Page 529 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
But, Mr Speaker, I think Mr Kaine's remarks yesterday were of real significance. He decided to lay into Mr Stevenson and knock him for his reference in his remarks to the spirit of the planning processes, and I think that was very unfair. I think people do have an expectation that the planning system is conducted in a fair way here, and that is an expectation, Mr Kaine, that you shared yesterday. I asked you yesterday, in question time, what was the policy of the Interim Territory Planning Authority when a setback is allowed to exceed the normal standards. My specific question was:
... does the ITPA contact a neighbour affected when a building is allowed to be sited closer to that neighbour's boundary than would normally be permitted? If it does not contact the neighbour, why is that the case?
You said yesterday:
It is my understanding that there is no consultation if an approval is in accordance with current regulations as applied. To what degree, when there is a variation from the current standards, there is some form or some degree of community consultation on a day-to-day basis, I do not know. But I would expect officials to make sure, if there was any variation from the standard, that they would ensure that at least the immediate neighbours took no exception.
So, Mr Kaine, yesterday you acknowledged the fairness of the expectation that every citizen would have here, that in the spirit of these planning laws the ITPA would consult when there is a setback. Yet we are told today that that is not the case; that in fact these criteria of light, ventilation and privacy are applied before there is any consultation.
I would suggest that your statement yesterday was the fair thing, the policy that one would expect in the spirit of the Canberra planning system; that what you expected reasonably yesterday is what the neighbours, the residents of Calwell, reasonably expected. But, of course, that was not the case; there was no consultation and as a result this building was approved. The tragedy for the residents of Calwell is that, with the new planning package that is coming into place, we hope, through the middle part of this year, these problems will not or should not recur, because there will be rights of appeal, there will be requirements for notification and consultation. But that is cold comfort when you find that the development has gone ahead and totally built out your views.
It is all very well to take a legalistic position. Mr Jensen took that position at the meeting the other Sunday afternoon, and he said, "There is nothing that can be done. The siting approval has been given and there is no power to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .