Page 1692 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR GENTLEMAN: I thank Ms Lawder for her question. It is, of course, an important question, and I did highlight yesterday all of the consultation and all of the work that went through in regard to the technical amendment that was made to include community housing and social housing in the Territory Plan.
The work began, as I mentioned, way back in 2003. There were adjustments to the Territory Plan through technical amendments in regard to technical amendments that actually change administrative parts of the Territory Plan and also those that are subjective in regard to including social housing and clarify that social housing was always a part of the opportunity for CFZ zones. That has been a continuing consultation process with the community since those very early days.
MS LAWDER: Minister, why didn’t the government consult the community in relation to what the community sees as substantial changes to the Territory Plan to include social housing in the definition of supportive housing?
MR GENTLEMAN: I do not agree with the premise of Ms Lawder’s question. There was consultation. In fact there were submissions made on the technical amendment in that open period in December 2015. Of course the task force discussed the interpretation of supportive housing with the then environment and planning directorate during the second half of 2015 and 2016.
The outcome of these discussions, on the advice provided, was that it was agreed there was no need for a Territory Plan variation as public housing already met the requirements of supportive housing as listed in the Territory Plan as long as the developments were, as I said yesterday, adaptable dwellings, residential accommodation for persons in need of support and that the support was managed by a territory approved organisation, and the development was not a retirement village or student accommodation.
MS LE COUTEUR: Minister, you said there were two submissions. Who were they made by? I guess they were organisations, and possibly not individuals.
MR GENTLEMAN: I do not have with me the detail of the authors of the submissions, but I am happy to come back to the Assembly with that.
Public housing—Chapman
MR HANSON: My question is to the Minister for Housing and Suburban Development. Minister, in June last year the Public Housing Renewal Taskforce received advice from ACT Fire & Rescue stating that Chapman block 1 section 45 was considered “bushfire prone land” and that developments that place vulnerable occupants at high risk are not generally supported. Minister, why have you ignored this advice and decided to place vulnerable residents in this highly exposed location, as was demonstrated by the devastating bushfires in 2003?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video