Page 5718 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

MR JENSEN (5.39), by leave: My amendment No. 4 is an amendment to subparagraph (c)(iv). I move:

Page 4, line 19, subparagraph (c)(iv) of the definition of "background papers", omit "(v) or (vi)", substitute "(v), (vi) and (vii)".

We believe that it is important to include (vii). If the Government has already accepted up to (vii), we believe that there is no reason why they should not accept this amendment. All it does is add (vii), which is the report of any other inquiry, to the list.

Amendment agreed to.

MR JENSEN (5.40), by leave: I move:

Page 5, line 16, add the following new definition:

"'infrastructure augmentation statement' in relation to a draft Plan variation or a Plan variation, means a statement of the infrastructure, if any, that will be required to augment the existing infrastructure to allow for development in accordance with the variation.".

Page 5, line 21, after the definition of "National Capital Plan", insert the following definition:

"'urban design impact statement' in relation to a draft Plan variation or Plan variation means a statement of the urban impact that the variation would have, being a statement that includes -

(a) a set of drawings which indicate permissible building forms;

(b) building plans that include elevations for existing and proposed site levels;

(d) a statement of the traffic generation that would flow from the variation; and

(e) a statement of the ability of existing infrastructure to cope with the proposed development.".

Mr Speaker, I have already spoken to these at length. I do not think there is any point in continuing. I am very disappointed that the Government has chosen not to accept these. We consider them to be very important innovations

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .