Page 530 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
revoke that under the Act". I accept that what he said is legally correct; but really that is putting us in a position that we were in pre-self-government, saying, "Well, the authorities have conducted themselves in accordance with the letter of the law and there is nothing that we can do. The approvals just have to take their course and, if you are adversely affected, so be it".
I think that is an unsatisfactory response from Government. I think the acknowledgment yesterday by the Chief Minister that he would expect that neighbours would be consulted really goes to the heart of the matter here. That did not occur. Had it occurred in relation to the setback, the neighbours would have had the opportunity at an earlier stage to see what was being proposed and would have had the opportunity to discuss the matter with the person who is proposing to build this group of houses. There would have been an effective form of negotiation because the person seeking to build these houses was seeking dispensation from ordinary rulings to enable him to get this additional setback. If the neighbours had been told of that at the time and brought into the picture, there could have been a satisfactory trade-off where the person was allowed to have the setback on condition, perhaps by going down somewhat and digging footings into the back of the hill, thus keeping his two-storey house and allowing the existing residents of Tuthill Place and McManus Place their views as well.
All that these residents were expecting was that there would be a fair go. A person who has built a two-storey house up on a hill should not expect that they would continue to have superb views from their ground floor or basement; but these residents did have an expectation that, when the block immediately below them was developed, they would retain a view from their top storey. I am sure that no-one who buys a block on a hill expects that they will always have unimpeded views from both storeys, particularly when they understand that they are in an area where a two-storey building can be constructed; but it certainly must have come as a shock to be told that a two-storey building can be a two-storey building with a 1.8-metre high buildup from which the first storey commences. Now 1.8 metres, I think, is about six feet and I am about six feet tall, so it basically means that, if I am standing on the top of a two-storey building, that is the additional height that you can find imposed upon you.
Mr Speaker, it is unusual for me to compliment Mr Stevenson, but the case was very well put by him in his opening remarks. This is a case where people had an expectation that they would be fairly treated, an expectation shared really by the Chief Minister in his remarks yesterday when he said:
... 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.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .