Page 4326 - Week 13 - Thursday, 4 December 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
during estimates when we found that there was asbestos buried at Birrigai. Every time it rained, more and more was exposed; it was breaking down and it was being cleaned up. That is the problem we face, members, and we will continue to face it until we come up with answers to the problems that this Assembly is now faced with.
There is one more interesting government response that I would bring to the attention of members. Indeed, for those that have not read the committee’s report, it is now online, and I assume the government’s response, if it is not online, will be online shortly and available to the public. Throughout the inquiry a number of people raised the issue of the FORAG submission to the task force. The committee recommended that the FORAG submission be released. But I was surprised to read—and I quote from the government response:
… but has not received a formal Submission in relation to Scheme design.
I think that is unfortunate because many thought FORAG had done that but had not been able to find it. (Time expired.)
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Minister for Planning, Minister for Community Services, Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations, Minister for Children and Young People and Minister for Ageing) (10.55): I rise to support the bill today. I would like to outline how the appropriation bill relates to changes to planning controls in the ACT and subsequently I would like to briefly touch on the relationship between this bill and my role as Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations and note the work being done by the Community Services Directorate in relation to dealing with the impact of the Mr Fluffy crisis.
Firstly, I would like to note that it is necessary to use the planning system to assist the government to defray some of the costs of the loose-fill asbestos insulation eradication scheme and to provide further flexibility for redevelopment options. I propose that a territory plan variation be released for public comment in early 2015 that proposes two main changes: the first change would allow unit titling for dual occupancy development in the RZ1 suburban zone, and the second change would reduce the minimum block size for a dual occupancy in the RZ1 suburban zone from the current 800 square metres to 700 square metres.
It is important to note that this territory plan variation is not proposing to rezone the affected blocks in the RZ1 zone. I would also like to stress that these proposed changes are not being taken lightly, and additional safeguards to control the scale of development will be put in place over and beyond the provisions that currently apply.
But, first, it is worth putting the proposed changes into perspective. Data provided by the asbestos response task force identified 1,021 loose-fill asbestos affected blocks. Under the territory plan there are 1,012 loose-fill asbestos blocks located in the RZ1 suburban zone and the RZ2 suburban core zone. The remaining nine blocks are located in other residential, commercial and community facility zones that are already subject to a broader set of development controls.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video