Dual Occupancy Correspondence
Dual Occupancy Correspondence
This email is in two sections, dealing with two separate issues, and lots. (See advert below).
Section A
We have now had a chance to see the full text of the EDP advertisement which we were apparently only sent part of earlier. At that time, we naturally assumed it was an amended version of the Lot 796(67) Ryland Road advert.
The c change to the heading and frame avoids the confusion of the earlier wording, and therefore is better as a standard lead in to legitimate EDP’s.
Section B
We are very concerned at the acceleration of what are really Dual Occupancy applications being accepted by your department and presented as EDP’s.
This is a travesty of due process, we we are always asked to follow. The very policy (Dual Occupancy amendment of the NTPS) of allowing Dual Occupancy land uses has been rejected. It was reviewed and then cancelled through an extended process of public consultation, followed by the final decision by the immediately previous Planning Minister(Manison).
The application is made more offensive when presented as a Concurrent Application for both subdivision and development. However, it is not listed on the NT Planning Notices (Summaries panel for items closing on 24 August, 2018) as an application of the Concurrent type.
This application should particularly not be accepted because it is clear example of the FACTORS WHY Dual Occupancy was rejected as a policy.
Relevant Factors
1. An acceptance of the application would represent a spot rezoning, affecting neighbours lots.
2. This application is totally inconsistent with the zoning pattern of Brinkin, which is mainly SD.
3. The subdivided lots would be less than800sm.
4. The distinctive zoning character of Brinkin, and particularly in this section, is to have large lots accommodating large homes and gardens, clearly balanced, in other sections, by smaller lots with homes of a medium density character.
5. Ad hoc subdivision, which Dual Occupancy represents, would cause a mosaic zoning effect changing the quality of life and land values, in this now well established suburb.
6. And hoc approval by the Minister based on a single lot, rather than wider impact, and planning principles from the NTPS, would become a precedent for other similar applications. This would be outside normal due process, wasting valuable time for the Minister, the department and the community, and causing more later problems.
Summary
It is our strong view that the Brinkin Terrace application should be withdrawn.
Development Assessment Services should have the power to reject some non complying applications based on appropriate reasons, Obviously other important agents of the NT Government have power to reject applications when there are good reasons that can be demonstrated.
This is an example of one such case.
Please acknowledge this email and provide a substantive response.
