Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 1102 ..

Lansdown review established. Mr Lansdown's report has become influential in planning policy in the ACT because, among other things, its recommendations sought to engender some sensitivity in the redevelopment of Canberra's residential areas. The Liberal Party went to the election supporting the broad thrust of the Lansdown recommendations, in particular with regard to the multiunit developments.

Today, I am announcing two new measures which will enhance the amenity of residential areas. The Government will strengthen the requirements as they apply to multiunit developments and greenfield broadacre releases by the following: Firstly, we will set maximum numbers of dwellings allowable for multiunit developments. Few Canberrans want to see further instances of development like Central Park in Phillip, where the site was sold with a requirement for a minimum number of 70 units but no maximum. Ultimately, on that site, 240 units were developed - over 200 per cent more than the minimum number. When a block is sold, we want developers to be under no illusions. Canberra is not about living in shoeboxes. We want quality housing developments which preserve Canberra's amenity and place a premium among developers and architects on excellence in design and construction. If we wanted sardine boxes, we would ask John West! If housing density is high, this should be as a result of up-front planning decisions rather than the desire to squeeze as much profit as possible from every brick.

The second proposal I am announcing today is the setting of maximum block numbers allowable for greenfield land packages. As with multiunit developments, the unplanned multiplication of building blocks on greenfield sites can significantly erode the amenity of a given area. For example, in some new suburbs, we have recently seen some proposals for the development of about 50 per cent more blocks than the minimum number specified in the land development contract. That is perfectly legal under present arrangements. There is no point in government getting upset about developments impacting on amenity if government itself sets inadequate controls on those developments.

These two measures will bring a substantial degree of certainty into our residential planning system - certainty that has not been there for some time, but certainty which is easily achievable. In setting these limits, we can enable infrastructure providers to plan their requirements with a higher degree of certainty than they can at present. We want to enable builders to know the limits of their proposals, rather than battling bureaucratic discretions exercised against them as they try to maximise their investment, and we can enable local residents to know where they stand with respect to units going up in their area. Residents of Mawson have recently suffered from the lack of such advance knowledge.

Part of a strategic plan means looking at how we are doing things now, to assess whether that is how we want to continue doing them in the future. We will establish an end-of-project assessment, a sort of post-mortem, at the completion of each major estate development - which will include developers, planners and lessees - to assess the good and bad points of each development, so that we can build on those lessons in the development of new estates. Urban development in Canberra is a fact of life. Good development is an objective of planners, builders and government. We must learn from the urban development disasters of Canberra's past - and we could all name our favourites - so that the Canberra of the future is built on the best of what we have, not the worst.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .