Page 1682 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
My office has had discussions with Minister Corbell’s office and ACTPLA about issues relating to the implementation of DV306, and we have received extensive community and industry feedback since aspects of the draft variation came into interim effect in 2010, and particularly since the final variation has been presented. It is clear there have been a number of unintended outcomes that need reviewing.
The Assembly has the capacity to delete specific clauses of concern, but given that we cannot amend clauses, only remove them, this may lead to other unintended outcomes further down the track. To be honest, I am not convinced that this level of detail is best done on the floor of the Assembly, as planning laws, especially at the rules and criteria level, are complex.
It seems that most of the specific concerns that have been raised with me appear to be along the lines of unintended consequences, not substantial policy disagreement. Generally, conversations I have had with stakeholders have suggested that rejecting the variation completely is not the answer. They certainly want changes to some of the rules and criteria, but it is important to note that if we reject this today we are holding the ACT residential planning codes back in the last century.
Over the past two years implementation of the parts of the draft variation which were given interim effect have given the industry an opportunity to identify some of the problems with the on-ground effects of constructing to meet the rules and criteria. We now need to learn from this experience about any problems so that we can adjust accordingly.
My office has spoken and met with a broad range of stakeholders, including the Master Builders Association, the Australian Institute of Architects, the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, the Property Council, and a range of other industry and community members. I have passed on the feedback I have received from these groups to Minister Corbell’s office as the government has committed to taking further feedback on specific areas of concern with a view to further technical amendments. There are some concerns that will be more difficult to fix, as there appear to be differing community views on them and no singular view on what the right outcome actually is.
I understand ACTPLA has already agreed to make some suggested adjustments based on industry feedback—for example, removing the inconsistency between the 10-metre front zone for the solar fence and the 12-metre primary building zone so they are both the same. They have also committed to looking into introducing a sliding scale for plot ratios so that the proportion of a block that can be used for a house is less on larger blocks.
A quick list of some of the other concerns—they have obviously been given an airing already today to some extent—include complying with solar access provisions will lead to wedding-cake-type tiers on houses; drainage issues; excessive excavation and retaining walls; too many rules which overlap and confuse; and a lack of policy intent and very specific rules instead.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video