Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 3 Hansard (26 May) . . Page.. 602 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

public comment or for influence on this issue where the decision is to be made, and where it ought to be made, and that is in the Assembly. However, as a general matter of process, I would say to the committee, from my experience, that it ought to put things out to public comment wherever it is possible.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services): Mr Speaker, for the information of members I present, pursuant to section 29 of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991, approval of variation No. 97 to the Territory Plan relating to Braddon, section 30 block 1, Northbourne Oval. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, the variation is presented with the background papers, a copy of the summaries and reports, and a copy of any direction or report required. I ask for leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, the draft variation was released for public consultation on 29 November 1997, with comments closing on 9 February 1998. The draft variation was forwarded to an extensive mailing list, all lessees of properties around Northbourne Oval, and all the LAPACs, for comment. The draft variation was referred to the Standing Committee on Urban Services last week for consideration. I am surprised at the divided decision of the committee and Mr Berry's comments, given the extent of the consultation that has been genuinely undertaken.

The variation is a result of an ongoing dispute between the Canberra District Rugby League Football Club Ltd, the ACT Rugby League Inc. and the ACT Leagues Club Ltd over the ownership of Northbourne Oval. In July 1997 the dispute was resolved when the interested parties - the ACT Leagues Club Ltd, the Canberra District Rugby League Football Club Ltd, the Australian Capital Territory and the ACT Executive - agreed to a deed of settlement. The deed of settlement included a proposal that the Territory arrange the instigation of a variation to the Territory Plan in accordance with the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 and the granting of separate leases following effect of the Territory Plan variation.

Mr Speaker, the variation was necessary because clause 2.2 of the restricted access recreation land use policy, which applied to the land, permitted a club only where it is ancillary to a predominant recreation use. The intention of the control was to ensure that any club would be associated with sporting activity. While this control is still satisfied in planning terms, the proposed leasing arrangements require a variation to this policy so that the control is strictly met. The new policy will permit only one licensed club premises within the whole site, but it will not be required to be ancillary to a recreation use.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .