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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2239 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, on 4 May last year I formally directed the ACT Planning Authority that the paramount considerations in all planning and development in the ACT would be high-quality design and sustainability. In response to that, PALM, in close association with the professional associations, the architects, the designers, the landscape architects and the engineers, have very carefully negotiated the best way to lift the bar of quality of development in Canberra. This has included lifting the bar of quality for dual occupancy and other multi-unit development and redevelopment.

In October last year a trial phase was implemented, and I recently announced a detailed package of reforms, including the mandatory requirement from 1 July this year of site analysis and design reports considering the context of developments to be submitted with development applications. For the interest of members, I now table copies of that kit for their use. I present the following papers:

Later this week I intend to announce on behalf of the government some further details of incentives and rewards for excellence in design. Other work that we have done has included the recent workshops conducted as part of the review of the heritage precincts.

The community, not surprisingly, has expressed a wide range of views on dual occupancies during this review. The community recognises that any large addition to an existing house could have as much impact upon the precinct as a dual occupancy, thereby identifying the primary concerns as the size and nature of any proposed development, including its design, scale and impact upon existing mature landscapes. The issue of how many titles existed within a block was not as critical as the physical nature of the development, noting that a dual occupancy may involve a negligible change, such as the conversion of a garage into a teenager retreat or a granny flat.

However, many members in this place and the public generally may not be aware of how PALM has taken a very positive but firm approach in the difficult challenge of pursuing my policy direction. Planning and Land Management has refused some recent dual and triple occupancy applications which did not meet quality objectives or satisfactorily resolve significant community concerns, even though the application may have met the technical criteria. On this score, PALM should receive the strong support of the community, but the reality is that PALM's role cannot, and should not, be expected to be able to satisfy all parties.

A further but very important initiative of the government over the last 12 months has been the institution of a program of biannual quality audits reviewing the outcomes on the ground of recent developments. An expert panel involving industry representation has used the quality criteria adapted to Canberra from the prime ministerial urban design task force of 1995. The things that have not been working as well as our design review panel and some sections of the community would like have been modified in response to this, or are being adjusted. They are reflected in the policies I have discussed already, as well as the revised residential development policies of ACTCode and some recent directions to PALM staff by the executive of that organisation. The recently elected LAPACs should be, and are being, involved in consideration of these more strategic issues, yet I would like to invite the Assembly to consider its possible role in this.

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