Page 1568 - Week 05 - Thursday, 15 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
proposing to omit this clause by opposing it at this stage of the debate. The reason for that is for the purposes that I set out in my closing remarks at the in-principle stage. This provision does not require a DA in each and every circumstance when a departure is made from the approved plans by the builder.
Mr Hanson interjecting—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hanson!
MR CORBELL: It does not do that and the claims by Mr Coe are false in that respect.
Mr Hanson interjecting—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hanson!
MR CORBELL: The proposal provides for certainty for neighbours and others affected by a development. The proposal says that if the plans say it is going to be, for example, a colorbond fence, when they wake up in the morning they are going to see a colorbond fence. I receive, and other members of this place receive, complaints from neighbours who see developments occur with these minor variations which are different from that that they knew was approved.
This is an issue that needs to be addressed. It does not require a new DA in each circumstance and it is wrong to claim otherwise. The government will take further time to explain this further, and again, to industry associations to make clear how this operates. The government has done that already but it will do it again because we recognise that this is an issue that needs to be further elaborated upon.
This is an issue that is not going to go away. We will need to come back and address it because it is the cause of complaints from the community. It is the cause of complaints from people in the suburbs who are worried about development occurring in a way which is not consistent with what they see on the approved plan. I think that is a legitimate issue to be addressed. But we will take the time to have those further discussions before bringing back a further proposal.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (11.40): The opposition welcomes Mr Corbell’s support of our position. It is interesting that Mr Corbell should say, “Mr Coe, you are completely wrong but I will support you.” That is, in effect, what he has done. He also said that he has already conducted consultation. I am very curious to know when that took place because as of last week neither the MBA nor HIA had heard of this provision. I hope Mr Corbell, since finding out that no consultation had occurred, has indeed made attempts to engage with those most affected by this clause.
I remind the Assembly of what I said earlier in this debate. It is interesting that the minister should say that there are issues with regard to ensuring that what is built is in line with the approved plans, yet we still exempt developments. So the minister seeks to have a DA varied to move a window by five centimetres but it is all right for a garage to be constructed without approved plans at all.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video