Page 4514 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 20 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE: I am not getting into a debate with you, Mr Collaery; you will get your chance to talk afterwards. I am putting my view, and I think I am entitled to express it. I think I am expressing it in a very responsible and sensible way. I am talking about the competing interests that the Government has to take into account. Do not arbitrarily reject the rights and responsibilities of some people in favour of the rights of others. Look at the rights and responsibilities of all the players and come to a view that accommodates them all. I believe that it can be done.
I am impressed by the argument about the heritage aspects. There are clearly heritage aspects there, and a study needs to be done to determine whether they can be retained; it has not been done. I accept that argument that has been put forward. The Government has a responsibility to look at that before it proceeds to the design and siting stage of this proposal, to determine whether it is feasible and whether it can be built into the proposal in some way. It may even require some financing from government to ensure that that can occur, because I think it may well be unreasonable to say to the club, "This is going to have a price tag of $5m, and you, the club, will pick up the tab, whatever the price tag is".
The second aspect of this which troubled people quite clearly, and they have a right to be troubled by it, is the density of the residential element that is proposed - 26 townhouses. I do not know whether this proposal is economically viable with nine townhouses or 10 townhouses or 50 townhouses. I am not qualified or competent to make a judgment; no evidence was presented to the committee which would help me make up my mind on that matter.
But it is a matter for the Government, as the detailed development proposal emerges, and design and siting becomes a consideration, to make a judgment as to whether 26 is a reasonable number of residential units to put on that block. A lot of people have a view that it is too much; a lot of people have the view that it will destroy the neighbourhood, and they may well be right; I cannot judge. But the Government has a responsibility, as it progresses this development through to the final approval stage, to take those two matters very carefully and very sensitively into consideration, and to recognise the fact that there are strong public views on these issues and that they should not and cannot be set aside.
There were other matters of concern - environmental concerns; the fact that there will be a licensed club there that could generate a lot more business than it does at the moment; that there will be an increase in traffic; that there will be an increase in noise level perhaps, but I do not know. With a club of 150 members, I cannot see the noise level increasing drastically, although I concede that it might. It is a legitimate concern. One that kept
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .