Page 2723 - Week 08 - Thursday, 11 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Directorate and the Asbestos Response Taskforce worked extensively to publicise the draft variation. This included attending Community Council and other stakeholder and community meetings. In this regard, I consider appropriate consultation has been undertaken in relation to the provisions that apply through V343.
V343 facilitates modest urban renewal throughout the capital, by focusing on the redevelopment of remediated Mr Fluffy blocks and limiting these to dual occupancy development. This is a modest increase in housing density and does not include ‘higher density’ development such as apartments. It should also be noted that V343 does not apply to heritage blocks; only loose fill asbestos affected blocks surrendered under the ACT Government Buyback Scheme, within the RZ1 zone and 700m2 or larger. All other loose fill asbestos blocks are subject to the existing relevant Territory Plan requirements.
V343 reduced the minimum block size for dual occupancy development within the RZ1 zone from 800m2 to 700m2. It also introduced appropriate plot ratios for dual occupancy development on these blocks as well as the ability to unit title. These measures are intended to provide the option for dual occupancy development as a means of contributing to housing choice in established areas.
In order to protect residential amenity of surrounding properties V343 also imposed a strict one storey building height for all dual occupancy dwellings subject to the 35% plot ratio. This will mostly apply to dual occupancy developments where both dwellings do not front the street. A design criterion was also introduced to ensure dual occupancy dwellings protect the existing character of the streetscape. This means that proposals for dual occupancy development are required to comply with the full suite of provisions of the RZ1 suburban zone as well as the additional provisions introduced through V343.
I would like to point out that community consultation does not end with the commencement of V343. Dual occupancy redevelopment proposals under these provisions are also required to submit a development application which will be made available for public comment.
In Hackett, there are some 22 loose fill asbestos affected blocks within the residential RZ1 zone that are 700m2 or larger. Of these blocks only 8 are between 700m2 and 800m2. Blocks over 800m2 were able to be redeveloped for dual occupancy before V343 came into effect. The difference is that dual occupancy development on these blocks can now be unit-titled.
The actual number of proposals for dual occupancy development on these 22 blocks is not known. Not all the blocks will necessarily be surrendered under the Loose Fill Asbestos Insulation Eradication Buyback Scheme. In addition, from information obtained as part of the Buyback Scheme, it is anticipated that many of the blocks will be redeveloped for single dwellings under a ‘knock down and rebuild’ scenario. This is already permitted within the residential RZ1 zone.
I appreciate the concerns raised through this petition. I acknowledge that the redevelopment of the loose fill asbestos blocks will bring change to many streets across the ACT and particularly where there are clusters of blocks. However, I also consider that there are significant safeguards to ensure the outcomes do not result in loss of residential amenity or adversely impact on the character of the residential streets of established suburbs like Hackett.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video