Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 369 ..
MR MOORE (10.32): I present the Unit Titles (Amendment) Bill 1996.
Title read by Clerk.
MR MOORE: I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
In November 1994, prior to the last election, Mr Robert Lansdown, AO, CBE, released the residential redevelopment review, a report that had been commissioned by the then Minister, Mr Bill Wood. In that report, amongst other things Mr Lansdown made a series of recommendations that dealt with dual occupancy. One of those was recommendation 3, which stated:
No dual occupancy or urban infill in new areas for 5 years. Dual occupancy to be permitted elsewhere, but no subdivision or unit title; also a minimum block size, as well as tightened provisions to preserve area character and amenity.
It is the middle part, about "no subdivision or unit title", that I believe is the main reason for the increase in the number of dual occupancies, and inappropriate dual occupancies, throughout the ACT. It was a change to the unit titles legislation, which I must say I supported at the time, believing that it would assist. Having read the review by Mr Lansdown and having seen the impact, I now believe that it is appropriate to accept the recommendations made by Mr Lansdown and to act on them. I think there was a widespread acceptance in the previous Assembly that we should be adopting the report of Mr Lansdown.
Indeed, Mr Speaker, the then Liberal spokesperson on education and training, housing, land and planning, heritage and rural matters, namely, you, put out a press release on 21 November with the headline:
Infill Report Welcomed! What now for those in limbo?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .