Page 2059 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 May 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
frames, albeit sometimes these are lengthy, appropriate to the assessment and remediation required, and that where activity on some sites is not evident, they are still subject to intense monitoring. Where there has been little progress on remediated sites, my directorate works with the owners of these sites to progress proposals for redevelopment.
I would now like to address a couple of other issues that are raised in Mrs Jones motion and that are dealt with by my amendment. The government is not in a position to provide information on contamination of sites where final endorsement by the EPA has not yet occurred. It is only at that point that that information is made available to the territory. I understand that there is an amendment from Mr Rattenbury which asks this of the government. The government is simply not in a position to detail contamination on every site. We do not have that information. That is held by the leaseholder. It is only when their contamination report and their audit is endorsed by the EPA that we do have that information. That information, as I have said, is already publicly available, but information prior to endorsement by the EPA is not.
Finally, I would just like to address the sites that Mrs Jones has raised concerns about. Duffy: there is no breach of the crown lease or planning laws. There is currently an approved development application for the site, which will expire if development does not commence by the end of this month. If that does not occur, the appropriate action will be taken by the Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate. I am advised that the site has been cleared in anticipation of development.
Garran: as a result of personal issues affecting the lessee, there have been delays in the commencement of development on this site. The lessee’s representatives are currently working with my directorate to execute a new crown lease for the site to facilitate development.
Page: throughout last year there were detailed discussions between the lessee and my directorate regarding possible joint venture options to assist in the development of several blocks owned by this lessee. No suitable options have been identified. My directorate continues to work with the lessee to see when we can reach agreement on the development of this site. (Extension of time granted.)
Rivett: this site was due to be auctioned in late 2012 but was halted because my directorate required changes to the lease before any sale to a new lessee. The lessee’s representatives are currently working with the directorate to execute a new crown lease. This will allow for the auction of the site.
There are four further sites that have complex remediation issues that are being managed. However, the purpose clause in the crown leases for these sites means that final compliance with the lease will not be able to be determined until after construction is completed. Of these, two sites cannot achieve final sign off and clearance until after construction is completed due to the nature of contamination.
There are a further four sites due to commence development this year. These include block 16/17 section 29 Braddon and block 224 Jerrabomberra. One site is progressing, with the lessee engaged with development assessment leasing and the EPA. This is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video