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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (19 August) . . Page.. 2748 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Let's go a bit further. Let's look at height controls. Mr Speaker, under the current Territory Plan and under the planning controls of the previous government, basement car parking was permitted in addition to two-storey development in residential areas. Under the current Territory Plan without variation 200, under the plans and controls of the previous government, loft development was permitted as part of any standard two-storey development in a residential area. The consequence of permitting basement car parking and loft development, in addition to two storeys, would be to create three or four-storey development in a residential area. That is what those members who support Mrs Dunne's motion today will be voting for-de facto three or four-storey development in a two-storey zone.

All of the issues I have outlined are issues that variation 200 seeks to address, and does so in a comprehensive way. Clearly, it is not an acceptable outcome from the government's perspective and, clearly, it is the reason we will not be supporting the proposition from Mrs Dunne this morning.

Mr Speaker, the garden city variation introduces stronger rules for dual and triple occupancy development and reinforces the existing policies of the Territory Plan by retaining opportunities for additional housing development around local and group centres. The government has addressed the range of concerns that have been raised by introducing new planning provisions that prohibit the amalgamation of blocks for multiunit redevelopment in suburban areas, something apparently the Democrats oppose, by restricting the maximum plot ratio of dual occupancy developments in suburban areas, something apparently Mrs Dunne opposes, by introducing a maximum permissible plot ratio for single dwellings, something apparently Mrs Cross opposes.

The garden city variation also increases the required amount of private open space and introduces a requirement that 50 per cent of the private open space be a permeable surface or able to be permeated by water surface. It also provides increased protection from overlooking and overshadowing, something apparently the Democrats and Mrs Cross oppose. All these improvements would be lost if the garden city variation were rejected by the Assembly. That, Mr Speaker, is simply not acceptable.

The government also considered the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment. Some changes have been made, such as to agree with the committee's recommendations that the 800 square metres block limit for dual occupancies be maintained. (Extension of time granted.)

A further change has been made to prohibit the separate titling of new dual occupancies in suburban areas. This provision, together with the sliding scale plot ratio, will ensure that dual occupancies in suburban areas are limited in both potential number and size. However, dual occupancies will continue to be permissible in suburban areas, but without unit titling, subject to mandatory high quality and sustainable design processes, to meet demonstrated social needs. The couple that Mrs Dunne referred to in Chapman can build a dual occupancy as long as their block in large enough; they just cannot unit title it.

Many groups have now advised that they support the provisions of this variation, rather than the proposal from Mrs Dunne to revert to the existing policies of the

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