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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2466 ..


Block 689, Majura

(Question No 263)

Mr Corbell asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 May 2000:

In relation to Block 680 Majura:

(1) How many bids were received for the auction, which will take place on 31 May 2000.

(2) Why were the Lease and Development conditions amended to remove the development covenant of a minimum of $200,000.

(3) Was the covenant removed as the result of an individual request, if so who requested the removal.

(4) Why was the covenant removed only 3 business days before applications to bid closed.

(5) Is this land involved in a land swap with the Harcourt Hill Estate Winery;

(6) If so,

(a) what are the details of the arrangement.

Mr Humphries: The answer to the member's question is as follows:

(1) A total of 6 applications were received.

(2) The draft lease and development conditions initially provided for a dwelling on a larger block with increased development costs associated with construction of a septic tank and reticulated town water.

The final conditions were amended to remove the dwelling after taking into consideration:

      the reduced land area offered for lease being less than the minimum 100 hectare requirement for a residential dwelling on a rural lease; and

      the adverse impact that the Canberra Airport ANEF, extent of high voltage transmission lines across the block, proximity of Fairbairn Park Motor Sports facility and the proposed Queanbeyan Bypass (possible future land withdrawal) would have on the amenity of a residence.

The development covenant was not amended to reflect this change until it was reviewed following concerns raised by a number of potential buyers who only wished to graze or agist the land without undertaking any development.

(3) No individual specifically requested that the covenant be removed. The nature of enquiries related to the need for such a covenant when perhaps no development was proposed (as indicated in 2 above).

The covenant was removed in agreement between DTI, Environment ACT and PALM, after consideration of the above impacts.


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