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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2573 ..

Mrs Dunne mentioned a little earlier a couple of examples of problems associated with planning at the moment, and one of those was at Yarralumla. I think its instructive, sir, that I should mention this. I have here a file half an inch thick relating to this development in Brown Street. I understand that the proposal is to remove an old house and put up a new building. I understand that the person concerned who wishes to erect this is a developer; so I presume the man knows what he’s doing.

But the neighbours have been faced with massive problems associated with this approval. At no stage prior to DA approval were we informed that only appendix 111.1 to the territory plan would be used by the ACT planning authority as the basis of the DA approval. It is evident that the planning authority has power to ignore both HQSD process criteria and provisions of this appendix that I just quoted, and its decision is final.

Immediate neighbours have no rights of appeal or redress under the territory plan. The chief planning executive has also now advised us he has no power to revoke or review the DA approval. The ACT planning authority failed to acknowledge or address letters detailing our concerns and forwarded in accordance with the formal notification process.

The proposed new residence is clearly a three-storey dwelling; it includes a 2.4-metre basement, initially designed as a garage but still retained for potential use as such, which is illegal outside core areas of Canberra suburbs. As a result, the ground floor level is unacceptably high in relation to adjacent residences.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Cornwell, I’m trying to work out which part of the motion or the amendment you are addressing.

MR CORNWELL: I am addressing, sir, the need for the government to restore confidence in the planning system.

The planning authority—to continue—has now admitted that the DA approval was illegal because the proposed new dwelling exceeded the permitted plot ratio. Also the planning authority failed to address or ignored key provisions of the appendix 111.1 and the HQSD documentation designed to ensure the visual privacy and amenity of immediate neighbours. These provisions relate to the relative height of the ground floor storey, requirements for boundary fences and walls. The chief planning executive of the planning authority has since admitted that the current development process is flawed and substantial changes are planned. Is it any wonder that we are calling on the ACT government to restore confidence in the ACT planning system?

Mr Corbell has moved an amendment to the motion that:

“(2) calls on the ACT Government to ensure that the ACT Planning and Land Authority, in that part of its function where it has an independent decision making capacity, is available at the discretion of its Chief Planning Executive, to brief Members on those planning matters that are already publicly available, subject to the integrity and impartiality of the process not being interfered with …

I would question the integrity and impartiality of the process.

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