Kris Hanna: Marion Council being wrongly targeted over wrongly approved house by Property Council
MARION Council not to blame for wrongly approved house saga, as it delegates those types of decisions to the Development Assessment Panel, which is completely independent, says Kris Hanna.
- Opinion: Council’s lack of judgment over wrongly approved home
- Environment court rules Marino house has to be demolished
- Marino couple ordered to demolish council-approved dream home
IT is an all too common problem: the neighbour objects to the new house next door. The planning laws create a balancing act between the one who has the right to build on their land, and the other who has the right to protect what they already have.
Over the last decade, councils across Adelaide have jumped to the tune of “increased density” coming from State Government. Very often, the simplistic solution has been applied: reduce the minimum allotment size to allow subdivision.
You get more houses that way, sure. The problem is the overlooking, overshadowing, insufficient street parking and “little boxes” built inappropriately next to stately character homes.
Not that there’s anything wrong with high-density living. It works best next to shopping, recreational and transport facilities.
It is up to councils to make this happen.
In 2015, Marion Council started the long process of completely reviewing local planning guidelines, with a combined goal of encouraging more development near our main roads, railways and tramline — while preserving the much-loved character of many pleasant suburban avenues.
We’re hoping for a green light from the Planning Minister; what’s not to like about meeting density targets and maintaining the lifestyle of intra-suburban dwellers?
Which brings me to that house at Marino. Last Tuesday in The Advertiser , the Property Council took a sledgehammer to Marion Council about council approving the house, which the Environment, Resources and Development Court (in February) said should not have been approved.
I don’t mind criticism from ill-informed members of the public, even ill-informed media, but the Property Council, of all people, surely know how this works.
Marion Council staff approve the vast majority of straightforward applications, thousands each year. For a few of the more borderline proposals our council (like other councils) delegates the decision to a Development Assessment Panel.
Yes, they approved various versions of the Marino house on three separate occasions.
The independence of the DAP is not just a technicality, though — a majority of the DAP are independent professionals with planning expertise.
The ERD Court decided, however, that the house was too big for the site.
It would seem, then, that the Property Council’s real target is the court. But I suppose it’s easier to have a go at the elected councillors, even though as a group we never get to make any individual planning decision.
I do agree with the Property Council on one point, however. I am also appalled at the amount of money spent by councils (including Marion) defending planning decisions in court.
In most planning matters, it is a matter of developer versus objector.
Why do councils all over Adelaide then use ratepayers’ money to send lawyers to court to duplicate the argument of one side or another?
Readers might well ask how much their own council spends in these circumstances!
Kris Hanna is Mayor of Marion and a lawyer