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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 4 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 891 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

The loss of urban open space is something people consider to be fairly serious; it is a big election issue. This government was elected on the basis of saying that urban open space is not up for development. Whether building a single residence on urban open space is going to be in that vein is something which would need to be considered, but you would need to do a proper and full preliminary assessment.

Actew have already advised in relation to this land that there is major sewerage vent on the site. They put it there because there was no possibility of residential development on this site. Clearly, that is an issue that would have to be considered in the context of the mandatory preliminary assessment. Actew have further advised that to permit any residential use of the site would mean that the territory would have to indemnify Actew against any health or environmental impacts. That is why you would also need to do a mandatory preliminary assessment. Has Mrs Dunne considered that? Is she even aware of that? I do not think so. There is no sewerage or power currently available to the site. Again, these would be costs that would have to be met by the lessees if the proposal from Mrs Dunne were to be accepted.

Mr Speaker, those are just some examples of the issues that need to be taken into account and why they should be taken into account in a holistic way. Again, I can only emphasise that neighbourhood planning is about taking a broad, holistic view of development in an area. Ms Tucker is suggesting that we should look at this site in isolation and progress a draft variation for this site in isolation from the rest of Narrabundah. Is Ms Tucker also saying that the government should progress the draft variation for the Hungarian Australian Club in Narrabundah, which is currently on the books, ahead of neighbourhood planning, or is she going to criticise this government if it decides to do that? The approach from Ms Tucker is hypocritical and contradictory.

We are trying to be consistent and look at the Narrabundah area as a whole. This land is in the suburb of Narrabundah. It is designated as part of the suburb of Narrabundah. The neighbourhood planning process would include this area of land. All the issues could then be considered as part of the neighbourhood planning process which will commence next year. But this isolated proposal, this one-off proposal, is not one that the government is prepared to accept and it is not one that the government will accept.

MS DUNDAS (11.32): This debate has been very emotive. I think that is because, to a certain extent, we are predetermining the outcome of a draft variation to the Territory Plan. I would like to explain the facts as I see them to the Assembly. First of all, section 37 of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act allows the Assembly, by resolution, to recommend that the executive give authority to make specified directions under subsection (1), which include directions to review the plan or any specified part of the plan. There is then another subsection, subsection (3), which says that the executive shall consider the recommended directions and shall, by instrument tabled in the Legislative Assembly, give the authority directions under subsection (1), as recommended, or in modified terms, or refuse to give the authority the recommended directions. That is a notifiable instrument.

My understanding of the process is that we are asking the minister to give directions to review the plan and the executive may then give directions to the authority, either as recommended or modified, or it may refuse to do so, which would then lead to another

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