Page 3217 - Week 10 - Thursday, 25 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
accommodation and leisure land use policy area. The changes contemplated by this variation will enable either a residential building or a continuation of the existing use. Whilst the main issues raised in submissions relate to design issues, those associated with building height are the responsibility of the National Capital Authority.
Mr Seselja: Who do you reckon wrote this speech? He’s going against his own recommendations as chair.
MR GENTLEMAN: Given that the site is adjacent to an approach route under the national capital plan, it is therefore subject to the special requirements—and I will talk to you about that in a minute, Mr Seselja—of an approved development control plan. As the territory plan cannot be inconsistent with the national capital plan, the question of dealing with the height limit through this variation is academic and possibly wrong.
The development control plan states that buildings at the crossing of Hopetoun Circuit by Adelaide Avenue should be predominantly three storeys and a maximum of four storeys in height. The orchestrated hype that has been built up by a few members of the local community about this variation—
Mr Seselja: What a disgrace! That is a disgrace—the orchestrated hype! That is what you are saying to the residents of Canberra—“orchestrated hype”! There is genuine concern—450 residents.
MR GENTLEMAN: Mr Deputy Speaker.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Seselja: That is a disgraceful comment!
MR GENTLEMAN: and accusations of no opportunity to comment are misleading. I believe that, whilst the planning and environment committee has expressed a view on height, we did support the variation after having considered the views of all concerned. Mr Seselja raised the issue of consultation, which he has just raised again. I will quote directly from the committee’s comments in the report in 3.2, comments that, of course, Mr Seselja was an active party to and supported unanimously. It reads:
The Committee does not accept the Deakin Residents’ Association’s assertion that the proponent and the ACT Planning and Land Authority have not consulted adequately about this proposed development. The Association’s view is not consistent with the evidence available to the Committee.
This variation is consistent with the government’s policy direction stated in the spatial plan, to direct residential development to locations with a high level of accessibility to facilities and services, thereby reducing dependency on vehicle use. The committee worked in a bipartisan manner in supporting the recommendation in this variation. I support the variation in the form in which it has been tabled, as it deals with those issues that the territory plan can play a role in. It provides for greater flexibility in the types of uses that can occur on this site. It is consistent with the government planning policies, and it pays due regard to the views of the planning and environment committee.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .