Page 46 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 22 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
construction of that tower, and Mr Willemsen then sought, in consultation with the ACT Planning Authority, another suitable proposal for the site. Madam Speaker, the area is directly opposite the main Kingston shopping centre and is contained within the area identified in the Territory Plan for commercial purposes.
Madam Speaker, there is a minority dissenting report provided by Ms Szuty as part of this report. On a motion moved in the committee by Mr De Domenico, there were three votes in favour of the variation and two votes against it. Those two votes were those of Ms Szuty and Mr Kaine. Madam Speaker, in deliberating on whether or not the Planning Committee should approve this variation, my understanding of the argument put by the majority was that the public benefit clearly outweighed any public detriment. In discussions with the ACT Planning Authority, the proponent was asked whether or not he would be prepared to allow on this site, over which he has a 99-year lease, public car parking. In order to facilitate the provision of that public car parking the proponent has exceeded the planning guidelines on a number of points - the density of the block, the setbacks that are required and the height of the building.
In considering the Kingston area, the Planning Committee was mindful that there is a general view that the current state of that shopping centre is not appropriate for such a significant site and a significant shopping centre in the ACT. It was fairly obvious to us that it had been some considerable time since any substantial work had been done to that major shopping centre. In order to promote the concept of regeneration and rejuvenation of the area, we propose to amend the draft variation. I read an extract from the minutes:
Resolved - Mr De Domenico: That the Committee endorse the draft Variation as proposed with the following additions:
that the non-retail commercial land use proposed for the ground floor fronting Giles Street be expanded to include retail and/or commercial land use;
that the ACT Planning Authority undertake a review of the current land uses in the Kingston Group Centre Precinct to optimise the balance between commercial, retail and residential land uses.
It was the view of the committee that that should happen, and that the public benefit of allowing this development to proceed far outweighed the perceived public detriment or the perceived loss of public amenity. It is a majority decision in the report. I understand that Ms Szuty will speak to her dissenting report, and Mr Kaine has indicated, quite properly, that as a member of the committee he wishes to comment on his view and his reason for taking that view. Madam Speaker, I commend this variation to the house.
MR KAINE (4.54): It is a bit unusual to indicate what happens within a committee, but the chairman has noted that the vote on this issue was three in favour and two against. I was in fact one of those two who voted against this variation. I chose not to put in a dissenting report because I have the opportunity here and now to say what I think, and that will be on the record. As far as I am concerned, that is quite sufficient.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .