Page 666 - Week 02 - Thursday, 6 March 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
remember the very strong opposition to high-density developments along transport corridors in areas such as Northbourne Avenue. These were live and contested issues less than seven or eight years ago.
I believe we now have a broad consensus. We do not agree, perhaps, on all the detail, but there is an acceptance in two areas. First of all there is an acceptance that high density must occur in our centres—Civic and our town centres—and along public transport corridors. The nature and the scale of that density is perhaps sometimes disputed, but it is accepted that that is what will occur.
Equally, it is accepted that some level of change within our suburbs is inevitable. How do we best accommodate and moderate that? I believe the policies put in place around the A10 area specific policy provide for the accommodation and moderation of that. They respect overwhelmingly the low-density character of those suburbs, that which makes them so attractive to families and to the broader community, but they also recognise that people want to age in place and want to stay in place and will want to have a range of housing types available to them in their local neighbourhoods. The A10 policy provides for that.
I welcome the changes proposed in one of the non-policy-neutral provisions of the plan dealing with changes to A10. That is very much a refining of the A10 policy, to keep it out of the culs-de-sac, to keep it out of those narrow-frontage blocks and to really moderate the scale of redevelopment that can occur where there are those particular constraints. That is a natural policy progression; it is one that I welcome and one that will further strengthen the A10 policy.
Mr Assistant Speaker, the other changes in relation to Gungahlin are equally welcome. There is a need to further strengthen Gungahlin as a centre to give it greater capacity to meet the needs of commercial and retail uses as well as residential uses. The announcement by the minister today of a change to the height limits is very welcome in that regard.
Equally, the changes around the 4E overlay are proof of the government’s policies working in action. The government went to the 2001 election saying we would protect Canberra’s urban open spaces, and we have a strong record to show that we have done so. Indeed, prior to the changes in portfolios, as the planning minister I was proud to see an additional 240-odd spaces formally added to Canberra’s urban open space network as a result of the urban open space network project. Although we have not, for a range of reasons, proceeded with the entrenchment as outlined in the original 2001 policy, we have given those spaces protection as formal areas of urban open space requiring a change to the territory plan, and we have put in place 4E overlay provisions for those areas of open space around schools.
I am pleased to say that the whole intent of that policy was that if there was to be a change in the use of that land, rather than it being able to be done without any reference to the Assembly, it would have to come back to the Assembly for a variation to the territory plan and have it explicitly argued as to why that space should be used for other purposes. That is what we are doing, and that is a positive and transparent process. The minister is here today saying, “We do need to remove that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .