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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 1 Hansard (13 December) . . Page.. 232 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

councils standing ready to facilitate or foster a charcoal plant were it not to go ahead at Mogo.

There are a range of issues that I am more than happy to get across in great detail. What happens within the region is of great interest to us here in Canberra, for a whole range of reasons. Indeed, I proposed a holiday for a week over Christmas to Broulee myself, just a quartz stone's throw away from Mogo. I would be happy to represent the views of Canberra, as the regional centre, on the issues of regional industry development.

MS TUCKER: I take that to be a yes-that you will be putting in a submission. I have a supplementary question. Given that you have expressed in this place a desire to pursue sustainable development for the ACT and region, will you ensure that you will take that approach in assessing this proposal, by balancing the short-term economic gains with the long-term environmental and social costs to the South Coast?

MR STANHOPE: I will be happy to take those issues into account, but I need to be slightly better informed about some of them. From the reading I have done on the Mogo plant proposal, I am aware that there are a range of views, particularly about the potential impact of the plant on the forests. Indeed, I am aware of a range of conflicting views on the extent of emissions from the charcoal factory if it goes ahead, wherever it is located. I will take further advice and seek further information on the issues.

Ms Tucker: And put in a submission?

MR STANHOPE

: I had not planned to make a submission, Ms Tucker. But as a result of your representations I will respond. We will make a submission.

Dual occupancy

MRS DUNNE

: Mr Deputy Speaker, my question through you is to Mr Corbell, the Minister for Planning. Mr Corbell, I know you are now aware of the case of Spence versus the Minister for Urban Services before the AAT. In that case the AAT found that leases granted between 1936 and 1971 had the implicit right to allow the construction of a second dwelling on the block. This was the claim made by the applicant and it was not challenged by the respondent.

So that I can help you provide your answer, let me quote from the ruling:

... the applicant contended that . . . the Crown lease . . . already permitted the construction of a second dwelling on the land.

While this matter was about change of use charge, the AAT determined that the crown lease did not prevent the construction of a second dwelling on the land. To this end, I seek leave to table the ruling from the AAT.

Leave granted.

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