Page 3448 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 23 September 2015

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

(d) many home owners are spending large sums of money to excavate blocks so that houses are lowered below the natural ground-level in order to comply with the rules;

(e) the impact of the variation will be permanent due to the influence it has had on estate plans; and

(f) the cost of the solar rules is estimated to be between $15 000 and $50 000 per house; and

(2) calls on the Government to repeal the solar access rules and replace it with:

(a) a simple building envelope; or

(b) a significantly increased solar fence.

I am delighted to move this motion today to discuss the government’s poor solar access rules. The current solar access rules were brought in when the government approved variation 306 to the territory plan. The variation was highly controversial, and prompted significant debate and concern in the industry and also in the broader community.

The planning committee received submissions and heard from witnesses from across the community. The overwhelming view of the community was that the solar rules were poorly considered and would lead to unintended consequences. While many witnesses sympathised with the intention of the rules, the vast majority of them warned the government that the proposed rules were not workable and would lead to bad outcomes.

The Master Builders Association of the ACT described variation 306 as follows:

Draft Variation 306 is a recent example of a failure by government to understand the implications of a positive objective ill-framed in legislation and almost guaranteed to fail … the draft variation hampered the delivery of excellent strategic policy objectives for urban infill, limited the potential for contemporary and diverse dwellings through the replacement dwelling rule and bred ill-feeling and a lack of confidence.

The overwhelming view in the community was that the government was not considering the implications of the rules and it should try to achieve solar access in another way. Let me also remind members of some of the other people who contributed to the debate at the time. The Institute of Architects said that the changes:

… will fail to adequately improve the planning and development of Canberra’s residential suburbs, and in many cases may result in poorer built form outcomes than is currently typical.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video