Page 2876 - Week 09 - Thursday, 27 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(7) Did four ACTPLA officers and two members of the Woden Police undertake a search of the premises on 1 December 2005, using a boltcutter to enter the premises, and take still and video photographic recordings within the premises;
(8) Was the rectification notice issued by ACTPLA on 20 December 2005 issued stating that the notice (a) requires the lessees to remove all vegetation on the land that is bamboo by digging out the entire plant both cane and rhizome and dispose of the canes, rhizomes and entire plants at an appropriate waste or recycling facility and (b) it is issued on the grounds that the lessees failed to comply with an order requiring the lessees to remove, by 6 December 2004, all vegetation on the land that is bamboo;
(9) Has the matter of the alleged failure of the lessees to comply with the order and the rectification notice been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP); if so, what action has been taken by the DPP on that reference;
(10) Has ACTPLA notified the lessees that it now intends to employ contractors to undertake work referred to in the rectification notice and to require the lessees to pay the costs so incurred;
(11) Were the subsequent actions on the part of ACTPLA justified in light of the failure of ACTPLA to advise the lessees as to what amount of trimming, pruning or removing of bamboo would be satisfactory to the Territory;
(12) Is the ACT Government Solicitor, acting for ACTPLA, currently seeking to recover from the lessees legal costs in part referable to the Supreme Court hearing on this matter;
(13) Is pursuing the lessees for the legal costs incurred in the making of the order justified in light of the failure of ACTPLA to advise the lessees as to what amount of trimming, pruning or removing of bamboo would be satisfactory to the Territory.
Mr Barr: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) Yes.
The lessees of Block 45 Section 37,Waramanga Mr and Mrs Gerondal made application to the ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for the review of an Order issued under Section 256 of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 (Land Act).
The lessees application to the AAT was for a review of an Order issued by the ACT Planning and Land Authority (Authority). The Authority’s Order, issued on 20 December 2002, required the Gerondals to complete previously approved extensions to their house by 6 November 2004. The Order required the lessees to significantly reduce the extent of the overgrowth of trees and vegetation on the block and maintain it in a clean state, this included the storage of building materials within the confines of an approved structure by 24 January 2003.
Following three days of hearings where the lessees presented a large volume of material in support of their case they were also able to extensively test the evidence presented by the Authority. The AAT set aside the Authority’s decision and substituted the following decision: -
The lessees are directed to: -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .