Page 4513 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 20 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
interest or the density of the proposed residential development, have said that this redevelopment should not take place, irrevocably, immutably, positively. So, there is an acceptance that the lessees of the Forrest bowling club have a right to propose a redevelopment of the piece of ground over which they have a lease.
Dr Kinloch: I said yesterday that it was wrong.
MR KAINE: You are a latecomer to this argument, Dr Kinloch; you came into it only yesterday. I am talking about the people in the community who have a real interest, not just a political one. Where do we go from here? I do not believe that I have heard anything which would force me to take the view that I should be so far off course, as Mr Jensen suggests, that the Government should be told that its decision is wrong and that it should be withdrawn. I did hear evidence, however, to suggest that some people's interests were not properly taken into account or that they believe that to be so and that, if they believe it to be so, the Government has a responsibility to reconsider some aspects of this proposal.
I will not reject the Government's approval of the redevelopment; I think it has a right to make that decision, and it has done so. But there are two aspects to which the Government must now give very careful consideration. The first is the heritage interest in this location. I pointed out yesterday that no evidence was presented which suggested that the Government had even looked at the feasibility of restoring at least the building to its original condition and retaining it as a matter of heritage interest. Further than that, one of the greens is a matter of heritage interest also. It is not just the clubhouse; it is the clubhouse and the original green. What that does to the redevelopment proposal is a matter for consideration.
Even though I signalled that I will support the variation proposal - I think the Government has the right to take that decision, and they have done it properly - as the thing develops, the Government has to go back and have a look at this heritage interest and see whether or not it is physically feasible to restore that building and, secondly, whether it is financially feasible to do it. As the detail of the development is progressed, part of the approval process is to see whether this can be done. Then the club and its developer have to look at whether they still consider it viable to put their proposal into effect, given the constraint that the Government may impose.
Today, we are not approving a proposal that there will be a large building there, a bowling green some place else, and 26 townhouses. We are approving in principle a redevelopment. No firm proposal was put to the committee that says, "This is what we intend to do".
Mr Collaery: Why give a blank cheque?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .