Question - Planning

(1)          Noting that the detached housing blocks on the eastern side of Lionel Rose Street, Holt, are compact blocks, only 12.5 metres wide, resulting in minimum side boundary setbacks of nil and a minimum rear boundary setback of 3m, according to Table 7 of the ACT Government’s Single Dwelling Housing Development Code and that Rule 37A of this code, however, requires that ‘a daytime living area is provided with a minimum 4m2 of transparent vertical glazing that is oriented between 45° east of north and 45° west of north’. For a structure built on one of these blocks, the only wall that could allow for the required solar access would be the north-facing side wall. In reality, this is impossible because the north-facing side walls on all but corner blocks are contiguous with the south-facing side walls of neighbouring structures and therefore have no solar access, on what grounds did the ACT Government give approval to a housing development mainly comprised of compact blocks that cannot physically comply with Rule 37A of the Single Dwelling Housing Development Code.

(2)          In relation to detached houses already built on the eastern side of Lionel Rose Street, Holt, was a blanket exemption to Rule 37A given to these structures, or was each required to seek an individual exemption.

(3)          If each structure was required to seek an individual exemption, what was the process of seeking an exemption in each case, and how was the assessment carried out.

(4)          Why has the ACT Government begun enforcing compliance with this rule for owners of as-yet undeveloped blocks, in light of the fact that many houses that do not comply with Rule 37A have already been built on these blocks.

(5)          Can the Minister provide a clear description of how a dwelling built on a non-corner compact block on the eastern side of Lionel Rose Street, Holt, can structurally comply with the minimum rear boundary setback of three metres and Rule 37A regarding solar access.