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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Thursday, 5 August 2004) . . Page.. 3611 ..

(6) When there is an absence of a community path and the driver is forced to use part of the road to continue their journey then the same Australian Road Rules apply as a pedestrian. The motorised wheel chair must keep as far to the left as practicable and must not travel along side another pedestrian in the same direction unless overtaking.

Development—Yarralumla
(Question No 1621)

Mr Cornwell asked the Acting Minister for Planning, upon notice, on 29 June 2004:

(1) In respect of Development Application (DA) No 200310585 relating to the construction of a new residence at 14 Brown Street Yarralumla, why was approval granted although the proposed residence was illegal both in respect to plot ratio and being three storey;

(2) Was official published HQSD documents and related information on ACTPLA’s official web site ignored by ACTPLA during the DA approval process; if so, why;

(3) Were the provisions of Appendix 111.1 relating to privacy and boundary fences be ignored by ACTPLA during the DA process; if so, why;

(4) Did ACTPLA fail to acknowledge or address letters from immediate neighbours detailing their concerns about the proposed new residence when such letters were forwarded to ACTPLA in accordance with the formal notification process; if so, why;

(5) Why is it that immediate neighbours have no rights of appeal or redress under the Territory Plan;

(6) Should residents of the A.C.T. continue to be penalised or disadvantaged under the Territory Plan which is clearly flawed;

(7) When will the Minister intervene in this matter and exercise his powers to revoke DA approval and ensure the rights of immediate neighbours.

Mr Quinlan: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1) The DA was approved with conditions and it was not considered to be illegal. The development satisfied Part B1 of the Territory Plan Residential Land Use Policies, specifically Section 3.6, “Residential Development and Redevelopment – Suburban Areas Controls” paragraph (h) and (i).

The development satisfied 3.6 (h) and is not three storeys because the basement garage was not immediately below the two storey portion of the building. The development satisfied Section 3.6 (i) because the plot ratio was 49.6%, which is 0.4% less than the maximum permissible of 50%. The plot ratio was based on a gross floor area (GFA) of 343.7 m2, which did not include the basement garage area or the cellar, pump room or the large amount of underfloor space, all of which were considered to be sub floor area and therefore not required to be included in the GFA calculations for determining the Plot Ratio.

(2) The official published HQSD documents and related information on ACTPLA’s official web site were not ignored by ACTPLA during the DA approval process.

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