Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2012 Week 6 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 2356..
MR SPEAKER: Order, members! I cannot hear Ms Bresnan.
Ms Bresnan: Ms Le Couteur's question was whether the program was put out for tender, not whether the Greens had asked for a briefing.
MR SPEAKER: Dr Bourke, do you wish to add anything further?
DR BOURKE: No.
MS BRESNAN: A supplementary.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Ms Bresnan.
MS BRESNAN: Minister, will you be responding to letters written to your office regarding this program?
DR BOURKE: All letters to my office are responded to.
MR SMYTH: My question is to the Minister for Economic Development. Minister, you would be aware that the community in Chisholm has been concerned about proposals to offer for sale block 2 section 590 in Chisholm. While this block has been identified for development for something like 30 years, it is currently seen as a community park. The community has a number of concerns about any development proposals, particularly including issues related to traffic, the loss of open space and density. A further program of community consultation has now been proposed about the future of this park. Minister, were previous consultations about this block successful, and what program for further consultation has been prepared in relation to the future of the block?
MR BARR: I thank Mr Smyth for the question. I first had my attention drawn to just how long this block had been proposed for sale when this issue received some media and community interest. It was fascinating to go back and look at the cabinet minutes from 10 years ago that were signed off, I think, by you, putting the block for sale with 20 units on it. That was interesting. Given the correspondence I received from you, Mr Smyth, I was somewhat surprised when I delved into the history of said block to see that it had been put up for sale by the Carnell government. It was not put up for sale as a dental facility; it was put up for sale for 20 units. So the history of this particular block is, no doubt, colourful.
I understand that the piece of land has two planning zonings—one for commercial and another that is urban open space. Of course, that is how it appears on the territory plan. In the context of its appearance on the ground, it probably would not be obvious which part of the block is commercial and which part is urban open space. I understand that a playground was put on the commercial part of the block at some point previously.