Page 4538 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 20 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the Minister is that we should infill our city, that we should make better use of the available land. We are looking to infill the Griffith-Forrest-Narrabundah area with more and more buildings and townhouses, and more people per square kilometre.
Where are we going to find the extra grounds to build the extra tennis courts or other sporting facilities in the future? I am asking you to look to the future. At this time it may well be that we can put some townhouses on that block of land, but 20 years down the line where is the space available for the extra tennis courts for the extra thousands of people we envisage in that area? So, I am asking you to look at the principle of why that land was granted at very low cost to a sporting facility. That is the issue as I see it.
The heritage value of the clubhouse is of concern to some people. It does not particularly concern me because the statements made by various members indicate that that clubhouse is of some heritage value but really of minor heritage value. I have seen around this city some places that have been listed as having heritage value but which to my mind should have been pulled down a long time ago. That is my personal view. As Mr Duby has stated, it comes back to personal views and personal values. The people who are presenting the case for the heritage value of this building believe strongly that it should be protected. I admire their right and I support their right to make that statement, but I do not particularly agree with them in this case.
The situation I am coming back to is the principle of the land use for not this particular time but 20 years or 50 years down the line. Where are we going to find land for extra sporting facilities? Therefore, I would look to protecting our heritage, our future heritage. I ask members to think along those lines before they vote on this issue.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (12.25), by leave: I thought Mr Jensen was speaking to the amendment before and that the debate was not closed. I will be very quick because we are about to finish. As to the amendment proposed, my understanding is that, while we can disallow a provision of the variation, this can hardly be described as a provision of the variation. So, whatever we feel about the amendment and what we would like to see, I do not think it is really a proper way to be proceeding. I said earlier today that we would have a look at the clubhouse again. After Mr Kaine's speech I said that, and I simply reaffirm that we will look at the clubhouse, its heritage value and the options available to us to maintain that within any development.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .