Page 244 - Week 01 - Thursday, 24 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Motion (by Mr Lamont), by leave, agreed to:
That the time allocated to Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes or until the expiration of Assembly business, Notice No. 2, relating to the motion for disallowance.
MS SZUTY: I turn now to Mr De Domenico's remarks about this draft variation. He quite rightly said that the Territory Plan is a living, breathing document. That is a statement I have made and with which I totally agree. But the issue we are talking about is the degree of divergence and departure from the guidelines, and I have made this point on many occasions. It is not a marginal difference; it is not a slight difference, it is a substantial and fundamental departure from the guidelines.
Mr De Domenico also talked about the National Capital Planning Authority's role in regard to the history of this draft variation and indicated that the National Capital Planning Authority was in favour of the third tower on this site in Kingston. I ask the question: Does that then mean that the Assembly has to accept any other proposal for the site as a result of the tower not going ahead? It is my view that the Assembly should not. I refer specifically to the letter from the Secretary to the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning, Mr Townsend, about this site. The first paragraph of the letter, which is dated 8 May 1992, states:
The existing lease permits the site to be used for carparking or three detached houses.
That is what Mr Moore said. Further, at the bottom of the page it states:
The Department wishes to ensure that any redevelopment on the site retains a substantial public carpark. Such a carpark should accommodate at least 100 spaces and when constructed should be transferred to the ACT Government to own and manage.
As Mr Moore has said, the developer for this site knew exactly what the requirements were when he bid for that site at auction.
I now turn to the remarks the Minister, Mr Wood, has made in this debate. Mr Wood said that he did not believe that there had not been due process on this draft variation. I think I have indicated to the Assembly today where I believe that no due process has occurred. I do not believe that the Minister really understood the comments I made about the process when he made his remarks. Finally, I refer again to the letter from Mr Townsend. Mr Wood referred to this paragraph in his remarks. It states on page 2:
The Authority has seen the sketch designs prepared by Mr Colin Stewart dated 28 and 29 April 1992 for a residential redevelopment of the site incorporating a public carpark. Copies of the plans are also attached. The scheme results in a plot ratio of approximately 1.25 to 1. The Authority considers that a development on the lines proposed in the sketches could meet the gazetted Policy provisions for the site.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .