Page 3067 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 16 September 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We also put in place remissions for high environmental ratings for buildings, so above five green stars, or a 6½-star NatHERS rating. Again, there is a public policy interest here that is reflective of government priority and reflective of the fact that if we can build more energy efficient buildings this is a good outcome for us as a whole. Again, it is appropriate, and there is a cost potentially attached to that, that a remission from LVC be put in place. There are remissions for adaptive reuse of offices to residential. There are a range of remissions that reflect either community benefit or policy objectives that the government has put in place for the benefit of the community as a whole.
There is also a remission for contribution to public art projects. All of these things speak to the principle I have been talking about. Some are particularly relevant to builders and development, especially those around environmental efficiency and location. A possible example of an exemption would be if someone builds an eight-star energy efficiency rated building in close proximity to a bus interchange or a public transport corridor. That would qualify for a significant discount. That reflects the policy settings that government has and ensures that there is an opportunity for the developers to make a new project, to get a profit, to get a return from that, whilst at the same time seeking to deliver the policy objectives and good community outcomes the government is seeking.
I recognise that there has been concern expressed from people in the property sector about the charges, but I believe we need to balance the competing factors with a solution that continues to make infill an attractive commercial option and redevelopment in our town centres, whilst at the same time ensuring that the community gets the fair return that I have spoken about. We believe that the right policy balance has been struck in having a range of those remissions in place.
That said, I continue to discuss these issues with people on an ongoing basis. I am always open to those further discussions. In 2014 the former Chief Minister announced a package of initiatives designed to provide confidence and economic stimulus for the ACT building and construction industry. Changes to the lease variation charge system included all codified LVC fee and remission schedules being frozen at the current rate and remission level for the next two years. For non-codified variations, the remission rate was increased from 25 to 50 per cent for two years. A further 25 per cent remission is available for developers who incorporate high standards of sustainable design and adaptable housing into their projects. Again, those policy objectives are being built in and are providing potentially further discounts.
The new remissions apply to all eligible cases assessed after the date of announcement up until 6 March 2016. I think that is a very interesting issue in the sense that Mr Smyth has come in today and made the case that there is only one crane on the skyline in the city because of the LVC. Yet for the last two years or 18 months, since that announcement was made, there have been significant remissions in place and we have not seen projects coming on stream. I actually think there is a very serious debate to be had about why those drivers, those remissions, have not provided an attraction. If Mr Smyth reckons his policy is so right, why have those remissions in that period of time not brought forward the projects?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video