Page 2815 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORNWELL: If Mr Wood, by interjection, is suggesting that some members of the Assembly were aware of the implications of dual occupancy, I will accept his words. However, I do not accept that the community were aware of the implications of the amendments to the unit titles legislation, which led to dual occupancy. These are the people who are now complaining bitterly. Of course, it is not confined to one local area. I can quote examples of the problems in numerous suburbs. I can also quote abuses of the system that have been carried out. For example, one of the green signs in Captain Cook Crescent was placed up a tree. I also observed one in Red Hill that was against a wall. These are hardly advertising the fact that dual occupancy activity is going to take place. They are hardly in public view, where they can be read by neighbours or passers-by. That is but a minor example of some of the abuses that have taken place. There are, of course, many more, particularly in terms of construction. The thing that has annoyed most of the people who have complained to me is the fact that these things have been done by developers who have said, "I really do not care about these problems because I am not going to live here".
I have heard people from the Master Builders Association complaining about the amount of money that is held up at the moment as a result of this inquiry. They are talking of something like $300m. I accept that that is a problem for developers; but I will argue that the reason for this inquiry is, equally, to avoid financial problems for residents, because they too have put vast sums of money, relatively speaking, into their houses, and they do not particularly want to see that money and those houses devalued because of what is, in their opinion, bad development beside them.
I am not one who believes that this inquiry will be a whitewash. I am not one who believes that this inquiry will not come to any conclusions. I am quite confident that we can improve the present system. The issues are fairly clear cut. Certainly, from the Liberal Party's own public meeting, it came through loudly and clearly that, whilst people do not mind dual occupancies - provided that they are well done and provided that the block size is reasonable - most people detest having two-storey medium development next-door to them, for the simple reason that it destroys their privacy. They suddenly find that they have a house overlooking their backyard or something like that. From those examples, surely it is possible to come up with some simple solutions to these problems. We do not necessarily have to rewrite the Territory Plan.
I believe that this inquiry can achieve the improvements that the community is looking for. If that is the case, I do not believe that we will find the developers complaining too loudly or too bitterly, because they are prepared to adapt. We must remember that what is happening now out there in the community, with the developments that are going on, is within the law. We may not like what is happening; but it is not unlawful. If we wish to change it, I have no doubt that the developers, in turn, will adapt to it. As they have said repeatedly, they want certainty in planning. I put it to you that not only do the developers require certainty in planning, but so do residents.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .