Page 1712 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The draft variation attracted more than 100 submissions when it was publicly notified by the Planning and Land Authority between January and March 2011. There were concerns about the motives for the rezoning and the relationship between the ACT government and Brumbies Rugby. There was some confusion in the submissions about the lease arrangements for the site and particularly the concessional lease over part of the site. Suggestions were put forward proposing alternative zones and uses for the site, including community, open space and recreation uses. Some submissions questioned the planning merits of the proposal and its compliance with the relevant strategic and statutory documents. There were also questions about the justification for the proposal in terms of population and housing choice.
The submissions also raised concerns about potential impacts of the proposal, including flooding, traffic, amenity, character, heritage and garden city values. I think it is fair to say that many within the community expressed concern about the proposal and what it might mean for the local area surrounding the site.
The overwhelming public perception is that the site is in some way a public asset allocated for community, recreation and/or urban open space purposes. Accordingly, many submissions lament the loss of this asset. But the fact is the site is actually included in the commercial CZ6 leisure and accommodation zone where developments such as a hotel are merit assessable. It is not a public facility; it is not a community facility. As such, the current zoning and planning benefits of the proposal are unlikely to sway local objection in these terms to the proposal.
I am committed to a robust and open planning system. I believe that good planning outcomes can be achieved through scrutiny at the appropriate levels. That is why I referred this draft variation to the relevant standing committee. After an extensive inquiry the standing committee tabled its report No 12 in February this year. In its report the committee recommended that the draft variation should proceed, subject to additional provisions in a precinct code. These provisions are intended to guide the site’s future development.
The variation I am tabling today responds to the standing committee’s recommendations. It responds to its recommendation No 1 by making amendments to the Griffith precinct code to include a limitation on basement parking to one level, a setback of 35 metres from block 7 and any development on the subject site, stipulation that 100 per cent of multi-unit dwellings are to be adaptable, provisions to protect trees on the perimeter of the site from development or encroachment, formalisation of the existing paths on block 16 adjoining the subject site and the erection of flood signage on section 42.
The standing committee recommended comprehensive flood studies be undertaken and made publicly available. Flood investigations were prepared as part of variation 307 and were made publicly available. Once the detailed design for the proposed redevelopment of the site is known, the need for any additional flood investigations can be identified. This would occur at the development application stage.
The multi-unit housing development code contains water sensitive urban design requirements, and as the block has an area greater than 5,000 square metres the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video