Margot Giblin
SOME PEOPLE who come to Development and Environmental Services (DESC) committee meetings to speak against an application know not to mention the word ‘view’.
They go to enormous lengths to avoid it.
They talk about feelings of spaciousness and openness. They talk about light and air.
They mean the view.
If they do mention it the committee will remind them that its loss is not grounds for objection.
But even if they avoid saying it the committee knows what they mean and the same reminder is given.
Regret is always expressed. It has become a mantra.
The effect is not calming. Representors look as if they are physically hurting as it becomes clear that loss of view is irrelevant.
Wanting to keep a view is a common reason for objection.
People have often bought their property because of its open sight line to the mountain, the river, the park or to distant roof tops fading to wide sky.
At the West Hobart Neighbourhood Meet the Candidates meeting on 10th October 07 the issue was raised and reported in TT. ( Margot Giblin ).
‘Question time revealed that protection of heritage buildings was high on the resident’s list of issues, as was protection of home owners’ amenity in the face of proposed adjacent developments. There was disbelief expressed that a Council so concerned about heritage allowed no provision for objections based on the obliteration of a view. Ruzicka said that this was an issue causing a lot of angst and that perhaps the new planning scheme should bring back a hone-owner’s right to protect their view’.
( Meeting the People)
With this in mind Ms Lucia Ikin objected to a development behind her West Hobart property at DESC’s Monday 19th November meeting.
In addressing the committee, of which Ruzicka is a member, she referred specifically to the loss of a view from the deck at the back of her house.
Ikin had been advised to restrict herself to talking about sight lines but given that these were to a view she didn’t bother with the imaginary distinction. She also left out from her prepared talk a request that Ruzicka stand by her word at the West Hobart meeting.
Not opposed to development on the site, Ikin talked first about the open atmosphere of her neighbourhood in objecting to the density of the proposal.
She then went on to say that to have a view in Hobart is a special asset and she could not accept losing it.
Councilor Bill Harvey asked for a more specific description of what she will lose.
Ms Iken said ‘I have a water view. I’ll lose it’.
And if the proposed units closest to her were single storey instead of two?
She would be able to see over them.
A condition to reduce height would not be defensible, Burnet explained.
It was pointed out by the Chair (Haigh) that loss of view was not grounds for objection, again with some sympathy.
So was Ruzicka’s suggestion that the new planning scheme might include loss of view realistic or a placebo?
There is some confusion and a few suburban myths around this issue.
At this DESC meeting it was said that not since 1988 has loss of view been a ground for objection and another councilor, not on this committee, is of the view that Mt Stuart had at some stage been a special case.
According to Council officers loss of view has never been grounds for objection in Hobart’s planning schemes.
It is also unlikely that it ever will be.
Any councilor of more than a couple of months standing would be aware of this.
One reason is the prospect of a person buying a house with a vacant block on either side then being in a position to dictate what is built next door.
Another is the difficulty of defining why and how much of a view should be preserved.
Objectors may still be able to defend their visual needs and councilors may be able to guide them if they coincide with excessive bulk, height, density or overlooking.
As a stand-alone objection the view doesn’t wash now and the new planning scheme is unlikely to change that.
Advising a lobbying representor to talk about sight lines may be offering false hope as well as the impression that the councilor concerned is giving useful advice.
If protection of whole views cannot be assured is it time to ensure retaining corridors of view that would continue to take the eye from backyard to distant horizon?
It is an issue of demonstrable importance to Hobart home owners. Related distress is likely to increase as infill development escalates in this hilly city.
Inner Urban?
The definition of what constitutes an inner city or inner urban area causes parallel concern.
Some, like Ikin, who live in a leafy suburb close to bush reserves are outraged to read their address being described as inner urban.
The implication is that expectations in terms of neighbourhood amenity should be modified.
Exactly how are these regions defined? Distance from the Town Hall?
Distance from undeveloped bush?
At Monday night’s open Council meeting the application for development over Ms Ikin’s back fence was approved with conditions.
The number of units is to be reduced by two. The remaining four are to repositioned ‘to enhance the viewlands from adjacent properties’.
Viewlands seems to be yet another way of not saying view.
The height of a unit, if directly over her fence will, in Ms Ikin’s estimation, bring its roofline to exactly where the water meets the distant shore.
The condition doesn’t guarantee she’ll still see the river.
If the development goes ahead, the view which attracted Ms Ikin could be lost to her as it becomes a selling point for others.
