of aspects of it simply have not worked. So some decisions need to be made. We believe that whilst the government may have missed some opportunities here, voting for this motion is not the way to rectify that.
We actually cannot fix everything that the government do. It is incumbent upon them the next time they are faced with similar situations to really look for ways of increasing the density in a sensible and sustainable way. Voting for this will not do that. I think there is an inherent contradiction in the Greens’ position—and we have seen it over the years—where they argued for sustainability, but when it comes to the crunch there is always a reason to vote against or to argue against greater densities.
You cannot have it both ways. At some point you need to make a decision. We believe that, whilst this may not be ideal, 10 storeys are reasonable on that site. Ten storeys should be supported, and we will not be supporting Ms Le Couteur’s motion.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Children and Young People, Minister for Planning and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation) (12.16): I thank Ms Le Couteur for bringing this matter forward today. I think it is important that we do debate this issue. In large part I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments. I must confess, it would be nice to have heard that sort of speech on a previous variation in relation to the Woden town centre prior to the last election, but he has finally got there today, and it is good to see.
There is no doubt that this motion before us is a classic example of my assessment of the Greens—that is, they often have very good intentions but just miss the bigger picture. The strange and contradictory position that has been taken in relation to this particular issue really confirms that overall analysis. In this motion and through the committee process the Greens are concurrently arguing that density is good and government should do more of it but that it should do a bit less of it on this site. The Greens have found a way to say no to high density on a specific site, in spite of being in support of density as a policy principle. I would suggest there is a bit of tension between their hearts and their heads. Good intentions but no big picture.
Ms Le Couter’s disallowance motion relating to territory plan variation 288 does have serious implications for planning for high density near town centres and not just for development on Melrose Drive at Lyons. It is worth recognising that the site was originally developed in the mid-70s and consisted of mainly single-bedroom public housing. Part of the site has already been developed to provide for single-storey developments for retirement units. Variation 288 to the territory plan proposes the rezoning of blocks 3 and 4 section 69 and block 8 section 47 Lyons from medium density residential to high density residential. It does allow for the building of a higher building of up to 10 storeys on the corner of Melrose Drive and Launceston Street. There are a number of other amendments to residential zones for the multi-unit housing development code part A(5) which will essentially double the allowable height in those zones.
I am sure members are aware that the draft variation was released for public comment back in 2008 and attracted 34 public submissions. ACTPLA prepared its consultation
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .