1993_02_february_torrens

A couple who live next door to a proposed medium-density development in Braddon say they have been shut out of an appeal against it by the ACT’s planning and development procedures.

John and Ann Dickson, of Torrens Street, Braddon, say they have been denied a chance to object to the standard of medium-density development proposed for four blocks fronting Torrens Street that adjoin theirs.

The Dicksons have no objection to medium density if it is done with environmental and architectural sensitively. They say the proposed development is not, and that they had no chance to object to it after its detail became known.

John Dickson said that detail had only become available last week and in the meantime it had been decreed that only the developer could appeal against the minister’s determination to vary the lease and to allow the development.

The gist of their complaint is that planning procedures only give neighbours the chance to object when the proposal is in the concept stage, and when the detailed stage is reached there is no appeal. But it is at that latter stage when the right to appeal is so important.

The president of the of the Conservation Council of the South-East Region and Canberra, Jacqueline Rees, said, “”It is appalling that development can go ahead without public scrutiny of the detail of the proposals. The present law and procedure is wrong and should be changed. It is ludicrous that planning permission can be given to development with changeable guidelines and for appeal rights to be shut out.”

The council supported medium-density development provided it was done well. Without scrutiny of the detailed proposals and for appeal rights after the detail had been made public, developers could get away with putting up medium-density developments without meeting the sorts of aims stated in the Better Cities program, such as making use of solar energy, quality landscaping, proper green space and sensitive car-parking arrangements.

The Department of Land, Environment and Planning says differently. A spokesman said yesterday that there had been adequate public scrutiny. Under ACT law, the process began with a proposal to change the plan. That required public notification through the newspaper and through the letter-boxes of neighbours. The proposal, which usually included concept drawings and guidelines, went to the infrastructure committee of the ACT Legislative Assembly and was approved by the Assembly itself.

The Land, Environment and Planning Act provided that a proposal to change the plan could include a provision that there would be no third-party appeals if the final, detailed plans met the development guidelines that accompanied the change to the plan. This had happened in this case.

So if design-and-siting or a lease-purpose change were required subsequently there would be no appeal.

The spokesman pointed out that Mr Dickson had appeared at the infrastructure committee hearing last year.

The process was done this way because once the Assembly had approved a change to the Territory plan it was inappropriate to have third-party appeal rights.

However, in a letter to Mr Dickson the department quoted the proposed variation as saying, “”The development guidelines may change without notice in the future”.

Mr Dickson asked, “”How could a development proposal be assessed as complying with a set of development guidelines when the guidelines could change at any time?”

In any event, in this case the lease variation did not have any accompanying development proposal at the time of application in September. And last week the lease variation application available for viewing at the department shopfront did not have any development proposal or reference to one.

Mr Dickson said proper notification of the lease variation as required by the Act had not been given to adjoining leaseholders.

Ms Rees said the process was an “”outrageous breach of natural justice because same people set the guidelines, interpreted them and advised on them.

The council had sought documents on the planning process under the Freedom of Information Act and asked the fees be waived in the public interest. However, the department had denied this. This showed that its attitude was “”a determination to push this development ahead without full public scrutiny”.

The assembly process was unsatisfactory because it happened too early and therefore the assembly members were not given a clear idea of what they were approving. And the Minister had failed to exercise any independent judgment on the issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *