Page 4436 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is a matter of regret, I think, that the committee itself could not accommodate all of the people who, I know, would have liked to come and put their views forward. However, we did get a number of people who came and presented their views. Out of those public hearings there emerged a number of concerns, both about the decision and about the process. The first of those concerns had to do with the consultation process, and it is clear that there is not only dissatisfaction in connection with this particular variation that is under consideration but also concern that the planning process currently available does not ensure adequate and comprehensive consultation. I think that that is probably the factor that emerged loudest and most clearly from our inquiry.
The second aspect that emerged was that those people concerned with the heritage significance of this particular lot of ground believed - with reason, I suspect - that their case had not been given due regard by the Government and, indeed, there was evidence to suggest that the Heritage Committee at least had made a strong recommendation in connection with the building and one of the greens of the bowling club and that the Government had, in fact, given no consideration at all to that. It was completely set aside as an argument and not taken into account in the decision making process at all, as far as the evidence on the matter showed.
A third matter of concern was the scale of the redevelopment, and the fact that the number of townhouses proposed to be accommodated on this block in the redevelopment appeared, to some people, to be excessive. Finally, there was a range of issues of what we regarded as lesser importance. They included such things as the viability of the bowling club itself, the club's alleged failure to comply with the terms of its lease, the inadequacy of the existing stormwater drainage system in the area, the supposition that the bowling club stood to make a large amount of money from the redevelopment and that this was considered by some to be inappropriate and, finally, environmental concerns such as the potential noise problem in the area adjacent to the club.
The committee took all of those matters under advisement; but, having considered the existing planning processes, as covered by the present law - the Interim Territory Planning Act 1990 - the committee had to conclude that the process that was adopted was, in fact, the normal process. There were no departures from the normal process in connection with the consideration of this matter. The Territory Planning Authority and, as far as we could determine, the Government did not change the process in any way. In other words, the participants in the debate were neither favoured nor disadvantaged by the process, relative to other changes to other blocks. So, the committee had no basis for comment other than to accept the fact that the process was that which is required under the law and which was quite normal; there was nothing unusual about it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .