Page 938 - Week 03 - Thursday, 7 April 2022

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Lastly, in response to recommendation 7 of the committee, the locations of active frontages within the town centre were adjusted to better align with areas identified as pedestrian thoroughfares. Four changes were made to the variation in accordance with this direction. A change was made to remove active frontage requirements from the eastern side of Gribble Street. This street has not been identified as a main pedestrian area or route; therefore, active frontage requirements are not necessary on both sides of the street.

Additionally, the requirement would have applied only to two underdeveloped blocks with narrow street frontages. Pedestrian linkages from the south of Anthony Rolfe Avenue to the north-east of Gungahlin are not compromised by this change because the western side of Gribble Street is developed and contains active frontages, with shop fronts with windows and a wide footpath.

Another change has been made to active frontage requirements more generally. For partial active frontages, the amount of blank wall allowed along the frontage has increased from 40 to 50 per cent. The reason for this change is to better differentiate between the mandatory active frontage requirements, which allows only up to 30 per cent of blank walls as part of the frontage. Mandatory active frontages are key areas for activation, as they generally form part of the main thoroughfare through the centre.

The third change is in addition to criterion C6, which requires the design of buildings along the linear park to promote casual surveillance to enhance the safety of park users. The linear park is recognised as a pedestrian thoroughfare within the eastern part of the town centre. For this reason, the fourth change was to add a hatching to the linear park in figure 11, to identify it as a main pedestrian area and route.

I approved variation 364 because it will protect land for future commercial development, provide guidance about the built form and character of the town centre, and provide high-quality design outcomes as the centre continues to develop and grow. Furthermore, the variation sets out building heights and the need to provide priority active frontages to pedestrian thoroughfares. Finally, the variation provides greater guidance for open space, greater flexibility for the location of community facilities, and more local employment opportunities through mixed use and commercial development, together with the appropriate residential development.

I would again like to thank the standing committee for its valuable insights into the development of the Gungahlin town centre and its report and recommendations. Consideration of these recommendations and the changes incorporated into the variation will provide real and lasting benefits for the Gungahlin town centre and residents of the district into the future. I have tabled the approved variation of the Territory Plan 364 and the background papers, including the Gungahlin Town Centre Planning Refresh – Snapshot and the report on consultation.

Debate (on motion by Ms Castley) adjourned to the next sitting.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video