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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4384 ..

It remains open for the Sustainable Rural Lands Group to commence litigation against the territory, if they so wish, given their strong views on a number of legal issues in the past. Therefore, the ongoing discussions and negotiations between the rural lessees and the authority, on behalf of the territory, have continued on a “without prejudice” basis only.

The territory needs to apply a consistent approach in the administration of rural leases. Any precedent set by the Sustainable Rural Lands Group may impact on dealings with other rural lessees with similar lease provisions. Most rural leases in the past were issued with provisions for the recovery of land for future urban development purposes and included specific compensation conditions.

The way in which these compensation conditions are administered would therefore have a significant impact on the territory’s finances. The government and the ACT Planning and Land Authority seek, on every occasion, to administer the rural lease policy equitably. The government remains committed to these negotiations with these three members of the Sustainable Rural Lands Group and a considerable amount of time and energy has already been expended by ACTPLA in consultation with its valuers, the GSO and the agent for the three rural lessees.

Having considered the valuations, the authority will make a “without prejudice” offer to Mr Coonan prior to the commencement of the caretaker period. That offer will exceed the valuation figure for improvements already provided to Mr Coonan and will contain appropriate and generous provisions to permit the time of departure of Mr Coonan from his property. Mr Coonan and other Sustainable Rural Lands Group members can then better assess their position.

For the benefit of members I would like to outline the chronology of what has occurred since this matter was last debated in some substance in the Assembly in November last year. On 17 November last year a meeting was held between Mr Coonan and Mr Tully, representatives of the ACT Government Solicitor’s Office, a representative from my office and a representative from Ms Tucker’s office. That same day, a “without prejudice” letter was signed by Mr Savery, who was the chief planning executive, confirming discussions of the meeting—that, on a surrender of the lease, the lease conditions and legislative provisions would apply to the valuation and the lessees would provide a list of improvements.

On 2 December 2003 there was a meeting with Mr Coonan and Mr Tully, at which a draft list of improvements to their properties was discussed. On 17 December, ACTPLA representatives again met with Mr Coonan and Mr Tully, when further discussions occurred about the draft list of improvements. On 29 January this year, there was a meeting with Mr Andrew Higginson, an agent appointed by Mr Coonan and Mr Tully, when there was general discussion and preparation of a list of improvements on their properties.

On 11 February this year Mr Higginson emailed a response to the matters raised in that January meeting. Then on 18 February a follow-up meeting to review previous issues raised was undertaken and site meetings with the authority’s valuers were arranged on the relevant properties on 3 and 5 March this year. On 1 March Mr Higginson provided

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