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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 3969 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Ms Tucker proposes another element in her Bill, and that relates to third party appeal rights for single dwellings. This is not as simple as perhaps the Government would like to present because Ms Tucker's Bill, as I understand it, only provides for appeal rights for developments in relation to single dwellings where approval is granted basically to exempt part of that application from the performance measures outlined in the Territory Plan.

Mr Speaker, you would think on the face of it that it is not a problem not to have appeal rights in that situation, but as I go around Canberra and as I meet residents who are concerned about development in their suburb - usually it is in the house next door to them or down the street - they are raising with me the issue that the development has been approved and that certain performances measures have been exempted. What does this mean in practice, Mr Speaker? In practice this means that the development is usually larger, or taller, or bigger, or more colourful, or with bigger windows or with greater denial of solar access than is usually allowed for under the performance measures. The intent of exemption from the performance measures is that your design actually improves on those measures; your design actually improves on the final outcome that is developed. But that is not what is occurring, Mr Speaker.

What is occurring is actually, in many instances, the reverse of that. You are getting a worse outcome. You are getting a worse outcome in the eyes of residents and in the eyes of people in their suburbs. Mr Moore made the point that this could apply to a bathroom in a residential home. Well, quite simply, Mr Speaker, if someone appealed on those grounds it would almost certainly be deemed vexatious.

I was surprised to hear Mr Moore stand up here and say that we should not have third party appeal rights in this case because it will lead to vexatious appeals. Well, Mr Speaker, I have seen Mr Moore stand up in this place before and say that people should not be afraid of third party appeal rights; that the vexatious appeals argument is a nonsense. I have heard Mr Moore say that in this place. I accept that Mr Moore may be differentiating between certain types of appeals, but to use the vexatious appeal argument really is a nonsense because vexatious appeals are promptly dealt with by the tribunals concerned. They are promptly dealt with in most instances. Therefore, Mr Speaker, if people go down the vexatious appeal path the appeal is going to be dealt with very quickly. That is going to send a clear signal that the tribunals concerned are not going to put up with those sorts of appeals and they will promptly stop. So, Mr Speaker, I do not accept Mr Moore's argument about vexatious appeals.

We are down to the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to grant third party appeal rights in the instance that Ms Tucker is proposing. I would argue, Mr Speaker, that we are seeing an unprecedented rate of redevelopment in Canberra's established suburbs. We are seeing the nature of our established suburbs change very quickly. They have remained static for a considerable time and we are now seeing quite a rate of change.

This change is mostly for the good. We are seeing improved residences. We are seeing high-quality residences being built in our established suburbs and they are complementing those suburbs. But, Mr Speaker, there are areas of concern, and I see no reason why, in a situation where a performance measure is deemed to have been exceeded, which is of course a subjective judgment, someone cannot appeal against that.

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