Page 48 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 22 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think in principle that is an unreasonable imposition on any property owner, private or commercial; but then to set about setting aside all of the provisions and all of the constraints of the plan in order to accommodate it, I believe, is unreasonable and unacceptable. For that reason, I do not endorse this proposal.
Lest it be said, as it has been said in connection with North Watson, that I am delaying development, let me say that that is not true. It is not true in connection with this block and it is not true in connection with North Watson. Let it be quite clear that I do not oppose development on this block. I think that the developer had an undue financial burden imposed on him. I believe that he would not willingly accept that burden, except that, as he explained to the committee, he needs this project to keep his work force in place. In other words, if this project had not gone ahead, the employees on his payroll who will now be employed on this project would no doubt have been put off his payroll because he had no other project to employ them on.
I could have been far more adamant in my position. I could have put in a dissenting report, and I am sure that Ms Szuty and I could have made a lot more noise in the Planning Committee than we did. I accept the fact that the developer has good reason for wanting to go ahead with this development, even under the conditions imposed upon him. I do not think it is reasonable and I do not think it is acceptable - and I do not think the Planning Authority ought to be allowed to get away with the idea that it can do so - that the Planning Authority should unilaterally determine what sort of development takes place on a site, even to the extent of setting aside all of the constraints that we, the members of this Assembly, built into the plan only six months ago. I think it would be totally reprehensible of us as a body to lead the Planning Authority to believe that. They need to be disabused of the idea.
I will no longer be a member of the Planning Committee. Ms Szuty said that I will no doubt be making comments on planning matters in the future. You are damn right. I will. If I believe that what is being done is unacceptable, then I will express my view publicly, as I have done in the past.
Mr Connolly: What about the allocation of portfolios in the Liberal Party?
MR KAINE: We will worry about that when the time comes. I wanted to have my opinion on the record. In essence, I agree with Ms Szuty on this matter, but I did not feel that it was necessary to write a dissenting report. I have now put my view on the record without writing such a report.
MS SZUTY (5.01): As the chair of the Planning Committee has stated in this Assembly today, the divergence of views among committee members regarding this draft variation revolves around the question of what is in the public interest. For the benefit of Assembly members who are not members of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee, I will address the points of my dissenting report briefly. The variation initially proposed that redevelopment in the form of a public car park, residential and commercial development occur on the site located at the corner of Tench, Giles and Jardine Streets, Kingston. In its majority report, as the chairman has said, the Planning Committee has also recommended that in addition to the abovementioned uses retail activity be able to occur on the site. I dissent from this part of the recommendation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .