Page 1116 - Week 06 - Thursday, 27 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the property line because this would enable home owners to utilise their land more fully.
As it stands, current front fence policy does not allow the construction of fences in front of the building line, which is usually a minimum of six metres back from the property line. However, it does allow for the erection of structures behind this line under certain conditions. These conditions specify the permissible size of the structures and insist that they must be made of a material similar to that of the main building. However, in preventing fence construction, they do not fully cater for the needs of the home owners. Home owners are only permitted to build a narrow range of structures but, more importantly, they are not able to make full use of their land when constructing a front wall.
The only permitted structure beyond the building line is a hedge. But, given that hedges take a number of years to grow, the problems caused by not having a front fence are not immediately satisfied. Many home owners are of the opinion that the current no front fence policy does not allow for adequate protection of their front lawns, nor does it provide for a front yard in which their children can play safely. A front hedge does not allow for children to remain safe and it does not protect front lawns from unwanted intruders such as dogs. But, with a hedge, the time it takes to grow must be taken into account. Children can remain unsafe and animals continue to intrude for the many years that it takes for a hedge to grow. Child safety is an issue that alone provides very good reasons for an inquiry into the no front fence policy. The dog problem and the cost this causes the ACT community is another issue that warrants an investigation into the current front fence policy.
Mr Speaker, another issue I see as being important in warranting an investigation into front fence policy is the growing number of unauthorised fence structures that run contrary to the no front fence regulation. The number of unauthorised structures was last measured as long ago as 1982 and it was measured at some 3,700, of which about 2,000 were fences. The existence of these structures suggests that quite a few Canberra residents are not satisfied with being told they are not allowed to build a front fence. Undoubtedly, the number of fence structures I have quoted would have increased dramatically since 1982.
The high number of front fence structures that do not comply with current policy provides the perfect reason, Mr Speaker, for us to ask the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure to inquire into and report on that policy. Why is it that people are willing to have no regard for regulation and build a fence? How come the fences are allowed to remain, even though they are prohibited? These are questions that should be answered.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .