Page 526 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let me turn now to the first point made by the objectors, and that is the loss of amenity. The design and siting policies have as their objectives to:
... provide for the residential amenity of the occupants of the house and the maintenance of amenity of adjoining houses and to ensure that an acceptable environmental quality is obtained in the neighbourhood.
In addition, the policies state:
The Commission -
that is now the ITPA -
expects the builders and owners of houses in Canberra to take advantage of opportunities provided by the policies for achieving a harmonious and satisfying environment for living.
There is no provision in the policies to require varying designs for adjacent houses, and I am informed that other examples of adjacent identical houses exist, for instance, in places like Bruce Heights. It is not unusual to find that somebody builds houses of the same design. Members may be interested to know that the Ombudsman's consideration of this issue led him to conclude:
In the circumstances I do not consider that it was unreasonable for the ITPA to approve the plans as they now stand.
The second issue is the question of the height of the buildings. This part of Calwell is fairly steep and the subject blocks are on the high side of the street. The lessees, like many other residents of Canberra, wish to have two-storey houses. To achieve this on these steep blocks, the houses have been sited parallel to the contours to minimise cut and fill; nevertheless, the ground floor level will be above the natural ground level. The ITPA has placed a restriction on the houses, requiring the ground floor level to be no more than 1.8 metres above the adjacent external ground surface. It was claimed by neighbours that this constituted a three-storey building. However, the Ombudsman observed:
An examination of the relevant files showed that the proposed buildings are two storeys.
The fact that the foundations are above ground, because of the contours, is entirely irrelevant to that.
The third issue here is the proximity to the rear boundary and the loss of privacy. This was an area in which the ITPA exercised a discretion provided for in the design and siting policies. It is also an issue closely examined by the Ombudsman, and his response addresses it very eloquently. I will quote it in full. He said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .