Page 1691 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The estate development code has many issues, and yield and quality of these future estates have been brought into question. The Institute of Landscape Architects have raised serious concerns about the treescapes on these streets. In fact, there are now only three or four types of trees—they think—which are going to be able to be planted on the nature strips. These trees are species that will not grow to a reasonable height such that they go beyond the roof line. Therefore, some estates will be condemned forever to having poor treescapes and roof lines dominating the landscape.
The question of yield is going to come up tomorrow when Denman Prospect is auctioned. Now, $100 million was touted as being the figure the government might get for Denman Prospect. It will be very interesting to see what they do get tomorrow. I think we might see a tangible impact to the territory’s bottom line for taxpayers tomorrow when Denman Prospect is auctioned. That will not have anything to do with the quality of land or the quality of marketing; it will be because of the reduced yield that DV306 will generate.
Mr Wall spoke well about the water features and the change from 50 per cent down to 25 per cent when it comes to roof area. There are lots of issues, and time does not permit me to go into all the different issues which have been raised with me. However, it is important to state that our economy and the building sector are already doing it tough, and this could be the final straw for some businesses. This is not good for Canberra.
I opposed DV306 in the committee stage, and the opposition oppose it in this Assembly stage because it is bad policy. It does not do what it espouses to and, therefore, should be rejected.
MR WALL (Brindabella) (11.10), in reply: In closing I will touch on a few points. We have spoken about the consultation process, and this government always touts itself as a government that is open and accountable and properly consults the community. Yet time and time again its opinion takes priority over that of the community’s. The minister spoke about private open space in residential areas being accessible directly from a living room as part of the changes to 306. That is how it used to be, minister. DV306 allows now for the private open space to be accessible off a habitable part of the home, not directly off a living area as it currently is. That slight change has been made because of the restrictions due to the solar access constraints.
We have heard of the secondary residences, one of the few gems that are a part of DV306. These finally allow the option for families to create a second residence on their properties—somewhere where their children can live while trying to get into the housing market or an opportunity for rental income. That has previously been impossible in the ACT.
To say the Canberra Liberals are against the solar access provisions as they stand is true. Everyone should have the right to preserve sunlight access on their block. The difficulty with what is proposed in DV306 is the restrictive nature placed on design outcomes to allow people to build a home properly and orientate it well.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video