Page 4442 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I was quite happy to accept that, in general and in principle, the due process that was set up by existing legislation had been followed by the Government in relation to the preparation of this draft variation. I am not saying that I agree with it, because I believe that it was not terribly well done and that it appeared to me from day one, like the other nine that I have seen as well, to be almost developer driven as opposed to being considered from the proper planning point of view.
The committee inspected the site and, while it was clear that the building was in much need of repair and had been altered, it was not possible for us to make an informed judgment due to the lack of any assessment of the cost and feasibility of retaining and refurbishing the building. An interesting point that we noted was that we were provided with two reports that had been prepared, in fact, after the committee had held its public hearings. They were dated 8 November, three days after we had held our committee hearings - the day, in fact, that we actually visited the site.
I was given the impression that this sort of information had been available to the club. It was interesting that they chose to have it redone. One has to wonder why they were not able to provide this information earlier on. Once again, I suggest that it goes back to the concept of the proposal that the club was really put in a situation where it felt that it had no option but to seek to redevelop its site.
It was very unfortunate that, despite a recommendation from the Heritage Committee not to demolish the site, the authority and the Executive did not obtain a further assessment before making a decision. I support the comments made by Mr Kaine in relation to that matter.
Mr Speaker, I contend that, if the planning process had been completed before a development proposal had been prepared, the commercial viability of the proposal would not have been in issue with the committee. Frankly, I object to being told in some pretty hard language that it was none of my business to make those sorts of inquiries. I felt that that was quite offensive. But it was not done in the bounds of committee; it was really a discussion that was held outside effective committee hearings.
I felt that that sort of discussion and comment was most offensive and most inappropriate. It is the business of an Assembly committee to consider all the options when it is looking at a proposal, particularly as there was some suggestion that the bowling club may have been able to achieve all its requirements and proposals without the sort of large-scale development that was being proposed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .