Page 125 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
can understand what conditions apply to any particular area. We have to remember of course that lessees and developers are involved in all of this activity and that they also have some rights.
I have asked for some urgent action on that matter to be taken by the Territory Planning Authority. I have asked for an early identification of areas which are free of heritage considerations. There are some, I believe, so they can be taken off straightaway and not be subject to any delay which would happen otherwise.
I have asked the Interim Territory Planning Authority to withhold demolition approvals on buildings on residential leases in Canberra central until we have made some identification of the heritage aspects involved and until the register is at least under way. As I said, I will withhold demolitions, but alterations and additions might be approved, provided that they have the agreement of the Heritage Committee and the Interim Territory Planning Authority.
I think those sorts of proposals demonstrate the depth of the government commitment to the preservation of heritage in the ACT. I would like to say further that in relation to the demolition of the house at Barton, the decision not to oppose that redevelopment was taken after a second consideration of the issue by the Heritage Committee and after the apparent exhaustion of all processes available to prevent the redevelopment on that site.
I can think of no other responsible course of action in relation to that house. Again, as I said, there were lessees involved; there were householders involved who had been considerably delayed and who had made every attempt to meet the conditions imposed by the ACT Heritage Committee and in fact had had their place approved by that Committee.
The Heritage Committee had been appointed by the Minister for Territories for its expertise in heritage matters. If we are not to take its advice on issues of heritage when they arise, there is no point in having that Committee. The Committee was consulted twice - once by the Minister for Territories and once by me as soon as I took office - and its advice was virtually unchanged. It approved the redevelopment provided that certain conditions were met regarding the streetscape - which, as Mr Humphries has pointed out, is a significant part of heritage - and some of the planting.
I believe the Heritage Committee behaved responsibly and I think the only responsible thing for me to do as the Minister was to take its advice and act on it. Not to have done so would have been, I believe, irresponsible.
I have outlined some of the action that the Government intends to take in relation to heritage matters, and I hope that members on the other side of the Assembly take some
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .