Page 4707 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
But looking at draft variations 301 and 303, what we are committed to with solar access and solar orientation is the outcomes, not the methods. It is important to look at the long-term and short-term affordability issues. In the long run, having good passive solar design makes a house cheaper to run. You do not have to spend money on heating it and cooling it, and it also makes it a lot more comfortable to live in.
A number of submissions to both of these draft territory plan variations have talked about integrated design as being one of the ways of achieving good solar access. We think that that is quite probably a good solution which will enable good passive solar design, good solar access and good affordability because it potentially allows more compact blocks at the same time as allowing the solar access. What the Greens are going for is the outcomes here, not the methodology.
My next point is that the majority of community submissions received by ACTPLA support the new solar access measures in draft variations 301 and 303. Speaking as someone who has read a lot of them, although not absolutely all of them, that is true. There were 30 subs on 301 and 97 on 303. I have to say that solar access, passive solar design, is the motherhood issue as far as planning is concerned. I think there is probably nothing else that everybody agrees to. Even the people who had concerns about the methodology were united in saying that solar access, passive solar design, is something that we must do.
My next point is that draft variations 301 and 303 to the territory plan cover a wide variety of other more contentious methods and initiatives. I would actually describe 303 as a grab bag of measures. It has got some interesting stuff about secondary dwellings. It has got some interesting stuff about minimum size of dwellings. It has got some really interesting and very controversial stuff about the residential character of RZ1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
These are all interesting topics which I think there needs to be a lot of community debate and consultation on. What they are doing is detracting from the one thing that the community is totally on the same page on—passive solar design and solar access. This is really necessary. Draft variation 301, although less divided, has a whole heap of road building exercises as well as the solar access.
My next point is that the majority of the community submissions received by ACTPLA express concern about the size of the draft variations, the lack of explanatory materials or comparative information with the current planning rules and the short time frame for consultation. The level of consultation on 303 has been very disappointing.
I wrote to the planning minister on 4 August to request that ACTPLA actually do some public information sessions so that people could ask questions and understand the variation. I am very surprised that ACTPLA did not have any public information sessions. The only public information session was hosted by the Woden Valley Community Council. It was only an hour. It was not long enough.
I am afraid that while draft variation 303 was a worthy planning document, it was for most of the community, including myself, very hard to read. It was almost
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video