Page 2553 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 23 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Want clarification of shop clause for land use policy at Epicentre site.
Have requested our interpretation.
Not seeking preferential treatment.
Reinforced our caveats about the meeting.
Had a discussion about definitions, the draft lease, a DCP off Canberra Ave.
The authority will provide a consolidated position in writing.
Issues with LDA potentially. Auction issue.
Advice prior to auction.
Provided with copy DFO legal advice.
Might need to discuss with Minister.
Mr Seselja asked me:
… did the chief planning executive raise his concerns over pre auction advice, as noted in his meeting notes? If so, what was the nature of those concerns?
The answer to Mr Seselja is that, first of all it should be noted that Austexx subsequently wrote to ACTPLA on 23 November 2005. The chief planning executive responded to this on 8 December last year and this document has been released to the planning and environment committee. A check of meeting agendas around 17 November showed that my meeting with the chief planning executive on Monday, 21 November 2005 included an item the chief planning executive added to the agenda entitled “DFO—Fyshwick.” There are no notes of that meeting. As I said in my response yesterday and earlier in the media, it was a reasonable thing for Mr Savery to bring to my attention the fact that bidders were making inquiries about the sale of the land. Further, Mr Savery has advised me that his clear recollection is that he did not raise matters of concern about the pre auction process.
Also yesterday Dr Foskey asked me a question about the change of use charge for sections 84 and 89 in the city. I can advise Dr Foskey that the change of use charge was assessed at $3.890 million for section 89 city, and $9.134 million for section 84 city. Both these amounts were paid. However, the payer, QIC, appealed the assessment for both sites to the AAT. The AAT joined the appeals to be heard as one appeal. ACTPLA employed Mr Paul Powderley of Colliers International to provide an independent report, as the valuations provided by the AVO on behalf of the authority and Knight Frank on behalf of QIC were a significant way apart. Colliers indicated that the added value would be in the vicinity of $6 million to $7 million.
During the AAT process no outcome or resolution was achieved at mediation. However, the parties continued to negotiate and an agreement was eventually reached that the combined amount of CUC payable for both sections 84 and 89 would be $6.350 million. The approval included off-site works at a cost of $800,000 which was to be deducted from the CUC payable. This resulted in a consent decision by the AAT which provided that final CUC amount. As a result, through this process, there were no before and after values. The total amount paid by QIC after the cost of off-site works were deducted was $5.550 million.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .