Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2021 Week 13 Hansard (Thursday, 2 December 2021) . . Page.. 4186 ..


(1) Further to question taken on notice No 6 on attempts to terminate leases dated 30 June 2021, as part of the Giralang inquiry conducted by the Standing Committee on Planning, Transport and City Services Committee, and the included examples where the ACT Government have used termination clauses to terminate a lease under the Planning and Development Act 2007, can the Minister provide some contextual details for each of those examples, including the (a) nature of the lease (for example, commercial or residential, (b) reason for termination in each instance and (c) steps leading to the notice of intention to terminate.

(2) Given that the Dunlop 2012 lease termination involved a termination, an appeal and ultimately resulted in the land being developed by a different party, is this considered a successful lease termination.

(3) Given the McKellar 2013 lease termination involved a negotiated Controlled Activity Order and the site has not yet been developed, is this considered successful; if not, why not.

(4) Given that the Waramanga lease termination resulted in ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) finding that the lease could not be terminated on the grounds determined by the ACT Planning and Land Authority and this particular matter was a complicated one and the Tribunal ultimately found that the lease could not be terminated on the lease provisions provided for in the notice of intention to terminate and noting that the Waramanga lease was entered into in 1971 and the current lease for the Giralang site was entered into in 2014 and they are very different types of document, (a) is the Giralang lease considered in similar in terms, or different, to the Waramanga lease and (b) would a similar ACAT finding against Government be expected if it terminated the Giralang lease.

(5) Given that in the Minister’s response to question taken on notice No 10, dated 30 June 2021, as part of the Giralang inquiry conducted by the Sanding Committee on Planning, Transport and City Services, in response to general complaints Access Canberra inspectors inspected the Giralang site on 4 May 2021 and 14 July 2020, can the Minister provide a summary of this correspondence including (a) date of correspondence, nature of correspondence, for example, was it a complaint/concerns articulated; if so, what was the complaint/concern and (d) how Access Canberra dealt with these complaints/concerns.

Mr Gentleman: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1)

a) The Crown lease for the referenced blocks of land in question taken on notice No 6 (located at Dunlop, McKellar and Waramanga) contains the purpose clause that the land is to be utilised for residential purposes only.

b) The reason for the proposed termination was failure to comply with the purpose of the Crown lease being the land is used for residential purposes.

c) The steps undertaken were consistent with the provisions of sections 382 and 384 of the Planning and Development Act 2007 (the Act) in force at the time, including the Notification requirements.

(2) The outcome is consistent with the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2007 and the block was developed.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video