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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1251 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

multiunit development and better design and siting rules. The critical issue is, therefore, to ensure that the small but legitimate community demand for dual occupancies is able to be met, but without allowing building speculators to dominate the market for their own profit and without consideration for neighbourhood amenity. Mr Moore's proposal to merely return the Unit Titles Act to its original form is a step in the right direction, but the Greens believe that this Assembly should address this issue with a bit more thought.

MR MOORE (11.23), in reply: In rising to close the debate, I must say that it does not surprise me that support for this has come from the crossbenches and that opposition has come from the Labor and Liberal parties. Labor and Liberal have made a mess of planning in this Territory since self-government, and it will most likely continue.

I would like to clarify a couple of views which a number of people have about this legislation and which simply are not true. The legislation does not stop dual occupancy. That simply is not the case. It still allows dual occupancy, but it does not allow the division of the title. In the sorts of cases that Mr Humphries gave as examples, which were reiterated by Mr Kaine, where an elderly person wants to bring a perhaps middle-aged member of their family onto the same block to look after them, that simply is not affected by this legislation. It is a matter of whether we divide the title, not whether or not another dual occupancy can go ahead.

The reason behind it is that so often dual occupancy turns neighbour against neighbour. It has had that effect across Canberra and even where a dual occupancy application has been put in and has been allowed to go ahead without, on a number of occasions certainly that I am aware of, objection from the neighbours, the neighbours are absolutely furious but are determined not to ruin their relationship with their neighbour. There is an issue here that we need to consult with the neighbours and ask, "Is it okay to go ahead?". People simply are not going to say no.

Ms McRae: They do so. Try my street.

MR MOORE: Ms McRae interjects, "They do so". Of course, some will do that; and some do do that. We see appeals before the Land and Planning Appeals Board, but there are huge numbers of people who feel the anger but decide not to appeal. Perhaps they feel that they are not capable; perhaps they do not put the time in; for a whole series of reasons they decide that, no matter what the neighbour does - even though they are affecting their environment by this kind of change, and they are still angry about it - they are actually going to keep that to themselves and not have an overt fight with their neighbour. That is a result of dual occupancies.

The most important part about dual occupancies is that they have been an unplanned method of redevelopment. In this case, I agree with Mr Humphries's analysis that dual occupancies have, at this stage, occurred across Canberra without any control mechanism as to how many are in any given suburb; what impact it is having on the suburb as a whole; and the impact on the neighbours because the developments are at random. We do not know where they are going to occur; we do not know when they are going to occur. Mr Humphries proposes a different solution for dealing with that problem. In the end, that may well achieve some of the same goals.

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