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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2009 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 27 August 2009) . . Page.. 3819 ..

The government will not be supporting the disallowance motion today. Again, it just provides further reinforcing of this fundamental problem the Greens face: whilst they have good intentions, they are missing the bigger picture. A strange and contradictory position taken by them on this issue confirms that. It is, as I say, a tension between their hearts and their heads. We can hope that their heads will prevail.

MS BURCH (Brindabella) (12.22): Ms Le Couteur’s disallowance motion relating to rule 27A contained within variation No 288 to the territory plan may well reduce the dwelling density for the redevelopment of the site on Melrose Drive at Lyons. Variation number 288 to the territory plan proposes to change the zone of blocks 3 and 4 section 69 and block 8 section 47 Lyons from medium density to high density residential. The variation also changes the allowable building heights in the multi-unit housing development code part A(5) to enable increased building heights up to a maximum of six storeys for the future high density residential zones.

Although site specific, the rule enabling a 10-storey development at the coroner of Melrose Drive and Launceston Street is critical to this variation. If rule 27A, which allows up to a 10-storey development at the corner of Melrose Drive and Launceston Street is removed, it is unlikely that the dwelling yield for the site would be able to be increased.

It being 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business, the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 77. Ordered that the time allotted to Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes.

MS BURCH: The Standing Committee on Planning, Public Works and Territory and Municipal Services released its report No 2 on 23 July 2009, and it made 10 recommendations. These recommendations propose that the key elements of the variation proceed. Most importantly, recommendation 6 of the committee indicated that the provision allowing up to a 10-storey development on the corner of Melrose Drive and Launceston Street in Lyons should proceed.

Increasing the dwelling yield was also recommended in recommendation 5, which was supported by Ms Le Couteur. In fact, Ms Le Couteur goes further, and in her recommendation F she indicates a desire for all leases for multi-unit developments to contain a minimum dwelling yield. Ms Le Couteur also states in her additional comments that the current development is a waste of a good site. Whilst she cites that single-storey residential development on the site as an issue in this regard, it has been developed under the former zoning, and to remove rule 27A at this stage would mean that the remainder of the site would be unable to be developed to its full potential, which may well result in a reduction in the dwelling yield.

I reiterate that part of the site has already been developed, as Mr Barr has also said. On this basis, it would not be possible to redesign the remainder of the dwellings for the site to both increase dwelling yield and to meet the other provisions of the multi-unit housing development code. The subject of this disallowance motion, rule 27A, is a site-specific control which will only apply to part of block 4 section 69 Lyons. Deletion of this rule will result in a suboptimal planning outcome by not achieving diversity of the dwellings in a prime location that is supported by the

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