Page 80 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 22 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Numerous public meetings, as well as meetings with individuals and groups, were held over a long period by both the ACT Planning Authority and the committee. As a result of that extensive public consultation process, significant amendments have been made to the original proposal, which I believe now has general - I think overwhelming - community support. You have only to look at the report of the committee to see how the Planning Authority and subsequently the committee have responded to the approaches that have been made. It is quite clear that we attend most carefully to the input from the community. The diagrams in that report are illustrative of that fact.
The committee has recommended approval of this variation, subject to the three unleased areas being retained for future tourist-related uses, a maximum of 1,300 dwellings being erected in the area, and an independent economic analysis being undertaken. That economic analysis is to be tabled in this Assembly during the disallowance period. I went out of my way to indicate to the PDI Committee, although I did not have to, that that analysis was being undertaken by Access Economics. I wanted the most reputable firm possible to do it, and I was pleased to give prior notice to the committee of that. It will be tabled in the Assembly on Thursday of this week or a little later. I also indicate that there is no particular instruction to Access Economics. We can give them no instruction other than the timetable in that process.
Let me turn to further specific recommendations of the committee. Firstly, one of the major issues considered by the committee in relation to the North Watson variation was the questioning of the financial benefit. We have followed that up with the further process that I have indicated. Secondly, the Government supports in principle the committee's recommendation on block numbers. The Department of the Environment, Land and Planning will reflect the committee's recommendation on unit numbers by specifying the maximum number of residential dwellings to be permitted in the entertainment, accommodation and leisure and residential areas when applications to change existing leases are received and when new releases are issued. The process for allocation of unit numbers has not been finalised because it needs to invite consultations with the lessees. But it will ensure, firstly, that the residential development in the southern part of the area proceeds; and, secondly, that residential units are not concentrated on just a few entertainment, accommodation and leisure sites in the first instance, unless all lessees agree. Thirdly, the final landscaping, supervision and stormwater plans will be provided to the committee when available. Finally, the variation has been amended to preclude residential use on a number of unleased blocks, to increase the potential for future tourist development.
The third variation relates to the site at the corner of Tench, Giles and Jardine Streets in Kingston. Redevelopment of this vacant site has been proposed for some time. An earlier proposal for a residential tower block was refused last year, and the current proposal involves a four-storey residential development, with some non-retail commercial development on the ground floor, fronting Giles Street. Madam Speaker, I would like to table a letter from the then Secretary to the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning to the auctioneer when that site was auctioned. It details the conditions that were spelt out to the bidders on that day. I table this in response to comments made earlier today in the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .