Taxpayers’ money is being wasted by the Department of Environment Land and Planning in a Supreme Court appeal against the Land and Planning Appeal Board which would help a developer, according to a Forrest residents’ group. And the department is under fire from Ainslie residents for taking a year and a lot of taxpayers’ money to enforce the demolition of what they say the department acknowledges is an illegal structure. The Forrest case is over a proposal by Scott Brothers to put units on a site in Tennyson Crescent.
The department granted a lease variation and the Forrest Heritage Action Group appealed to the board winning a series of concessions on setback and plot ratio that would probably make the development uneconomic. The department has appealed against that to the Supreme Court. The Minister for Environment land and Planning, Bill Wood, said the decision had been taken in the caretaker period and it was an appeal on questions of law. He said there was a settling in for the new independent board and the extent of its powers needed to be tested. The department was not siding with anyone.
An earlier case in favour of a developer at Tuggeranong had been appealed. Tennyson Crescent resident Michael Hughes said it was wasteful for the department to appeal against the decision of the board which was a creature of its own making. It was unfair to residents who would have to foot the legal bill and it was an unwelcome return to the bad old days when planning was done through the Supreme Court. He did not want any units development, but if there must be some, it should be at least on the Landsdown guidelines, with stricter plot ratio and better architectural requirements. Jacqui Rees of the Save Our Cities coalition said the case was a mockery of the new local-area planning idea. Nothing had changed the pattern of the last three years. A royal commission into all aspects of planning and development in Canberra was needed. Scott Brothers have defended the development and another in Wickham Crescent Red Hill. They say the developments are of a very high quality and enable older residents, who no longer want large gardens, to buy quality units in their home area.
They say the heritage value of Red Hill and Forrest lies in the streetscape which their developments are anxious to preserve. The developments would replace houses that had become run down. Stephen Bates of the action group questioned why the department was appealing against a decision that the developer was not appealing. It had cost the group $3500 already and could cost tens of thousands more. Independent MLA Michael Moore who has been representing on this and other development cases said if there were to be a review it should be done by the Minister, not an expensive court process.
In Ainslie, residents are objecting to a four-metre-high structure on the boundary of their battle-axe blocks which has an additional two metres dug in. The department acknowledges that the structure, which has been there a year, it is illegal. Garth and Ros Dixon said the structure was an eyesore in the view from their lounge. Ken and Margaret Barnes asked why should others comply if this resident could get away with it. It had lowered the presentation of their house’s front entry. The department acknowledged the structure was illegal because it was next to the boundary and too large. A spokesman for Mr Wood said the resident with the illegal structure had been written to asking for its removal.
Since then, the legislation had changed giving it new teeth so the planning authority had restarted the process seeking a compliance order from the registrar of the Land and Planning Appeal Board. This had been refused in December because the resident had promised to comply. When the resident had failed to live up to the promise, the registrar had granted the order. The resident now had until March 3 to demolish the structure or seek design and siting approval. If he did the latter it would require public notification and authority approval. Mr Dixon said, “”Why has it taken a year for the department to get rid of this illegal monstrosity on our boundary? Why are taxpayers paying for enforcement that does not happen?”