Page 5576 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
What makes this even broader than people realise is that “code” includes concept plans, precinct plans, the ability to rezone or make changes to future urban areas as well as all the other codes which are more obvious in the territory plan. So it seems that the more major draft variations to the territory plan, which are often referred to the planning committee and more often discussed in the Assembly, are really confined to zoning changes, new structure plans and the introduction of entirely new codes.
Although I am aware there are concerns in the community that too many policy changes are made through technical variations—and I am inclined to agree—my reading of this legislation shows that it should be allowed. But of course, I could be wrong. Whether or not this is the right thing is another matter, and I will be talking about that later.
I will now go into some detail on this motion. I cannot disagree with (1)(a). The government clearly proposed a technical amendment. As Mr Barr pointed out, ACTPLA proposed a technical amendment. I would note that public comments were due by Monday of last week. So I hope Mr Seselja put his submission in on time.
In terms of (1)(b), I think the amendments and Mr Seselja’s motion are both factually correct. One refers to the numbers before and after, and the other refers to the amount it will change by. They are arithmetically the same. It is really of no matter which we agree to. But the point is that what is actually happening is an increase in dwelling numbers. In fact, the Greens in general, if it is well done, support the increase in density. We need to be aware of both housing affordability issues and sustainability issues. Increasing the density of newer suburbs potentially meets both of these criteria. We would rather see high density in such areas than watch more of our grasslands and woodlands turn into suburbs or see more fights and discontent in our urban suburban areas.
We all agree, all three parties in this place, theoretically that we need to increase our density as a city. We also know that this is difficult in the areas which are already built up. So my question would be: how else do the Liberals intend to increase density in our bush capital city if we do not do it in suburbs like this which are still in development stages?
However, I would also note as a matter of fact that neither Casey nor Crace will actually be high or even medium-density suburbs, even with the proposed changes. In an article in last week’s Northside Chronicle Mr Savery was quoted as saying that density is going to increase from the current rate of 10 to 12 dwellings per hectare to 15 to 17 dwellings per hectare. I am aware of this. In fact, I went out on Friday last week and saw areas in Dunlop and Franklin which have just been built with around 30 dwellings per hectare, as a comparison. So I think we should make it clear that the proposed changes are not, by Canberra’s standards, high density.
I cannot agree with (1)(c). Mr Barr has spoken about it. This is the statement about the increasing density coming at the cost of important open space. Mr Barr has spoken about this at some length. As far as my understanding of his confirmation is concerned, the increase in dwellings will come as a result of smaller block sizes and high-density buildings, not by building on urban open space.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video