Page 1347 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 10 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This comment was dated 3 November 1993. I remember Mr Lamont discussing with me the likelihood of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee considering this draft variation at a time in the future to be determined and that there was unlikely to be any difficulty with it. What I do not recall is being specifically asked to consider this draft variation as a minor variation, which meant that it would not go through the usual process of public notification and consultation. Nevertheless, the Minister, Mr Wood, agreed to the processes recommended by the ACT Planning Authority being followed, and his view may well have been influenced by the note on the minute paper I have described. Once I had seen this note, I spoke to Mr Kaine, who also did not have such a recollection as to what had occurred. This was a difficult situation for me, as Mr Lamont no longer chairs the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee and Mr Kaine is no longer a member of the Planning Committee either.
I will briefly summarise the policy variation, for the benefit of members. The existing policy restricts retailing from this site to 300 square metres gross floor area, but the existing business currently operates from approximately 1,000 square metres of gross floor area. This variation proposes to change the land use policy to increase to 1,200 square metres the permissible area from which the sale of beverages, including alcohol, can be conducted. The restriction on the retailing of other goods will remain at 300 square metres. Mr Murphy also proposes to widen the range of his business to include the sale of perfumes and arts and crafts, including jewellery. At present, 40 car parking spaces are provided, and no increase is proposed.
Instead of a public notification and consultation process being undertaken, the Planning Authority consulted with adjacent lessees, as Mr Berry has outlined, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Capital Planning Authority and the Conservator of Wildlife. As the draft variation, as approved, will enable Jim Murphy's Market Cellars to sell duty free items such as alcohol, perfumes, arts and crafts, including jewellery, provided that the gross floor area used for the display and sale of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 1,200 square metres, it would have seemed reasonable to me had the Planning Authority consulted the other duty free retailers in the ACT to obtain their views about this draft variation. While I accept that it would not be in the interests of other duty free retailers for there to be another outlet available to potential consumers, nonetheless the ACT Planning Authority plays a considerable role in deciding on the scope and size of retailing centres in various areas of Canberra. The views of these duty free retailers, I believe, should have been sought.
I would like to contrast the statement I referred to earlier, as contained in the written note, and I remind members of what that was - "This is the first one to be handled in this way and would be a useful precedent" - with a statement made by David Wright, the director of statutory planning with the National Capital Planning Authority. I quote from his submission on the draft variation:
Provided legitimising the existing use does not establish a precedent, and in the view of the ACT Planning Authority the proposal does not threaten the established hierarchy of centres, the authority does not regard the proposal to vary the Territory Plan as inconsistent with the provisions of the National Capital Plan.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .