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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (5 September) . . Page.. 2880 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

The Welfare Rights and Legal Centre, on behalf of a tenant, lodged an application in the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. The application sought a reduction of the tenant's rent in compensation for the lack of amenity during the work. The decision was handed down by an RTT member, Ms Jan Lennard, on 31 July this year.

The RTT's decision was twofold. First, it found that the replacement of the roof and the remedial work to the drainage and sewerage system at Northbourne Flats were necessary and that ACT Housing had employed competent and professional project managers. The second point, which Ms Tucker raised, was about the notice given to tenants of the work to be undertaken. In the opinion of Ms Lennard, it was less than adequate. Perhaps we could have done it better.

The RTT recommended in relation to notice being given in future to ACT Housing tenants regarding the intention to carry out major works that the notice be in writing, that it be addressed to each tenant individually and that it be given within a reasonable timeframe-at least 21 days. We have taken that on board and will develop new procedures to reflect the recommendations. Ms Lennard actually dismissed the applicant's claim.

MR HUMPHRIES: In question time last Thursday I took on notice a question from Mr Rugendyke about whether there was a need for there to be a lease between a developer and the land owner before a development could take place. I can advise that in most circumstances where the developer is a non-government entity a lease would be in place prior to the development taking place. Where the territory is the owner and developer of the land there is no requirement for a lease to be in place. However, for the sake of monitoring the progress of these matters, the territory has been moving progressively to issuing executive leases for land held by government.

The second part of Mr Rugendyke's question was about whether there is a lease on the Gold Creek Country Club. Mr Speaker, in the context of my answer to the first part of the question, it is important to note two things: firstly, the Gold Creek Country Club Pty Ltd is owned by the ACT and, secondly, the land and buildings associated with the Gold Creek Country Club are owned directly by the territory, so there is not a lease for the Gold Creek Country Club site at this point in time.

A holding lease which incorporated this site was previously issued to Harcourt Hill. The majority of the works on the site, including the full development of the golf course and the interim clubhouse, was undertaken while this holding lease was in place. In 1997 the territory assumed full ownership of the Gold Creek Country Club. At that time Harcourt Hill handed back that part of its holding lease that related to the Gold Creek Country Club. At the time the site was handed back, there were a number of outstanding issues in relation to the original development requirements which should be resolved prior to a lease being issued over the site.

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