Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (19 August) . . Page.. 2757 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
election with, and which the Greens have gone to elections with each year we have run.
To receive our support for this variation, the government agreed to a number of key claims of the Greens. These included, firstly, that unit titling of new dual occupancies in suburban areas not be permitted. That was agreed to by the government.
On the issue of dual occupancies, the version of the variation that the government released in December last year caused disquiet in the community, even outrage, as people took the view that their submissions had been ignored and the new final went further away from what they had originally been consulted on. That was particularly the case in regard to the unit titling of dual occupancies in suburban areas, which had gone from not being permitted in the May version to being permitted in the December version on the basis of some research commissioned by PALM.
There were, of course, conflicting views on this issue. As an example, the Housing Industry Association said that it believed that unit title dual occupancy "should be readily available for provision in all areas of Canberra."That was most vociferously opposed by residents groups from the inner areas that have had the greatest exposure to dual occupancies in recent years.
On the other hand, Weston Creek Community Council was a residents group that did favour unit titling of dual occupancies in suburban areas and was supportive of the provisions of DV 200 in general, yet other residents from Weston Creek were fiercely opposed. Some argued for unit titling on the basis of individual housing choice, but also on the basis of better utilisation of community infrastructure and the desirability of bringing new people into their community.
The main arguments against, passionately put by many, were the fear of further inappropriate dual occupancy development in their neighbourhood, that the impact on infrastructure had not been factored into the planning, and that the sense of place so highly valued by many was violated by speculative dual occupancy development. Nola Cook, a resident of Braddon and chair of an interim community reference panel, said in a letter to me:
Thank-you for your willingness to compromise on DV 200. While DV 200 may not be perfect, it is an enormous improvement over the planning legislation passed by the Assembly when Brendan Smyth was Minister...Under the Liberal government, dual and triple occupancy redevelopments in south Braddon occurred seemingly on an anything goes basis, with local people feeling powerless to influence the process, even when it produced concreted-over treeless and barely gardened blocks dominated by huge houses. All totally out of character with the rest of the area.
The second point that the Greens have made is that the effectiveness of variation 200 should be evaluated in two years, which was also agreed to by the government. It is important that there is an opportunity to evaluate this variation. There are some provisions within DV 200 that we have reservations about and it is essential that they can be looked at in terms of what actually happens.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .