Page 3546 - Week 12 - Thursday, 20 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
... its former approved use as a diplomatic site would also not necessarily derive any revenue for the Government.
I ask the Minister: Is it not true that the land in question has previously been subject to a policy plan which would have allowed commercial development on that site?
MR KAINE: No, in fact that is not true. Mr Connolly is obviously under some kind of a misapprehension, or his information is incorrect. The position is that in 1977 blocks 10, 11 and 12 of section 49 in Deakin were shown as allocated for diplomatic use on policy plan AP4134. This plan was gazetted in January 1989 and is currently in force. In June 1983 the then National Capital Development Commission changed the policy to enable part of block 11 to be identified as a site for an art gallery. Local residents were advised of the selection of the site for this purpose in June 1983 and the art gallery was subsequently relocated to the west of block 10 of section 49, and this is the site currently occupied by the Solander Gallery.
The change of policy of June 1983 referred to was not subsequently gazetted and is therefore not in force. The current gazetted policy for block 11 is for diplomatic use, and the Planning Authority does not consider the site is suitable for commercial development, particularly in view of the effects such development would have on the residential amenity of houses on the opposite side of Grey Street. In short, Mr Connolly's suggestion that the site could be rezoned now for commercial use, or has been in the past, conflicts totally with the views of the Planning Authority.
Erindale Pool
MR JENSEN: My question is directed to Mr Duby in his capacity as Minister for Urban Services. I refer the Minister to a comment by Mrs Grassby on page 53 of the proof Hansard on Tuesday. In referring to the Decoin proposal to construct a swimming pool in the Tuggeranong Valley, Mrs Grassby said:
Last year, a report prepared by the Follett Labor Government indicated that the cost of extension of the Erindale -
I presume she meant the Erindale pool -
would be about $2 million and the cost of a new pool would be about $4 million.
My questions to the Minister are: What report was Mrs Grassby referring to? Are the figures she cited correct? Is this a case of Mrs Grassby comparing apples with oranges
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .