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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2241 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Assembly and the city. We really need to continue evaluating the community debate on the sort of city that we want to be in the future and that we need to be in the future

Dual occupancies per se are clearly not the problem. This form of development contributes to the variety of housing stock across Canberra. The challenges are related to the quality of design and the sensitivity to neighbourhood character and strategic location issues. Rather than abdicate these issues to LAPAC in the hope that they will be able to fully address them on a case by case basis, I suggest that the Assembly support the very process which PALM has already put in place. Take up the challenge and be part of it.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I have an amendment to Mr Corbell's motion. Rather than refer dual occupancy applications to the LAPACs for assessment on a case by case basis, we have a review of the importance of and the need for dual occupancies and come up with a clear picture of what position they should take in the future urbanscape of the city. With that in mind, I will move the amendments that have been circulated in my name.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hird): Thank you. I will call on you at the appropriate time.

MR RUGENDYKE (9.10): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I have some sympathy with this motion. I certainly recognise that there are problems with some dual occupancy developments around town. I think the impacts on some existing premises are unnecessarily heavy and involve overshadowing, overlooking, closeness to boundaries, and apparent over-development of available land in some places. Some of it may well be inappropriate, and I have seen a couple of examples of that.

The second part of Mr Corbell's motion refers to LAPACs. In the Belconnen area, in the electorate of Ginninderra, there are two very good LAPACs, the Ginninderra LAPACs and the West Belconnen LAPACs. I have a great deal of appreciation for the work that they do. I am in touch with those LAPACs as often as necessary. I am aware that they do some very good advisory work, although they are not always notified of things that they think they ought to be notified of. Perhaps that is due to a breakdown in communication between PALM and the LAPAC. Perhaps there is a cynical view that government can easily say that they have a consultative body that they sometimes consult with.

The Belconnen LAPACs, although they work hard, would probably appreciate this proposal, but I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, that there are no LAPACs in the electorate of Brindabella.

Mr Corbell: That is right.

MR RUGENDYKE: So why would we burden the existing LAPACs for some dual occupancies when there are no LAPACs to refer Tuggeranong's dual-occupancy developments to? For that reason I think it is not appropriate to support either paragraph (2) of this motion or Ms Tucker's amendment. It appears that Mr Smyth's foreshadowed amendment is a reasonable amendment to complete the motion. So, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I support paragraph (1), and when it comes up I will support Mr Smyth's proposed amendment.

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