Page 1574 - Week 04 - Thursday, 29 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
will just lead to local opposition. Spot redevelopment tends to lead to local opposition. The Brumbies development proposal in Griffith is a good example of this. There also needs to be more emphasis on good design and appropriately sized housing and adaptive reuse of the existing housing stock.
I also note another target in the planning strategy, which is to provide more affordable and sustainable living options by promoting more choice in housing location and types. It sets a target of a 25 per cent increase in the number and percentage of dwellings that are not detached houses in each district. This objective is commendable, but the target does not relate well to it. In Canberra, housing types other than detached houses do not seem to be much cheaper than detached houses.
Unfortunately, this strategy does not contain many new ideas for affordable housing. Also, some affordable and sustainable housing options, such as secondary dwellings, would increase density but would classify as detached. The strategy makes brief mention of social housing but does not commit the government to any measurable targets for achieving these goals. The strategy also fails to outline any commitment from the ACT government to increasing the total number of public housing dwellings in the ACT in line with population growth. The ACT government should have clear targets for improving the quality, location and growth in public housing stock and this should be included in the planning strategy.
One of the goals we were pleased to see in the planning strategy was the goal of managing growth responsibly and sustainably by taking a regional approach to urban settlement, with the outcome of achieving a regional settlement strategy. It is pleasing to see the need for a regional approach acknowledged in the planning strategy. Cross-border transport issues, for example, are something the Greens have raised consistently with the government, including the need to improve our rail links, for example, and the need to do everything we can to facilitate the development of high-speed rail linking Canberra to other cities.
I would remind the Assembly that the Greens introduced a motion on rail to the Assembly last year which called on the government to take action on light rail, high-speed rail, rail freight and regional rail. That motion asked the Assembly to recognise the importance of rail to a future of sustainable planning and sustainable travel in Canberra. The motion asked the government to consult with the Canberra public about the alternative high-speed rail routes in and out of Canberra and the potential locations for a Canberra high-speed rail station. It also asked the ACT government to make a case to the federal government for the prioritised construction of the Canberra stages of the route and to detail how the ACT government will facilitate the planning and staging of the routes and the high-speed rail station.
Unfortunately, neither the government nor the Canberra Liberals supported this motion. It made a number of other reasonable requests, such as prioritising sustainable rail freight, meeting with relevant federal ministers and requesting federal support for ACT rail projects and engaging with the New South Wales government and local New South Wales councils to coordinate improved cross-border rail services.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video