Hi Diane, The problem lies with the plan and fundamentally in Planning Legaslation which is written to be flexible. It is naive to believe that all developments will comply completely with the plan so, what gets through and what gets knocked back?
Marion developments must adhere to most of the plan and the planners (when recommending or otherwise) and members of the CAP must use judgement ( and historical cases in the ERD court) to determine whether a block has met enough of the criteria to pass or not. There is a statement often in the panel notes "not at significant variance" which means that if you read the limits as hard then the development does not comply but on merit it meets enough to pass. Bruce and I have been argueing the definition of this for a while now. This is also a problem of legal precedence. If one block gets passed at 5 m2 under the designated block area then others will argue that theirs should pass too.
Once again as stated above the way to get around this problem is to make the limits higher in the plan. Rather than a 250 limit where we get blocks at 220 under the "not at significant variance"nat clause, we set the new limit to 275 and get blocks closer to 250? Hence the need for a new plan.
The fact that you couldn't lodge an objection is an oversight of the current process. I believe that all affected residents should be able to lodge. Regarding the overshadowing, I am interested to come take a look at your situation there. I most likely wont be able to do anything (cant really move the sun or buildings....) about it but maybe I can stop something like that happening to someone else in the future Cheers
From Cr. Nathan Prior to local councillor Nathan Prior