Page 355 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(2) What consideration has the Government given to those representations.
Mr Gentleman: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) a) In recent years the Government has not received any representations regarding future zoning options for the Big Splash Water park at section 53 block 1 Macquarie.
b) However, a number of requests were received between 2004 and 2009.
c) In June 2004 an initial request was received from Mr Tony Adams from McCann Property and Planning on behalf of the lessees of Big Splash seeking a variation to the Territory Plan to allow residential uses.
d) In June 2005, the owners R.D and B.F. Watkins requested rezoning the Water Park to residential.
e) In July 2006 Mr Tony Adams, CBRE, requested reconsideration of rezoning to residential.
f) In 2007 the owners requested rezoning to commercial CZ2 Business zone for mixed use development.
g) In 2008 the Government received a request to rezone Big Splash to high density residential and refused it.
(h) In 2009, Mr John Anderson, Helke Pty Ltd made a request to retain the existing facilities and introduce a number of new facilities to Big Splash (childcare centre, sports medicine suites, hydro therapy facilities, 10m learn to swim pool and a 25m indoor pool).
(2) a) The Government considered current planning policies, Jamison Group Centre master plan, lose of recreation zoned land and overall government policies to respond to these representations.
b) In 2004 the Government did not support the representation as it failed to demonstrate if all other land uses permissible under the existing zoning have been explored. It was suggested to explore all other land uses permissible under the existing zoning.
c) In 2005, the Government considered the Recreational Needs Study done by the ACT Sport and Recreation to respond to the representation and refused rezoning to residential.
d) In 2006 the Government did not support the proposal as it failed to demonstrate community benefit and did not complement the Jamison master plan.
e) In 2007 the Government gave conditional support to the proposal. It was suggested to respond to interface issue and undertake community consultation.
f) In 2008 the Government refused the proposal due to the loss of recreational use zoned land.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video