Page 524 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Because these places have been placed diagonally across the blocks there would be doubt that that was certainly complied with in spirit. Policy No. 7 of the ITPA design and siting policies talks about the height of the buildings and states:
Detached houses shall not be more than two storeys in height ... designs should not be adapted to take advantage of any allowance for basement and attic in circumstances where the design is unsuitable both in relation to the site and the neighbouring buildings.
With regard to building over a normal two-storey level there is a problem caused to the neighbouring buildings. Once again, the spirit and the implication of these regulations has not been followed.
The whole thread of what goes through these regulations is that the whole area should be in harmony; buildings should harmonise with each other. We have a situation where there are serious concerns by many people in the area - not just neighbours. At one meeting there were some 120 people, and some 80 people were at another meeting. There is a lot of concern there; as well as from other people around Canberra. Let us have a look at what the solutions are. One of the solutions, for a start, is that, if the people in front - the developers - were prepared to put a flat roof on, that certainly would save some space, and give them some view back. Indeed, where the Chief Minister says that there has been an encroachment of the 7.5 metre requirement to the rear boundary, if that was not allowed, that would also solve some of the problem.
There are unanswered questions, and Mr Jensen might like to take this one on: Were the three blocks treated as a group for approval purposes? Were they treated - though they have single leases - as a group for approval purposes? The people in that area have been told that there is no appeal possible. Again and again a lot of people have said, "Look it is a terrible thing"; or, "It does not look good at all"; or, "The buildings are not particularly attractive"; or, "Perhaps it would not happen again because in some months the ACT is going to have its own regulations and that will tend to solve this problem". However, none of these provide an answer to the existing trouble that has been caused.
This Assembly has the power to act as if there were just regulations, and act accordingly. We need to seriously look at that. There are some structural concerns as well. We need to look at why the initial plans were approved and then changed. What was that planning approval situation? I think it is most important that there be a meeting between the Minister, the planning people and residents as soon as possible. That is what I would call for - a meeting where the residents have an opportunity to present their just concerns.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .