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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2153 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

appropriate amount of green space and, I would say, retain the amount of green space we currently have. We should retain the character of the area and a whole series of other things. Most planning authorities have moved well beyond what went on in Kingston. Indeed, when we look back and say, "Yes, that was 20 years ago", we also should be able to say that we can do it much better when it is necessary, rather than the situation that the B1 zone gives us, which is: "Well, you can go ahead and do your developments how you like. We are not really worried about how they turn out, how intense they are, and when they occur, within certain guidelines as to the height limit and so on".

Mr Speaker, they are the frustrations that we are dealing with. Even though Ms Tucker's motion is clearly going to fail, having heard the combination of Labor and Liberal again to knock it off, I think it does highlight the issue of the B1 area; that it is not working and that some alternatives need to be explored. For that reason I will be supporting the motion.

MS TUCKER (12.11), in reply: Mr Humphries, I have not suggested, at any point, that the area did not need to be given consideration by abolishing the B1 zone. As Mr Moore stated, in the first part of our motion about abolishing the B1 zone we are stating quite clearly that things are not working. The community are genuinely concerned. You were talking about signals to the community about the B1 zone, saying that they will not have a sense of understanding or security about what the processes are. They have a very strong sense right now about what the processes are, and they are very unhappy with them. They have been saying this for some time. That is why we feel that the whole thing does need to be done better.

We have heard the talk about local area plans for some time. For a long time most thoughtful analysis of any kind of social planning and development and redevelopment, and planning for redevelopment, always incorporates a local area plan. Sure, you have the LAPACs in there. But the LAPACs - - -

Mr Humphries: And the awareness guidelines.

MS TUCKER: And the awareness guidelines; that is right. The point is that those awareness guidelines are being developed by a small number of people who are stretched for time and expertise, and there is conflict within the groups, which I am sure you are well aware of. You need a local area plan that actually comes up with something that includes all people.

It was interesting last night. I also have had reports of the meeting last night. One of the concerns was actually raised by a real estate agent. A lot of people who live within the B1 zone have no idea that they live within the B1 zone and they are buying property within that, or selling it; but buying it, particularly, is of consequence because they have no idea. There are a lot of people who would like, probably, to have input into the

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