Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (20 April) . . Page.. 1011 ..
MR HIRD (continuing):
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to present a further report by the Urban Services Committee. The report deals with what has been a contentious planning issue for a long time, that is, the nature of residential redevelopment in selected areas of Braddon, Turner, O'Connor, Lyneham and Dickson.
Leaving aside the interim draft variation which is the subject of the committee's report, redevelopment of these areas has been governed by three key planning documents: The B1 area specific policy in the Territory Plan, the multidwelling design and siting code at appendix III.2 of the Territory Plan and the guidelines for residential redevelopment in area B1 North Canberra.
Each of these three documents has come in for considerable criticism by local residents and developers alike. As a result, the Planning Authority reviewed the B1 policy in May 1997. The outcome was draft variation No. 82, which was released in May 1997 and which came before my committee's predecessor, the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment, in October of the same year. The P&E Committee closely examined the draft variation over three public hearings and concluded that it be rejected, revised and resubmitted. The P&E Committee's report was presented to the parliament in November 1997. It outlined the areas where further work on the draft variation should be done. I am pleased to say that the Government has done this work. But it is the P&E Committee's conclusion that is particularly relevant to the report by my committee today. It is constructive to read the conclusion:
The Committee considers the [B1] area should be treated like any other Canberra suburb - each of which has its own mix of housing types and each of which is likely to have specific areas that can cope with, and are ready for, some type of redevelopment pressures. The areas that are not ready for such development should not be forced to undergo this specific type of pressure.
The Committee hopes that its proposals set out in this report will facilitate the natural development of the inner north and point the way to a wider application across Canberra - the aim being to find the appropriate balance between preserving an existing amenity and facilitating redevelopment of one kind or another.
The P&E Committee felt that one vital element in striking this balance was to refine the concept and use of section master plans. That has been done in draft variation No. 109. After a close examination, which included four well-attended public hearings, the Urban Services Committee has reached the unanimous view that this draft variation achieves the best possible balance between preserving the existing residential amenity and facilitating appropriate redevelopment.
That was never going to be easy, as is shown by the history of this issue in this place. The B1 policy guidelines were introduced in 1993 and adopted in 1994. In response to community concern about the pace and nature of redevelopment, the then planning Minister in mid-1994 commissioned the residential redevelopment review by Robert Lansdown. It reported in November 1994. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you were the Minister at the time. In response to the Lansdown report, draft variation to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .