Page 366 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, we have also suggested that "ancillary uses" be more appropriately defined in the advertisements of the actual variation. A range of uses is proposed for this area. One example may be something like a woodcraft shop, which would be not only the turning shop, the workshop, but also the point of sale. Ancillary to the point of sale activity, the commercial activity, there may be a desire by the proponents to conduct, say, a small cafe. In the advertisements which appeared notifying this variation, no such ancillary uses were identified. It is interesting to note that there were no objectors to the variation. If these ancillary uses are more clearly defined it may well be that the lessees of shops in the Kingston-Manuka area wish to lodge objection. It was the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee's judgment that they should be given the opportunity to do so if they have concerns. It may be that residents in close proximity also have a concern if it is demonstrated that an ancillary use is something which they may not have thought of when they saw the original advertisement.
So the proposal is that the definition of "ancillary uses" used by the ACT Planning Authority be tightened in regard to this variation so as to create appropriate parameters for possible commercial activity ancillary to the specific use prescribed in the published documents and advertisements. That, we believe, will provide appropriate community consultation and appropriate opportunity for the community to put their views to the Planning Authority and to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee when it reconsiders this matter.
We also propose that the Kingston Power House site be excluded from interim use. This recognises the building's acknowledged heritage listing. Mrs Kelly recently announced a grant for work to be undertaken to appropriately list this site as a heritage site. I would suggest that this may also allow for appropriate restoration of that building following such a review.
We are also proposing that consideration be given to defining a process that would remove any other heritage sites from use during the period of interim use. We acknowledge in our ultimate paragraph on page 1 that a study is to be undertaken to identify other areas of heritage, industrial or archaeological interest. Those areas should be able to be removed from the lease. We believe that if the Planning Authority and the Government accept those issues the document which comes forward for consideration will be an appropriate document and will provide an appropriate mechanism for the interim use of this site. The Minister at some stage this week may care to comment further, but it is my understanding that the Government is giving consideration to each of the recommendations and at this stage appears to be favourably disposed to proceeding on the course outlined by the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee. I commend the report to the Assembly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .