Page 998 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2006

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

(1) & (2) The referral of DAs to Local Area Planning Advisory Committees was not a statutory requirement of the DA process and had no obvious impact on the processing times for DAs. Any variances during the 10-year reporting period below may be attributed to a range of influencing factors. Multi unit residential and commercial DAs are reported together.

LAPACs In operation

Year

Single residential

Non single residential and commercial

Yes

January – December 1995

16.54

38.54

Yes

January – December 1996

17.54

28.76

Yes

January – December 1997

19.22

16.68

Yes

January – December 1998

20.64

35.24

Yes

January – December 1999

14.57

29.87

Yes

January – December 2000

9.97

32.86

Yes

January – December 2001

12.01

26.68

Yes

January – December 2002

12.83

28.70

Yes

January – December 2003

12.09

32.64

Yes (to Sept 2004)

January – December 2004

16.32

35.07

No

January – December 2005

14.52

26.32

Note: Average time for approval is business days. Does not include approvals which were subject to call-in powers.

Save the Ridge group
(Question No 964)

Mr Seselja asked the Minister for Urban Services, upon notice, on 16 February 2006:

(1) Has an application for the Territory share of costs associated with the court action between “Save the Ridge” and joint parties, the National Capital Authority and the Territory been submitted to court;

(2) When does the Minister expect this matter to be finalised;

(3) What are the additional costs incurred by the Territory because of delays caused by court actions initiated by the “Save the Ridge” group;

(4) Has the Minister received advice on whether an application made to recoup costs incurred by the Territory as a result of the failed court action by the “Save the Ridge” group is likely to be successful; if so, what did the advice say.

Mr Hargreaves: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1) An application for the Territory share of costs was made in all court proceedings launched by “Save the Ridge” in which the Territory was successful.

(2) The Government Solicitor’s Office is currently negotiating a settlement of the costs issues with “Save the Ridge”.

(3) During the period of the delays caused by “Save the Ridge’s” legal actions the cost of the project increased by around $20 million.

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