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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2977 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

approach that development should be restricted until it has been shown to have a net public benefit. If you allow something to be demolished, it is gone forever. If you allow something to be built, it will be around for decades.

Mr Corbell mentioned that there was a debate in the last Assembly about whether a draft variation which introduced a new urban housing code, ACTCode 2, should be withdrawn. In that case, I supported the withdrawal, as I regarded the variation as allowing a more intense level of redevelopment than previously applied. Even the previous level was of great concern to those residents who were affected.

This time around we are being asked to withdraw a variation that goes the other way and restricts redevelopment in a significant portion of Canberra's suburbs, a variation which was prepared as a response to the ad hoc redevelopment that occurred under the Liberal government. In line with the precautionary approach, I would prefer that such development be restricted until the final policy is in place. Therefore, in this case I cannot support the withdrawal of this plan variation.

I should point out, though, that this does not mean that I totally support this plan variation. I see it much more as an interim step until the development of the spatial plan and the various neighbourhood plans is much more advanced and there is a clearer view of what residential redevelopment is acceptable.

One specific concern that has been raised with me is that the current 5 per cent restriction on dual occupancies will stop when the interim effect of draft variation 192 runs out on 5 December this year. This means that those areas close to shops defined as general areas in DVP200 will be opened up again for dual occupancy development. Perhaps the minister would consider keeping this restriction in place until DVP200 or the neighbourhood plans for particular suburbs are finalised.

Overall the Greens agree with the approach outlined in the variation that urban consolidation should be focused around the local centres and public transport routes. This will make more efficient use of the urban infrastructure and the public transport network and meet the demand for denser housing, whilst keeping most of the suburban area in the traditional low-density form that gives our city its bush capital character.

There is a lot of detail in the variation that needs to be considered, however. There is a need to look at the impacts of the proposals on particular suburbs. For example, Downer is close to Dickson shops as well as having its own local centre. So some 40 per cent of the suburb would end up being available for redevelopment under DVP200.

There is some confusion in the community about what type of development will be allowed in the 200 or 300-metre zone around shopping centres. I get the feeling that some people think DVP200 will allow Kingston, Braddon or Turner styles of redevelopment within this zone.

Another community concern often expressed is about the rate of change in suburbs undergoing development. Perhaps the most drastic example of this at the moment is Moore Street in Turner. In a matter of months this street has been transformed from a row of fairly typical houses to virtually a continuous building site of new apartment

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