Page 231 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
If we wanted to maximise revenue for the territory, we would have considered options such as a rezoning of blocks to higher density zones. If we wanted to maximise revenue for the territory, we would have considered allowing consolidation of blocks for redevelopment for townhouses and the like. As financially attractive as these options may have been, I needed to ensure that the potential impacts on residential amenity and character of the RZ1 suburban zone could be minimised.
Mr Coe indicates that variation 343 represents a series of spot rezonings. I can only reiterate that the provisions contained in variation 343 expand on existing development rights in the residential RZ1 suburban zone. Blocks currently 800 square metres or larger can already be redeveloped for dual occupancy.
I am committed to increasing housing choice in the RZ1 zone, but not at the expense of residential amenity and character. To this end, I believe that the range of provisions contained in variation 343, applied along with the existing RZ1 zone provisions, will achieve this balance.
In speaking on the standing committee report on 27 October last year, Mr Coe raised concerns about two sets of planning rules applying to similar, if not identical, residential blocks, as would be the case under 343. Wherever possible, logical boundaries are identified to delineate different planning provisions and requirements. However, the lines need to be drawn somewhere. There are many examples where similar blocks side by side have different planning provisions applying. In the existing residential RZ1 suburban zone, blocks side by side, one 799 square metres and the other 800 square metres, have different rules applying. One can build a dual occupancy and the other cannot.
There are also many residential blocks at the interface of the RZ1 suburban zone and the residential RZ2 suburban zone. The RZ2 zoning boundaries were broadly delineated by blocks that are within 200 to 300 metres of local shops. These blocks may be side by side but have substantially different development rights from their neighbours. Variation 343 was never intended to open up the RZ1 zone to dual occupancy development. Broadscale changes to residential policy are most appropriately undertaken as part of a strategic review of the residential zones. So this is an important decision that we need to have. However, it is an entirely separate issue from the government’s response, the Mr Fluffy challenge.
The ACT government is investigating options to increase housing choice across all residential zones. In this regard, I would welcome Mr Coe’s hopefully more positive input into the broader discussion of residential planning policies affecting housing choices and suburban character. I would expect a comprehensive review of residential policies to come up with a suite of recommendations for increasing housing choices. I would also expect any future territory plan variations to increase housing choice, but also seek to achieve a balance by considering the implications for residential amenity and character in the various residential zones.
Mr Coe raised the issue of an individual’s interaction, if you like, with the task force, and her issues. I can advise the Assembly that this individual’s block is not subject to this variation. The block is smaller than 700 square metres.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video