The Gungahlin Community Council made the following submission on the ACT Government's proposed Technical Variation V2008-11.

General observations

The Explanatory Statement includes only the barest minimum in the way of actual explanation. Technical variations are by their nature technical and require considerable research on behalf of non-technical community members to assess the meaning and potential impacts of the proposals.

The bare minimum approach is somewhat akin to a "trust us" approach. Even with the best of intentions on behalf of ACTPLA staff, as our comments below indicate, there are issues with some of the proposals, and potentially unintended consequences that warrant more comprehensive scrutiny than such an approach allows.

Therefore it would better serve the community - and ACTPLA - if the Explanatory Statement more clearly explains the changes proposed, the rationale for the change, and as for Regulatory Impact Statements, an objective assessment of the pros and cons of the change.

Single Dwelling Code

Variation 2

The term Statement of Endorsement is not included in Section 13 Definitions. We agree that seeking statements from each utility is onerous. However, a declaration from the proponent that all the matters raised in R15 is entirely appropriate. This is particularly relevant when you consider the potential impacts of illegal asbestos dumping on waste management staff.

Variation 4

We interpret the intention of this change to be to clarify that the boundary setbacks apply to the building mass itself, and that various external treatments such as eaves and awnings are allowable within the setback. This is agreed as a positive, as the hard ruling on setbacks in other jurisdictions has led to an unfortunate move Australia-wide away from providing adequate window shading on house designs.

However we are concerned that the proposed wording of R32A(a)(ii) allowing "eaves up to 1m wide" could have unintended consequences and seek a rewording.

There are situations where this would be too much - such as where two garages are to be placed side-by-side (with 1.5m setbacks, or just 0.9m under some L&Ds) resulting in roofs just a literal step apart.

In other situations it may not be enough. For instance, the writer's house has 1.5m awnings along the north frontage, which intrude into the 6m rear setback. These awnings ensure no midday summer sun enters the house, and have no adverse impacts on neighbouring properties. These awnings play a significant role in giving the home a 6+ star EER rating. There may be situations where a west-facing block requires even more to provide adequate summer sun shading.

A more appropriate wording that could address both over and under situations would establish a maximum proportion of the relevant setback dimension that an encroachment may protrude, for instance 40 or 50%. This approach can be used to apply to all encroachments - not just eaves - and this would be both appropriate and desirable.

The proposed variation also had no Merit criteria. This is clearly an area of design where there may be call for some flexibility to deal with site and house characteristics. A performance criterion should be included.

Variation 5

Most estates now being built include the driveway to the boundary as already constructed, and with contractual preventions on any changes. Therefore changing the maximum driveway grade to be measured from the kerb may result in a development that meets the Code but still has a dangerous and near unusable grade. In addition, cutting in of driveways to meet this requirement would likely result in a footpath with significant issues with accessibility and postal deliveries, as is often the case in other jurisdictions.

Variation 11

The proposed rewording is supported, if the words "behind the building line". If the dwelling has an approved courtyard, what would be the problem with having a clothes line within it?

Multi-unit Housing Development Code

Variations 12 and 16

In the proposed new wording, "permit buildings to be at least 3 storeys in height" should be changed. "Permit" implies optional, whereas "at least" implies a mandatory minimum. Which is it?

< Prev		Next >