Page 1517 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 18 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
To run a line that we need an inquiry that looks at design and siting and all these things - energy efficiency, solar access, health and social impact - is a nonsense, because that is not what Mr Moore has been about. We will have the inquiry when Mr Moore moves his motion. There will be some amendment to that motion. We will have that inquiry and, as a result of that, I am sure that justice will be done as much as possible to overcome the slurs that have been made today.
MR KAINE (4.15): I do not think that I need to say a great deal, because much of what Mr Wood said was the kind of thing that I would have said. I was a little puzzled when Mr Moore put this motion forward when he was calling for "an inquiry into the process, appeal mechanisms and impact of design and siting" in a general sense, because there has been such an inquiry going on for four years. It is culminating later this week in the submission to this Assembly by the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee of its recommendations for the Territory Plan. An integral part of that inquiry has been a review of the design and siting arrangements that apply in the Territory and I would have thought that that, being such a lengthy and comprehensive review, would have satisfied even the strongest critic. When the results come out later in the week people will be able to see the ways in which it is suggested to the Government that these matters should be dealt with differently from the way in which they have been dealt with in the past.
There has been some question at different times raised by people about, for example, their right to appeal against what others are doing next door, or down the hill or across the street. There has, indeed, been some concern expressed about the way the originally proposed building on these four blocks in Braddon might look from the street. People seemed to have some concern that it was not a very attractive building. I am not certain that any citizen has the right to object to something because they do not like the look of it, but that has been the case up until now and there have not really been any appeals mechanisms. That has caused some difficulty in some people's minds. There has been some concern about this. I would have thought that Mr Moore's concerns would have been satisfied by this other lengthy process that I referred to and which will culminate later this week.
But when I read on I saw that this is "with specific reference to the difficulties encountered in the development of section 22, Braddon". Then I started to get a little more puzzled. Who has had difficulty in the development of section 22? I do not believe that the proponents have had too much difficulty. They put forward their proposals, they were properly reviewed in accordance with the law, and approval was given for certain work to be done.
I am not privy to what this consortium or the joint venturers are doing, but I understand that that has been withdrawn now because they have acquired another couple of blocks of land and want to redesign what they are proposing. They are now, I understand, able to come up with a building that perhaps will be more energy efficient and which may remove some people's objections to what was originally proposed. They will now be able to address the question of parking in a different fashion, so that maybe it will look nicer from the street. Whatever the circumstances, there will now be another design and siting process that these people have to go through. They will be subjected to exactly the same scrutiny that they went through with their first proposal, strictly in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .