Page 1103 - Week 04 - Thursday, 1 April 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(12) Is the Minister aware that his officers have refused to release copies of their analysis of the effect on the amenity of the development on Block 5 Section 92.
(13) Is the Minister aware that there was an alternative site on Block 5 for the proposed development.
(14) Is the Minister aware that his officers failed even to inspect the alternative site or to discuss it with neighbours.
(15) Can the Minister assure the Assembly that incidents such as this are extraordinary exceptions and that he will not permit them to be repeated.
(16) Is the Minister aware of correspondence sent for the attention of the Territorys Chief Planner on this issue.
(17) Is the Minister aware that this correspondence has not been acknowledged let alone answered.
Mr Wood - the answer to the Members question is as follows:
(1) Yes.
(2) The Governments current requirements are now set out in the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991, the related Consequential Provisions Act and the Buildings (Design and Siting) Act 1964 as amended in July 1992.
(3) Yes. This proposal was approved in April 1992 under the legislation as it then existed. It provided that the neighbour be given the opportunity to comment but did not afford appeal rights.
(4) I understand that the only departure from the plan shown to neighbours related to the enclosure of a proposed carport in front of the dual occupancy unit by walls and a door to form a garage. A later amendment to the approval concerned a change to the roofline of the carport/garage, which at the same time was moved further away from the side boundary.
(5) The consultation required under the then current legislation was carried out, ie the neighbours were advised of the proposal and given an opportunity to comment Under the new legislation any departure from a "quantitative standard" in the Territory Plan would require the proposal to be notified, with formal rights of objection and subsequent appeal.
(6) The neighbours were advised of the proposal and given an opportunity to comment. The lessees of Block 4 made a written submission. However, the Planning Authority considered that the issues raised were not substantive and not sufficient to justify refusal of the application.
1103
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .