Page 261 - Week 01 - Thursday, 18 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is still a need, however, for some renewal of older housing stock and a diversification of the types of housing options available to people in Canberra. I also feel that this topic is worthy of inclusion in the discussion of a strategic plan for the ACT. Housing options not only should include those that arose from the past but also should ask what type of housing Canberrans feel will support their desired lifestyles.
There has been much discussion about encouraging older people to move to smaller accommodation, which was taken up in the Social Policy Committee's report on aged accommodation and support services in the ACT. This may be appropriate for some, but others have spent a lifetime accruing assets, including their homes, and many have hobbies which entail certain spatial requirements. For example, you cannot keep a small boat or a runabout in a unit. It is also difficult to find sufficient space for gardening, playing with grandchildren, or any number of other activities we encourage people to be involved in as they grow older. The Unit Titles (Amendment) Bill may enable some people who have accrued enough capital in their residential properties to subdivide, thereby gaining the capital they need for an active retirement while retaining the home they often prefer in the neighbourhood they know.
Madam Speaker, I cannot finish without sounding a cautionary note. Given that we are giving body corporate status to such a small entity as two people, we must ensure that community mechanisms for resolving disputes are both promoted and adequately funded, particularly in the initial period while the residents, estate agents and potential buyers are testing their rights under the new arrangements. While a person may be intelligent enough to subdivide their residential allotment into two unit titles, can the same person then step back and not treat the second unit title holder as a tenant? We are increasing the density of development and allowing people to live much closer together than has been the norm in many suburbs, and that physical change alone could require some positive intervention to ensure that all parties are aware of their rights and obligations.
The situation we are proposing to allow from the passage of this Bill is not the same as approaching a block of units or townhouse development, where it is evident that there are many people to be considered. In many cases the small subdivisions may be undertaken by developers or landlords who own investment properties. If so, both unit title holders would then be on an equal footing, but if suburban blocks are divided by their long-term residents there could be some conflict if one of the unit holders sees himself or herself as the senior partner. Possibly the Conflict Resolution Service could be commissioned to provide expert advice on the potential impact of this new measure.
That apart, Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the Government is addressing the issue of declining household numbers and the need for increased and more diverse housing densities in a way which is not in direct contrast to the existing fabric of Canberra urban settlement. This is in marked contrast to the former NCDC's Planning Policies for Dual Occupancy of Detached House Blocks, 1986, which states on page 2:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .