Page 1562 - Week 05 - Thursday, 15 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
precursor to proposed development. It makes sense that the University of Canberra should be subject to territory planning provisions in the same way as other lessees, and I support this change.
Clause 28 of the bill relates to dual occupancy and amends section 17 of the Unit Titles Act. The bill removes the requirement which came into effect in 2009 to superimpose dual occupancy developments. This requirement meant that dual occupancy developments were only allowed to be unit titled where one unit was wholly or partly superimposed on the other unit, so that the roof lines were continuous. The change will mean that proponents will now be able to unit-title a block of land when building two stand-alone residences. This change will only apply in areas where zoning allows for unit titles.
I support these changes. The limitation that was put in place five years ago has led to a significant decline in the rates of dual occupancy development in the ACT during this period. This really was a lost opportunity for Canberra as a city to diversify its housing stock and facilitate infill development through dual occupancies. At an individual level, it limited the capacity for people to develop second residences on their blocks to provide themselves with flexible and affordable housing options as their circumstances change over time.
Of course, there is much debate within the community about where dual occupancies and multi-unit dwellings should best be located. Unit titles are still not allowed in suburban areas zoned RZ1, so this change will not open the doors to a wave of dual occupancies throughout the suburbs of Canberra. The issue of which zones correspond to which locations is a discussion for another time. However, in the locations where unit titles are currently allowed by the zoning, the law should not be an impediment to their development. So I support the removal of this restriction.
Clause 27 of the bill adds two new items to schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulation. The Planning and Development Act has three categories of notification—full notification, major notification and minor notification. This bill moves the notification requirements for two types of development from the major to the minor category, meaning that, rather than requiring a sign on the property and a newspaper notice, they will now require only a letter to neighbours.
The two affected items are as follows: firstly, merit track applications for small additions to a unit within a multi-unit residential development, if the change results in an additional gross floor area of less than 10 per cent or less than 20 square metres, and, secondly, the putting up, attaching or displaying of a sign.
I think these are sensible and appropriate changes. In the first case it would seem more suitable for a letter to be sent to neighbours of nearby units, as they are the people who are most likely affected by a small development of that kind, rather than the broader community who are more effectively reached by notification signs and notices in the paper.
In the case of a sign, a minor notification requiring a letter to neighbours seems a more suitable approach than requiring a proponent to put up a sign to notify people that you want to put up a sign.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video