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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2006 Week 4 Hansard (4 May) . . Page.. 1279..

(4) No. The traffic assessment undertaken to determine the likely impact of the East O'Malley residential development did not recommend the need to implement any additional improvements at the intersection.

(5) At present no additional measures are being contemplated.


(Question No 970)

Mr Seselja asked the Minister for Planning, upon notice, on 7 March 2006:

(1) What proposals for the development of Section 237 Gowrie have been put forward since it was zoned residential;

(2) Is the Government aware of any development application, either submitted or currently being prepared, to develop Section 237 Gowrie;

(3) Are there any current consultations or discussions that may lead to a development application being considered for Section 237 Gowrie;

(4) What is the likely form of any such development in terms of number and style of dwellings, street access and boundary requirements.

Mr Corbell

: The answer to the member's question is as follows:

(1) Block 5 Section 237 Gowrie was identified for Residential use in the original planning for Gowrie in the 1970's. The ACT Planning and Land Authority has not received any current proposals for development relating to that Block. Information relating to earlier proposals is not available.

(2) The Authority is not aware of any Development Applications being prepared for the block.

(3) The LDA is currently undertaking a site investigation report for Block 5.

(4) The site investigation report being undertaken by the LDA will consider the number and style of dwellings proposed for the block, along with potential access and boundary requirements.

Planning System Reform Project

(Question No 971)

Mr Seselja asked the Minister for Planning, upon notice, on 7 March 2006:

(1) What were the specific concerns raised by members of the planning profession in relation to the technical papers associated with the Planning System Reform Project;

(2) How have these concerns been resolved;

(3) What was the allowed time for public comments on the technical papers;

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