Page 1930 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 14 May 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think it is very clear that this variation is a very important reform. It is a reform which provides greater guarantees for solar access for people who live in new homes; it is a reform that provides for greater certainty and appropriate levels of redevelopment in the existing suburban areas. It is not uncommon for critics of a variation to claim that it will have detrimental economic impacts. The same claim was made, of course, about variation 200 to the territory plan. Such claims were not able to be substantiated and are a common tactic in these types of public debate.
MADAM SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: My supplementary question is to the Minister for Economic Development. Minister, how much revenue will the territory lose as a result of DV306?
MR BARR: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. Firstly, the Denman Prospect sale has been delayed a matter of weeks. That was to allow for more bidders to be able to undertake due diligence. That will take place in the very near future.
Mr Hanson: Not enough bidders—didn’t they know it was happening?
MR BARR: No, I understand that a number of major national developers wish to have a board meeting prior to the date in order to consider—
Mr Hanson: To understand the implications of DV306?
MR BARR: No, it has absolutely nothing to do with DV306 and I can only echo the comments of the planning minister that, yes, similar observations were made about DV200.
MADAM SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Ms Porter.
MS PORTER: Minister, what benefits does 306 bring to the ACT community?
MR CORBELL: I thank Ms Porter for the supplementary. As I was indicating in my previous answer, there are significant benefits that this variation brings. Let us talk about two important issues. The first is, of course, the issue of access to a good level of sunlight, particularly during winter hours. I do not think—in fact I find it difficult to believe—that anyone in this place would suggest that it is not a good idea to ensure that when new homes are built, people’s homes are not overshadowed by their neighbours and that they are able to get sunlight. It is a good idea that they are able to get sunlight, especially during winter hours. It is a good idea to make sure that planning regulations stop homes overshadowing their neighbours. These are good things to be doing. But it is clearly not a policy supported by those opposite.
Equally, the changes to the RZ2 zones have been strongly welcomed by many established residents groups. They have been welcomed because people have been concerned about the scale of redevelopment activity in the RZ2 area and this variation
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video