Page 2175 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
commercial uses and services close not only to the city but also to town centres, key group centres, and along transport corridors. In this year’s budget we have seen some key relevant expenditures such as $1.5 million for sustainability studies for infill development opportunities, $1.2 million for master planning for group centres and rural villages, as well as transport corridors, and significant funding for transit ways.
It is pleasing to see that the government is moving towards a better understanding generally of how infill development needs to evolve around transport corridors and a shift in the way we build new areas. It is important that while the government does this kind of investigation and investment, the government’s drivers and incentives—their financial drivers and incentives in particular—reflect these priorities.
Accordingly, Ms Hunter will be moving amendments to allow for the creation of exemptions and reductions for the charges to encourage development in strategic locations in certain zones such as transport corridors and town centres. We have left room for the government to stipulate which areas are high priorities for redevelopment through the creation of disallowable instruments.
It would be important to update these areas listed in the regulation on a regular basis to reflect changing priorities or perhaps indicate that an area has already been well developed. It is also critical that the government give the industry enough advance notice of which areas will and will not be eligible for remissions. On that point, I think there is some agreement between us and the Liberal Party.
The Greens think that there should be a range of incentives for developers to build as sustainably as possible. We have been proposing for a number of years that a sustainable development program should be established within ACTPLA which sets out sustainability criteria of new buildings and allows for a waiver of development application fees and change of use charges for eligible developments.
This legislation gives the government exactly the opportunity to align such sustainable planning objectives with financial levers; so I think this is very positive from that point of view—getting the financial part of the world and the planning part of the world talking to each other.
Around 73 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in the ACT can be attributed to stationary energy use, which is largely due to building use and construction. For the ACT to meet its legislative target of reducing its energy use by 40 per cent by 2020 it is imperative that energy use of building construction is urgently and dramatically reduced.
Providing incentives for developers of both commercial and residential properties to develop buildings sustainably is an important step towards achieving this target. Again, like the proposed remissions on certain areas, we think it is better that the eligibility for waivers not be in the legislation itself but in subordinate legislation. I am getting organised for a motion I have on the notice paper for tomorrow about EER ratings. It provides a very cautionary tale on this.
People may remember—possibly Mr Barr is the only other person here who would remember—that the sale of premises legislation actually legislates what software can
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video