Page 1717 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 18 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I see this review as important for two reasons: Firstly, to provide certainty and, I hope, clarity to developers and the community in residential planning and development processes; and, secondly, this process will give the opportunity for ordinary residents throughout the ACT, not just town planning experts and queen's counsel, to appeal against such developments by some simple method, perhaps through this Assembly's PDI Committee or some other body. It seems to me that simplification of the planning and development and appeal processes is crucial to the retention of the Canberra most of us love and wish to see remain as the bush capital. The legislation before us today is largely peripheral to these wider planning and development issues. Nevertheless, in itself, it is important to individual residents with unapproved structures which conform to design and siting rules. It is also important, I believe, in the wider context, and that is to reassure residents that sensible tidying up steps in planning can and will be taken. I commend the legislation to the house.
MS SZUTY (5.52): Madam Speaker, I will admit that I had some difficulty in coming to terms with what the Buildings (Design and Siting) (Amendment) Bill 1994 was attempting to do and in understanding the reasons behind the amendments proposed. However, I understand that the Bill seeks to enable design and siting approval to be given to unapproved structures providing they meet the requirements of the Territory Plan. It is most important that this should be the case, Madam Speaker; otherwise any existing unapproved structure, whether soundly built or otherwise, or sited in an appropriate location or in an inappropriate location, could be approved. Had this been the approach, Madam Speaker, this would guarantee an open slather situation where people could blatantly disregard the provisions of the design and siting Act, erect whatever constructions they liked, and then subsequently have them approved.
I am grateful to the officers from the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning who made themselves available to brief me on the Bill, Madam Speaker, and who were able to spell out in some detail how the amending provisions would work in practice. It is envisaged that the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning will take a proactive approach to assist people to modify otherwise sound, already constructed works to meet existing design and siting requirements. This may mean moving a small pergola or shed, or altering the height of a retaining wall or fence, for example. Where unapproved structures exist which are potentially unsafe, and which people in the community are not concerned about themselves, it is acknowledged that they are unlikely to come forward to obtain design and siting approval if there is some risk that they will be required to demolish the structure. I further understand, Madam Speaker, that an amnesty period was trialled over some months from early 1992, to enable people to come forward with information about unapproved structures. Not one person came forward during the amnesty period, so it could not be said to have been successful.
In terms of the number of unapproved structures which exist in the Territory, there are probably thousands of them - no small number indeed. In 1982, for example, a survey of front fences was carried out and some 3,500 of them were unapproved structures. It is understandable, Madam Speaker, that people in the ACT, indeed, people in Australia, tend to regard their residential blocks, in particular, as their own, and therefore the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .