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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1250 ..

MS HORODNY: While the number of blocks which have unit titled dual occupancies on them is relatively small - less than one per cent of the number of standard residential blocks - the ad hoc way in which dual occupancies have sprung up across Canberra and the poor design of some dual occupancies, which has impacted negatively on neighbours, have prompted significant community concern.

The Greens agree that there are legitimate concerns raised by the community about dual occupancies; for example, overlooking of neighbours' backyards, crowding of dwellings on small blocks, the need to cut down mature trees to allow the dual occupancies to be built, and an increase in street traffic. While the Greens are sympathetic to these concerns and to what Mr Moore is attempting to do, we believe that these are planning matters in need of planning control. Mr Moore's proposal is attempting to deal with planning matters through the roundabout means of controlling the ownership of dual occupancies. Mr Moore's proposal will stop a home owner's ability to sell off a second dwelling on their land, but it will not stop bad design of dual occupancies. If Mr Moore's Bill is implemented in isolation from other planning controls, we will end up with badly designed, rented out dual occupancies instead of badly designed, independently owned dual occupancies.

Mr Moore's proposal also goes further than the Lansdown report. It is true that Lansdown recommended that there be no unit titling of dual occupancies, to remove the speculative element. He recognised, however, that there was a limited community need for dual occupancies and did not say that dual occupancies should be prohibited altogether. He proposed a number of planning controls over dual occupancies, which have been adopted to a great extent by the Government in the latest draft of the guidelines for multiunit development. A significant control was that dual occupancies could be done only on blocks of at least 800 square metres, which would have stopped about 16 per cent of the unit titled dual occupancies that had already been approved.

In addition, a recent draft variation to the Territory Plan has prohibited dual occupancies on blocks where the existing house is less than five years old, as other speakers have said, thus preventing further unit titled dual occupancies in the newer parts of Tuggeranong and Gungahlin. The Stein report notes that since these guidelines were released the number of approvals of dual occupancies has dropped to nearly half that of 1993-94.

Another key issue is the amount of betterment paid on dual occupancies. At present it is only 50 per cent of the increase in land value; but, if the Stein report is implemented, as promised by the Government, this would increase to 100 per cent and would put a significant damper on speculative dual occupancies in the future. Because of the current planning controls and proposed changes to betterment rules it will be harder for speculators to make a profit from dual occupancy developments now than it was two years ago.

We believe that the number of unit titled dual occupancies is likely to decrease of its own accord to levels which match genuine community demand. The Greens believe that there should still be some flexibility in the planning system to allow unit titled dual occupancies on large blocks where it can be demonstrated that there are no adverse impacts on neighbours. These impacts can be addressed through better planning guidelines on

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