Page 234 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I challenge some of the ideas that were presented in this letter. One of them relates to the issue of the size of blocks and the plot ratio, which I touched on earlier. The letter says:
Blocks of 700 square metres are too small for high-quality, separate single-storey developments. There are some 204 Mr Fluffy blocks between 700 and 800 square metres in area. Once blocks of such small size have been subdivided and subjected to a 35 per cent plot ratio, only very small dwellings can be built on these sites, making such houses unattractive.
If we allow 18 square metres for car parking for one car, the resulting areas available for housing range from 104.5 square metres for a subdivided 700 square metre block to 122 square metres for an 800 square metre block. This situation is wholly unsatisfactory.
That is a view but it is a subjective view, and I am not sure that it is reflective of the changing housing styles that people are going for. Not everybody wants a large three or four-bedroom house. We are seeing people seeking to downsize. Actually saying that those houses are unattractive or the situation is unsatisfactory is a perspective but it is not one that I think is universal throughout the community.
There are people who actually welcome the opportunity to live in smaller properties. It can make a property more affordable in the sense that a smaller property like that might enable somebody to stay in an area or to buy into an area where they would not be able to afford a large house on a large block. I think we need to see that there is nuance in these discussions, not everybody wants the same thing these days and there should be some scope for a broader consideration of different housing types.
With that, I simply reflect on the fact that this, overall, is a difficult situation, but I think this draft variation, as I said, does provide a fair balance. It deals with the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in and provides opportunities for people to pursue different housing types in our suburbs, whilst at the same time not suddenly allowing multi-unit developments. Again, I note the Inner South Community Council makes reference to multi-unit developments. I think most people’s sense of a multi-unit development is sort of a six-pack or something like that on a block. But that is not what is being canvassed in this draft variation. I think we need to be clear about that as well.
I believe that this does strike a fair balance and will ensure that there is a level of consistency in our suburbs, given that you can already have this sort of approach on an 880-square metre block and what this does is reduce it to 700 square metres.
Question put:
That the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly voted—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video