Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3517 ..

l) the appellants' claim that the reasons for the decision were not grounded in fact has, in the Board's view, been incorrectly based on a reading of the reasons out of context. In providing the general reasons for the decision, the decision maker's comments must be considered firstly in conjunction with the conditions imposed and secondly, in the light of the effect on residents' amenity of the design of existing buildings in the development,

m) the claim by the appellants that the proposal is an over-development of the site can not, the Board agreed, be proven. In fact there is a reduction in the scale and bulk of buildings, and the approved maximum number of 85 units has not been exceeded.

n) the claim that the development "is not in the spirit of development undertakings made to the public and does not provide or preserve promised amenities" made by the appellants appears to be based on undertakings given early in the history of the development which, according to the evidence, were superseded by later decisions and actions of the former National Capital Development Commission,

o) the Board found that, as claimed by the appellants, the effects on the amenity of nearby residents including those of The Grange Deakin, had not been fully considered by the ACT Planning Authority. In particular the preservation of an outlook (as distinct from the providing of one) and the effect of the scale of the 4 storey building had not been fully addressed. The suggested modifications by the third party, J and R Hindmarsh would, in the Board's view overcome these concerns,

p) the Board also found that the heritage value and preservation of the Anticline were matters for the Australian Heritage Commission. Even though the Heritage Council of the ACT had placed the Anticline on its indicative list this did not provide the Council or the Minister with any lawful control over the area. The Board therefore considers that until any change in jurisdiction, the developer should consult closely with the Commission on heritage aspects to ensure proper attention to boundary treatment, open access and general preservation of the Anticline in accordance with the conservation plan.

q) the number of parking spaces to be provided near the loop road, a matter raised in oral evidence by the appellants, was, after examination by the Board, found to be acceptable given the density of the development and prior approvals given in relation to parking spaces.

OTHER MATTERS NOTED:

a) the Board noted that in making its decision it was required only to consider design and siting matters and that other matters raised by appellants could well have been dealt with by other means.

b) the Board also noted that although the development conditions required that building not exceed 2 storeys, the discretionary powers of the ACT Planning Authority allowed for such a departure to be accepted provided the RL of 600m as specified by the lease conditions was maintained.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .