Page 3797 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We believe that there is an obvious need for this legislation as potential heritage properties are demolished because of current restrictions in the unit titles legislation which allow for the holder of a Crown lease to issue only a minimum of four unit or strata titles. In these sorts of circumstances, when lessees of a Crown lease seek to redevelop or refocus their living within their existing suburb, they do it for a couple of reasons. Their first aim is generally to achieve a newer but smaller residence. They do not need the four- or five-bedroom house that they have lived in with their family for many years.
They also wish to obtain some funds to ensure that they are able to live in reasonable comfort in their retirement - because, effectively, that is the only asset that many of these families have. So, that is generally the aim when these issues come forward. For example, the house at Darling Street, Barton - an issue which arose, members may recall, just before the last election - could have been saved if the minimum number of unit titles had been three, and the owners would have achieved the aims that I just outlined.
Let me explain what I mean in that case. At the time, a very eminent and prize-winning heritage architect provided to the owners of the property a proposal that would have allowed the property to be expanded and divided into three separate units, achieving all the aims that I have indicated. However, the Unit Titles Act, as it applied then and still applies now, did not allow this to be achieved. So, as a result of that, the house was demolished and four units were built; and, as we all recall, there were some problems with the design and siting and the builder had to make some changes and demolitions to bring it into line with design and siting requirements. So, that house and its location could have been saved if this legislation had been in force.
There is a need for an upgrading of dual occupancy home construction, I would suggest, as separate unit titles would encourage better use of large blocks by offering greater incentives to upgrade and build a better class of dwelling, which the current requirements do not encourage. How often do we see demountables going into the backyards of homes in some of our suburbs, as opposed to a more effective redevelopment or addition in accordance with the dual occupancy design and siting guidelines?
I would suggest that an ability to provide for a smaller number of separate unit titles would encourage better use of large blocks by offering greater incentives to upgrade and produce a better dwelling. As we know - and many of us have spoken about this on various platforms over a long period - there is also a need for urban consolidation without affecting our green space. At the moment, dual occupancy is the only tool that can be used for that, as
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .