Page 258 - Week 01 - Thursday, 17 February 2011

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

I commend the bill to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mrs Dunne) adjourned to the next sitting.

Planning, Public Works and Territory and Municipal Services—Standing Committee

Report 9

MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (10.43): I present the following report:

Planning, Public Works and Territory and Municipal Services—Standing Committee—Report 9—Inquiry into RZ3 and RZ4 Residential Redevelopment Policies—Inner North Canberra, dated 9 February 2011, including additional comments (Ms Le Couteur), together with a copy of the extracts of the relevant minutes of proceedings.

I move:

That the report be noted.

This inquiry considered the issues of residential redevelopment in the RZ3 and RZ4 zoned areas of inner north Canberra, as well as some consideration of high density development along transport corridors. For those people who have not been looking at the territory plan and noting where RZ3 and RZ4 are, basically we are going up Northbourne Avenue. On the west side we stop at Sullivans Creek and on the east side it is the bits close in with Limestone and Majura. In some places it is the boundaries but in other places it is further in than that.

The inquiry started in June 2009. One of the advantages of the long period of the inquiry was that we got a lot of submissions. We received 52 submissions and a lot of them were from local residents. Early on we released a discussion paper which I think provided some useful background information. I would like to thank all the people who submitted to the committee—some of them quite passionately because they were speaking about their local areas. I would also, of course, like to thank my fellow committee members. I especially mention the committee chair, Ms Porter, who unfortunately cannot be with us today for medical reasons. I also thank Mr Coe and the committee secretary, Nicola Kosseck.

We made 15 recommendations and I will briefly go through those. Obviously I do not have time to go through them all in detail. The first recommendation was that rule 21, which restricts development in the city side of this area—while there has not been a lot of development in the non-city side—be scrapped. We felt that it really was not achieving its aims and that the non-city side, up to Dickson of this area, was still a really appropriate place to have greater urban intensity. We note that it is already happening there. There are the three buildings where the City Gate Motel used to be. It just seems that it had not fulfilled its purposes and was irrelevant.

We then moved on, in terms of recommendations, to the two areas which had moratoriums on them. Rule 44 is the moratorium on section 63 of Turner. The

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