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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1099 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Lansdown recommended in relation to areas of territorial significance-that is, those suburbs that do not have heritage listing, but are recognised for their significance in the development of the garden city-that any approval for dual occupancy should be subject to further measures designed to preserve the character and amenity of the locality. That is a recommendation of Lansdown. There is nothing in this new code that deals with suburbs of territorial significance, nothing at all. Indeed, the government is walking away, as the minister is doing right now, from any commitment to protect the suburbs of territorial significance.

Before the minister comes into this place and starts lecturing me and other members of this place who are prepared to support this motion about how the government is going to make things tougher and implement the Lansdown review, he should read the review properly, because he has ignored two key recommendations. You must protect the suburbs of territorial significance, and they have failed to do so. Why? You must protect the suburbs of territorial significance because they are the ones where the redevelopment pressure is greatest-Braddon, Griffith, Narrabundah, Kingston, Yarralumla, Red Hill, O'Connor and Turner. Those are the suburbs where the redevelopment pressure is greatest. Those are the suburbs where the bulk of the dual occupancy development is occurring. What is this government proposing in this code? Far from making it tougher, they are simply ignoring the significance identified by Lansdown of those suburbs. It is about time the minister went and properly read the Lansdown review.

Mr Smyth says that he is not going to get an increase in powers. Let me just say this to Mr Smyth: he has only to turn to page 15 of the policy section of the draft variation, which says in relation to the preparation of section master plans for multiunit development, including dual occupancy development, that specific ministerial approval of section master plans will be essential. Those are the words in the draft variation. The minister, and the minister alone, will be the person who signs off on each section master plan. Indeed, the government says in its own document that it is essential that he do so.

How can he stand up in this place and argue that he is not getting increased powers? How can he do that, particularly in light of the fact that once he approves a section master plan which can, with his approval, exceed the provisions of the code or ignore certain provisions of the code, there will be no appeal? Not only does he get the power to approve it, but also he gets the power to approve it without appeal. I would argue that that is a significant increase in power. I would ask the question: would any member of this place trust this man to approve a dual occupancy next to their house? I would not.

Let us turn to the Liberals' commitment. Mr Smyth always has fun harking back to the days when there was a Labor government. I would like to hark back to what the Liberals said at that time. Mr Speaker, I know that you will take particular interest as you were the planning spokesperson at the time, I understand. Mr Speaker, speaking in relation to dual occupancy, the Liberals said in "Planning: A Question of Balance", their policy document for the 1995 ACT election, "In established areas of Canberra the roofline must be in keeping with the surrounding area, single storey unless adjacent to an existing two-storey development." That is good policy. I like that policy. That would protect the low-rise amenity of a suburb.

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