Page 728 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 5 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
removing parts of it; she wanted to extend the windows to overcome the problems of light and ventilation which were causing some of the rising damp; and she wished also to deal with water seepage into her house.
The plans went to the Interim Territory Planning Authority which then sat on them, so I am told, for some four months. The authority was awaiting a heritage report which finally came and which it only had to take into account as it was not binding upon the authority. The report from the heritage committee indicated that all that really could be done and approved were the renovations out the back and some other minor alterations in an attempt to assist with the rising damp. Independent engineering reports obtained by this lady indicated that that would not overcome the problem. Indeed, she is very concerned that her house will be a health hazard for her and for anyone else who is living in it.
Perhaps this points to an abuse of the heritage committee and its recommendations. Certainly, the Interim Territory Planning Authority appears to have sat on the reports for an unforgivable time, and one wonders whether it was just awaiting heritage legislation or some comment from the heritage authority.
However, the lady in question is certainly aggrieved. As for her options, at this stage I can gather that all she can do is appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Perhaps it is a case in point where some simpler appeal procedure should be adopted, and anything that can be done in that regard is worthy of support by this Assembly.
MR MOORE (4.04): It is clear from what has come out of this debate today that we have a need for a cheap and accessible appeal system. One thing that I have discovered over these last many years of dealing with developments that have an impact on people's homes, both as president of the Reid Residents Association and as chairman of the City Residents Coalition, is that when people's homes are threatened they will take whatever action is necessary in order to protect those homes, and quite rightly so. That exercise has up till now been very awkward and very expensive.
In North Sydney a way was found for people to work together so that those sorts of planning decisions were set up in order that people could work together. That was the approach that was taken by the NCDC shortly before its demise. At many long meetings, which were alluded to by both Mr Collaery and Mr Jensen earlier today, we sat with people like Bob Winnel from CARD and debated how we could find a system that would give developers some certainty about what they could do and the residents some certainty about protecting their homes. As history has it, that was undercut by the demise of the NCDC, and is one of the reasons why the Rally supported the NCDC and, in spite of all the difficulties it had with the NCDC in previous
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .