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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 3 March 2004) . . Page.. 659 ..

Mr Stanhope: I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper, Mr Speaker.

Papers

Mr Wood presented the following papers:

Subordinate Legislation (including explanatory statements unless otherwise stated)

Legislation Act, pursuant to section 64—

Justices of the Peace Act—Justices of the Peace Appointment 2004 (No 1)—Disallowable Instrument DI2004-23 (LR, 19 February 2004).

Road Transport (General) Act—Road Transport (General) (Application of Road Transport Legislation) Declaration 2004 (No 3)—Disallowable Instrument DI2004-25 (LR, 26 February 2004).

Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulations—Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Parking Authority Declaration 2004 (No 2)—Disallowable Instrument DI2004-24 (LR, 26 February 2004).

Smoke-free Areas (Enclosed Public Places) Act—Smoke-free Areas (Enclosed Public Places) (Fees) Determination 2004 (No 1)—Disallowable Instrument DI2004-22 (LR, 19 February 2004).

Supplementary answer to question without notice

Trees in Nettlefold Street, Belconnen

MR CORBELL: Yesterday Ms Tucker asked me a question in relation to the development on section 2 block 12 Belconnen, commonly known as the Nettlefold Street development. Ms Tucker asked whether I was able to make available any relevant documentation from my office which outlined my attempts or my office’s attempts to negotiate a land swap.

As I advised the Assembly yesterday and, indeed, on 23 October last year, my office has sought to discuss with the developers the possibility of a land swap. The details of those contacts are as follows: my planning adviser from my office has had several telephone discussions with the development agent. She has put to the agent that the government would like to discuss the proposals to swap the land for another site. The response was to the effect that they believe the development proposal was too far progressed to change at this stage, particularly as they were about to commence construction.

My planning adviser asked whether she could speak directly with the owner of the lease and was advised that he was overseas and would return in two weeks to discuss this proposal. The lessee was actually away for three weeks. In late November, my planning adviser called the lessee’s company and left a message about the proposal of a land swap and waited for a call from the lessee. There has been no return call.

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