Page 3175 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
were thorough and accessible. There was some confusion amongst some submitters and stakeholders in relation to the nature of the planning study undertaken by the proponents. The committee acknowledges that having the proponent source and pay for a consultant to prepare the study may create a public perception that the consultant is not assessing a project independently, and it recommends that ACTPLA commission all planning studies itself and, where a territory plan variation is initiated by request from a proponent, require the proponent to fund the cost of the study.
Regarding the first part of the variation, the committee notes that there is currently very little difference between provisions for RZ4 and RZ5 developments. Other than a small number of site-specific requirements, the existing provisions do not allow height to be used to distinguish between the two zones. The Canberra spatial plan provides for increased residential intensification along major transport corridors and within a 7.5-kilometre radius of the city centre. In this context, the committee considers that raising the height limit for RZ5 zones will provide ACTPLA with more distinct options when planning for future urban development areas. It will also distinguish RZ5 as being high density, consistent with the objective of “high density urbanised settings”.
The committee also notes that criterion 25(d) of the multi-unit housing development code applied only to “development on adjoining residential land” and is “not for development within a single site”. The committee is concerned that, as multi-unit developments often incorporate multiple building elements on a single site, this criterion does not appear adequate to protect the amenity for residents of future multi-unit developments. It makes two recommendations in relation to this: one in relation to protecting the solar access requirements of developments on the same land in addition to protecting adjacent land and another that the proposed changes to rule R25 and criterion C25 of the residential zones multi-unit housing development code part A(5) proceed.
Most submissions received were in relation to the second part—that is, Lyons, blocks 3 and 4 section 69, and block 8 section 47. The committee noted that block 8 section 47 had already been developed—that is, the Freycinet development of 24 public housing retirement village units, a three-storey development of 24 units with basement parking. There is no current proposal to increase the height of this development, although it is still proposed to be rezoned to RZ5.
The development application for stage 1 of the development of block 3 section 69 was approved in April 2008, and the construction of the single-storey villas and the blocks of two and three-storey self-care units has begun. Ms Le Couteur, in her dissenting remarks, makes comment on the existing retirement development, which the committee was not required to consider, as I previously explained. There will be a variation in the height of the buildings on the site once the whole site is completed as there are some three and two-storey villas on the site. However, these are adjacent to the Burnie Street one-storey development which already exists at the rear of the site and which was developed, the committee heard, to be more in sympathy with the adjoining development, whereas the blocks moving towards and running alongside Melrose Drive are more suitable for the six and 10-storey developments, as will now be possible under these variations, forming a transition from building heights from Burnie Street to Melrose Drive.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .