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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3369 ..

MS TUCKER (11.59): As members know, the Federal Golf Club originally proposed to build about 60 townhouses in the north-east corner of its land in order to fund improved water supply and irrigation facilities for the golf course. This proposal was contrary to the zoning of this land in the Territory Plan as restricted access recreation, and was also contrary to the club's lease, which allows the land to be used only as a golf course and for ancillary uses. The club therefore sought a variation to the Territory Plan to allow housing on this site, but this proposed variation was rejected by the Assembly last year.

Not prepared to accept this decision, the club has now proposed to build a hotel and conference centre on this site. The latest proposal I have seen included 140 serviced apartments. Many people would regard this as a worse proposal than the one for townhouses. However, the club seems to think that this proposal cannot be rejected by the Assembly because, the club thinks, it is consistent with the current zoning and lease of its land.

It is very worrying that the golf club appears to be attempting to blackmail the Assembly by threatening to put a worse type of development on this block in the hope that the Assembly will change its mind and allow a lesser form of development which it always wanted in the first place. I am sorry that Mr Kaine and, it appears, Ms Carnell have fallen for this plot by supporting or putting up this motion, because clearly this is an issue of what is appropriate and what is not, and to say that a community facility can be used in this way and that we can be blackmailed in that way is a terrible indictment of how planning and this Assembly are prepared to operate.

The Greens' view is that there should not be any development in the north-eastern part of the golf course that has been targeted by the club. The Greens are opposed to development in this area because, from a planning perspective, this location is inappropriate for housing or apartments. This land was never meant to be a housing area and the development would become an isolated enclave that is relatively remote from services and has poor road access and would not be able to be served by public transport.

Surely if we are supposed to be moving towards a more ecologically sustainable city we should not be setting up housing situations within the city where owning a car for transport virtually becomes an obligation. This development will also create a barrier to the movement of wildlife and recreational users between the nature park on Red Hill and the rest of the golf course reserve. Under the Federal Golf Club's lease, the club is required to permit free public access through the course, which this development will compromise.

While the golf course is not part of the Red Hill nature reserve, it is geographically integrated with the reserves and connects this reserve with parkland and urban open space in Hughes and Garran. Canberra's planning has a tradition of concentrating its urban development in distinct suburbs and towns which are integrated with the open space running around and through the urban area.

The open space around Canberra is not all pristine bushland, but it does serve a useful aesthetic and recreational function for residents, and not just an ecological function. It is therefore a poor argument to say that just because this part of the golf course is degraded it does not need to stay as open space. It also ignores the fact that degraded areas can be rehabilitated.

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