Page 1194 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 10 April 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Some areas the Greens have also been keen to ensure support for are the villages in the ACT. Tharwa, Pialligo, Hall and Oaks Estate all their own character and their own strengths in relation to tourism and heritage. The heritage festival provides one opportunity for people to get out and visit places around the city, particularly in these areas. We are keen for these villages to be supported through our tourism strategy.
But it is not just about tourists. I am sure that many residents of Canberra do not realise that these villages exist or what there is to offer in each of them, as they contribute in their own way to creative arts and entertainment precincts. We are very keen to see a history and heritage tourism strategy developed to capitalise on this part of our heritage as part of the broader tourism strategy for the ACT and region.
When it comes to the built environment, an important issue is making sure that Canberra’s heritage, vision and values are integrated with our planning rules. An example arises from the government’s housing choices consultation process on the planning rules for our residential areas. Currently, heritage protected housing precincts like the one in Reid are largely in residential 1 zone areas, or RZ1 areas. This means that it is very hard to build dual occupancies, duplexes and townhouses.
The housing choices discussion paper raised the possibility of allowing dual occupancies, duplexes and townhouses in the RZ1 zone as a way of improving the supply of medium-size housing. This is worth looking into, as we have a growing shortage of this type of housing. However, an unintended result could be a new conflict between the heritage rules and the planning rules in the housing precincts. I worry that that conflict will lead to the loss of heritage if it is not managed carefully.
A related issue is that conservation management plans are currently developed site by site. This works reasonably well for individual landmark buildings and small clusters of buildings under one ownership. However, the heritage protected housing precincts have dozens and potentially hundreds of houses all under separate ownership.
We worry that the result will be fragmentation of the precincts because each owner and their heritage consultant will interpret the rules slightly differently. A second important aspect is that much of the heritage significance is actually between the buildings, in the streetscape. It is in the public street trees, the lampposts and various other historical artefacts where much of the heritage story is, in fact, told.
One conservation management plan per owner means that the important public areas are not integrated visually within the government’s management of the streets. We see the potential for the fabric of the heritage to be unpicked, often inadvertently. That is an issue for consideration.
I would like to finish on the issue of Aboriginal heritage. It is very important that we as a government, as an Assembly and as individuals recognise and respect the local traditional custodians and representatives of other Aboriginal people in relation to their skills and knowledge of conservation and heritage places.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video