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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3416 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

It is also the case that under subsection 173 (7) of the land act the amount of any compensation payable is meant to be reduced by the expenditure incurred by the government in the surrender and re-grant of land, which was never done. It is also curious that the Australian Valuation Office estimated that the value of the Commonwealth improvements on the block, such as the original pavilion, was $77,000, but the club was never asked to pay compensation for taking over these improvements.

The government also gave further assistance to the club through improving its facilities for the training of junior players. The club originally said that the upgraded oval was only going to be used for local teams, but there have been regular reports that the club is seeking to enter the New South Wales state league. Consistent with this desire, the club expanded the size of the oval to a 1,000 seat facility, which reduced the area of public open space from the club's original proposal and made it less attractive as a soccer training area. Again at public expense, the government erected floodlighting at the Yarralumla Oval so that the soccer club could use this oval for training. Many residents in Yarralumla objected to this new floodlighting, but their concerns fell on deaf ears as the deal had already been done with the soccer club.

Another irregularity that reflects poorly on the government is that the agreement with the soccer club was made despite it being inconsistent with the Territory Plan. The oval is currently zoned as restricted access recreation, but the agreement allows the club to develop the northern part of the block next to Adelaide Avenue into housing, which is not allowed under its current zoning. Despite this, the original lease has already been surrendered and the land subdivided into three new blocks, one for housing, one for the oval and one for the public open space, before a draft variation to the Territory Plan was even released.

The government seems to have forgotten that it is the Assembly, not the government, that ultimately approves variations to the Territory Plan. The government thus made an agreement that it did not have the power to deliver, or perhaps it just assumed it would get its way with the plan variation by making the club's proposal seem like a fait accompli. I believe that the government has sought to put pressure on the Assembly to approve the variation by linking the approval of housing in the variation with the declaration of part of the former oval site as public open space. If the variation is not approved, then the area designated as public open space would stay as restricted access recreation.

The Deakin residents also raised a number of concerns about the two development applications that have already been lodged, one for the housing on the adjacent block and one for the relocated oval and public open space. These are now subject to an appeal to the AAT, so I will not go into details. One disturbing claim, however, involves irregularities in how the applications were determined by the Commissioner for Land and Planning, which, if true, would call into question the integrity of that office. There is evidence that the approvals were either rushed through or backdated to fit within the six months statutory timeframe which the commissioner has to approve an application. One approval was not even signed by the commissioner but by one of his staff, without stating whether he had delegation to do so.

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