Page 1577 - Week 05 - Thursday, 18 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
At present the Planning Advisory Committee consists of five people, including the disciplines of town planning, architecture and engineering. We believe that that committee of five is adequate, as provided for in clause 54. A large committee may become unwieldy and we can see no real justification, certainly at this point in time, to have that number raised.
In relation to heritage, the Bill is very comprehensive and it gets a good pat on the back from the Melbourne firm of solicitors who looked at it in terms of its comprehensiveness and also - - -
Mr Connolly: We still want to know how much you paid them, and how you chose them.
MR STEFANIAK: I did not buy them, Mr Connolly, and, indeed, whilst the ACT Law Society felt it was unduly complex and made some excellent suggestions on how it still can be refined, it got a reasonably good pat on the back from that Melbourne firm.
I think there are some issues there. The Bill is comprehensive in relation to heritage; it is comprehensive in relation to the environment, and rightly so. But we heard evidence at those committee hearings of people who have had what I would consider to be quite just causes and just plans for alterations to their homes but who have had huge problems with heritage legislation and other legislation which I do not think would necessarily be changed by this Bill. I refer, of course, to the evidence given by Bronwyn McCaskill, who was successful in an appeal to have $30,000 of repairs done to her house. It was suffering from rising damp, and she was suffering some medical conditions as a result of being unable to have necessary repairs made, which included, I think, alterations to a chimney and also widening a window.
The streetscape of where she lived was very important, but in her particular case her house had been modified since it was built about 50 years ago. It was an old weatherboard house, I think, which had had some metal cladding put around it at some time in the past. At any rate, it was questionable what sort of heritage value it would have. Mrs McCaskill spent $16,000 on her appeal; she got only $5,000 back. I think those sorts of questions need to be addressed, and I am glad to see that the committees, in fact, considered that.
Subclause 73(2) provides, under the listing of heritage, for the payment of a fee for an application for a place or object to be included on the register. (Extension of time granted) Subclause 73(2) provides for the payment of a fee and, unlike my other two colleagues, the two Liberal members felt that that fee should remain, although we did state in our additional comments that we believe that it should be a small one. There is a need not to discourage people from placing objects on the register, and they
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .