Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard   

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 5 May 1987
Page: 2587


Mr LANGMORE —by leave-The Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory did not approve one part of the variations proposed to it. The road not approved was intended to provide access to a motel site on section 149, very close to the foreshore of Lake Ginninderra. There is no need for a motel in the area to be built on that site. Section 149 is right on the lake and it cuts across a bicycle track and an area through which people pass as they walk around the lake. No building unrelated to the water has been built as close to any lake in the Australian Capital Territory as this proposed motel would be on section 149. Plans have just been published for a large area further around the lake-section 65-which will be opened up for convivial recreational and community activities in a landscaped setting.

Section 65 is a large area and provides all the opportunities for these types of convivial activities, which are needed in Belconnen. The buildings on section 65 are to be limited to one or two storeys. In contrast, the proposed development conditions for section 149 would have allowed a building of three storeys, and apparently at one stage a proposal to allow buildings even up to five storeys was considered. Buildings of that size would dominate the lake foreshore and interfere with the view from the Belconnen Town Centre, as well as cut into the easy flow of walking space. There is a suitable block for a motel on a rise behind section 149. That would offer fine views and easy access to the lake and cause no interference with recreation on the lake foreshores. I hope that the Commission will use this opportunity for siting a motel.

The other comment made by the Committee on one of the variations relates to the road reservations around the Ainslie shops. These proposed changes will allow a couple of medical centres to relocate out of the suburb to an area close to the shops and for another small suite of offices to be built. A constituent called in to see me after learning of the Commission's proposals only after the public hearing when a Commission representative had called to see her. My constituent indicated that she would prefer that the surgeries not be built next door to her residence but, given that the case for locating them close to the shops is strong, she suggested that they be sited so that car parking is close to the street. That is a reasonable proposal, and I hope that the Commission will consult with her and with other neighbours about the siting of the planned buildings.