Page 2882 - Week 09 - Thursday, 27 September 2007

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

(3) Was the lessee informed in writing as to what the satisfaction of the Territory meant in relation to a clean up of the block, either by himself or by ACTPLA, before the clean up was conducted;

(4) What policies or procedures does ACTPLA use to decide whether a block is considered a dirty block;

(5) What was ACTPLA’s lawful reason for (a) entering the premises on 2, 3 and 4 December 2002 and (b) instructing contractors to remove a substantial amount of the owner’s possessions and relocate these to the nearest landfill;

(6) What process does ACTPLA use to identify unapproved structures from structures that did not require approval prior to demolition by the contractors.

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

(1) The effect of the consent decision was to replace the original date on which the order of 10 July 2002 had to be complied with from 8 August 2002 to the later date of 25 November 2002.

The consent decision stated that:

(a) substituting the date of 25 November 2002 for the date of 8 August 2002 specified in the paragraph number (i) in the order of the Delegate of the Minister for the Environment Land and Planning:

(b) Deleting the paragraph numbered (ii) from the order and substituting: “(ii) such later day as I agree in writing; provided always that the operation of paragraph (i) above will not be affected unless and until I give such agreement”;

The consent decision did not change the substance or the intent of the original order which was to clean up a leasehold by removing the accumulation of miscellaneous items and debris from the land and to continue to keep the land clean to the satisfaction of the Territory.

The value and or use of the items in the yard was not a relevant consideration for the clean up. The order was to remove the accumulation of items and debris from the land. Given the long and protracted nature of this matter there can be no doubt as to either the intent or the scope of the clean up that was to be undertaken.

(2) The clean up of the leasehold was neither arbitrary nor lacking with respect to consultation. The consent decision was agreed to by the lessee at the end of a process that had commenced in May 2002 and had involved a multitude of correspondence between ACTPLA and the lessee over that period of time.

(3) No

(4) ACTPLA uses the following criteria to determine what constitutes and unclean residential leasehold.

Visibility

The area of the lease to be assessed must be:

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