Page 4460 - Week 14 - Thursday, 1 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is further our view that the 100 per cent betterment, even in older areas, even for dual occupancies, and even when only unit titled, still will dissuade development. We also believe that it is unnecessary, given the other constraints now imposed upon dual occupancies in these older areas, which are: Limited to blocks of over 100 square metres in area; restricted to a floorscape less than 35 per cent of the block size; restricted to single-storey unless adjacent to an existing two-storey development; designed so that they reflect the character of the street; are consistent with the street setbacks; reflect the low density character of existing developments; and, finally, significant trees will be retained. We believe that there are enough restrictions in there already in relation to dual occupancy in older areas without adding 100 per cent betterment. It is also our view that space limitations provided for medium density are unnecessary, although I think their purpose needs to be explained. You might like to do so on the record, if you are planning to make any response to these comments.
There also remain, I believe, Minister, a number of questions you might like to address, and I will enumerate these. On the two-storey restrictions that have been imposed, how does this affect a person who wishes to Cape Cod their house? Secondly, what happens to the design and siting applications lodged before 21 August that lapsed because of inaction by the ACT Planning Authority? I do not say that in a critical sense. I just ask the question.
Mr Wood: Inaction by applicants, it would be.
MR CORNWELL: Thank you. Further, can you confirm that redevelopment applications prior to 21 August will be assessed on the old planning guidelines? Fourthly, if an application first submitted prior to 21 August had to be resubmitted or was subject to appeal, would it then be judged on old planning guidelines or those post-Lansdown? What do you mean by hardship, Minister, which is something you mentioned in the Government's response? I hope that it does not mean that the ALP mates and supporters can be looked after, but I would like a clearer definition of hardship. Concerning the local area plans for the suburbs of Yarralumla, Griffith, Turner and Ainslie, will this announcement delay or cause to be rejected proposed developments such as Hunter Street in Yarralumla, and Lefroy Street in Griffith? Finally, will two-storey developments already approved or built be now used to allow other two-storey developments adjacent or next-door to the approved two-storey development? These are some of the questions I have been asked by members of the community, and I would welcome a response at some time so that people may be clearer on what is the Government's intention. I have deliberately read them into the Hansard so that you can address the matters, Minister.
Community involvement in local area plans is to be welcomed. The Liberal Party believes that this initiative could do much to ameliorate the antagonism and distrust that too often exist between developers and residents. However, I would stress that the operative words are "could do". Unless the Government is prepared to ensure that these local area plans are acted upon and, more particularly, that the decisions arising from them are acted upon by the departments and authorities involved, I believe that the exercise is futile.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .