Page 2812 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 22 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I now present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill.
Debate (on motion by Mr Berry) adjourned.
UNIT TITLES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989
MR JENSEN (10.45): I present the Unit Titles (Amendment) Bill 1989. I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
While this private member's Bill may seem to make only a small change to the Unit Titles Act, in a similar way to the small changes that the previous speaker has made to the Trading Hours (Amendment) Act, when one considers the Bill further one finds it has the potential to make far-reaching changes to the development of the ACT, especially relating to residences in current or potential heritage areas.
While this Bill may seem to be simple and could probably be passed through the Assembly during the final sitting in a couple of weeks' time, the Rally proposes to ensure that every opportunity is given to all parties and members of the public to fully examine this proposal. It is proposed that this Bill would lie on the table to allow the full ramifications of the seemingly minor amendments to be absorbed and commented upon.
There are a number of unresolved planning issues in the ACT, many of which relate to the lack of legislation for planning and heritage, and I will not bore the house again with much more reference to that. But, more particularly, we are concerned about the lack of a responsive appeals system which is non-legalistic and appropriate to the sorts of changes that are required in the ACT.
The Planning, Infrastructure and Development Committee, for example, has just taken on board the issue of small-scale residential redevelopment of which this Bill could be said to be part. It probably would be appropriate for that committee to consider this particular Bill in its deliberations. There may, however, be some residents in the older suburbs who would have some concern about what this proposal could mean to their suburbs. The NCDC had a policy on dual occupancy and has prepared a draft policy on small-scale redevelopment, which was subsequently withdrawn and not proceeded with. The other policy that this proposal affects is the one on aged persons units. All of these, I have no doubt, will be considered by the planning committee in its deliberations.
While some residents, as I have indicated, may be concerned about this policy to allow for the redevelopment of inner suburbs and allow some of the larger blocks to be broken up, they only need to recall what happened in Barton just after the election, when a house in an acknowledged
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .