Page 1059 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 5 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and population survey there were approximately four jobs for every worker living in the inner south. This contrasts with 0.37 jobs for every resident worker in Tuggeranong, 0.36 jobs in Weston Creek, 0.48 jobs in Gungahlin and 0.57 jobs in Belconnen. These figures speak for themselves. As part of living in a sustainable, connected city, this government is committed to increasing the availability of housing for people near employment and along transport corridors. This variation will do just that. It will allow more Canberrans to live close to where they work, and reduce associated travel costs and environmental impacts associated with longer commutes.
It has been suggested that a more appropriate zoning would be RZ3. RZ3 would only permit two-storey dwellings and a lower plot ratio. It would reduce flexibility to provide a diverse range of housing options on this site. That is why RZ5 with strong precinct controls is a more effective planning outcome for this key location.
Urban renewal is a core priority of this government. Continued renewal of our city is vital to continue to grow Canberra’s economy and strengthen our community. The redevelopment of urban areas such as the Red Hill housing precinct makes Canberra a more prosperous, compact, livable and sustainable city. It supports the need to increase our city’s population density and makes for a more connected city with better places and spaces.
Notwithstanding all that variation 334 seeks to achieve in terms of urban renewal and better outcomes for public housing tenants, I acknowledge the concerns raised in a number of the 97 public submissions received. That is why the ACT government continues to engage the community on key planning changes.
Following the lodgement of the motion by Mr Coe to disallow this variation, and the adjournment of the debate, Environment and Planning Directorate representatives met with members of the Red Hill Residents Group and the Inner South Canberra Community Council to discuss their concerns. I understand that there was a good, open discussion that helped to clarify the provisions that were introduced with variation 334 and to reassure community representatives about the approval process that would be followed when development applications are submitted.
Further, in response to the concerns raised by the community representatives, and as agreed with Minister Rattenbury, a technical amendment to the territory plan will be prepared to provide further clarification regarding the building height controls in the Red Hill precinct code and to reinstate desired character statements that were proposed in the consultation version of the variation. These changes are consistent with the policy purpose of variation 334 and aim to make clear the intent of the precinct code provisions.
The technical amendment will be released for public consultation in late April and will be open for public comment for a four-week period. I would encourage those who have an interest in variation 334 to review this technical amendment and continue their engagement in the planning process.
I acknowledge that for some this variation does not address all concerns. As a government we need to continue to strike a balance between the Canberra of the past
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video