Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3120 ..
MR SMYTH (continuing):
I am told by my department that this is incorrect. My department has informed me that in the financial year to March 2000 this year a total of 137 dual occupancies have been approved in the ACT. In the year before that, the 1998-99 financial year, there were 135 dual occupancies approved in total, and the year before that, 1997-98, only 67.
The dual occupancy rate in central Canberra, for example, where there are about 17,000 single residential dwellings, is 0.9-less than one per cent. So you can hardly say with any credibility that half a suburb is disappearing to dual occupancy development. And anyway, an average suburb size is about 1,400 dwellings. So I would ask that Mr Corbell withdraw his figures and apologise to the Assembly for what he has said.
Furthermore, Mr Speaker, I would also like to correct another statement made by Mr Corbell yesterday. He is recorded on page 29 of Hansard as saying:
The direction to planning and land management on variation 114 to the Territory Plan was to ensure that dual occupancy does not occur in the old Red Hill precinct.
Mr Speaker, the word "ensure" does not appear in the direction that was given by the Assembly. In fact, the direction says:
to review the Territory Plan as it relates to variation 114, heritage places, Red Hill precinct, to provide for a development intensity of no more than one dwelling per block in the Red Hill housing precinct.
The word "ensure" is not in his motion. The direction is to review, not to simply ensure that this sort of development does not happen. Once again, Mr Corbell is wrong. He should withdraw this comment and he should apologise to the Assembly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .