Page 4375 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Another one refers to a 10-wheel tip-truck and it says that there are usually at least four vehicles at this address. The letter says:
This vehicle has left and returned to his property at all times of the day and night - even at 2 and 3 am ...
the road outside his property is showing signs of breaking up from having this large vehicle continually turning across it. My cross-over, which he chooses to run his vehicles over (in spite of being asked by the Department not to do so) has also been broken up ...
coming and going from his residence and loading equipment at different times of the day and night.
That is an interesting point. It continues:
This situation seems to have been overlooked in Noise Pollution legislation as it only covers the owner leaving and returning to his residence ...
Last year I applied for a revaluation of my rates and my property has been devalued because of the activities and state of my neighbour's property.
Let us have a look at another document, headed "Issues that need resolving", which says:
I do not want a very large truck parked next to my place.
I believe that the presence of the semi will devalue the property.
I am concerned about the safety of my children.
This is an urban setting not an industrial one. I don't believe trucks of this size especially in a city/country as large as this one need to be parked in an urban setting.
I would not have bought this residence if there was a large truck parked next door.
I now feel I will have difficulty selling the property if the need arises.
There is the matter of visual pollution.
There is the matter of noise pollution.
There is the matter of air pollution.
There is the question of fencing which has to be resolved.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .