Page 3942 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 9 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mrs Carnell: Another Liberal Party policy.
MR CONNOLLY: No; not your policy, Mrs Carnell. There is a world of difference. Ours is a carefully thought out proposal, taking into account the advice of clinicians and the advice of the Royal Australian College of Paediatrics, to provide an appropriate service to assist in meeting the medical needs of the North Canberra community; it is not a foolish, irresponsible, slapdash promise, as you have been making for some time, to duplicate a paediatric ward. In the view of the clinicians - and I do not claim to be an expert in paediatric medicine; I take the advice of the Royal Australian College - to duplicate a paediatric ward would be not just bad economics but bad medicine.
Residential Redevelopment - Yarralumla
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to Mr Wood, Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning. I refer to block 24, section 26, Yarralumla, or Hunter Street, Yarralumla. Minister, will you explain how this development could have been approved, without taking into account a number of objections? Can you inform the Assembly what action has been taken to rectify this stuff-up?
MR WOOD: Madam Speaker, on 16 May this year the lessee of the property lodged an application to vary this residential lease to allow up to five separate dwellings. On 27 October approval was given to a lease variation which allowed no more than four dwellings. In assessing the application, the department considered one objection, which had been lodged in the prescribed manner. Unfortunately, after the decision was made, it became clear that several more objections had been lodged through other avenues. As a consequence, these objections were not officially recorded or considered in the assessment process. When the department became aware of this, the decision to approve the application was revoked. All objections will be taken into account when reconsidering the application. The objectors will be renotified of the new decision. A new decision is expected, if we can meet that timetable, by 11 November, following a further consultation meeting with those objectors who wish to meet with the delegate. It should be noted that the mislaid objections have also been taken into account in considering the concurrent design and siting application.
MR MOORE: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the appropriate action that the Minister has taken in ensuring that this will be reconsidered. Can you indicate to us how many other such stuff-ups of this nature have occurred? How can the Canberra people have confidence in such a system?
MR WOOD: Madam Speaker, Mr Moore uses the word "stuff-up". I have indicated that the nature of the application and the manner of the application being submitted presented a problem. At this moment I am not prepared to concede that the stuff-up, if there was one, was at the hands of the Planning Authority. I will check that process and report further to you.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .