Councillor complains development process pits 'one neighbour against another'

Councillor Joe Pentridge made the comments when an application to build a house at 5 Hornsey Avenue, East Launceston was debated by City of Launceston councillors at their November 2 meeting.

Plans for the two storey-house, featuring a solid front fence with a gatehouse and outdoor pool area were broadly compliant with the planning scheme.

The block slopes away from the road meaning the house will be 8.5 metres tall when measured from the ground, but this falls within building limits.

The pool, and a retaining wall needed to prop it up, brought the development to within 40 centimetres of a boundary fence and outside building limits.

Town planners recommended councillors approve the application based on performance criteria.

Neighbours submitted several complaints to the council about the height of a proposed fence and impacts on their privacy from the outdoor pool, which council officers said would be taken into consideration by developers.

Amended plans that lower the pool area and shrink the front fence, reducing its height from 1.9 metres to 1.7 metres, must be approved by town planners before construction starts.

Cr Pentridge voted for the development, however he said he would rather have the final plans in hand before voting.

He said councillors were being forced to pit one neighbour against the other.

"Why are we here turning one neighbour against another one," Cr Pentridge said.

"We should be in a position where I can stand up publicly and say, 'I will not turn one neighbour against the other'.

"I have no choice if those neighbours haven't chosen to get together and sorted something out. I have to go with the recommendation ... but how are we recommending something where the drawings are not correct?"

Councillor Danny Gibson, who had concerns about the retaining wall allayed by council officers, said his colleagues had to vote according to the planning scheme as a refusal would have to stand up at a tribunal hearing.

"There are things about this design that I love," Cr Gibson said.

"There are things that I hear from the representors that I really genuinely sympathise with, but here is a compliant development application.

"Those that have got strong opinions with regards to the interpretation of the clauses and the discussions that allow us to refuse it can stick to their case ... but anything outside of that is just words."

Councillors Alan Harris and Alex Britton both spoke along the same lines as Cr Gibson.

Only councillors Susie Cai and Tim Walker voted against the application.

Cr Cai said even though amended plans were being submitted, she felt it was "still giving the developers exactly what they wanted" and not doing enough to compromise with the neighbours.

Cr Walker said he thought the designs for the house were tasteful, but could not accept "excessive domination" of the boundary fence line.

What do you think? Have your say by sending a Letter to the Editor.