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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4383 ..

government has been negotiating and continues to negotiate in good faith but, as Mrs Dunne points out, there is a range of very complex issues.

Just to recap for members’ understanding, Messrs Coonan, Tully and Tanner hold rural leases that expire in December 2005. Their properties fall within the area identified for potential future urban development as part of the Canberra spatial plan. This area was identified for future urban development in the review undertaken following the January 2003 bushfires. Consequently, the maximum lease term for any subsequent further rural lease application in the area was reduced from 99 years to 20 years.

All three rural leaseholders are members of the Sustainable Rural Lands Group. This group has had objections to various aspects of the rural lease policy, dating back to February 2000, and consequent legislation changes in the Land (Planning and Environment) Act giving effect to the rural policy implemented by the previous government. Some of the other members of the group have since decided either to sell their properties on the open market or accept a further lease. The capacity to do this was assisted by changes made by the Assembly to the disallowable instrument governing grant of further rural leases. The changes include extending timeframes for eligibility to applicants applying for favourable payment formulas—below market rates. The new disallowable instrument was notified on 12 December last year.

Mr Coonan, Mr Tully and Mr Tanner have not applied for further rural leases and are currently negotiating with the ACT Planning and Land Authority about compensation for possibly surrendering their leases. Valuations have been obtained by the authority from two sources and were referred to the lessees’ agents on 16 June this year for consideration. The valuation undertaking has been extremely complex and it should be borne in mind that it covered both the Coonan and Tully properties. Detailed work with regard to the lessee-owned improvements needed to be undertaken by the valuers in respect of each property. In addition, work needed to be undertaken with regard to comparative property values, in both the ACT and New South Wales. That work includes both recent and historic sales.

Mr Speaker, I have to correct the record. Having reflected on the most recent part of my speech, I do not believe that valuations have been provided to Mr Coonan and Mr Tully. I do not know why that is in my speech. The advice I have is that that is not correct. I apologise to members for that.

On 27 July this year, the agent for the rural lessees advised the authority that a valuation of Mr Coonan’s property had been completed by their valuers. No valuation of the Tully property has been provided to the authority by representatives of Mr Tully. Further discussions were held with the territory’s valuers and the Government Solicitor’s Office on 10 August this year, with respect to the valuation provided by Mr Coonan’s representatives for his property.

On 23 August the authority met with the agents for the Coonan family to discuss a number of issues arising out of the valuation. There are significant differences in the methodology used between the authority’s valuers and the lessee’s valuers in determining the value of the lessee’s improvements, which includes a component for “timber treatment”—land clearing costs—which has also been the subject of legal advice from the Government Solicitor’s Office.

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