Page 2705 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Medium Density Redevelopment Applications
MR CORNWELL: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to Mr Wood, the Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning. Can the Minister confirm that applications for medium density redevelopment currently in the pipeline for approval - including, for example, 13 Lefroy Street, Griffith; 52 Captain Cook Crescent, Griffith; and 11 Hunter Street, Yarralumla - will not be approved prior to the results of the three-month inquiry announced by him last Sunday?
MR WOOD: Madam Speaker, my statement last Sunday, on which I consulted with a number of people, expressed the intention that applications received from Monday of this week would be dealt with in terms of my consideration of the recommendations arising out of the inquiry. Applications that had been made, that had been with the planners before that, were not so included.
MR CORNWELL: I ask a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. I think you will admit, Minister, that your penultimate paragraph was a fairly convoluted explanation. Am I to assume, therefore, that those that were in the pipeline before Monday could, in fact, be processed and a decision reached prior to the inquiry's results becoming available?
MR WOOD: Yes, that is the case. I thought that it was quite clearly understood that existing applications, some of which go back for a month or two months, would be considered in terms of the then existing requirements. You need to understand that there is a lot of debate, indeed argument, between the Planning Authority and those who put in applications. Often applicants will make an ambit claim. They will seek more than is considered desirable. For example, today I had to convey, second-hand or even third-hand, I think, that what the planners wanted in respect of what one Yarralumla development would hold was not the number of units that the builder proposed.
You need to bear in mind that there is a great deal of discussion involved. Planners do not automatically accept what is put in front of them. Indeed, in recent times - in particular, over the last six months - they have been quite firm with builders, so that what they put onto sites will be only the very best. That process continues.
Mr Kaine: They cannot reject it if it fits within the guidelines, no matter what they think.
MR WOOD: If it fits within all the criteria, they cannot reject it; but bear in mind that there is some flexibility. We do have to consider amenity. It is a point that I am considering with respect to Banks. The planners are there to see that amenity, among other things, is not unduly disturbed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .