Page 531 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If that had happened this dispute would not have occurred. It did not happen, that ordinary expectation of fairness was not applied, and the Government really has an onus to find a solution to this problem.
MR JENSEN (3.55): Mr Speaker, as the Chief Minister has said, this matter has been the subject of independent assessment by the ACT Ombudsman as to the conduct of the government agencies involved. The Ombudsman has concluded that the actions of the ITPA and the building controller have been correct and reasonable. Design and siting approval, I am advised, was granted in December last year for the three houses by an authorised officer of the Interim Territory Planning Authority on the basis of Design and Siting Policies 1973 as amended up until 4 June 1984. These policies were, in fact, gazetted in January 1989 in a process which I will cover further in my remarks. Building approval had also been granted by the ACT building control office.
At this stage I want to take issue with Mr Stevenson on one point. He said that the residents did not know the date when the change was made from single storey to two-storey. This is not so. Following my inquiries with the office of the building controller on this matter, I was advised that approvals for two-storey buildings were granted by the builder controller as follows: On block 2, 12 December 1990; block 3, 31 October 1990; and block 4, 31 October 1990.
Mr Stevenson: They have two different dates; that is the problem.
MR JENSEN: Mr Stevenson said that the residents had not been informed. I am saying, Mr Stevenson - through you, Mr Speaker - that this information was passed to the residents on Sunday. I am advised, as the Chief Minister has indicated, that such approvals cannot be withdrawn - I will comment further on that later - and in all reasonableness should not be, because applicants are entitled to rely on formal decisions by government authorities as a basis for entering into financial commitments and building contracts.
However, since objections to the proposals were raised following their approval, the ITPA and I have attempted to facilitate discussions between the builder and the existing residents in order to try to offer an opportunity for voluntary alteration to the design in response to neighbours' concerns because, as I have indicated already, the approval cannot be overturned. I have asked the Attorney-General, Mr Collaery, to re-examine this issue of law and he has agreed to do so. I am sure that as soon as that information is available Mr Collaery will make that available. I also indicate to the Assembly that I provided to Mr Connolly some information on advice that I had received from the Interim Territory Planning Authority in relation to their experience. Mr Connolly is fully aware of that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .