Page 3081 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Before new residential land was developed under the private enterprise land development (PELD) arrangements, people bought their land directly from the government. If anyone subsequently was unable to meet the building provisions of the lease it was possible to surrender the lease to the Territory in return for a proportion of the amount they had paid to the Government for the land.
Under the PELD arrangements, lessees buy their land from private sector developers who have paid the Government for the raw land. The Government has not received an amount commensurate with the amount paid by individuals to acquire developed land and it is therefore not appropriate for the same arrangements for surrender and refund to apply. It is necessary, therefore, for people who cannot develop their land to find another buyer to enable them to attempt to recover the costs they have incurred.
The Department pays particular attention to requests to transfer land where that land has been held for some time. We are also concerned to ensure that development occurs and we do not wish to impose undue hardship on people who present sound reasons for being unable to build by withdrawing their leases with little or no compensation.
(5) The nature of PELD land development is that individual leases are provided to
the prime land developer on completion of an estate and those leases
subsequently change hands to builders and owners. I do not have the figure for
the total number of blocks developed since 1991. There have been many
thousands of them, and almost every one of them has changed hands before
building is commenced.
(6) & Up until April 1991, building and development covenants in leases referred to
(7) periods of 6 and 12 months. In April 1991, the then Chief Minister, Mr Trevor
Kaine MLA, extended the periods to 12 and 24 months respectively.
The changes were introduced to eliminate inconsistencies that previously existed between the administration of lease covenants and building permits and to provide a more efficient service to clients. The changes also recognised the real times taken by residential home owners to complete their homes and provided time to arrange finance and to allow owner-builders to meet reasonable deadlines.
As I have already mentioned, the opportunity exists, and did in 1991, for home builders to seek extensions beyond the initial periods in the lease. Six months is not, and has not been, the limit for which a further extension may be granted. Six months is the limit to the period of extension that the Building Controller can grant without reference to the Lease Administration Branch of the Department. In appropriate circumstances, such as ill health, financial difficulties, family problems, insolvency of contracted builders and general economic circumstances, it is reasonable to extend the time allowed to build.
3081
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .