Page 5597 - Week 14 - Thursday, 30 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
owners, managers and development proponents by applying for approval to publish or access restricted information, under Sections 56 and 57 of the Act.
Planning—development applications
(Question No 852)
Ms Le Couteur asked the Minister for Planning and Land Management, upon notice, on 1 December 2017:
(1) In relation to DA201731673, a residential development application (DA) in Narrabundah, which track was this DA assessed under.
(2) What were the initial and final decisions on this DA.
(3) What factors led to ACT Planning and Land Authority (ACTPLA) reconsidering its initial decision.
(4) On what grounds was ACTPLA able to reverse its initial decision.
(5) Was the error one of ACTPLA’s assessment, or in the plans submitted to ACTPLA.
Mr Gentleman: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) DA201731673 on Block 24 Section 43 Narrabundah sought approval for additions to an existing residence, a new alfresco area, construction of a new carport and a new garage, and associated landscaping, paving and other site works. The DA was assessed in the Merit track.
(2) DA201731673 was approved with conditions on 6 September 2017. Subsequently, a formal correction letter was issued on 3 October 2017 including an additional condition. The decision on DA201731673 remained a conditional approval.
(3) The neighbouring resident, who had submitted a representation on DA201731673, raised the issue that the proposed development did not comply with the solar envelope provision of the Territory Plan. A Planning Consultant, acting on behalf of the neighbouring resident, provided shadow diagrams to demonstrate the non-compliance. In response to this, the planning and land authority reviewed the decision and as an error was identified, issued a formal correction to the original decision of 6 September 2017.
(4) Upon review of the development application, an error was identified in relation to the proposed development’s compliance with the solar building envelope requirement, i.e. Rule/Criterion 7 of the Single Dwelling Housing Development Code, which requires the principal private open space of an adjoining dwelling not to be overshadowed to a greater extent than a 2.4m fence on the boundary at noon on the winter solstice. Consequently, in accordance with section 196 of the Planning and Development Act 2007, the Notice of Decision dated 6 September 2017 was formally corrected to include an additional condition.
(5) The error was primarily due to the plans submitted to the planning and land authority not appropriately identifying the principal private open space of the adjoining
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video