Page 232 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
To summarise, I am focused on ensuring that variation 343 is commenced. I would like the variation to achieve its stated goals of increasing housing choice on less than one per cent of the residential RZ1 blocks across the city as part of the asbestos eradication scheme. If that also results in reducing the costs of the eradication scheme to the ACT community, it will be a very good outcome.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.41): Draft variation 343 applies to Mr Fluffy blocks surrendered through the buyback program in residential zone 1, RZ1, that are over 700 square metres, and enables dual occupancy to be built. It is worth noting at this point that for blocks that are 800 square metres or larger in RZ1 dual occupancy is already permitted. What we are talking about here, and Mr Gentleman pointed this out in his remarks, is a difference for particularly those 200 or so key blocks that fall between 700 square metres and 800 square metres. The variation will not result in large-scale changes to the established residential areas of Canberra, in my view.
What is going to happen, what is causing a large-scale change, is the whole Mr Fluffy issue. When Mr Coe made his remarks, I think he used expressions like “upheaval in the suburbs” and similar sorts of remarks. There is going to be change in the suburbs, driven by the fact that the government has taken a decision, and I have supported this, to once and for all deal with the Mr Fluffy issue in this city. That is going to result in the demolition of around 1,000 properties across the city. That, of course, will have an impact. No-one can deny that. No-one can come into this place and say that demolishing 1,000 homes across the city is not going to be noticeable.
That is an important piece of context that Mr Coe skated around in his remarks to the chamber today. That is the real context that we are operating in. I fully understand that this process is going to have an impact on our community. We know that. It is playing out in all sorts of ways. It is playing out in the very obvious physical demolition of those properties. It is playing out on the impact that it is having on many people across the community—on the people who currently live in the homes and with the psychological concerns that are playing out for some people who formerly lived in those homes, who have lived in those homes at different times. This is rippling throughout our community in a way that I am pretty sure every member in this place has some appreciation of—certainly of the different angles that are there.
So I do not doubt that this is a challenge. But today Mr Coe has ascribed a lot of things to the draft variation that are not directly linked to the draft variation. They are linked to the broader issue of the impact the Mr Fluffy situation has had on this city and the historical legacy that this current generation has inherited and has to deal with. That is what we are doing. At the end of the day, for me the most important thing is that we do not let this hang over to some other generation in this city.
The variation will provide the community with options for dual occupancy development on these sites, but of course it will not be mandatory. It also allows unit titling, which means the houses can be sold separately, but, importantly, it is not subdivision. Blocks will not be divided and sold separately.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video