Page 3180 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
consultation on territory plan variations should include an illustration of the maximum permissible 3D building envelope—because that is what the territory plan variation is allowing. People should know what they are actually commenting on, what we are potentially approving.
I also in this recommendation said that, in the descriptions accompanying planning proposals, ACTPLA should ensure that the text is consistent with the actual characteristics of the development. This, again, was something that was pointed out extensively by the community. The text accompanying the development said that a majority of the units have a strong northerly orientation at the main frontage, with the remainder predominantly facing east or west.
However, the committee received evidence, particularly from Mr Wrigley, that in stage 1, which does not include the public housing units, only 22 per cent of the housing units had a northerly aspect. In block E, 10 of the 11 units have no northerly windows. So what I was saying and the community was pointing out was the description of the development was not consistent with what appeared to be proposed as the development.
The hardest part in trying to make a constructive report on this was working out how we can improve the development, given that two-thirds of the site has already been covered by single-storey development. It is basically a waste of a good site. What makes it particularly bad is that the government had a large, empty site in a very good position which they owned in 2001 and they still partially own.
It is not a situation where poor decisions have been made by external developers and the ACT government has been powerless to intervene. They made these decisions. These decisions demonstrate a lack of commitment by the ACT government to the ACT greenhouse strategy and to the Canberra spatial plan, which is supposed to reinforce residential densities around town centres.
Mr Barr: We were proposing densities.
MS LE COUTEUR: Yes, you were proposing to increase them but the reality is that two-thirds of the site is covered by single-storey development.
Ms Porter also commented on my recommendations about energy efficiency, stating that the Building Code of Australia was a more appropriate mechanism to do this. I have no problems with changes to the Building Code of Australia but that is not something that I am in a position to do. However, the committee is in a position to recommend changes to the precinct codes and the territory plan. I believe that the committee should do that with respect to energy efficiency in multi-unit developments.
Most people do not realise that multi-unit developments, in fact, have lower energy efficiency requirements than single residential units. This, again, seems somewhat crazy to me. If you are unfortunate enough to live in a single residence, which is poorly insulated or poorly orientated, you probably have at least some possibilities for improving your dwelling.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .