Page 3176 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As noted earlier, increasing high density residential developments around town centres, including Woden, will encourage people to use alternative transport modes, including walking and public transport. Buyers might also be motivated to purchase in this location if they currently work in Woden.
The committee supports the proposed rule 27A of the residential zones multi-unit housing development code because it will theoretically enable the site to increase housing density near the Woden town centre and it is in keeping with the direction of the Canberra spatial plan. However, the committee believes that this change in zoning should be approved if accompanied by a change in allowable site density to enable real residential density to occur—that is, the committee recommends that ACTPLA increase the density allowance in the lease and development conditions for blocks 3 and 4 section 69, Lyons, and that the proposed variation to the territory plan include rule 27A, allowing developments of up to 10 storeys as part of block 4 section 69 Lyons. That should be agreed to subject to the above recommendation.
The committee regularly receives comment in relation to a concern that the current solar access rules in the multi-unit development code are inadequate for good passive solar housing design. The committee acknowledges that ACTPLA is undertaking a review of the territory plan as part of its ACTPLAn initiative and believes that this is an ideal time to strengthen such rules as the solar access rule.
The committee did find some challenges in dealing with the multiple planning and zoning issues in a single draft variation. Further, it believes future draft variation documentation should include additional documentation on the current territory plan provisions to assist the community to better understand the implications of the variations. The committee does not support Ms Le Couteur’s recommendation, however, that the independent planning authority produce illustrations of a development for the proponent “to help the community better understand the development”.
I would like to make a few points on Ms Le Couteur’s comments in the dissenting report. In respect of the recommendation that the independent planning authority produce illustrations of a development for the proponent to help the community understand the development, if you think that through, ACTPLA will be presenting to the community its interpretation of the development. If and when ACTPLA then sits down to assess that development, the community will wonder how the organisation that was putting forward the illustration can then impartially assess it. In effect, this well-intentioned suggestion could put ACTPLA in a compromised position where it would be seen as a partner of the proponent and assessor of the development. It will also lead to confusion since ACTPLA’s illustration of a possible development may differ significantly from what is finally proposed. So this suggestion of Ms Le Couteur’s would likely confuse the community and undermine trust in the independent planning authority.
In recommendation C, Ms Le Couteur recommends that an additional environmental analysis be done for all large developments. All large developments already have environmental assessments either as part of the planning study that precedes them or the DA process. Adding an additional process adds nothing to the development and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .