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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (20 April) . . Page.. 1012 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

Territory Plan No. 33 was prepared and released in November 1995. The variation retained the B1 area in its entirety but restricted three-storey development to just the Braddon area, pending the adoption of local area plans. In February 1996, draft variation No. 33 was withdrawn, reflecting the fact that it did not take into account the role of LAPACs, which started in November 1995. In lieu of draft variation No. 33, draft variation No. 58 was released. It formalised the role of LAPACs in relation to the applications for multiunit development. This variation was endorsed by the P&E Committee, our predecessor, in May 1997. Throughout 1996 and 1997, PALM did a lot of work on monitoring and refining development in the B1 area. This led to draft variation No. 82, which was released in August 1997 and which was rejected by the P&E Committee. That is the background to the present draft variation.

I think it shows three things: Redevelopment has been a hot potato for many years; the parliament and this committee's predecessors had been involved on several occasions; and this Government and PALM have done what the P&E Committee asked it to do in 1997, that is, to refine the concept and application of section master plans to provide the missing link between the broad land use definitions in the Territory Plan and their application in an appropriate manner to a particular section. Taking all this into account, the Urban Services Committee sees no reason to block the operation of draft variation No. 109. However, we are recommending that the Minister keep the committee informed about the operation of the variation and provide a full assessment to us in approximately six months' time.

Before I close, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to make one further comment. My colleagues and I were disturbed to learn during the inquiry that some local residents have been subject to the less savoury activities of those associated with redevelopment. These activities, it is alleged, have extended to untruths about the alleged sale of properties adjoining long-term residents in an effort to get them to sell without full knowledge of the facts.

Debate interrupted.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It being 5 o'clock, I propose the question:

Mr Humphries: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

Debate resumed.

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