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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2747 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

extremely clear. If SOCOG did not accept the opinion of their consultant, and I have no idea whether they did or did not, surely that is no business of this Assembly?

MS TUCKER: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Mr Humphries, and it relates to ovals or infill, an interchangeable classification.

Mr Corbell: No, they are different. They are a different file.

MS TUCKER: No, no, they are interchangeable, obviously.

MR SPEAKER: Allow Ms Tucker to ask her question, please, Mr Corbell.

MS TUCKER: In this week's Southside Chronicle there is an article about the government's plan to "do something more productive" with the former Griffith Primary School site which will see the Griffith Library and O'Connell Education Centre relocated and the buildings and oval redeveloped. The proposal has obviously generated concern from library users and local residents who wonder why this area needs to be developed when there is already much scope for similar style development in nearby Kingston. The article says that a consultant will soon begin a study to analyse the site, identify the opportunities and constraints, and determine the most appropriate future uses for the site. However, in your land release program, it is quite clear what the government's intentions are. It says that in 2001-2002 the site will be released for 200 dwellings.

Minister, is it the case that a decision already has been made that the land will be developed and the consultant is just working out the justifications for and fine detail of the decision? Are you prepared to consider not redeveloping this land and removing it from your land release program?

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, yes, the government has announced that land at Griffith-I think it is section 78-has been identified for redevelopment and that it will accommodate something like 200 housing units, potentially at least, when the land is released. There is an important public consultation process under way, and that is to deal with a number of aspects of that proposal.

The government has put on the table its belief that that site, now that it is no longer required for a school, should be used for other things. Urban infill appears to the government to be an appropriate use for that site. For that reason the land has been put out there, with the government's belief expressed in the land release program.

Mr Speaker, the fact that there is that intention expressed in that way does not preclude, for one instant, the possibility of community consultation about the way in which that site may be handled. There is a whole host of issues to address with respect to the release of that land. One is density of development on the site. One is what green space, open space on that site, should be preserved and what should be used for housing. The interface with the shops is another important consideration. Those are important issues on which the community deserves to be consulted.

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