Page 4041 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 17 November 2015

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

The variation represents a modest increase in residential density on these surrendered blocks. Dual occupancy development is already permitted on blocks over 800 square metres or larger in the RZ1 zone. However, they currently cannot be unit titled. Reducing the minimum block size to 700 square metres or larger for surrendered blocks only adds approximately 200 more dual occupancy opportunities on the subject blocks.

Notwithstanding this, concerns about potential impacts have been addressed through additional provisions in the variation to protect residential amenity and character. These include a maximum plot ratio of 35 per cent and a building height of one storey for dual occupancy developments that do not both front the street. These provisions are aimed directly at dual occupancy development where one dwelling is behind the first dwelling.

There is also a design criterion that will apply to dual occupancy development to ensure that the amenity of existing areas is maintained and supported. This provision will ensure that dual occupancy developments will be designed to a high quality whilst minimising its impact on the neighbourhood and streetscape.

Draft variation 343 was released for public comment between 10 April and 25 May this year and attracted 124 submissions. The main issues related to potential impacts on residential amenity and character. A report on the consultation responding to the issues raised in the submissions was prepared by the Environment and Planning Directorate.

No changes were made to the draft variation because the issues raised in the public submissions can be dealt with through the planning provisions already included in the draft variation. Under section 73 of the Planning and Development Act I referred the recommended draft variation to the Standing Committee on Planning, Environment and Territory and Municipal Services. On October 27 this year, the standing committee tabled its report No 10 in relation to DV 343.

I have prepared the government response to the four recommendations in the standing committee report. I have agreed in principle to improve the presentation of complex draft variations to facilitate public understanding of their content. I have also undertaken to explore options to increase housing choices throughout Canberra, including titling options for medium density housing. This will, of course, include considerable public consultation if any amendments to the territory plan go through as proposed. In relation to the last of the four recommendations, I can advise that the asbestos response task force already has a consultation plan and support strategies in place to assist with the next stage of the asbestos eradication scheme.

Two of the four standing committee members made recommendations in relation to DV 343. I have also included responses to the three additional recommendations in the government response to the standing committee report.

I want to thank the chair of the standing committee, Ms Meegan Fitzharris MLA, and Dr Chris Bourke MLA for their recommendation that the variation proceed. I note the recommendation in relation to applying a 50 per cent plot ratio to dual occupancy

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