Page 532 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: I acknowledged in my speech that it is legally correct.
MR JENSEN: I noted that and I thank Mr Connolly for making that point. While the builder has, in fact, offered some concessions which would vary the external appearance of the buildings from each other and make more substantial changes to the one building which has not been commenced, the residents in Calwell and in the immediate vicinity of the development are still concerned and not happy with these proposals.
I am still hopeful of a solution to this matter which will be acceptable to both sides. I am working to reach a solution. It is complicated to a certain degree, Mr Speaker, by the fact that I am not able to get the parties together. The developer at this stage is not prepared to negotiate directly with the residents and I am being used as an intermediary. I am now waiting for some more information following my meeting with the builder on 7 February 1991 and subsequent discussions with the immediate neighbours. As soon as I get that information, Mr Speaker, I have agreed to pass it on to the people involved and discussions will continue from there.
Mr Speaker, the essential issue here is the extent to which property owners, particularly in a newly developing area, should be able to influence the design of other people's homes. This matter is the subject of consideration in the draft Territory Plan. One possibility is that a discretionary decision, such as in this case the decision to permit the corner of the building to be constructed beyond the rear setback line, would be subject to neighbour notification - something that I am concerned to see implemented. I will be doing my best within government to make sure that that takes place. However, such a possibility, of course, will need to be the subject of public comment in the draft Territory Plan process before it is adopted. Given such notification, the draft Land Use (Approvals and Orders) Bill then foreshadows the right of appeal to those who submitted comments or who have been consulted in the process.
I am also aware that the appeals process is designed to operate when approvals are granted in accordance with design and siting guidelines that apply at the time. I hope that the design and siting policies will be given some process of amendment in the not too distant future, once the Territory Plan is identified and solved. As I have indicated to the people of the Calwell area, perhaps the issue of amenity in these sorts of areas may be considered as part of that process. I believe that this process that we are currently working on will clarify the position for lessees and neighbours and therefore reduce the doubt in the public's mind that appears to be associated with this case. The right of third party appeals will also provide an opportunity for independent review of the decisions of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .