Page 527 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Policy 4.2 states that:
"the minimum distance between the rear wall of a single storey building and the rear property boundary shall be 4 metres and the corresponding distance for a 2 storey building shall be 7.5 metres".
While your complainant has identified that the buildings are in apparent breach of this policy, the ITPA has a discretion to give design and siting approval "under special circumstances when the performance standards can be achieved without complete compliance with the quantitative standards". This may be found at Policy 1.1. In this case only a corner of each building extends beyond the 7.5 metre setback, such that the average setback is over 10 metres. In addition, the houses also have a very limited window area on their rear faces.
The relevant performance standard at clause 4.1 states:
"Requirements for rear distances are intended to allow adequate light and ventilation, to preserve the privacy of neighbours and to ensure the provision of a service yard.".
Having examined the plans and had the scene viewed, I am satisfied that the ITPA acted reasonably in approving a variance to the Policy.
That is the Ombudsman - not me, not the ACT Administration; the Ombudsman.
Finally, Mr Speaker, I come to the question of the loss of views. The Ombudsman himself described this as the heart of the complaint. Naturally, when people buy a block or a house which has good views they want to retain those views. But the plain fact is - despite Mr Stevenson's assertion and his questioning - that nobody has a right to a view across a neighbour's block. Nor, should I say, does a neighbour have the right to try to impose restrictions on his neighbour's opportunities for the use of his block just to retain his own amenity. That simply is not an entitlement at law.
As I said at the outset, the yardstick by which all houses are assessed is the design and siting policies, and they must be administered in an even-handed way. In this case, I believe that the ITPA has acted in an even-handed and proper way, and its actions in approving the plans of these three houses have been endorsed by the Ombudsman. I will table copies of the Ombudsman's letter for the information of members, Mr Speaker. I table it now.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .