Page 4443 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Also, Mr Speaker, it appeared to me that no consideration was being given to a possible merger between the bowling club and the tennis club, with some limited housing developments, which would have maintained the sporting facility for the suburb and met the needs and requirements of the community.
I have already commented on the role of the committee, but I will now refer to the planning process. Proper planning principles would suggest that the club should have advised the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning that it was not in the position, or was close to not being in the position, to operate as a bowling club. As the holder of a city area lease, the bowling club should then have requested advice as to what sort of changes would be acceptable from a planning and heritage point of view, to see whether it could continue to operate on the site.
Once this issue had been resolved, the club could then have gone ahead with plans to seek a change of lease purpose in redevelopment in accordance with this change in land use. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, what we saw here was a proposal that was driven by development conditions and not good planning. The planning came after the development proposals, when it should have been the other way around.
Much was made about the issue of public consultation. It was clear to me, Mr Speaker, that the form of public consultation that did take place between the Planning Authority and some of the residents was not sufficient. Some of the residents clearly indicated their views on the consultation that was referred to in the report as being considered by the authority to have been appropriate. It was quite clear from letters given to the committee that the group was only seeking further information and was not seeking, at that time, to represent the community.
However, as we all know, after some concerns had been expressed and a public meeting held, some of those residents did come forward to represent the community at the hearing, on the basis that, because we had limited time, it was not possible or appropriate for all of those who submitted expressions of concern to talk to the committee. (Extension of time granted) I note, as I do in my report, that the chairman acknowledged this during the public hearings.
I considered that the consultation process by the authority was deficient. Of 104 submissions, 96 were opposed to the proposal in whole or in part. On that basis, if the Planning Authority had some problems with the meeting that was held on 9 October 1991 and to which they declined an invitation from a resident, they should have arranged their own meeting to talk with the residents. Unfortunately, they did not do that. Also, when the residents proposed that the Planning Authority might like to consider some other options, the authority basically declined to do so on the basis, as it was put to us, that effectively it was too late. That, Mr Speaker, was most unfortunate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .