Page 4506 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 20 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is no doubt that townhouses are appropriate for Forrest, have been built in Forrest and will continue to be built in Forrest over a period of time. But I would suggest to you and the other members of this house, Mr Speaker, that groups of 26 townhouses are not appropriate for this area, particularly as they would encroach on what has the potential to become a rather excellent site for use by various community groups and organisations as well as the residents who live nearby.
In this case the bowling club has not gone to the planning and leasing authorities with what is in effect their concessional lease and said, "We have a problem. How much of the site can be redeveloped to comply with good planning principles of this area?". Nor have the planners done their homework and put their views to the community for consideration. Rather, the bowling club has received a visit from a developer, or series of developers, who have seen a perfect opportunity to turn some of this prime land into dollars and cents. The aim of their proposal, of course, is to maximise the yield that might be obtained from the site. We heard that originally it was proposed that there be 32 townhouses on the site. There would not be too much open space left after that sort of development. Quite frankly, as I read it, Mr Speaker, there is not much difference between 26 and 32 in the density of development on that site.
We heard during deliberations in the Planning Committee that some $3.3m would be provided for a new bowling club on part of the site, plus an allowance for the club to pay the betterment charges. But I would have thought that, from a developer's point of view, that was a small price to pay. Based on the rough rule of thumb, of approximately $150,000 for a block of land in that area for a townhouse site, a gross figure of about $3.9m would have been achieved just on the sale of the land.
One really has to ask the question: Should an organisation that obtained a lease for nothing or, at best, for an insignificant rent be able to use this land for redevelopment in this way? You must remember, of course, that this is the second lease that the club has had. The first lease was a concessional lease. The second lease was a City Area Leases Ordinance lease, as it was then, with a very minor rental charge. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, and the members of the Assembly that the answer must be no. Even if one accepted that 26 townhouses would be appropriate, as I have already indicated, the suggestion of such large windfall profits, quite frankly, I find obscene.
On the issue of betterment, I would like the Minister to advise the Assembly which category his department sees the proposal fitting into. Let me refresh the Minister's memory on the betterment principles for such leases - and all leases, in fact - established during the term of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .