Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 410 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

75 square metres in the gross floor area, where it does not meet the requirement that it will have only one storey, then it will be subject to appeal.

As we look at the context in which redevelopment in existing suburbs is occurring, it is important that we protect the rights of existing residents in those suburbs. I am particularly concerned, as a member who represents an area of Canberra which has almost all of Canberra's older suburbs in it, that older residents in those suburbs have the opportunity to protect their suburb from redevelopment which is completely out of context and character with the suburb as it has developed to date.

This is not to say that we should simply keep little weatherboard cottages on very large blocks in suburbs like Yarralumla, O'Connor or Ainslie. Clearly there is scope for better utilisation of that land, and clearly many existing residents in those suburbs have taken advantage of that opportunity to extend or renovate their existing dwellings. But we should not permit, without the opportunity for appeal or objection, developments which are grossly out of context with surrounding patterns of residential development. We need some sort of safeguard, particularly for older residents, so that they can have their views heard and taken into account by the independent Commissioner for Land and Planning in addressing objections to those particular types of redevelopment or development.

That is the rationale behind the Labor Party's support for this bill today. It is a bill which we believe is justified in the context of the considerable community concern which exists in relation to the scale of these developments. We believe that it will not have the adverse impact claimed by some in relation to the broader range of redevelopment and renovation activity that occurs in our established suburbs. It is a bill which is worth the support of this place, and I would urge other members to support it.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (4.08): The government will oppose the bill. We believe that the balance we currently have in notification and appeals rights is suitable. We believe it is adequate and addresses some of the needs Mr Corbell outlined. It must be about a balance. You want a balanced approach to this issue.

The amendments to the act and the regulations in 1997 gave effect to a range of initiatives aimed at reducing unnecessary red tape and, in consequence of that, exposure to review in the AAT because it was not felt to be necessary. Many of the amendments then received bilateral support. In fact, no motion for disallowance of the amending regulations was put.

Following the 1997 amendments, Ms Tucker succeeded in having the standing provisions in the land act lowered by removing the requirement that a person have an interest that is substantially and adversely affected. At that time she also attempted to restore third-party appeals against single residential development but did not succeed.

Nearly all single-storey, single-dwelling development is exempted from notification. If notifiable at all, that development is only notifiable to the neighbouring lessees. It is entirely inappropriate, therefore, to provide for third-party appeals against a development that is not notifiable. If appealable at all, the development should be appealable only if it is required to be notified. However, the bill continues the exemption of a range of single-

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .