Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3771 ..

Answers to questions


(Question No 821)

Mr Cornwell asked the Minister for Planning, upon notice:

In relation to the ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision 24 of 7 May 2003, can you please advise why:

(1) Only sketch plans were ever provided to PALM;

(2) No landscape plans were ever provided, even at the time of the hearing, as accepted by Mr Streatfeild (paragraph 41) in direct contravention of the HQSD process;

(3) The plans had showed, incorrectly, winter shadowing only, not summer shadowing, yet shadowing was a major negative impact of the proposed development;

(4) The hard stand car parking spaces at the front of the house were not compliant with the Territory Plan;

(5) Only one of the five car parking spaces had been provided with a turning bay, even though during the hearing evidence was given that the bay was insufficient;

(6) The designs were so badly done, there was doubt that the roof could fit within the space allowed;

(7) By definition, the pre-application consultation was flawed, with sketchy, incomplete and quite inaccurate plans being presented to neighbours.

Mr Corbell

: The answer to the member's question is as follows:

(1) The plans provided to ACTPLA (formally PALM) for the Development Application were not sketches in the normal sense of the word. They were properly drafted plans by a reputable designer representing the development as applied for by the applicants. The plans provided sufficient information to assess the merits of the proposal. The plans did not contain the structural specifications, as this level of detail is not required until the building approval stage. The AAT's decision did not indicate any concerns by the Tribunal in this regard.

(2) A landscape intentions plan was provided with the Development Application and this in combination with other information submitted with the application was deemed to be adequate to make a decision on the development application. The Commissioner for Land and Planning had imposed a condition on the approval to require a revised integrated site plan and landscape plan showing the existing and proposed landscaping on the block including species names. A revised landscape plan was provided to PALM in response to this condition. As the matter went to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal the revised landscape plan was not approved.

(3) The provision of shadow diagrams for the winter solstice, being the 21st of June, at 9am, 12 noon and 3pm is generally considered adequate to determine the worst potential impact of a development overshadowing a neighbouring property. It is not normally

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .