Page 525 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE (Chief Minister) (3.37): Mr Stevenson has raised a matter of concern that did not arise in the ACT only yesterday or last week or last month. It has been a matter of some concern for many years. Over a period of years there have been many cases of differences of opinion between neighbours as to what should be done on particular pieces of land. It is a matter that requires some sensitivity. I think Mr Stevenson gets onto dangerous ground, however, when he starts talking about the spirit of the law or the spirit of regulations. Regulations are quite specific. The standards are quite specific and I do not know how you can talk about the spirit of standards and regulations. They are either applied or they are not.
Given the title of Mr Stevenson's matter of public importance, I thought that he was going to proceed from the specific to the more general. However, he confined his remarks almost entirely to a case at Calwell and I will do the same and attempt to deal with the matters that he has raised. The case in point is where a builder representing three lessees has applied to construct identical houses on three adjacent blocks of land. In considering applications the planning authority assessed them against the design and siting policies and against any special conditions which were available at the time of the sale of the blocks. These applications conformed with the design and siting policies and in this case there were no special conditions. Quite properly, the applications were approved.
The arguments advanced by the nearby neighbours opposed to these houses relate to four specific matters: Loss of amenity; the height of the houses; the proximity to the rear boundary and loss of privacy; and the loss of views. I will deal with each of those separately. All of these issues were raised in a complaint lodged by nearby residents with the ACT Ombudsman, and I will include in my remarks on each of these matters the Ombudsman's response, because the Ombudsman is an independent and objective person with no political or other axe to grind, and he is not concerned about whether an ACT public servant or politician is right or wrong. I think his views, therefore, are relevant.
May I say at the outset that the ACT Ombudsman concluded that the ITPA and the building section officers acted reasonably in relation to the approval of the subject plan and the granting of the builders licence. Firstly, I remind members that the relevant basis for the consideration of these houses is the design and siting policies of 1973. Whether we like them or not, we have a set of policies that we have inherited, and the design and siting of every house is measured against them by competent and experienced officers.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .