Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 11 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 3472 ..

MR OSBORNE: I have a supplementary question. Given the answer, I take it that we will not be seeing the CIR legislation back before this Assembly.

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, we usually run it at least once every term.

Residential Development - Federal Golf Club

MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Urban Services. Minister, in relation to the proposal by the Federal Golf Club for a residential development on their site, I ask whether you stand by your commitment to a meeting with representatives of the Hughes Residents Association in June this year when you said:

If a new proposal was submitted that was the same as the last then it would be rejected for the same reasons.

Do you agree that the current application by the golf club is the same? Therefore, will this application not have the support of the Government?

MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, I am told that the application is different from the one that has been previously put before parliament and therefore it is entitled to due process. It will go through the process. There will be public consultation. There will be notification. A draft variation will be involved which will have more consultation and notification. People are entitled to let the process run when it is a different proposal, and I am told that this is a different proposal.

MR CORBELL: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Minister, both you and the former Minister, Mr Humphries, made similar undertakings to the Hughes community that the proposal by the golf club was not acceptable to the Government in the form that was previously proposed. However, the community is now concerned to learn that the development and planning approval processes are apparently being run concurrently, which would normally apply only in exceptional circumstances in order to progress a development more quickly than would otherwise be possible. Is it the case that the preliminary assessment and development application processes are being run concurrently rather than sequentially in relation to the Federal Golf Club development, and, if so, why?

MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, applicants are allowed to apply to run variations concurrently. It is normally done in exceptional circumstances. They would have applied to PALM for this under the guidelines. If it has met the guidelines and it has been approved in that manner, then it is appropriate to do so.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .