Mr BONSON - 2004-03-30
You and I recently received numerous representations relating to a four-storey block of flats that was proposed to be built immediately beside single dwelling blocks at the Ostermann/Martin Street intersection in Coconut Grove, a suburb in my electorate. This was something that residents felt would impact badly on their lifestyle. Can the minister advise of the outcome of his considerations on this issue?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. There is no doubt that residents in that particular area were particularly upset and alarmed by a proposed development on the corner of Ostermann Street and Dick Ward Drive, Coconut Grove. What they were concerned about included traffic, parking, privacy, noise, overshadowing or overlooking, and also the general effect on their lifestyle. Another aspect they were considerably concerned about was the effect on their property values by such a development, and that is something that has been lost by some commentators, and some comments that have been made by some members of the opposition in the media. We should never lose sight of the fact that people living in residential houses are also very jealous about their property values and the impact of developments on them.
As members would be aware, I tabled a petition with nearly 500 signatures this morning from a whole range of people who are very concerned about this particular issue, not only the residents in Coconut Grove, but a whole range of people throughout Darwin, including many people in the real estate, property and construction industry, with many well-known names amongst them. There was widespread concern about this. Basically, what was being proposed was the development of a four-storey block of units abutting R1, which is basically residential single-storey homes. I did try and broker some sort of agreement or dialogue between the proponents - the developer and the residents – however, unfortunately, that did not take place. I also became aware that this was not an isolated case. There are some 100 R3 blocks peppered throughout Darwin, where there is a potential to develop to four storeys and affect hundreds, if not thousands, of ordinary R1 residential blocks and, basically, affect the Territory lifestyle of people living in those particular areas.
The CLP realises too - I believe there were hotspots in Nightcliff some years ago - and they brought forward some interface guidelines to provide a gradation in development between R1 and R3. They were never actually adopted, so I realised that I had to take action on this particular issue, and I did. After taking substantial and significant legal advice and considering the issues, I issued an Interim Development Control Order. The effect of that control order is to limit the height that flats can go to in that particular situation - R3 abutting R1 - to three storeys. There are some other things in there as well: doubling the landscape …
Mr Dunham: So they do not overlook at three storeys? You cannot look in at three storeys?
Dr BURNS: The member for Drysdale …
Mr Dunham: Well, it was your big problem a little while ago – causing you pain 20 seconds ago.
Dr BURNS: He is the local member. We all remember the twin towers over at Bayview Haven - residents up in arms. The silence from the member for Drysdale was absolutely deafening. At least the member for Millner had the fortitude to stand up with the residents and put a very strong case to me, and I commend the member for Millner. I have nothing but contempt for the member for Drysdale. How dare he interject over this.
This Interim Development Control Order will be over approximately 100 blocks for a period of two years whilst amendments are brought into the plan. I have a very important point to make, which has sometimes been lost on members opposite and some people in the public media: in R3 it was always by consent to four storeys. It was never a right for someone to go to four storeys; it was always by consent. Therefore, some of this language that has been put about, about stripping people of their rights, is absolute bunkum because it is untrue. It was never a right; it was always by consent.
I have had numerous letters and telephone calls, and people stopping me in the street - in fact, I attended a barbecue in the Ostermann Street area …
Mr Dunham: A barbecue? Well!
Dr BURNS: Yes, all the residents are pleased with the outcome. They are very pleased with their local member, a local member who actually stood up for his constituents; not remaining silent about it. I commend the residents group there. I found them to be very professional and, even-handed. They are not against development, and they have made that plain all the way through. However, they are against this particular style of development.
This is a government that is interested in people’s lifestyle. This is a government that will stick up for residents, and this is what we have done. I was proud to sign my name to the IDCO, and I stand by it.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. There is no doubt that residents in that particular area were particularly upset and alarmed by a proposed development on the corner of Ostermann Street and Dick Ward Drive, Coconut Grove. What they were concerned about included traffic, parking, privacy, noise, overshadowing or overlooking, and also the general effect on their lifestyle. Another aspect they were considerably concerned about was the effect on their property values by such a development, and that is something that has been lost by some commentators, and some comments that have been made by some members of the opposition in the media. We should never lose sight of the fact that people living in residential houses are also very jealous about their property values and the impact of developments on them.
As members would be aware, I tabled a petition with nearly 500 signatures this morning from a whole range of people who are very concerned about this particular issue, not only the residents in Coconut Grove, but a whole range of people throughout Darwin, including many people in the real estate, property and construction industry, with many well-known names amongst them. There was widespread concern about this. Basically, what was being proposed was the development of a four-storey block of units abutting R1, which is basically residential single-storey homes. I did try and broker some sort of agreement or dialogue between the proponents - the developer and the residents – however, unfortunately, that did not take place. I also became aware that this was not an isolated case. There are some 100 R3 blocks peppered throughout Darwin, where there is a potential to develop to four storeys and affect hundreds, if not thousands, of ordinary R1 residential blocks and, basically, affect the Territory lifestyle of people living in those particular areas.
The CLP realises too - I believe there were hotspots in Nightcliff some years ago - and they brought forward some interface guidelines to provide a gradation in development between R1 and R3. They were never actually adopted, so I realised that I had to take action on this particular issue, and I did. After taking substantial and significant legal advice and considering the issues, I issued an Interim Development Control Order. The effect of that control order is to limit the height that flats can go to in that particular situation - R3 abutting R1 - to three storeys. There are some other things in there as well: doubling the landscape …
Mr Dunham: So they do not overlook at three storeys? You cannot look in at three storeys?
Dr BURNS: The member for Drysdale …
Mr Dunham: Well, it was your big problem a little while ago – causing you pain 20 seconds ago.
Dr BURNS: He is the local member. We all remember the twin towers over at Bayview Haven - residents up in arms. The silence from the member for Drysdale was absolutely deafening. At least the member for Millner had the fortitude to stand up with the residents and put a very strong case to me, and I commend the member for Millner. I have nothing but contempt for the member for Drysdale. How dare he interject over this.
This Interim Development Control Order will be over approximately 100 blocks for a period of two years whilst amendments are brought into the plan. I have a very important point to make, which has sometimes been lost on members opposite and some people in the public media: in R3 it was always by consent to four storeys. It was never a right for someone to go to four storeys; it was always by consent. Therefore, some of this language that has been put about, about stripping people of their rights, is absolute bunkum because it is untrue. It was never a right; it was always by consent.
I have had numerous letters and telephone calls, and people stopping me in the street - in fact, I attended a barbecue in the Ostermann Street area …
Mr Dunham: A barbecue? Well!
Dr BURNS: Yes, all the residents are pleased with the outcome. They are very pleased with their local member, a local member who actually stood up for his constituents; not remaining silent about it. I commend the residents group there. I found them to be very professional and, even-handed. They are not against development, and they have made that plain all the way through. However, they are against this particular style of development.
This is a government that is interested in people’s lifestyle. This is a government that will stick up for residents, and this is what we have done. I was proud to sign my name to the IDCO, and I stand by it.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016