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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (2 December) . . Page.. 4335 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

As we said at the time, the issue was not so much that redevelopment was occurring. The Greens acknowledge that a certain amount of urban consolidation is desirable, for a number of environmental, social and economic reasons. The aspects we were not happy with, however, were how the consolidation was being managed and what the end result would be. Our main concern was that the B1 zone applied one set of rules across the whole zone which would create a monotonous spread of three-storey blocks of flats with no variation to take into account the differing features of the affected suburbs or to reflect demands for different types of housing.

While our motion was not passed, the Government at least did initiate a review of the B1 zone which has resulted in the draft variation before us. To the Government's credit, the new B11 and B12 zones are a significant improvement on the old B1 zone. The reduction in the height controls to two storeys in the B12 zone away from Northbourne Avenue is welcomed. The attempt to limit the housing density provides some variation in the bulk of buildings, and the integration of developments across a particular section is also good. However, I do not think that the plan variation has quite met the grade in terms of meeting the expectations of the community. There are still a number of concerns about the variation that need to be worked through before the variation can be accepted.

In a broad sense I do not think that the variation will facilitate the development of ecologically sustainable and socially desirable housing into the twenty-first century. Just allowing an increase in the density of housing in this area is not enough. We need to take a more integrated approach to examining the quality of the housing and its impact on the local environment. For example, I am not yet happy with the provisions relating to solar access for new and existing dwellings. The process of developing section plans also does not appear to be fully worked out. The question of when three-storey development will be allowed north of Macarthur and Wakefield Avenues is still contentious.

PALM also needs to put more effort into its consultation processes. I have sensed a great deal of confusion amongst inner north residents regarding the implications of the proposed urban housing code. It is a complex document and for non-planners it is very difficult to conceptualise what scale of buildings will result from its application. Just presenting a document like this to the community and expecting reasoned comments is a recipe for generating even more conflict over proposed redevelopments. The planners, when talking to the community, need to translate formal documents that need to be in the Territory Plan into how buildings will look on the ground. For example, the use of models, showing the scale of potential buildings next to existing houses, would be very helpful in allowing a full assessment of the appropriateness of the housing code.

Given that the end of this Assembly is near, I do not think that the Planning and Environment Committee should be rushed into accepting a plan variation that still has a number of problems. I think the Assembly should try its best to get this plan variation right, so that we can overcome the years of uncertainty and dispute that have occurred regarding the B1 zone.

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