Page 260 - Week 01 - Thursday, 17 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
jurisdictions have different models which, at least from this distance, seem like they are doing better. We would very much like ACTPLA to look at these models. This could be an appropriate thing to be part of the next territory plan variation, which will be dealing, I understand, with all the residential zones.
Recommendation 8 was that multi-unit dwellings be designed to optimise energy efficiency. This is particularly important because multi-unit dwellings often cannot easily be renovated or changed afterwards. If we make mistakes when building the first time they will probably be there for the life of the building, whereas single residences are usually a little bit more flexible if mistakes have been made.
Recommendation 9 is about universal design principles. We ask the government to report back on progress it has made in implementing this. From a personal point of view, I would like to go further than that. One of the problems of the current regulations is that they only come into play in a multi-unit development where there are more than 10 units. As we know, a lot of the redevelopments in the ACT have less than 10 units so we do not get any universal design.
Given that one of the drivers of redevelopment in these areas is people getting older and needing to have dwellings which suit their circumstances, I think universal design should be much more common. What universal design means is that the building is designed so that it can be easily converted into an adaptable building which is suitable for people in wheelchairs or walking frames. The cost of doing this at design and construction stage is almost nothing. It is in the order of a couple of hundred dollars. The cost of retro-fitting a building, if you do not do it at the construction stage, can be a lot more. We would be talking about many thousands of dollars. So it is important that we do it at the beginning in our multi-unit areas.
The committee’s next recommendations, 10 and 11, both talk about public open space networks and how they need to be retained, improved and enhanced. The committee strongly feels that these areas, which will have high residential density in future, need to have good open space so that the people who live there have got somewhere to go outside, somewhere to walk and somewhere to recreate. If we are not going to have as much space in individual backyards, we need to have sufficient high quality space in our communal backyards.
Recommendation 12 talks about the ACT government working with developers to achieve the desired zoning outcomes. Here we are referring to the fact that there have been quite a few instances where redevelopment that has happened in this area has been pretty low-level redevelopment. There are plenty of places where we could have easily achieved greater urban density without inconveniencing or disturbing any existing neighbours. One that comes to mind right now is the development next to the old Rex Hotel. There was the Rex Hotel itself, but next to it there was a car park, which I think has been redeveloped by the ACT government under the stimulus package. Some of that is two storeys. It is very close to Civic—it is just on the other side of the green belt—and it would make sense to be more dense there. If we miss the good opportunities, we are going to just make it harder to get a good urban forum for the ACT. We have recommended that the government have in-depth consultation with the Canberra community about densification opportunities along transport routes,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video