Page 528 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (3.45): Mr Speaker, Canberra is a planned city. Anyone who has had dealings with getting approvals for building work knows that. Often it is said that it is overplanned. But, on balance, most people accept the high degree, and perhaps intrusive degree, of planning control that is provided, and traditionally has been provided, in Canberra because they assume that that strict planning control is dedicated to ensuring that everybody gets a fair go and that Canberra is planned in a way that preserves the character of this city. Mr Stevenson, in his remarks, quoted extensively from the design and siting policies of, originally, the NCDC but which continue in force today and which have legislative effect under the 1973 Buildings (Design and Siting) Act. He quoted extensively from those to set out what is taken to be the goal of the Canberra planning system.
The residents of Calwell, like probably all other Canberrans, assumed that that planning system, that detailed and complex planning system, would ensure that they would get a fair go. But, sadly, it appears that that has not been the case. The heart of the problem here, I think, is that when the Interim Territory Planning Authority exercised its discretion to allow a building to be set further back on the rear building line than is normally permitted it did not consult with the neighbours.
Mr Kaine today, in response to a question asked yesterday, gave the Assembly the benefit of the considered response of the ITPA on that point. That was, as I understand it, to this effect: "We do not consult when we allow a setback on a building because there is no requirement under the Act, and our practice is to consult neighbours only when it affects light, ventilation or privacy". Well, as for light, it would seem that you would have to be right up on the back fence to affect that. As for ventilation, again, it is hard to imagine where one building affects the ventilation of another.
As for privacy, the interesting aspect of the privacy complaint is that it would seem that if this building at Calwell had a large number of windows, or even the normal number of windows, perhaps privacy would be an issue. In fact, this building has an extraordinarily low level of windows. As I understand the complaints of the existing residents, they are actually concerned that what is going up is an enormous brick wall, with very few windows. Because it is an enormous brick wall with very few windows, privacy is not an issue, and therefore the ITPA presumably thinks they do not have to consult. It is almost a reversal of what one would expect. From the point of view of the existing residents' aspect of this building, one of the offensive aspects is that it is a brick wall with little in the way of windows, and yet that, in the ITPA's reasoned statement today, is a reason for not consulting.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .