Page 521 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the maintenance of amenity of adjoining houses and to ensure that an acceptable environmental quality is obtained in the neighbourhood.
These planning approvals would appear to be in contravention of that requirement. If you look at the design and siting policies booklet, perhaps the basic principle you get from that booklet is that buildings should be harmonious - harmonious with the environment and with other adjoining buildings.
It was only by chance that these residents discovered the problem. The reason for that is that there is no definite requirement - so the residents are told - that they have to be given notification of potential problems. Indeed, there is a great concern with the height of these three buildings that have been given approval. However, residents were not told. Residents do have a copy of the initial plans which show single storey dwellings, but that has been changed. They are not sure when it was changed. They are not sure why it was changed.
Indeed, it is an interesting situation where you cannot have a look at the plans of a building before the building actually goes up. The statement has been made that the residents in the area could not be shown the plans because they might copy them. I can understand that that could be a valid concern in certain situations. However, I imagine that anyone with a rule and a pen or a pencil could well draw up something letting the people in the surrounding dwellings know what was going on, with no possibility whatsoever of copying such plans. This is not being done. What could happen is that someone could build an anti-scud missile shelter and the first thing the surrounding neighbours would know about it is possibly a warning that scud missiles are coming. There is no requirement that they be told what is happening.
One would say, and I am sure they will, "Ah, yes, but there are regulations covering what can be built". What I am saying is that the spirit of the regulations has been broken and it looks like the actual wording of the legislation has been changed as well. The buildings that are being built are all basically the same. You have three buildings in a row that can be seen from a long way away. They are all the same.
They are laid out diagonally across the block. They are about 20 metres long and very narrow. Obviously they have been set there to take advantage of the view. Indeed, they all have wonderful views. There are no problems with the views across the other road on the down side. But, their view cuts out the view of the people behind. Some interesting statements were made by Richard Johnston of the ITPA at a meeting that Mr Jensen, Mr Connolly and I attended on Sunday on site.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .