Page 3635 - Week 10 - Thursday, 19 September 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It has been an exciting time for the planning and urban renewal committee and I am glad that all members present agree with that. On 2 April this year, pursuant to section 73 of the Planning and Development Act 2007, the Minister for Planning and Land Management, Mr Mick Gentleman, referred draft variation 355, Calwell group centre, zone changes and amendments to the Calwell precinct map and code, to the standing committee for consideration and report to the Legislative Assembly.
On 11 April we advised the minister that we would be conducting an inquiry into the draft variation. The committee held one public hearing and heard from six witnesses, including business owners, town planners and the Minister for Planning and Land Management together with directorate officials. The committee received one submission, which brought a wide range of issues to the committee’s attention.
The report has six recommendations, the first being the normal one that, subject to the following recommendations, the draft variation be approved. I thank all the people who provided information and evidence to the inquiry. I particularly thank my fellow members of the committee: Suzanne Orr; Mr Michael Pettersson who replaced Ms Orr; and Mr Mark Parton as the continuing member.
I will make a few comments on the recommendations on my own behalf. Recommendation 3 is a standard recommendation that the ACT government finalises development of master plans in a more timely fashion. We recommend this in all of them because they need to do that.
Recommendations 4 and 5 are the ones that people will find more surprising coming from the planning committee; I think this is the first time in this Assembly that we have recommended more development than the government has. We want to make this variation work for the Calwell shopping centre and, as far as we could see, the government was proposing such a small change that it would be economically impractical. We could see no ill effects from developing a bit more.
Recommendation 4 refers to area A, which is the car wash site. We are proposing that that be amended so residential uses are permitted on the ground floor in areas where there is not a designated primary active frontage. We heard evidence that allowing residential only on higher floors was not economically viable so leaving things as recommended would mean an unviable business continued there.
The more interesting one is recommendation 5, which talks about the parts of the main Calwell shopping centre block, which could have additional storeys. The government proposed only a small bit on the eastern side that was going to look like a tower on one side. Apart from looking silly in my opinion, it did not seem to make an awful lot of sense. The Woolworths underneath that site has recently been revamped so clearly the redevelopment was not going to happen in the next 20 years.
The committee recommended extending the development along the whole back of the shopping centre. That will create the possibility of something happening, as long as rules and criteria are put in to protect solar access and future residents from amenity issues which could arise from any relocation of the loading docks. This does not mean
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video