Page 228 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
themselves and another rule for everyone else. This is unacceptable, and that is why the Canberra Liberals do not support this approach and have moved for disallowance.
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Minister for Planning and Land Management, Minister for Racing and Gaming and Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations) (11.27): The government will not be supporting Mr Coe’s motion. The primary purpose of territory plan variation No 343 is to assist in the redevelopment of blocks surrendered under the asbestos eradication scheme. While the variation itself only proposes modest changes to the territory plan, it is intended to increase housing opportunities and choices for the affected blocks.
The Mr Fluffy legacy presented a unique set of circumstances. The ACT government stated from the outset that it intends to draw a line under the asbestos insulation issue once and for all. For this reason, I have constantly stated that I wanted variation 343 to remain entirely focused on asbestos-affected blocks. The government is committed to urban renewal, increasing housing choices and diversity, and a whole gamut of other residential policy considerations. However, variation 343 is not the tool to accomplish this task.
I would like to set the record straight on what variation 343 will and will not do. The variation will not result in a large-scale change to the established residential areas of Canberra. The variation applies to a total of 743 blocks in the residential RZ1 suburban zone. This constitutes less than one per cent of the total blocks in the RZ1 suburban zone.
The affected blocks are spread throughout some 56 established suburbs. Of the blocks affected by variation 343, more than 500 blocks are over 800 square metres in size, and can already be redeveloped for dual occupancy. This means that variation 343 actually only increases dual occupancy options for development on some 200 of the affected blocks.
The provisions introduced by variation 343 are not mandatory. In this regard I do not anticipate that all of the blocks will necessarily be feasible or attractive for dual occupancy development. For this reason, we do not know the exact number of blocks that will be redeveloped for dual occupancy development. I believe that variation 343 contains the necessary provisions to manage any potential impacts of dual occupancy development within the affected areas.
Variation 343 reduces the minimum block size for dual occupancy from 800 square metres to 700 square metres on the affected blocks. Plot ratios have been amended to accommodate the reduction in block sizes. Variation 343 introduces an option for unit titling of the dual occupancy dwellings on the affected blocks. This is new to the RZ1 suburban zone and is an incentive to increase dual occupancy development on these blocks.
Notwithstanding this incentive, the variation includes provisions to minimise any potential impacts of dual occupancy development. There is a single-storey height limit for all dual occupancy development where both dwellings do not front the street. This is intended to protect the residential amenity of the surrounding neighbours. There is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video