Page 4880 - Week 15 - Thursday, 8 December 1994

9. Does the development include the originally proposed outdoor recreation

areas which were given as part of the justification for allowing

development on this land.

10. Has the lessee fenced off an area of public parkland which includes the

Deakin Anticline which is now only accessible through that property and

is a portion of the fenced off area used for the lessees own gardening

activities.

11. Does any recently completed two-storey construction extend into the

required 4 metre minimum set-back on De Chair Street.

12. Has the lessee constructed sheds within the public area.

13. Does the design and siting application referred to in (3) meet all the

performance standards of the Territory Plan.

14. Does the proposal have multi-storey buildings to the boundary on all four

boundaries despite the performance standard of 6 metres for a lower floor

and 7.5 metres for upper floor.

15. Do the proposed works cover some 80 percent or more of the remaining

portion of the block and do the performance standards actually require 35

percent of the total block to be retained as open space.

16. Does the building meet performance standards of 2.25 parking spaces

per unit.

17. Does the proposal include four storey development when special

allowance has already been given for consideration of three storey

development and, if four storey development has been permitted, is it on

the very boundary of parkland.

18. Are the Hostel and Nursing Home, that were part of the originally

approved development conditions and plans, included in the current

development.

19. Did the Minister, having knowledge of the various lease breaches and

outstanding requirement, direct (through his delegate) that the lessee

submit by the end of February 1994 detailed plans for the outstanding

work and expeditiously complete it.

20. Is it true that complete plans have not yet been submitted and no work at

all has taken place.

21. Is it true that no action, or even threat of action, has been taken against

the lessee in respect of known infringements on block boundaries.

22. Why is it that special consideration has been given to this particular

developer, if indeed that has been the case.

4880