Page 233 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In most circumstances, dual occupancy dwellings are required to be single storey unless they both have street frontage and other planning permissions apply. Any dual occupancy development will need to comply with the current code requirements, including plot ratios of a maximum 35 per cent, setbacks, solar access and private open space. I would like to come back to that plot ratio issue.
On balance, I will not be supporting the disallowance today, because I believe this variation is a balanced position that both helps the government to work through the Mr Fluffy program while also allowing Mr Fluffy home owners to purchase their block back.
The extended time allotted for the discussion of Assembly business having expired—
Standing and temporary orders—suspension
Motion (by Mr Gentleman) agreed to, with the concurrence of an absolute majority:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Assembly concluding its consideration of notice No. 2, Assembly business, relating to the proposed rejection of Variation No. 343 to the Territory Plan, and notice No. 5, Assembly business, relating to the proposed disallowance of Disallowable Instrument DI2015-308 being called on and concluded.
MR RATTENBURY: As a result of this position, many home owners may choose the opportunity to downsize but stay in place, and I think this will be an attractive option for some people—clearly not for everybody. I think one of the great challenges in trying to come up with a scheme that addresses the Mr Fluffy response is that we have a thousand different scenarios and we have to try and come up with a fair set of rules that applies equally to everybody.
Certainly, in allowing this variation to go through, there is an opportunity for some people who will choose to come back to the same block but potentially downsize in location. It will provide that opportunity for some people. As I say, not everyone will choose to take it up.
I have sought to look at a range of different views on this and, like other members, I received a letter from the Inner South Community Council about this matter. I try to go to meetings of the community councils whenever I can. I think it is always a good discussion, not that you always agree with everything that comes up at them but you do get a feel for the way the community is perceiving different issues.
I read this letter very carefully and thought about the issues that were raised. Perhaps there is a similar circumstance here. This letter reflects on the fact that this is a difficult issue for the community, and nobody disagrees with that. This is causing a degree of change and a degree of upheaval for both neighbourhoods and communities, particularly for individual households.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video