Page 243 - Week 01 - Thursday, 24 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (11.18), in reply: I would like to respond to some of the issues that speakers in this debate have raised. Firstly, Mr Lamont said that some considerable process had occurred with regard to this draft variation on the future of this piece of land in Kingston, a process that we know members of the community have not had confidence in. I think that is the important point to be made there. He also referred back to the history of the tower proposal. That does form part of the history of the proposed development of this site, but it is really not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the proposed development that is going to be sited on this block of land in Kingston.
Mr Lamont also talked about the density of the block opposite as being 1.2. Members will recall that on Tuesday, when I spoke to my dissenting report on this draft variation, I referred to a letter from Stuart Saunders on behalf of the tower residents - I cannot remember the name of the organisation. Those people had no objection whatever to a density of 1.2. What people are objecting to is the greater density proposed on this site of 1.54, the figure Mr Moore has identified as being listed in the draft variation material this Assembly is considering.
Mr Lamont is right about the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee's role in determining the issues. We do have a role and, as Mr Moore has mentioned, on most occasions when we are dealing with planning issues we come up with a unanimous report. But on this occasion the committee has not done that. I have disagreed with the Planning Committee's report on this occasion, and Mr Kaine also spoke in this Assembly on Tuesday about his views on the proposed draft variation. I am not saying that the whole system has failed, as Mr Lamont implied. I am saying that in this instance it has failed. I certainly do not get up in this Assembly every time a variation comes before us and oppose it. Mr Lamont also said that I have been critical of the ACT Planning Authority. I would like to put on the record that I have been critical of the ACT Planning Authority in this instance. There are many other occasions on which I have praised the work of the ACT Planning Authority in relation to other draft variations which have come before this Assembly.
Mr Moore in his remarks made some very pertinent points. He said that this Assembly knows that the developer had an obligation to provide public parking. As a result of the letter members received from the Minister, the letter from Mr Townsend, the Secretary to the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning, dated 8 May 1992, we know that the developer was aware of the guidelines which applied to this site. Mr Moore indicated that the guidelines had been exceeded substantially. In my remarks I said that the guidelines had been exceeded fundamentally; that it was not a marginal departure from the guidelines as they currently exist but a quite fundamental departure from those guidelines.
Mr Moore rightly pointed out that the ACT Legislative Assembly has to decide what is ultimately in the public interest, and obviously the key question in this debate today is: What is in the public interest with regard to the site in Kingston?
MADAM SPEAKER: Ms Szuty, it is 22 minutes past 11. I have to interrupt the debate at this point.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .