Page 4536 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 20 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Collaery's amendment is really the last opportunity, the only real opportunity, to have a chance to make those changes. That is the important thing that people must remember.
Mr Kaine said that we are not approving anything. Rubbish! We are approving something. We are approving maximum gross area for the club not to exceed 550 square metres. We are approving that townhouses shall meet the design and siting controls for townhouse blocks. There are plot ratio requirements in there, which effectively means, I suggest to you, on the basis that 32 townhouses were submitted in the original proposal, that that was the maximum number of townhouses that could be fitted in in accordance with those design and siting controls. That is one of the problems we face with this particular system that we have here at the moment.
Because of those issues I believe that it is most important for this Assembly to reject today this proposal to vary the plan and send it back to the drawing board. We can come back with a proposal that is more in keeping with planning principles, more in keeping with the needs and wishes and aspirations of all groups of this area.
The bowling club is only interested in being able to revitalise their operations. They are not interested, I would suggest, and I would hope, in making zillions of dollars from a development point of view. If they are, as my colleague Dr Kinloch has said, that is most inappropriate. Really, we are not talking here about sending the club into bankruptcy, as some people have suggested. What we are talking about is rejecting this proposal at the moment to enable a compromise to be developed which will allow all groups within the system to achieve something out of this. It is for that reason, and because of the system, that we must reject this variation at the moment as it stands.
The Rally believe that there has been ineffective consultation and an ineffective assessment of the heritage issues related to this building. Mr Duby, I hear, made some comments about heritage before. Mr Duby needs to look at some of the buildings considered to have heritage value that have been restored by competent, qualified architects. One of the prime examples which Mr Duby had some control over when he was Minister is Lanyon. That is an area that has been restored under the auspices of the National Trust by competent architects. It can be done. It is possible. It has been done all over Australia. There are architects in this town who win awards for doing just that. That is why there is a great deficiency in the proposal that we have before us today. There is a great deficiency in this proposal that we have before us today because there was no such assessment completed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .