Page 2813 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 22 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
heritage area was demolished and four units were built on that block. In this case the owners wanted to retain their residence in the suburbs but needed to be able to reduce the size of their dwelling, as they were at an advanced age, and make some use of the capitalisation of their position to assist them in their retirement.
Offers were made by a noted and prize-winning heritage architect to design an extension around the existing building which would have retained the important streetscape but allowed the owners to achieve their aims. Instead of constructing the four units that we subsequently saw, this would have provided for two to three units on separate titles. However, the Act that this Bill proposes to amend would not allow this to happen. As a result, this important cornerstone in the streetscape of an acknowledged heritage area of interest was demolished because the Land Titles Act required the owners to subdivide the block into four separate parcels to achieve their objectives.
Some members may also be aware of the NCDC policy for dual occupancy of detached houses which was produced in February 1986 and gazetted, along with the other NCDC policies, in a special issue of the Gazette on 31 January 1989. While this policy allows for dual occupancy, it specifically forbids the breaking up of large house blocks into separate titles. The reasons given for not allowing separate titles are very interesting and probably can be argued against. Let me just read into the record the reasons that are given for this. The policy states:
... it is the intention of this policy that a dual occupancy development remains on the original block and is not separately titled. This is because single titles will assist in the maintenance of the character of residential areas; single titles will encourage the provision of rental accommodation, subdivision in many cases would produce small awkward blocks and thereby difficulties with services and utilities; subdivision would encourage the different treatment of the two dwellings in design terms; later redevelopment of the area may require land assembly and would be impeded by premature block fragmentation.
Let us just examine that, Mr Speaker. Let us consider these arguments and relate them to what has happened in areas like Murray Crescent in Barton that I have already mentioned where, under the guise the aged persons units policy and the existing land titles ordinance, some of the single residential blocks have been broken up into four or more separate titles. So all the sorts of arguments that are suggested against dual occupancies being given second titles have the potential for the same sorts of problems in the existing operations under the aged persons units policy and the land titles ordinance.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .