Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2166 ..
MR CORBELL
(continuing):city, Canberra. I cannot support such moves, nor can the Labor opposition support such moves, and I urge members in this place not to support such moves either.
MR KAINE
(4.13): I will not speak at length, but I want to indicate that I strongly support the motion Mr Corbell has placed before us today. Those of us who have lived in Canberra over many years have often been struck by some of the things that make Canberra Canberra. There are characteristics of this city that you do not find anywhere else. When we introduced the new Territory Plan in 1991-92, I understood at the time that one of the things that that plan did was to embed those things about Canberra that we value for eternity, forever. Certain developments would not take place, because the Territory Plan would not permit them.We have gone so far on many occasions as to identify areas of Canberra that are subject to heritage and other orders, areas we cannot change the nature of. In Ainslie, for example, you cannot change the nature of the residential units in some areas. In Barton there are other places where what existed some years ago has been preserved, and the intention is that it will be preserved. I always understood that the old area of Red Hill was one of those areas. In fact, I remember having discussions with officials from the old Planning and Land Management area some years ago when on the area map they had a big black line around the area. I cannot recall the boundaries, but the area was generally bounded on the north by Mugga Way and on the east by Flinders Way. The boundary went approximately across to Melbourne Avenue, it certainly included the Parliament House precinct, and there was a marked southern boundary. My clear understanding at the time was that this was outlining an area of land where the then character would be preserved. In other words, the streetscape would be preserved, the nature of the housing would be preserved and the nature of that old suburb would be preserved because of its historical value.
I have been somewhat confounded in recent months and years to discover that on pieces of land in that area the treescape has been completely destroyed so that an old house can be demolished and a new bigger and better house built. I am not decrying the notion of building better houses, but to destroy the entire treescape on a very large block of land in that area seems to me to be contrary to the original intention of the Territory Plan at least and in my view what ought to be the present intention of the Territory Plan. I am not clear at what stage over the last 10 years the attitude towards the preservation of that part of Red Hill changed.
I was astounded recently to note a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that allowed a second residential unit on a block in that area, despite the provisions of the Territory Plan and despite what I thought were the long-term intentions of preserving that area. We have seen an erosion of what I think most of us took for granted 10 years ago, an erosion of the concept of the retention of the general nature of the Red Hill precinct. I do not know what has happened in the planning process that has allowed this degradation to occur, but I agree with Mr Corbell that perhaps we have reached the point where we have to put a stop to it.
I do not know where the change has come from. I do not know whether it is something that has come from within the bureaucracy. I do not know whether our planners-of whom, I regret to say, we seem to have few these days-have changed their ideas about what we should preserve and what we should not. I do not know whether it is the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .