Page 229 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
also a design criterion to minimise potential impacts of dual occupancy development on the residential character of the streets in which they are located. In addition, and to remove any doubt, the existing residential RZ1 suburban zone provisions will apply to dual occupancy development on these blocks. This means that any dual occupancy development will also need to comply with RZ1 zone requirements for setbacks, solar access, private open space and the like.
Redevelopment of the Mr Fluffy blocks will result in change regardless of whether they are redeveloped with single dwellings or whether they are redeveloped with dual occupancies. While we cannot prevent this change, we can minimise the potential impacts on residential amenity and character, and that is what we have done in variation 343.
Notwithstanding all that variation 343 seeks to achieve, I acknowledge the concerns raised in many of the 124 public submissions about the need to protect residential amenity and character in the residential RZ1 suburban zone, and I have responded accordingly. The ACT planning system is comprehensive, inclusive and open. I made sure that territory plan variation 343 went through every stage of the statutory planning process, and much more.
Mr Coe raised an issue for future purchasers in these areas. How will they know whether or not there is dual occupancy available in that suburb? As we do now, with all purchases or changes, people apply to the planning directorate to see what those conditions are.
The draft variation was placed on statutory public consultation between 10 April and 25 May 2015. During this time, public consultation sessions were held in conjunction with the Asbestos Response Taskforce. The draft variation was the subject of an inquiry by the standing committee, as we have heard. The inquiry involved public submissions and hearings. After all of that time and scrutiny, the opposition now sees fit to move a disallowance motion on variation 343.
Mr Coe interjecting—
MR GENTLEMAN: I am extremely disappointed that the opposition did not raise its concerns through the standing committee inquiry process. There was not one recommendation from the opposition, either in support of or against draft variation 343, in standing committee report No 10 of October last year—not one.
Mr Coe interjecting—
MR GENTLEMAN: Many territory plan variations are complex and controversial. DV343—
Mr Coe interjecting—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Gentleman, sit down, please. Stop the clock, please. We are deteriorating into a conversation across the chamber again. Listen to Mr Gentleman in silence. Mr Gentleman.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video