Page 2596 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 10 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(xi) in a response to a question on notice to the Standing Committee on Planning, Environment and Territory and Municipal Services (Question No. 1), Mr Barr said on 23 November 2015 that the purchase was a “business as usual” purchase;
(xii) on 4 August 2016, Mr Barr said regarding the authority for the purchase “The board provided a delegation to the Chief Executive Officer of the Land Development Agency in relation to the city to the lake project”;
(xiii) on 3 August 2016, Mr Barr said that he is not aware of Aquis having any rights or options to City Block 24, Section 65;
(xiv) on 4 August 2016, Mr Barr said “No, the government purchased the block primarily for the purpose of stormwater management”;
(xv) the price paid for the block was $4 180 235.31 and was calculated on the basis that 122 units would be built; and
(xvi) the Government has stated that the LDA Board was only informed of the purchase after the purchase was made;
(2) further notes:
(a) the Land Acquisition Policy Framework makes no mention of any other provision to purchase land;
(b) until the LDA Board Meeting of 27 August 2015, it appears that the only document governing acquisitions was the Land Acquisition Policy Framework; and
(c) it appears the LDA has developed their own mechanism to purchase land without adhering to the Land Acquisition Policy Framework direction; and
(3) calls on the Government to provide to the Assembly by the last sitting day of this Assembly:
(a) the reason the higher of the two valuations was accepted;
(b) the reason why a third valuation was not sought, given the large variance in the first two valuations;
(c) the reason why a valuation based on residential development was accepted despite the fact that the Government has stated that the site would not be used for such a purpose;
(d) the reason why the Government did not pursue a compulsory acquisition through the Lands Acquisition Act 1994;
(e) the details of the stated delegation allowing for the acquisition;
(f) whether the former leaseholder had complied with their previous investment requirements;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video