Page 800 - Week 02 - Thursday, 23 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR COE (Ginninderra) (5.14): I would like to start my remarks by thanking Ms Porter, Ms Le Couteur and the secretariat staff, in particular Trevor Rowe, for their assistance in putting together this report. The inquiry into DV 307 was by no means an easy or straightforward process. Like all planning issues, there are passionate voices both in favour and against, and it has been our job to weigh up the merits of those arguments.
I would like to make some comments about the issue of deconcessionalisation, which has already been raised by both Ms Le Couteur and Ms Porter. Many submissions made note of their perception that it was unfair that the granting of land for community purposes should be later used for commercial gain. I am of the view that there is a distinct lack of clarity and, subsequently, integrity in the process used for deconcessionalising leases. This seems to be an ad hoc procedure which leads to considerable uncertainty for both proponents as well as other stakeholders, including neighbours. I believe that if the government had a clearly articulated policy for the process used to deconcessionalise leases, there would be much less angst about proposals such as that put forward by the Brumbies for section 42 block 15 in Griffith.
Further to this, the question about what portion of land is actually concessional is one that remains uncertain, I believe. However, this is not an issue that directly affects the planning principles of whether the land in question is best used as CZ6 or RZ4.
Another issue raised in this inquiry was to what extent the taxpayer should support professional sporting teams. This is an issue worth debating. Expenditure of taxpayers’ money is always worth debating. However, it was not an issue within the scope of the planning committee, and it should not impact the planning use that is preferable for section 42 block 15 in Griffith.
We must differentiate between what is the role of the government and what is the role for the planning committee. The planning committee will give advice about the land use of the area in question, not about who develops the blocks, how much is paid for the land, deconcessionalisation, the change of use charge or the levels of government subsidy.
In looking at this complex and difficult planning issue, we must look at what the alternatives are. It is a fact that, even if a change of zone were not granted, other permissible structures up to several storeys high would be permissible on the block. However, the plans of any proposals, regardless of a rezoning, would need to go before ACTPLA for approval or rejection.
The advice we give must stand the test of time. Whilst many Canberrans are happy with the Brumbies being located in Griffith, the decision to stay at the site is a decision for the Brumbies. Neither the government nor the committee can compel the Brumbies to stay at the site, and nor should they. Even if no rezoning was to be approved, at any point the Brumbies could leave the site, and what would happen then? The site could be redeveloped in line with permissible uses within land use CZ6.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video