Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2974..
MR SMYTH (continuing):
All the maps that were provided are out in the lobby if people want to look at them. On the Yarralumla map a red circle delineates 200 metres around the shops. The argument is that any section affected by that is open to development.
There are huge discrepancies across suburbs. In Red Hill the 200-metre rule cuts a swathe through the middle of the suburb. An area about 1.35 kilometres long will be open to development. How do you say this is an organised approach is beyond me.
The maps arrived several weeks after I asked for them. Initially they were not ready. The work had not been done. They had been making this up. They had not even finished the software. The maps were incomplete. Some were coloured in; some were not. Look at Strzelecki and Bayley Streets in Griffith. Everything but section 53, which has 10 blocks in it, is surrounded by dual occupancy development. How do you justify that on the good planning principle?
All across the city there are little islands where development will not be allowed to go ahead, but around them development will be allowed to go ahead because of the 200-metre rule. Gilbert Street in Watson comes to mind. Because of the sectioning arrangements in Watson, Gilbert is a loop street. Everything on the outer side of Gilbert Street will be open to dual occupancy; everything on the inner side will not be.
A swathe cuts through the middle of Campbell. What is this based on? It is based on something somebody thought up. There is no logic in this. You can see it in the way it is portrayed on the maps.
Mr Corbell is very keen to talk about sustainability. We know from OECD reports that sustainability will come from greater density. How does the 200-metre rule achieve greater density? It does it in an ad hoc way. You should be doing is looking at whether the streets can bear the extra load. Should the greater density be on the blocks at the end of streets, the large corner blocks? Are there better ways? Should it go on prominent features? I doubt it. Should it go in the lower areas where it is less intrusive on the general visage of the suburb? There are a number of ways you can look at this. It is clear the minister has not done that.
The number of people per household in the ACT in 1969 was 3.9. The number now is between 2.3 and 2.6. I have seen varying figures. The figure is on its way down. That means we need double the number of houses we had in 1969 to accommodate the same population because the suburbs are emptying. If you have gone from 3.9 down to 2.6, you have cut a third of the population out of the suburbs. That is a third less to use primary schools, to support small business, to put their kids in scout troops and girl guide troops, and so on.
This draft variation does not address that. It will lead to urban sprawl. It will push people further and further out from the centre of the city, when we know from the OECD that successful cities have a heart. That heart for us is Civic.
There are other issues Mr Corbell has not addressed. They include the pre-1971 leases. I remember Mrs Dunne asking a question about a case that went to the AAT and was lost. Pre-1971 leases have the right to development for residential purposes-plural. In a case taken to the AAT that was upheld. There is a huge number of pre-1971 leases.