Page 4527 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 20 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Finally, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I was astounded to find that the lease that the club currently holds is a CALO lease, a lease under the City Area Leases Ordinance. It was converted, for reasons we do not know, in 1982 to a 99-year city area lease. How did the original 1927 lease get converted? We would like to hear something about that from the Government. It has the files. Was this another of the conversions that occurred in the late 1970s and 1980s? Why did it occur? What was the basis for it? Was there a simple reason for it? Or did it really extend ownership and give further proprietorial rights under the City Area Leases Ordinance?
You will recall that the Government set different standards on concessional leases from city area leases. That is another issue to do with the betterment issue alluded to by Mr Wood. How did that happen? Is the bell already tolling for other areas we believe to be community open spaces? The only way the community is going to answer this is by taking the objects and purposes of the bowling club and joining the bowling club. I now call on everyone who wants to save that jewel in the centre of Forrest to join the Forrest bowling club, democratically join it, and vote out those people who want to destroy their own environment.
MRS NOLAN (11.48): Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, can I say at the outset that it is not very often that I agree with Mr Collaery - he has left the chamber - but in relation to the comments he made about the Liberal Party perhaps he is just right. However, I do have to say that there are particular issues on which I do not agree with him in relation to this matter. My concerns relate purely to heritage matters.
I am in no way against development or a proposal for the redevelopment of this particular site. All I want to ensure is that a review is carried out by the Planning Authority, not the Planning Committee of this Assembly, regarding the heritage Act aspects of the clubhouse and the original green. I think it is absolutely essential that they should be retained and kept in the development. No assessment was done by the Planning Authority regarding the heritage aspects of the existing building and the original green.
I do not consider that any of us in this chamber should be discussing whether the proposed plans are appropriate, regarding columns or even perhaps the number of townhouses. I do not think any of us are qualified in relation to those particular issues. We should be concerned about ensuring that proper consultation has taken place, that all residents' views have been fully considered as well as those of the bowling club members and the tennis club members, and even, obviously, the views of the wider Canberra community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .