Page 4515 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 20 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
coming up was the inadequacy of the existing stormwater drainage system. I am not sure why that was brought up in the context of this development, because if it is inadequate now it should be fixed now, irrespective of whether this development goes ahead or not. They were legitimate concerns that people brought forward.
So, my purpose today is simply to say to the Government: I see no reason to ask you to withdraw your approval of the development in principle; but from here on, as the development proceeds, you must take these matters of public concern into account and you must accommodate the wishes of large sections of the community if it is physically and financially feasible to do so. I do not think those people in the community can ask for more than a sensitive, careful and honest consideration of their views and concerns. If the Government does that, I will be satisfied.
But I put the Minister on notice that I will certainly be watching how this project develops from this point on, to ensure that those interests are properly taken into account, that there is further consultation on these issues - and it is not too late for that - and that when there is a final physical redevelopment of that site the genuine concerns of all of the elements of the community have been taken into account and they are reflected in the end product.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.04): Mr Speaker, let me handle, firstly, the two major issues that have thus far been raised. I will take up Mr Kaine's point about the heritage implications of the proposed changes on the site. Mr Kaine's approach, I think, is one that we could all say is reasonable. We always regard heritage matters in the ACT most seriously, and this one is no less serious than any other. In the earlier stages I think there was probably some confusion or misunderstanding about the way that the heritage comments were made. Initially, when the proposal was being promoted before the variation went out, in the formal approach the Heritage Committee raised no objection to the proposal. Subsequently, when the variation was released, the Heritage Committee did comment that demolition is not appropriate. I think that tells us that we need to be a little more careful in our processes, to start with.
Subsequently, when the planners considered the matter, it was decided that the state of the building posed great difficulties for refurbishment and remodelling and, in the end, though that may have been able to be done, would not have provided the sort of club that one expects these days. Mr Kaine, I will take note of what you say, and I will ask for further consideration of the heritage value of the building. I will ask whether it may be possible to do some work to maintain that building, on that site or elsewhere,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .