Page 392 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 18 February 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In the example that I am aware of, the owners of a set of townhouses did not know one condition of the approval of their development was that such screens be installed. Several years after construction the owners corporation for this development voted unanimously to remove them because they blocked the view of the unit owners from their upstairs bedrooms. Little did they realise that these screens were a condition of the original development approval, and thus ensued an unsavoury situation involving the owner of the house next door who lived in a single, detached dwelling and who had been the one who lobbied for the privacy screens to be a condition of development in the first place. This amendment will ensure that any such conditions are tendered by the developer to the first annual general meeting of an owners corporation and that they are included in the developer’s maintenance schedule for the property.
My third amendment relates to adaptable housing. Since 2003 the multi-unit development code has required that 10 per cent of dwellings in any given multi-unit complex that has more than 10 dwellings in it must meet certain accessibility standards. These relate to Australian Standard AS4299, commonly known as adaptable housing class C.
It is important to note that the dwellings that comply with this standard are not fully accessible. A wheelchair user could not just move in, but they could easily adapt the place if they had to. They would not have to make structural changes to the dwelling. This is because these class C dwellings have a few features over and above the standard building code requirements, including more circulation spaces in kitchens, near doorways, wider front doors, bigger bathrooms and a larger car park.
Many people, indeed one in 10 households living in units in the ACT that have been built since 2003, live in an adaptable unit. Often the only clue in comparing this to other apartments or townhouses in their complex is a bigger bathroom, possibly at the expense of having a smaller second bedroom or living area, a wider kitchen or a more usefully positioned and larger car space. I know this better than many people because I accidentally, truly accidentally, found myself living in one a few years ago. The only real giveaway was the disabled sign on our car parking space.
The problem is that, when people are looking to move into one because they actually need it, they really have no idea how to find one. The real estate agents do not have this information and will seem quite bemused about it. The amendment will solve this problem by requiring real estate ads, whether for purchase or rent, to specify whether the apartment is, in fact, one of the adaptable ones—a real estate matchmaking service, if you like.
The other thing I should point out is that this is not going to require any additional work to find out whether the building was built as an adaptable building. As I mentioned before, 10 per cent of the units have to be. It is on the plans whether or not this unit is one of the 10 per cent that is adaptable or not. It is not like the EER where you have to get a new EER for a sale of premises. It is already on the plans and all we are hoping that will happen with this amendment is that the information that is on the plans be conveyed to the potential owners or tenants so that they can choose
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video