Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2007 Week 13 Hansard (6 December) . . Page.. 4173..
(9) Will the Minister provide the supporting documentation referred to in part (8);
(10) Given that ACTPLA wrote to the lessee on 15 November 2002, retrospectively adding demolition of the garden sheds to the AAT Consent Decision, was the demolition of the sheds a breach of the AAT Consent Decision which did not specify demolition.
Mr Barr: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
I do not intend providing detailed responses to the Member's questions. As with a similar approach being taken in relation to another matter, it is clear that these questions are designed to pursue matters that have been the subject of court and other legal proceedings, and in doing so, seek to by-pass those judicial arrangements.
I will restate the position I have taken in response to Question on Notice No. 1816. This is another case where the lessees flagrantly flouted the law and have not complied with numerous opportunities to rectify the matter that they are required to attend to. The Government has the responsibility to follow statutory processes and abide by the decisions of the Territory's tribunals and courts. It also has the responsibility to have regard to the amenity of all residents, and in this case there are other constituents whose quality of life is affected by this ongoing matter that has been the subject of compliance by ACT planning bodies over many years.
Further, I regularly see correspondence from Assembly Members who chastise ACTPLA for not taking compliance action and when ACTPLA does take such action it gets taken to task for doing so.
This matter has been comprehensively dealt with through the legal processes and the lessee is required to attend to the orders of the Court. It is disappointing that Dr Foskey continues to act for the lessees who continue to avoid their obligations.
My detailed response to Question on Notice No. 1678 of 24 September 2007 provided detailed information about the processes and actions that have been taken in relation to this matter. The Supreme Court has considered all relevant matters in regard to this case, and neither the ACT Planning and Land Authority nor the ACT Government can act contrary to the decisions of the Court.
As with the stream of questions regarding Block 45 Section 37, Waramanga, I do not intend to continue to debate aspects of this matter that have been properly dealt with through the judicial processes.
(Question No 1816)
Dr Foskey asked the Minister for Planning, upon notice, on 6 December 2007:
(1) Further to administrative issues made by Planning and Land Management (PALM) /ACT Planning and Land Authority (ACTPLA) about Block 45 Section 37, Waramanga regarding plans number 26446 D, E and F, project number 983370, plan number 013890/A, and plan number 044470/A, did Mr Richard Johnston's briefing to