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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2015 Week 12 Hansard (Tuesday, 27 October 2015) . . Page.. 3579 ..

I asked again:

But what is the planning rationale for having two blocks next to each other that may well have exactly the same attributes in terms of dimensions but have different planning controls? What is the planning rationale?

And again I asked:

Could you explain to me a situation whereby there will be two blocks next to each other and both might be, say, 850 square metres but they have different planning controls attached to them. Where would that be the case somewhere else in Canberra?

And again I asked:

I am particularly interested in the view from planning experts and the planning minister about what is the planning rationale. Is there any planning rationale for having two blocks treated differently if they are next to each other?

I did not get an answer to any of these questions. Madam Speaker, this variation was before the planning committee and we were to produce a report on the planning issues. There is no planning rationale for variation 343. I believe that there is a need for dual occupancy blocks in Canberra and I would like to see more of them in Canberra. However, they have to be the right blocks in the right locations.

A witness, Ms Hunt, said it very well:

We believe DV 343 is what we call “unplanning” and unfair. We find that it is inconsistent with planning zones. DV 343 targets random blocks. It was not planned or coordinated. You might as well just throw darts at a map of Canberra, and that is no way to plan a city, we feel. Allowing greater development on random RZ1 blocks undermines the integrity of the whole planning system.

Indeed, our own report says that the government has stated that the primary reason for this draft variation is to minimise the overall cost incurred to the territory budget as a result of the scheme and, as a result, to the ACT community. So the primary rationale was not planning. The primary rationale was revenue raising. However, even that was flawed because we heard the actual facts. In the vast majority of instances these blocks are not going to be appropriate for dual occupancy developments. We also heard that in the vast majority of instances the highest value is going to be achieved by simply having them as a single stand-alone dwelling, not as a dual occupancy.

To that end we have a situation whereby we have put already traumatised people through even more trauma for an outcome whereby most blocks will not be appropriate for dual occupancies. Even if they are, they probably will not be used as such because of the finances or economics behind it. This was unnecessary trauma for hundreds of Canberra families that are already traumatised by this scheme. This has been an unfortunate, a very unfortunate, incident and I think we have done a tremendous disservice to many involved.

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