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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2978 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

blocks. Less drastic examples can be seen in suburbs like Ainslie and Griffith, where the rate of dual occupancy and town house development has been quite noticeable.

A person living in a 200-metre zone who sees this rate of redevelopment elsewhere in Canberra would understandably be fearful of whether the houses around them will disappear over night. My understanding, though, is that this situation will not occur under DVP200. The 200-metre zone is not the same as the B11 or B12 zones found in some suburbs.

The DVP is more about retaining the previous rules about general residential redevelopment within the 200 or 300-metre zone-for example, allowing dual occupancies or town houses but with a two-storey height limit and imposing even tighter controls on redevelopment outside this zone. If my understanding is incorrect, then I ask the minister to clarify this point, as it is definitely causing concern to some residents within the redevelopment zones.

I am not that worried about building industry concerns that DVP200 will restrict redevelopment activity in the short term. We have to remember that any new buildings will be around for decades and will set the framework for the further development of this city.

Spending a few more months now and getting it right will be to the community's benefit in the long term. We need to look at how the details of DVP200 impact on designs of residential dwellings, as I am aware of concerns raised by some architects and builders that DVP200 will impose very strict controls on what can be built on small blocks in particular and may preclude some types of housing.

We are also interested in the requirements in the DVP for more permeable surfaces and minimum areas of open space, as we believe that the government needs to review the impact of urban consolidation on urban stormwater run-off and look at ways of better retaining this run-off. Again, though, I want to look at the detail. I therefore look forward to the government's response, the comments that come in on DVP200 and the planning committee's consideration of this variation.

MS DUNDAS (4.28): Mrs Dunne is asking us to support her call for the government to withdraw draft variation 200 to allow further consultation and discussions on its implications. I admit I have a number of concerns, as it appears the majority of members in the Assembly do, regarding draft variation 200, especially in relation to affordable and accessible housing. Problems we already face in this city will be compounded if draft variation 200 passes unamended.

I also have concerns about how the draft variation relates to other strategic plans being developed by the new government. Despite the protestations of Minister Corbell, it does appear that we are on track to have a grab bag of planning documents and feasibility studies that may or may not complement each other and may work to destabilise the strategic planning this city is so desperately crying out for.

We have already seen the government, perhaps in response to community pressure, extend consultation on this variation until the end of the week. Maybe that is what we should be asking for-more time to consult on the draft variation. Of course, that does

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