Page 1797 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (8.33): This clause and Mr Seselja’s amendment point out for me the incredible complexity of this legislation and the amendments, and the difficulty that people who are not planning professionals and have not been studying the legislation for months and years will have with the legislation. In this sense I am a community member put in a situation where I have to make a decision about something I feel ill-informed on. I am persuaded somewhat by Mr Seselja’s arguments that people who have taken up the lease need to have that certainty of use for which they took up the lease in the first place. I am told that if they are going to make major material changes such as erecting new buildings on the site, and so on, they will have to seek development approval anyway. In this case, my instinct—and it is nothing more than that, because I do not feel well-informed because we have not had the briefings—is to support Mr Seselja on this one. I cannot see the community benefit of this meaning of use as proposed in the government’s amendment.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (8.35): As I said in my initial remarks, it is about striking a balance. I can give Dr Foskey a practical example. Someone has a lease to operate a restaurant and wants to change that. The lease says they can change it to a nightclub and they want to do extensive building work as part of that. The Planning and Land Authority would assess the impact of the change of use to a nightclub, and I will give you an example.
Say it was a particular lease at the bottom of a residential development in Dickson. If it was a restaurant and it was proposed to become a nightclub, that change of use and significant building work attached with it would have an impact on the surrounding community. So I believe it is appropriate for the planning authority to have consideration. It does not mean it is automatically vetoed but it means that that change of use should be considered. To pick up on the point that Mrs Dunne raised, this does not affect rights held under existing or new leases. So this great uncertainty that you think it creates I do not see as being so.
Mrs Dunne: You really are creating two classes of lease then.
MR BARR: I think it is simply the case that a particular agenda is being pursued, and I understand why the organisations and the Liberal Party are pursuing that, but in seeking to find a balance we were going to make some amendments to what was obviously proposed. Yes, I have been lobbied intensely by the property industry and by the development lobby to support the position that they have put forward and that the Liberal Party are putting forward. However, in looking at all of the issues and having to find a balance between protecting community interests and ensuring that where there is significant building work and a change of use—and there are a couple of examples around the city where what was a restaurant has now become an active nightspot that has had impact on surrounding residents—we need to have regard to the effect of that. Major building work does not stop changes from occurring but it means we have regard to it when assessing a development application—that is all.
So the level of concern that those opposite are expressing is a bit overstated here. The balance the government is striking with the amendments I am about to put forward is fair to all parties and will provide the certainty that people need, but will also protect
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .