Page 3278 - Week 10 - Thursday, 19 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
act quickly. In a fit of pique, of course, the ACT government could simply support this motion and do nothing. However, I think that would be entirely unconstructive; I also believe it is highly unlikely.
This amendment comes about due to commercial pressure to open up the east side of Jardine Street for bars, restaurants and other night-time activity. While those activities were not prohibited at the time under the territory plan, as the AAT has found, Jardine Street has, until recently, been the province of banks, financial services and the occasional antique shop and art gallery. The obvious shift away from purely specialty shops with normal business hours operations on the eastern side of Jardine Street prompted the Minister for Planning to acknowledge in discussions with residents that there is a need to provide buffering for adjoining residential properties as exists elsewhere in Kingston.
The draft variation 256 to the territory plan was released in 2005 and was promoted as providing that buffer between residential and commercial entertainment areas in the Kingston Group Centre. The overwhelming majority of responses made to the draft variation were that it did not go far enough and that allowing for restaurants, even with constrained hours, would greatly increase the impact on neighbouring residences that the kind of controls that exist on similarly located Kennedy Street would prevent.
Indeed, residents have advised me that it was that inequity between the allowable activities on the far side of Kennedy Street, as opposed to the wide range of permitted businesses on Jardine Street east, that the planning minister first acknowledged. I want to stress that, because the planning minister did acknowledge that inequity. The residents actually felt that there was an implicit understanding in there and perhaps a promise.
As it happens, this final variation provides even less protection for the residents. While the explanatory statement to the variation states that the minister instructed ACTPLA to prepare the draft variation due to concerns raised by the residents of Kingston, somewhere along the lines of communication and responsibility the minister’s instructions appeared to have got lost and to have morphed into a half-baked instrument which tries to satisfy everyone but which actually does not solve anyone’s problems.
The variation achieves these ends by banning, among other things, drink establishments and indoor entertainment facilities. But no attempt has been made to address the anomaly of the Belgian Beer Cafe, which clearly is a drink establishment, the location of which is inappropriate and which does, and will continue to, inevitably generate the kinds of noise and drunken behaviour problems that so often accompany places dedicated to the consumption of alcohol. How often have we heard members of the opposition railing about the noise and disorder in Manuka, which happens late at nights, usually related to alcohol induced behaviour. However, the drinking establishments in Manuka are not just outside people’s bedroom windows.
By allowing restaurants to operate at all hours along side the beer cafe, it is inevitable that a wide range of night-time and drinking activities will grow up. The fact that some establishments are required to serve food as well as drink will make little difference in the long term when it comes to staying late and having fun, although the level of waste that will need to be frequently cleared will grow. I support the residents’ request that the minister and ACTPLA honour their clear commitments to the residents of Kingston. The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .