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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 409 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

proposals that are currently excluded from appeal through the application of the Land (Planning and Environment) Regulations.

As we have seen the redevelopment of our city, particularly in older, more established suburbs, we have seen a trend in some circumstances towards large dwellings. Many are two-storey dwellings, or at a minimum have a single storey with a loft. We have seen buildings of exceptional size, and we have seen buildings which go outside the current provisions in the regulations in relation to setbacks on both the side and rear boundaries as well as the front boundary.

The Labor Party's understanding of this bill is that it proposes to amend the Land (Planning and Environment) Regulations to permit appeals against the redevelopment or alteration of a dwelling which results in an increase of more than 75 square metres in the gross floor area of the existing dwelling or where the building would have more than one storey or be higher than 6.5 metres.

Currently appeals are not allowed in relation to development proposals which meet these criteria. They apply only in the instance of more than one dwelling-for example, a dual occupancy or multiunit redevelopment. There has been a growing level of concern about the size and scale of redevelopment projects in existing suburbs. These proposals, which are often referred to as mansions or palaces, are significantly larger than the existing dwellings they replace or which surround them. They can have setbacks of less than 6.5 metres from the front boundary, less than three metres from any rear boundary and less than 1.5 metres from any side boundary. They can have more than one storey, and they can have a single storey which is higher than 6.5 metres.

These sorts of redevelopment proposals are causing a level of concern, for many longer term residents particularly, in suburbs such as Turner, O'Connor, Ainslie and Yarralumla, to name just a few. These sorts of developments are frequently considered to be considerably out of context with the existing pattern of development and can cause severe overshadowing and loss of privacy for adjacent residents, often residents who have been there for a considerable time.

Concerns have been raised about this legislation, as I understand it, by a number of industry organisations, including the Master Builders Association. The representations made to me by the MBA indicated that they believed it would result in all renovation projects and redevelopment projects to single dwellings being up for appeal. That is patently not the case.

Schedule 4 of the land act regulations outlines the provisions relating to side setbacks and storey levels as well as gross floor area for single dwellings. Schedule 7 outlines that those types of dwellings that meet the criteria in schedule 4 are exempt from appeal. Those types of proposals will still be exempt from appeal if this bill is passed today. So I do not accept the argument that all renovation projects and all development projects which involve single dwellings will be subject to appeal. On my reading of the act and the regulations, that is patently not the case.

Subject to appeal will be developments which go outside the provisions that are outlined in schedule 4. Where a dwelling does not meet the requirement for a 6.5-metre front setback, where it does not meet the requirement for an increase of no greater than

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