Page 3412 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 18 September 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
particularly when you overlay other documents, such as the climate change strategies, the greenhouse gas emissions targets that have been adopted, the stated intention of the government to develop light rail and the work being done on projects such as city to the lake and the government’s commitment to increasing urban density across the city, one can see a very clear direction there. I do not think there is uncertainty in some of that. There are details still to be fleshed out, no doubt about it.
When it comes to draft variation 306, we debated the merits of that here in the Assembly back in May so I do not want to go over that old ground too much today. However, a number of positive changes have come about from draft variation 306, including the solar fence requirements to protect neighbours from being overshadowed by their northern neighbours, block size and aspect requirements to better ensure solar access for individual houses, removing restrictions on who can live in secondary residences or granny flats—which has now come into effect—increased diversity of dwelling sizes in multi-unit developments, better protection of neighbourhood character in RZ2 developments, an increased dwelling allowance for adaptable dwellings, ensuring that consolidated block developments have 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.
I understand that the new requirements have had some teething problems, and that is understandable. We need a fundamental shift in perspective to start to design and build all our new homes in sympathy with the place and climate in which they are situated. We know that it can be done, and it will get easier over time as architects and builders get used to the new requirements.
Last time we debated this issue the government committed to further consultation with the industry and stakeholders on technical amendments to iron out some inconsistencies and make the transition smoother. I look forward to hearing more from the planning minister about progress in this area. But I think it is right for government to provide the standards it expects the industry to adopt and provide a level of push, because, unfortunately, otherwise the transition to the new standards and the meeting of more modern criteria will simply not be rapid enough for the imperatives we face.
When it comes to draft variation 308 we have the planning framework and processes in place to assess individual development proposals against strategic objectives. In the case of the proposed redevelopment of the ABC flats, I believe there is no reason to hold off on the assessment of this proposal while the city plan is developed. I am not going to go into the whys and wherefores of the committee report; that was well prosecuted in here yesterday. But I certainly believe the site is prime for redevelopment, and I believe that for two reasons: one is that the existing structures are in need of replacement. They are simply not the buildings this city needs. The second is that it is a prime site capable of having a much higher level of development on it than is currently the case. It is right on the edge of the city within walking distance for many people of an enormous array of amenities and facilities and work locations. The site should be strategically used to help increase the density of the city.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video