Page 3773 - Week 10 - Thursday, 14 September 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(1) Has the Minister failed to answer my letters dated 21 April 2016, 30 August 2016 and 22 February 2017 about the development at 36 Kinleyside Street in Weetangera; if so, why.
(2) In relation to the development referred to in part (1), what is the natural fall of the land on the block from the street to the rear boundary of the block.
(3) Was any external land-fill material introduced to the site; if so, why.
(4) If the purpose was to level the construction footprint for the building, how high from the natural fall of the land did the ground floor of the building at its highest point (towards the rear of the property) become.
(5) To what extent does this new height impact on the application of the rules relating to restrictions on the use, placement and size of windows used in the area of the building at its highest point from the natural fall of the land.
(6) To what extent does the raised height of the building above the natural landfall impinge on the privacy and solar access of neighbours to the west, east and north.
(7) What building inspections were undertaken for the property.
(8) What building defects or building code defects were noted.
(9) Have those defects been rectified.
(10) Have all fences been constructed to a minimum of 1.8m.
(11) Are those fences of lapped and capped timber; if not, (a) what is the construction used, (b) what agreement did the developer reach with neighbours and (c) did the planning agency within the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate approve it.
(12) Is the planning agency satisfied the developer completed the landscaping in accordance with the landscape intentions plan, as approved on 30 September 2015; if not, what has the planning agency done to ensure compliance.
Mr Gentleman: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) I have completed a response to your correspondence relating to this development. I apologise for the delay in responding.
(2) The natural fall of the land is approximately 2.0m from the street frontage (southern boundary) to the rear (northern) boundary of the block.
(3) The development required fill which would have included material sourced externally to the site. Fill appears to have been introduced to secure all three units at the same finished floor level, and to ensure an even grade for the access driveway.
(4) At its highest point the rear portion of the development (Residence 3) is approximately 1.45m higher than natural ground level, which gradually diminishes towards the front part of the development.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video