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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2238 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

As we all know, there are always at least two sides to the story. The fact that there is heightened community interest in the quality of development and design generally in the city at the moment is a very positive thing. It strongly reinforces the policy commitment and the leadership position that this government has taken in relation to high-quality design and sustainable development.

There is a lot of discussion about the nature of development and change in our communities, and there are some genuine legitimate concerns about some aspects of some developments, including dual occupancy. I have been clearly on the record as saying that industry, the community and government together must lift the bar of quality of design. On this point, Mr Corbell and I have some agreement. Where I am afraid we disagree is in our response.

Mr Corbell today suggests a greater workload of dual occupancy applications for an already busy LAPAC system. The government, however, has been listening closely to the community and closely monitoring the trends and has placed a very clear policy program in place. Mr Corbell's motion, as it turns out, provides a very good opportunity for me to reinforce for members of this place what measures have been put in place or are being put in place and what role the Assembly can play. I am sure we all come in contact from time to time with members of the community who are interested in these topical issues, and we would benefit from a better knowledge of what is currently being done.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, there is no doubt that across the city there are some examples of development, particularly dual occupancy development, which have not been sufficiently sensitive to the existing or desired character of the particular area. There are also some areas, often suburbs of popular interest, which are experiencing the inevitable twinges that come with change. But I am quite sure that the majority of members here do not believe that all dual occupancy development is inherently wrong or is of poor design, or that the remedy is to refer all proposals to the LAPACs. On the contrary, most would appreciate that there are some very good examples of sensitive design which have been well accepted by local communities.

Dual occupancy development is one of the appropriate urban management policies to meet contemporary challenges and housing requirements in modern cities, but, like all policies, it needs to be moderated. What basis is there for dual occupancy or other styles of multi-unit development? The ABS household and family projections 1996 to 2021 indicate that the number of households in Canberra will increase by 38 per cent between 1996 and 2021 compared to a population growth of only 23 per cent. The greater growth in the number of households is because of the decline in household size.

The number of couple families without children is projected to increase from 25,600 in 1996 to 41,700 in 2021. The changing housing demand of the population is, in part, being met through dual occupancy developments. The number of dual occupancy applications has increased from 67 in the year 1997-98 to 179 in 1999-2000. Of the applications in 1999-2000, three-quarters were in central Canberra. The suburbs with the highest activity were Ainslie and Turner, each having 23 applications, and O'Connor, 18 applications.

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