Page 957 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 May 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
knockdown rebuild arrangement and they would lose their sun when they did not even know about it until, basically, it had happened.
There was also a lot of discussion about trees. It is clear that the people of Canberra love their trees. I make two additional recommendations about that. The first is about strengthening the powers of the conservator so that they can look at the value of the trees for the amenity of surrounding areas when considering whether a tree should be kept or removed. The second is a really simple, straightforward one: the government should require some sort of barrier or cage to be installed, not just around the trunk of the tree but around the drip line. We all know that if a tree is to survive and thrive, that area has to be retained. It does not work if that is used as a parking area for all the cars or bigger vehicles.
Those are fairly minor changes which the overwhelming evidence at the committee inquiry suggested a lot of the community would like.
There was also an overwhelming weight of evidence from community groups and residents that they would like to see the opportunity to appeal an approval expanded. The development industry, understandably, took the other view.
The Greens think that we would be better off in the long run if appeals were expanded. My first recommendation is that the ACT government consider expanding appeal rights in line with community feedback to the inquiry and, in particular, allow third-party appeal rights where the approval allows for the removal of a registered tree. We all remember the Manuka tree next to the cinema which was fought over for years and years. This is not the way to do it.
An appeal mechanism should also be introduced for environmental impact statement exceptions. I imagine that this would not be used very often but, in the instances where it is needed, it could make a significant difference.
Another recommendation is that the government consider legislative changes to provide wider standing for community environment groups at ACAT. This is in line with evidence from the EDO and community groups. I do not think that this is something which would be used frivolously. If anyone has ever been involved with an ACAT appeal, they will know that it takes a lot of work and resources. Community groups do not do it lightly but where there is really a need they should have their moment to explain to a—hopefully—informed, disinterested panel what should happen.
The last recommendation is about builders. A lot of people talked about builders who did not comply with the planning rules, and there was a general concern for many that the regulation of builders and developers is not strong enough to stop rogue operators from flouting the planning rules.
I am very pleased that the enforcement of building rules has improved over the last couple of years, but I do think that more needs to be done. I have a suggestion for a recommendation which would not cost anything and which, I think, would be common sense. It is that where a builder has been the subject of regulatory action by
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video