Page 2549 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (4.09): Madam Speaker, I wish to comment briefly on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee's report tabled by the committee's presiding member, Mr David Lamont. The issue I wish to comment on is the question of what is and what is not an indicative proposal. Indicative proposals for development are generally useful for members of the Planning Committee because they show us in general terms what proposed developments will look like. However, I wish to draw the Assembly's attention to the indicative proposal for the draft variation to section 100, part of block 13, part of the Capital Golf Course site, which will enable medium density housing to be established there.
The drawing provided to the committee indicates that 120 or more two- or three-bedroom units are to be built. The drawing also includes substantial landscaping to be incorporated into the development. Consultants R.J. Nairn and Partners Pty Ltd refer in a letter to Mr Bryan Dowling and Associates, dated 6 December 1991, to 85 two-bedroom and 80 three-bedroom units proposed to be built. The question that the Planning Committee addressed during its deliberations was: If 165 two- and three-bedroom units are proposed to be built on the site, what will happen to the landscaping provisions indicated in the indicative proposal? The question ultimately becomes: What is an "indicative proposal"? The Greater Oxford Dictionary defines "indicative" in various ways including "that indicates, points out, or directs; that hints or suggests". Obviously, a great deal of interpretation could be placed on just what "indicative proposal" means.
The Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee has noted that consideration needs to be given to the proposed medium density development to be sited on the Capital Golf Course and that a continuing interest will be maintained. I endorse this course of action while drawing the Assembly's attention to the question of what is and what is not an indicative proposal as illustrated in this instance.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
LAND (PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT) ACT - VARIATIONS TO THE TERRITORY PLAN
Papers
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning): Madam Speaker, in the way that we do things these days - there is a bit of repetition here - I present, for the information of members, variations to the Territory Plan for Yarralumla, section 66, blocks 3, 17 and 18; Narrabundah, section 100, block 13, part thereof; Fyshwick, section 39, block 7; Mitchell, section 47, part of block 1, and section 44, part of block 2; Gungahlin, part of block 9; O'Malley, section 34, block 9; and Conder, section 129, blocks 14, 17 and 18, and section 275, block 20, pursuant to section 29 of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, these variations are tabled with the background papers, a copy of the summaries and reports, and a copy of any direction or report required.
Mr Kaine: How long do we have in which to disallow the lot, five days?
MR WOOD: Enough time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .