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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4453 ..

MS HORODNY: My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning, Mr Humphries, and relates to a development application to build a mansion at 16 Brown Street, Yarralumla. Minister, you would be aware that the original plans for this mansion generated a number of objections, particularly about its size, height and consequent overshadowing of neighbouring blocks; and that the original development application was given only conditional approval, including a requirement that the height be lowered by nearly a metre. However, it came to light only by accident that PALM, at the request of the developer, later approved a significant variation to the development application to return the building height almost to the original proposal that had already been rejected. PALM used section 247 of the Land Act to do this, but this section is meant to apply only to minor amendments; and there are no appeal rights. Minister, the Yarralumla Residents Association is very upset at this development, which is an approval by stealth. Could you tell us what you intend to do to reverse this decision, which you can do under section 253 of the Act, before building work commences?

MR HUMPHRIES: I thank Ms Horodny for this question. I have, in fact, had quite a lot to do with this matter and have met with the president of the Yarralumla Residents Association, who also happens to be the affected resident in this matter, and have also discussed the matter at length with my department.

I might just briefly outline the history of this matter. After that public consultation period that Ms Horodny referred to, approval was granted, on 4 June, for the development of a new dwelling on block 8, section 9, Yarralumla; that is, 16 Brown Street. The approval was granted subject to conditions, one of which limited part of the dwelling to a nominal floor level of RL561. PALM subsequently approved in October, as a minor amendment under section 247 of the Land Act, an increase of this nominal floor level by 0.62 metres, but only after a precise survey undertaken by a registered surveyor had determined that the effect of the earlier nominal level was, in fact, 0.3 metres lower than originally thought. An effective height increase of only 0.32 metres was, therefore, approved. Whether or not that was significant, we can all have an opinion about, I suppose; but that was the height - an 0.32-metre increase from the approval that was earlier given.

Section 247 of the Land Act does enable minor amendments to be approved only where strict criteria can be met, including not altering the effect of a condition or not allowing a significant increase in detriment to any person. The increase in floor level was approved on the basis that it would assist in preventing seepage problems which had been experienced in the former dwelling and only after PALM officers had assessed the likely impact of a change upon neighbours to be marginal. The assessment considered the increased effect of overshadowing and building size.

As I said, the owner of the adjoining property came to see me; I had a meeting with him; I undertook to obtain legal advice about the effect of the approval and the effect of my capacity as Minister for Land and Planning to reverse that approval. The Government Solicitor has given me advice on both of those subjects and has advised that the interpretation of section 247 by PALM that the variation in the approval was a minor variation was justified, and it was capable of being made within the terms of section 247.

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