Chapter 5 Amendment 61 – West Basin
Introduction
Key features of Amendment 61
Urban Structure
Building height and form
Lake reclamation and land bridge
Waterfront promenade
Discussion
Land reclamation and heritage issues
Building height, development incentives and aspect
Open space
Conclusions
Introduction |
5.1 |
A key objective of Amendment 61 is extending the city to the lake. The amendment states that West Basin will be a vibrant cultural and entertainment precinct on a waterfront promenade. In particular, the amendment states that the ‘area will create a new city neighbourhood, extending the city to the lake with a cosmopolitan mixture of shops, businesses, cafes and recreation and tourist activities and accommodation.’ |
| 5.2 |
This chapter outlines the key measures and objectives of Amendment 60, and highlights the key issues raised in the roundtable public hearing. |
|
|
Key features of Amendment 61 |
| 5.3 |
On coming into effect, Amendment 61 will introduce a series of planning principles and policies which will be incorporated into the Plan. These relate to:
- extending the city to the lake;
- reducing the barrier to the lake by covering a section of Parkes Way;
- reclaiming part of West Basin to build a waterfront promenade for recreation and tourist activities;
- providing for a mix of land uses including cultural, tourism, retail, offices and residential uses;
- providing pedestrian, cycle, ferry connections between West Basin, the city and national attractions;
- providing continuous public access on a waterfront promenade around the central basins linking Kings and Commonwe alth Parks and the Nation al Museum of Australia;
- enhancing the role of Edinburgh Avenue as an approach route from the city to the National Museum of Australia, the Australian National University and West Basin;
- enhancing the Water Axis as a new location for contemporary works (including new national institutions, public spaces and artworks); and
- developing an active pedestrian promenade along Commonwealth Avenue fronted by buildings to reinforce the National Triangle and extend city activity towards the Parliamentary Zone.
|
| 5.4 |
A key principle underpinning Amendment 61 is ‘to conserve and develop Lake Burley Griffin and Foreshores as the major landscape feature which unifies the National Capital's central precincts and the surrounding inner hills; and to provide for National Capital uses and a diversity of recreational opportunities.’1
|
| 5.5 |
The NCA noted that the ‘waterfront promenade will, of course, have continuous public access.’2
|
|
|
Urban Structure |
| 5.6 |
The amendment will ‘reinforce the main avenues framing the National Triangle as important symbolic connections and formal approaches to Parliament House (Commonwealth Avenue) and City Hill (Commonwealth and Edinburgh Avenues).’3 In particular, the amendment will ‘extend the city grid of streets and paths from city to West Basin, maintaining the connectivity and accessibility of the urban block pattern.’4
|
| 5.7 |
Figure 5.1 depicts the indicative urban structure and process of extending the city to the lake.
Figure 5.1 Amendment 61: West Basin indicative urban structure
 
Source National Capital Authority, Amendment 61 – West Basin , p. 5. |
|
|
Building height and form |
| 5.8 |
The amendment indicates that building heights will generally be medium rise up to 25 metres but taller building elements may be considered on sites north of Parkes Way having regard to:
- access to sunlight;
- visual and environmental amenity; and
- microclimate.
|
| 5.9 |
Building height on the waterfront promenade will be limited to 8 metres (maximum of 2 storeys).5
|
| 5.10 |
The parapet height of buildings fronting the promenade will be a maximum of 16 metres. Taller building elements to a maximum of 25 metres, and not exceeding 30 per cent of the site area, may be considered.6
|
| 5.11 |
The amendment notes that ‘buildings above 25 metres in height are to be the subject of wind testing, including down draught conditions and turbulence, to ensure the development does not have adverse impacts on building entrances and the public domain.’7
|
| 5.12 |
In relation to building form, the amendment states that ‘new buildings, are encouraged to be delivered through design competitions in order to encourage innovation and design excellence.’8
|
|
|
Lake reclamation and land bridge |
| 5.13 |
The amendment will provide for a land bridge over a section of Parkes Way for streets to extend to the lake. In addition, the amendment will reclaim land from the lake to establish a public waterfront promenade, reflecting the geometry of the 1918 Griffin Plan.9 Figure 5.2 depicts the proposed area of reclamation and the land bridge.
Figure 5.2 Amendment 61: Indicative Reclamation and Land Bridge
Source National Capital Authority, Amendment 61 – West Basin , p. 5. |
| 5.14 |
In relation to the proposal to reclaim part of the lake, the NCA stated that this will deepen the water in this area which will help to reduce algal blooms which are a feature of this area.10
|
| 5.15 |
The NCA advised that storm water discharge from the centre of Civic flowing into the lake would be purified before it reaches the lake.11
|
|
|
Waterfront promenade |
| 5.16 |
The amendment will seek to maintain a ‘continuous public pedestrian network with access to the foreshore with high quality pedestrian amenities including lighting, furniture, signage and landscape materials.’12
|
| 5.17 |
The promenade will ‘link nation al attractions with a continuous pedestrian network, including a high-span pedestrian bridge connecting the National Museum and the Parliamentary Zone.’ The indicative waterfront promenade is shown in Figure 5.3 and a cross section is shown in Figure 5.4. |
| 5.18 |
The width of the waterfront promenade will be a minimum of 55 metres.
Figure 5.3 Amendment 61: Indicative Waterfront Promenade
Source National Capital Authority, Amendment 61 – West Basin , p. 8.
Figure 5.4 Amendment 61: Indicative Cross Section of Waterfront Promenade
Source National Capital Authority, Amendment 61 – West Basin , p. 8.
Figure 5.5 Amendment 61: Indicative development
Source National Capital Authority, Amendment 61 – West Basin , p. 8. |
| |
|
Discussion |
| 5.19 |
The complexities of the dual planning regime in the ACT were evident during discussion on Amendment 61. Mr Shanahan, the director and owner of Mr Spokes Bike Hire, which is situated on territory land, requested clarification about the future of his business as a result of Amendment 61.13 Mr Shanahan commented that ‘it was up to us to take the initiative’ to approach the NCA, however, ‘there has since been no form alapproach from the NCA to us about our future and this certainly concerns us.’14 Mr Shanahan further commented that ‘it is interesting that St John’s, the RSL and every other player involved in these amendments have been approached but not the little guy who has invested his life savings in a business.’15
|
| 5.20 |
When the committee queried why this business was not consulted as part of the NCA’s normal consultation process and approaches to other organisations, the Authority responded:
…this particular business is on territory land and it is in a development node currently in the National Capital Plan, so in effect this does not have a substantial change on Mr Shanahan’s current agreements—and I am not sure if they are a licence or a lease—with the ACT government. So we were not proposing substantial changes to what is currently the climate for Mr Shanahan’s proposal. It is true that if the amendment is not disallowed then there would be other potential for businesses of a similar nature, but I am not aware that there is any exclusivity associated with his current arrangements.16
|
| 5.21 |
The NCA further advised ‘that should the amendments go through we will be willing to sit down and discuss the issues that [Mr Spokes Bike Hire] have raised and as we have put in writing to them.’17
|
| 5.22 |
In response to a question as to whether Mr Spokes would have to move if Amendment 61 proceeded, the NCA advised that ‘is entirely up to the territory, because it is territory land, to determine when and how they will release the sites in that area together with the components of national land associated with any reclamation of the lake.’18
|
| 5.23 |
The Canberra Business Council (CBC) registered its support for Amendments 59, 60 and 61 but raised questions about the potential location of a convention centre in the area covered by Amendment 61. The CBC commented that ‘we are just saying as a business council that we would like to see a thorough investigation before a decision is made to place the convention centre in one place.’19
|
| 5.24 |
The NCA responded that ‘there is nothing in this amendment that prescribes that a convention facility will be on this site.’20 The NCA noted that ‘we are on public record as saying that we think West Basin is the best site for a national conference facility and convention facility, but at the recent ministerial forum between our Minister Lloyd and the Chief Minister, John Stanhope, it was agreed that we pursue jointly looking at the best site in Canberra for a national conference facility.’21
|
| 5.25 |
Some of the additional issues raised during the roundtable public hearing included:
- land reclamation and heritage issue;
- building height, development incentives and aspect
- loss of open space
|
|
|
Land reclamation and heritage issues |
| 5.26 |
In relation to filling in the lake, the WBGS commented that it would be a bad precedent and ‘once it is established here it can keep going.’22
|
| 5.27 |
The WBGS was also concerned about placing a major cultural facility in this area where the ‘the principal view, shall we say, from that place is the traffic crossing Commonwealth Avenue bridge.’23
|
| 5.28 |
The WBGS also noted that these buildings would be ‘located on top of a very significant heritage site, a place registered in the Commonwealth Heritage List, which are the limestone outcrops on the edge of what is today the lake.’24 The Friends of Aranda Bushland (FOAB) also drew attention to the issue of limestone formations in the area which could possibly be affected by Amendment 60. The FAOB also noted that the Acton Shale on Acton Peninsula is also significant. The FOAB indicated that it would be writing to the ‘ACT Minister for Planning and/or the ACT Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services asking whether the Acton Peninsula Limestone Deposit is or can be protected under the Heritage Act 2004 (ACT).’25
|
| 5.29 |
The NCA was adamant that the ‘ West Basin development proposal does not impact on the limestone outcrop.’26
|
| 5.30 |
The WBGS argued that in view of the heritage status of the area, ‘this is not a site for a convention centre and a luxury hotel.’27 In addition, the WBGS rejected ‘the idea of two-storey pavilions around the lake, the four restaurants or whatever, because this once again creates the precedent of the urbanising edge of the lake.’28 The WBGS concluded that ‘there may be other parts of Canberra where that type of lake shore experience would be beautiful, but we think that within a central national area the sense of the unfolding landscape against which the city sits is very important.’29
|
| 5.31 |
The ACT Heritage Council also brought attention to issue of Parkes Way and the legacy of Holford noting that the views from the road are spectacular. In addition, the Heritage Council raised issues about the tree species and the fact that most planting was done in the early 1960s and the use by life is about 50 to 60 years.30
|
|
|
Building height, development incentives and aspect |
| 5.32 |
In relation to building height, the WBGS commented that this amendment is all about water views which people experience now. The WBGS observed, however, that through Amendment 61 the views would be taken away and sold ‘back to you at $2 million apiece.’31 The WBGS concluded that ‘it is creating a series of apartments which will have spectacular views and will take away part of the wonderful experiences of Canberra as we know it today.’32 The WBGS stated:
The overall point that we want to make about this West Basin development is that if we start saying, ‘Okay, well perhaps we don’t fill in the lake, perhaps we don’t have the convention centre, perhaps we shouldn’t have buildings of that height or bulk or physical extent down Commonwealth Avenue,’ then we have ended up like Monty Python’s knight. What’s left of this proposal? Nothing very much. So the question is whether this proposal should be quietly forgotten and we get back to building the city the way it should be.33
|
| 5.33 |
The NCA in response to the WBGS suggested that it has planners and designers in its organisation ‘that have the best grasp on some of Griffin’s intentions for the capital at this point in time.’34 The NCA commented that ‘our understanding is that Griffin proposed five urban waterfront developments for Canberra: one at Yarralumla, one at West Basin, two at Eastlake and another at the bottom of Telopea Park.’35
|
| 5.34 |
In relation to the objective of creating water views, the NCA commented that there is ‘nothing negative about the desire of people to have water views so long as it does not isolate other people’s vistas to a great extent and, more importantly, on this site, still provides public rights and access to the waterfront itself.’36
|
| 5.35 |
The WBGS in response, stated:
A pedestrian walkway on a narrow sliver of land in front of luxury hotel reduces the public to intruders in a world of privilege, as the experience of walking in front of the open window walls of the silver service restaurant at the Hyatt Hotel, Campbell’s Cove, Sydney demonstrates.37
|
| 5.36 |
The WBGS suggested that in contrast to this outcome, the ‘foreshore must be a wide, generous, continuous zone of open space, planted with a continuous avenue of trees to modulate the pedestrian experience and to screen urban development.’38 The WBGS stated:
The key to achieving this outcome is to zone the foreshore ‘Open Space/Waterfront Promenade’ all the way around West Basin, ie remove the ‘Land Use C’ zoning of the Acton Peninsula frontage, remove the convention centre/hotel proposal from contention and return this section of the West Basin scheme to the ‘green’ condition shown in the 2004 NCA Griffin Legacy document.39
|
| 5.37 |
Dr Romaldo Guirgola commented that ‘I found this proposal of reaching the water a very natural thing in terms of the extension of the core of the city in relation to something else, rather than being a fortress in itself.’40 Dr Guirgola, in relation to directing part of Parkes Way into a tunnel, commented that he is opposed to the idea of a tunnel. He commented that every city is now trying to demolish tunnels and ‘we arrive 50 years later to build a tunnel.’41
|
| 5.38 |
The RAIA was also opposed to the aim of making Parkes Way a tunnel on the grounds that it is a gateway to the city. The RAIA noted that we should be celebrating the city at that point on Parkes Way’.42
|
| 5.39 |
The NCA responded that Parkes Way is a barrier between the city and waterfront. The NCA stated:
Preserving the landscape as an ornamental landscape for a freeway is a very poor surrogate for a city park. It should be an active place that people can get to easily. At the moment the connections to West Basin are very poor. Most people drive there. Some people are fit enough to cycle there, but there is one small pedestrian bridge and the rest is a maze of major freeways, which is most uninviting. I would like to emphasise that the proposals are not about creating a real estate opportunity; they are about creating public domain and building the sort of urban community that many Canberrans aspire to have in their city centre, which is currently dominated by sterile car parks and this maze of over scaled freeway infrastructure that I was talking about.43
|
| 5.40 |
The Canberra Chapter of the WBGS argued that the proposal lacked sufficient analysis in relation to sustainability, and social, environmental and economic implications.44 The WBGS stated:
The fact that many of the studies that purport to be available already to underpin these plans are not in fact publicly available and that some of them are not completed suggests that there is still a good deal of work to be done before these three initiatives can be classified as other than ‘high risk’ for preserving the heritage and sustainability of Canberra as a city.45
|
| 5.41 |
In contrast, the Property Council supported the proposal noting also that it has support from the ACT Government.46
|
| 5.42 |
The Hindmarsh Group was not opposed to the West Basin proposal but questioned the implementation of the proposal and its impact on the other amendments. Hindmarsh stated:
I hope that the committee, in giving its considerations to these three proposals, might also perhaps address the questions of timing and priorities. We just cannot do everything at once and there is always the danger of not being able to do anything very well and the economic impact that that will have of not being able to at least start something and keep the momentum going.47
|
| 5.43 |
The NCA, in response to concerns about implementation, that ‘what is really important is not to have a fragmented vision for the central national area.’48 The NCA suggested that some flexibility was required and, if for example, in 35 years part of the lake had been reclaimed and a public promenade constructed, this would be ‘an important mark without having to go to all the other development opportunities that are within West Basin.’49
|
| 5.44 |
The Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA) brought attention to the orientation of the proposed development and the microclimate. The development has a south facing shore with no northerly orientation. The RAIA concluded that ‘it is highly questionable, given the slope of the land et cetera, whether it could actually be successful.’50
|
| 5.45 |
The RAIA in examining the 1918 Griffin Plan noted that there was no development on the northern side but where development was close to the waters edge it ‘was all on the south side where it had northern orientation.’51
|
| 5.46 |
The NCA rejected the concerns about the aspect of the development commenting that the ‘south-west in Canberra is a beautiful aspect, particularly during Canberra summer and winter evenings.’52
|
|
|
Open space |
| 5.47 |
Mr Keith Storey opposed the amendment commenting that it is inappropriate particularly ‘when we are talking about the importance of the parkway in relation to Constitution Avenue.’53 Mr Storey stated:
This is a very narrow area, even if you fill out the lake. My view is that it should remain a strong landscape foreground, in contrast to the built-up area of Civic centre. In the future, I think one important consideration is the university facility that might be provided there as part of the water gate.54
|
| 5.48 |
The Committee Chairman of Capital Towers noted that ‘we oppose any building between the lake at West Basin and the existing road system.’55 The Chairman Capital Towers stated:
…as the number of people working and living in the city increases, the demand for parkland will increase as well. Reducing the amount of parkland is just the wrong way to go. We should be retaining the parkland as it is. If it needs any cafes around the edge of the lake or something, that is a different issue, but we should keep what we have and not allow it to be just handed over to developers to make a great deal of money out of it.56
|
| 5.49 |
The NCA in response to concerns about loss of open space and recreation stated:
The lakeshore is to remain predominantly bushland in character. Only a very small proportion of the total lakeshore, 800m out of 40km, is being altered at West Basin. The foreshores will have continuous public access. Major tree planting along the landscape promenade is designed to screen much of the frontage of the urban development and merge it with the surrounding natural setting, and continue the quality of tree-lined foreshores, outdoor sitting areas and public spaces around the lake. Widening of the promenade from 45 metres (as proposed in the original release of DA 61) to 55 metres can be adopted. This will provide additional tree-planting and landscape space, and accommodate a segregated cycle path.57
|
|
|
Conclusions |
| 5.50 |
Amendment 61 – West Basin is notable for its size and scope. It is proposed that part of the lake be reclaimed using infill taken from the proposed Parkes Way, Kings Avenue tunnel. |
| 5.51 |
The amendment provides for a land bridge over a section of Parkes Way for streets to extend to the lake. A waterfront promenade will be created and stepped back from that will be a series of buildings. Building height on the waterfront promenade will be limited to 8 metres (maximum of two storeys). The parapat height of buildings fronting the promenade will be a maximum of 16 metres, and taller building elements to a maximum of 25 metres, and not exceeding 30 per cent of the site area may be considered. Taller buildings may be considered on sites north of Parkes Way. |
| 5.52 |
In considering this matter further, the committee examined the NCA’s 2004 report, The Griffin Legacy, Canberra – the Nation’s Capital in the 21 st Century.58 In that report, the NCA sets out a plan for West Basin which is moderate in tone, less dominated by development and much more inclusive through the use of extensive green area. The NCA’s 2004 artist impression of West Basin is shown in Figure 5.6.
|
| 5.53 |
The committee proposes, as with Amendments 56, 59 and 60, that Amendment 61 be disallowed and reworked. One group argued that if the West Basin proposal is to proceed it should be scaled back and conform more closely to the NCA’s 2004 proposal rather than the proposal in Amendment 61. The Walter Burley Griffin Society proposed that the foreshore should be zoned ‘Open Space/Waterfront Promenade’ all the way round West Basin rather than the ‘Land Use C’ zoning of Acton Peninsula frontage.
Figure 5.6 NCA West Basin Precinct - 2004
Source The Griffin Legacy, Canberra – the Nation’s Capital in the 21 st Century |
| 5.54 |
The evidence put forward by the operators of Mr Spokes Bike Hire highlighted the ongoing difficulties associated with the dual planning regime which operates in the territory. Under the current regime, NCA decisions can impact significantly on occupiers of territory land, yet these people are often afforded little or no consideration in the decision-making process. This remains an issue of great concern to the committee. |
| 5.55 |
In addition to these comments the committee notes the views of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects which drew attention to the overly south facing aspect and questioned ‘whether it could actually be successful.’ The NCA responded that the ‘south-west in Canberra is a beautiful aspect.’ The committee, however, does not dismiss the views of the RAIA. |
| 5.56 |
A range of heritage concerns were also raised during the hearing which again the NCA simply dismissed. The committee does not take these issues lightly and it is for these reasons that we believe that through more work and consultation a better product could be achieved. |
| 5.57 |
In view of these concerns, the committee cannot support Amendment 61 in its present state. As with the other amendments, the NCA should take into account the committee’s views and undertake an effective consultation program ensuring that individuals, organisations and profession al groups are adequately consulted. The committee’s view is that there is not widespread grassroots support for the Griffin Legacy amendments as they currently stand. |
| 5.58 |
The committee has, in recommendation 3, proposed that the Minister move that Amendment 61 be disallowed.
Senator Ross Lightfoot
Chairman
14 March 2007 |
Footnotes
| 1 |
National Capital Authority, Report on Consultation, Draft Amendment 61, p. 3. Back
|
| 2 |
Mr Todd Rohl, Managing Director, Planning and Urban Design, NCA, Transcript, p. 57. Back |
| 3 |
National Capital Authority, Amendment 61 – West Basin, p.5. Back |
| 4 |
National Capital Authority, Amendment 61 – West Basin, p.5. Back |
| 5 |
National Capital Authority, Amendment 61 – West Basin, p.6. Back |
| 6 |
National Capital Authority, Amendment 61 – West Basin, p.6. Back |
| 7 |
National Capital Authority, Amendment 61 – West Basin, p.6. Back |
| 8 |
National Capital Authority, Amendment 61 – West Basin, p.6. Back |
| 9 |
National Capital Authority, Amendment 61 – West Basin, p.6. Back |
| 10 |
Mr Stuart Mackenzie, Principal Urban Designer, National Capital Authority, Transcript, p. 58. Back |
| 11 |
Mr Stuart Mackenzie, Principal Urban Designer, National Capital Authority, Transcript, p. 58. Back |
| 12 |
National Capital Authority, Amendment 61 – West Basin, p.8. Back |
| 13 |
Mr Martin Shanahan, Mr Spokes Bike Hire, Transcript, p. 60. Back |
| 14 |
Mr Martin Shanahan, Mr Spokes Bike Hire, Transcript, p. 60. Back |
| 15 |
Mr Martin Shanahan, Mr Spokes Bike Hire, Transcript, p. 60. Back |
| 16 |
Ms Annabelle Pegrum, Chief Executive, NCA, Transcript, p. 64. Back |
| 17 |
Mr Todd Rohl, Managing Director, Planning and Urban Design, NCA, Transcript, p. 64. Back |
| 18 |
Ms Annabelle Pegrum, Chief Executive, National Capital Authority, Transcript, p. 65. Back |
| 19 |
Mr John Miller, Executive Director, Canberra Business Council, Transcript, p. 61. Back |
| 20 |
Ms Annabelle Pegrum, Chief Executive, National Capital Authority, Transcript, p. 61. Back |
| 21 |
Ms Annabelle Pegrum, Chief Executive, National Capital Authority, Transcript, p. 61. Back |
| 22 |
Professor James Weirick, President, Walter Burley Griffin Society, Transcript, p. 62. Back |
| 23 |
Professor James Weirick, President, Walter Burley Griffin Society, Transcript, p. 63. Back |
| 24 |
Professor James Weirick, President, Walter Burley Griffin Society, Transcript, p. 63. Back |
| 25 |
Friends of the Aranda Bushland, Submission 3, p. 1. Back |
| 26 |
Ms Annabelle Pegrum, Chief Executive, National Capital Authority, Transcript, p. 66. Back |
| 27 |
Professor James Weirick, President, Walter Burley Griffin Society, Transcript, p. 63. Back |
| 28 |
Professor James Weirick, President, Walter Burley Griffin Society, Transcript, p. 63. Back |
| 29 |
Professor James Weirick, President, Walter Burley Griffin Society, Transcript, p. 63. Back |
| 30 |
Dr Dianne Firth, Deputy Chair, ACT Heritage Council, Transcript, p. 75. Back |
| 31 |
Professor James Weirick, President, Walter Burley Griffin Society, Transcript, p. 64. Back |
| 32 |
Professor James Weirick, President, Walter Burley Griffin Society, Transcript, p. 64. Back |
| 33 |
Professor James Weirick, President, Walter Burley Griffin Society, Transcript, p. 64. Back |
| 34 |
Ms Annabelle Pegrum, Chief Executive, National Capital Authority, Transcript, p. 66. Back |
| 35 |
Ms Annabelle Pegrum, Chief Executive, National Capital Authority, Transcript, p. 66. Back |
| 36 |
Ms Annabelle Pegrum, Chief Executive, National Capital Authority, Transcript, p. 67. Back |
| 37 |
Walter Burley Griffin Society, Submission 1, p.27. Back |
| 38 |
Walter Burley Griffin Society, Submission 1, p.27. Back |
| 39 |
Walter Burley Griffin Society, Submission 1, p.27. Back |
| 40 |
Dr Romaldo Guirgola, Transcript, p. 67. Back |
| 41 |
Dr Romaldo Guirgola, Transcript, p. 67. Back |
| 42 |
Robert Thorne, ACT Chapter Planning Committee, RAIA, Transcript, p. 71. Back |
| 43 |
Mr Stuart Mackenzie, Principal Urban Designer, National Capital Authority, Transcript, p. 72. Back |
| 44 |
Mr Brett Odgers, Transcript, p. 68. Back |
| 45 |
Mr Brett Odgers, Transcript, p. 68. Back |
| 46 |
Mr Noel McCann, Council Member and Chair, Sustainable Committee, Property Council of Australia, Transcript, p. 69. Back |
| 47 |
John Hindmarsh, General Manager, Hindmarsh, Transcript, p. 72. Back |
| 48 |
Ms Annabelle Pegrum, Chief Executive, National Capital Authority, Transcript, p. 74. Back |
| 49 |
Ms Annabelle Pegrum, Chief Executive, National Capital Authority, Transcript, p. 74. Back |
| 50 |
Mr Robert Thorne, ACT Chapter Planning Committee, RAIA, Transcript, p. 70. Back |
| 51 |
Mr Robert Thorne, ACT Chapter Planning Committee, RAIA, Transcript, p. 70. Back |
| 52 |
Mr Stuart Mackenzie, Principal Urban Designer, National Capital Authority, Transcript, p. 72. Back |
| 53 |
Mr Keith Storey, Transcript, p. 69. Back |
| 54 |
Mr Keith Storey, Transcript, p. 69. Back |
| 55 |
Mr Noel Matthews, Executive Committee Chairman, Capital Towers, Transcript, p. 70. Back |
| 56 |
Mr Noel Matthews, Executive Committee Chairman, Capital Towers, Transcript, p. 70. Back |
| 57 |
National Capital Authority, Report on Consultation, Draft Amendment 61, p. 13. Back |
| 58 |
National Capital Authority, The Griffin Legacy, Canberra – the Nation’s Capital in the 21 st Century, 2004. Back |
Back to top