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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2240 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

PALM has decided to expand the program of quality audits so that they can incorporate LAPAC or community representation, and particularly address some of the sensitive issues associated with dual occupancy, such as the scale and type of design, the bulk of the development, overshadowing, the overlooking, the density of development, and the number of dual occupancy or multi-unit developments in a particular section. Recognising that there was a high level of interest in the issue at a community and LAPAC level, PALM has within the last month invited one of the most interested LAPACs to participate in a field inspection and evaluation of recent developments of concern. Whilst the workload of the LAPAC may immediately make it difficult for the community representatives to accept this invitation, I am very hopeful that they will ultimately be able to do this.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I have been listening to a wide number of community groups on this issue. I expect that one of the outcomes of this evaluation and review process will be a clearer understanding of the appropriate and strategic locations for dual occupancy development. All of us can point to what we think is inappropriate development, and we also know that there will be other competing views whose proponents often do not get equal space in this argument. (Extension of time granted.)

One side that Mr Corbell appears to speak on behalf of is a section of the community who are interested in playing a more active role in assessing applications. However, another view, for example, is found in an unsolicited letter I received this week from a local architect. It reads:

I recently attended my first LAPAC meeting ... I was appalled by the negative, anti-development attitude of most of the committee. I refuse to believe their views are representative of the broad community.

As a member of the Manuka local community I must applaud your position on the non-referral of dual occupancy proposals to LAPAC. The dual occupancy developments in the Red Hill, Forrest, Griffith areas are, admittedly, not all top quality examples of design, but already they are adding to the diversity of housing types in this area. They, in the main, are providing a breath of fresh air to what are, at best, average to pedestrian runs of existing housing. There are already good examples of dual occupancy developments appearing in several suburbs, and this type of infill development needs more gestation time to allow the good solutions to dominate and hopefully be accepted.

I appeal to you not to succumb to pressure and curtail this small-scale redevelopment as I am sure in the longer term Canberra suburbs will be richer places from the maintenance of this policy.

There is a differing view there. Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, LAPACs do play a very valuable role, and it is one that I appreciate very much. They should increasingly be involved in considering the strategic issues for Canberra. PALM, in conjunction with what the Commissioner for Land and Planning and other professional associations have been doing over the last 12 months or so, is conducting structured field evaluations in as objective a way as possible. Frankly, it would be invaluable for all Assembly members with an interest in this subject to participate at the same level in the process of field evaluation. Enhancing our understanding of design and planning issues, and developing a consistent basis of understanding for members, can only be to the good of the

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