ACT Legislative Assembly Hansard


Advanced search

Next page . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2012 Week 1 Hansard (15 February) . . Page.. 196..


Planning—Kingston foreshore

MS LE COUTEUR: My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development and is in relation to the development of the regulation which exempts the Kingston foreshore from third-party appeals. Minister, why did you not simply call in the Quayside development if you wished to avoid further appeals on it, rather than creating a blanket loss of third-party appeal rights across the Kingston foreshore?

MR CORBELL: The government and I as the minister have regard to the desirability or otherwise of third-party appeals in relation to this particular precinct. The government was aware that there was a repeated pattern of objection to developments that had been approved in the Kingston foreshore by commercial rivals. Let us be very clear about it. It was one developer objecting to a development from a commercial rival. This had been occurring repeatedly. That is not the purpose of the third-party appeal system. It is not the purpose of third-party appeal to allow one commercial rival to gain some sort of commercial advantage by delaying or hindering the development of a rival's proposal. If it meets the requirements of the territory plan, if it is consistent with the relevant development controls that are in place, then it should be approved and it should be allowed to compete with other developments in the precinct.

At Kingston we have a comprehensive planning framework, a comprehensive development control framework, that has been put in place following an exhaustive and lengthy public discussion about what the nature of redevelopment should be at Kingston. So in those circumstances I believe it was entirely appropriate that the government adopt the same approach at Kingston that it has adopted in Civic and at town centres, which is to recognise that it should not be the role of the planning appeal system to allow commercial rivals to seek to obtain some sort of commercial advantage over their competitors.

MS LE COUTEUR: A supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Yes, Ms Le Couteur.

MS LE COUTEUR: Minister, what criteria does the government use for determining when such an exemption regulation should be introduced?

MR CORBELL: I think I have just outlined that, Mr Speaker, in my previous answer.

MR SPEAKER: Ms Hunter, a supplementary.

MS HUNTER: Minister, was the time frame for making a decision on the Quayside development held up by the use of the stop-the-clock provision in order for the regulation to be prepared?

MR CORBELL: I am not familiar with the procedural specifics of that matter. I would need to seek some advice from the planning authority. I will do so. I am happy to provide an answer to the member.


Next page . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search


If you have special accessibility requirements in accessing information on this website,
please contact the Assembly on (02) 6205 0439 or send an email toOLA@parliament.act.gov.au
Accessibility | Copyright and Disclaimer Notice | Privacy Policy
© Legislative Assembly for the ACT