Page 2301 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 17 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It was not a question that was directed to the Belconnen Golf Club. Nevertheless, there was this question of some impropriety, as if there were something untoward about this whole process.
Madam Speaker, that comment was resoundingly rejected by all members of the committee. We are not prepared to accept from anybody who appears before us unsubstantiated allegations and/or innuendo being used to try to denigrate the quite proper processes and actions of government officials and/or individuals, particularly the government officials who are conducting themselves pursuant to the planning Act in the ACT. Madam Speaker, I want to place on record here in this Assembly that we as an Assembly committee are not prepared to countenance such misuse, in my view, of the Assembly processes and particularly the public hearing committee processes.
Madam Speaker, great attention was given to detail by all members of the committee. The recommendation by the committee that this variation be endorsed was unanimous. That is a cross-party committee of this Assembly. But in making our recommendation, Madam Speaker, we drew attention to two particular areas that we wished the Government and the developer to address. The first of those is outlined at paragraph 13 of the document I have tabled. Paragraph 13 states:
The committee endorses the proposed variation but, in doing so, recommends:
(a) the Government require the following matters to be part of the development conditions, with all resultant costs to be borne by the proponent.
We recommended that roundabouts be constructed at the intersection of Spofforth Street and Messenger Street and at the intersection of Stockdill Drive and Drake Brockman Drive. We also recommended that, as part of the development conditions, the building height of the proposed development be limited to two storeys in accordance with the proponent's clearly stated intention at the public hearing, and that the Government monitor traffic problems in the streets surrounding and leading up to this development. In addition we recommended:
The government negotiate with the proponent to reach an agreement on how any additional cost deriving from the long-term maintenance of the proposed street furniture is to be met.
The proponent is suggesting that, given the nature of the development, some street furniture - street poles, streetlighting, street signage, the way footpaths are constructed, et cetera - will be different from the general suburban form in the ACT. We acknowledged that there had been some reluctance on the part of the Department of Urban Services, which would have long-term responsibility for maintenance of such facilities, to ask the general population of the ACT to meet the resultant costs of this unique style of street furniture. If additional repair and maintenance costs are identified, then they should be borne by the residents of this area. That should be an up-front issue which they are aware of when purchasing or seeking to purchase houses in this area. Madam Speaker, we went
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .