Page 1680 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
codes has been underway since 2008, and we have that before us today in the form of draft variation 306, and the review of the commercial codes is currently in progress and exists as draft variation 304.
The revision process for draft variation 306, as I said, has been underway for over four years, including a number of rounds of community consultation in various forms—the estate development code review was once DV301 and the residential code review DV303. I do not think there is any debate at all that our residential codes need to be updated. As you can see by the long title of Mr Wall’s motion, there are many elements to the codes in this draft variation. There are five residential zones from RZ1, the least dense, to RZ5, the highest density, and rules and descriptions of what kinds of developments are allowed in these zones. There are codes for single dwelling developments and for multi-unit housing development; and there is also the residential estate development code. Altogether, these papers total over 300 pages or so.
It has been a long process for ACTPLA to put this variation together, long enough that I do not want to take too much time explaining the details today. However, it is certainly important to note that there have been quite a few rounds of public consultation, a territory plan code review expert reference group comprising community and industry stakeholders in 2010 and an inquiry by the planning committee of the previous Assembly last year which all happened over the past four years before we got to the variation we have before us today.
Mr Coe, who I believe put together the proposal for Mr Wall’s motion, was on this planning committee. He heard the range of stakeholders’ feedback last year and would be fully aware of just how complex these issues are. He would also be aware of the large number of significant improvements to the existing codes in this variation, and there is a raft of positive changes contained in DV306.
There are a number of distinct improvements to the residential codes that come with this variation, such as the solar fence requirements to protect neighbours on the south side of a development from being overshadowed by their northern neighbour, and the solar orientation of blocks where block size and aspect requirements better ensure solar access for individual houses—although I note this will be hard to deliver on the southern slopes of new Gungahlin suburbs and may require some further consideration. Another improvement includes removing restrictions on who can live in secondary residences. These would be better known as granny flats to most people. And I imagine that many people would not have even realised that they have not been legal for quite some time. But draft variation 306 will allow them again so people will not have to suddenly remove the kitchen out of their back flat when an elderly relative dies.
Another improvement is increased diversity of dwelling sizes in multi-unit developments, which is not necessarily something in demand now but will be important into the future. There is better protection of neighbourhood character in RZ2 developments, an increased dwelling allowance for adaptable dwellings, ensuring that consolidated block developments are only allowed with adequate street frontage, and restricting the overall scale and distribution. This will ensure that local neighbours are happier with the developments, as well as creating more efficient dwellings.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video