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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (19 August) . . Page.. 2747 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mrs Cross indicated, basically, that she did not see how she could progress the issue either. I had offered an option, but she was unable to come back to me and say whether she could or could not accept it. What was the government to do? What the government did, Mr Speaker, was that it went and spoke with a member who was prepared to find a compromise and who recognised that this variation was a significant improvement.

Mr Speaker, this variation is the direct result of a mandate that this government sought at the last election to introduce better residential land use policies to protect Canberra's garden city character and the variation delivers on that commitment. The consequence of supporting this disallowance today should be the key issue in the minds of members of this place.

The consequence of supporting this disallowance, of erasing variation 200, would be continued community uncertainty created by the random location of multiunit redevelopment throughout Canberra, essentially the continuation of the regime of the previous government, the continuation of high plot ratios for dual occupancy development in suburban areas, and the continuation of the trend towards overly large houses that dominate the block and the landscape. Those members who vote for Mrs Dunne's motion today will be supporting exactly that outcome. That is the question that members need to ask themselves today before they vote.

Let me outline in some detail what it will mean if this variation is not supported today. Let us look, first of all, at the issue of plot ratio controls for single dwellings. Variation 200 proposes a 0.5 plot ratio control for single dwellings, a control on the size of single dwellings. What is in the Territory Plan currently and what would be in the Territory Plan if this variation were defeated today? There would be no control over the size of single dwellings.

How could any member of this place support that approach, particularly someone who comes from an independent perspective or from the perspective of the Democrats? How could you support no control over single dwelling developments? How could you support an approach which permits triple occupancy development and no control in the Territory Plan, which is what would be the case if this variation were defeated today?

How could you support an approach which permits block consolidation for multiunit development in any residential development area and no other control in the Territory Plan in relation to land use activity? That will be the consequence if this variation is not supported today. How could you support an approach where there was no statutory control over the minimum size of a block for a dual occupancy development? That would be the consequence of not supporting this variation today.

Failure to support this variation today will mean that there will be no specified size for a block that can be used to control dual occupancy development. There is a guideline, which is all we have been relying on to date, but no statutory control, no control that actually can be part of the Territory Plan and can be unambiguous in saying, "This is the control when it comes to dual occupancy development."

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