Page 233 - Week 01 - Thursday, 24 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
LAND (PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT) ACT
Variation to the Territory Plan - Kingston
MS SZUTY (10.37): I move:
That the approved Variation No. 6 to the Territory Plan for Kingston, section 25, blocks 4, 5 and 6, be disallowed.
Members will recall that I stated my intention to move disallowance of approved variation No. 6 to the Territory Plan, section 25, blocks 4, 5 and 6, during my speech to my dissenting report on the variation on Tuesday of this week. In speaking to the variation today, I do not intend to cover the same ground, as I spoke for some minutes on my dissenting report covering the issues which led me to oppose the variation. However, I do want to talk about the very important principles affecting the Territory Plan process which are involved in consideration of this variation.
We need to concentrate on the facts and on the handling of the matter by the ACT Planning Authority. The question can be asked: What are the facts? We know that the lease of the site was owned by the Coles-Myer group. The lease permits the land to be used for three detached residences or car parking. Any other use requires a change of the purpose of the lease, and that is still the case. What is the planning policy for the site? The current gazetted policy, which the draft variation would alter, says:
The objectives of the policy for this area are to provide parking to serve the centre, opportunities for provision of non-retail commercial uses associated with the centre, and opportunities for residential uses in accordance with the "Guidelines for Redevelopment of Kingston/Griffith".
The following land uses will be permissible:
. car park;
. non-retail commercial uses;
. personal services;
. residential.
Non-residential commercial shall be developed only in conjunction with a structured car park provided that car parking is the predominant use. The existing parking and any new parking requirements generated by additional development must be accommodated on the site.
It should be noted that applying the existing policy objective would result in public car parking of some 160 spaces to replace the existing parking, in addition to new parking requirements generated by the additional development. We also need to note that such development would have to conform to the existing guidelines regarding building height, site coverage, plot ratio, open space and setbacks. These are the standards which have been deliberately adopted to produce an overall intensity of development which is appropriate and harmonious.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .