Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3363 ..
MR KAINE (11.32): I move:
That pursuant to section 37(2) of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991, the Legislative Assembly recommends that the Executive direct the Australian Capital Territory Planning Authority to review the Territory Plan by resubmitting plan variation No 94 relating to Red Hill section 58, block 1 (Federal Golf Club redevelopment) which was rejected by the Assembly on 14 October 1999.
Mr Speaker, it is just over a year ago that the Assembly considered this variation, under which the Federal Golf Club sought to gain approval to build some residential units on part of the unused land on its lease. The Assembly curtailed the variation process by rejecting it. It is my opinion that, in light of events that have occurred since then, and had the members of this Assembly known what the consequences would be of the rejection of that variation, they may have come to a different conclusion. In my opinion, what is happening now is an outcome that is not in the public interest, for a number of reasons, and I think that the Assembly would do well to reconsider that variation. So I am seeking the cooperation of the government in bringing that variation back so that the Assembly can reconsider the position that it took over a year ago.
Members will recall the variation, I am sure. It proposed a number of residential units on the northern extremity of the golf club lease, land currently not used by the golf club, and a very significant part of that proposal was that an area of 9.2 hectares of land predominantly on the western side of the golf club would be returned to the community, as being outside the foreseen requirements of the club. The money that was going to be generated by this development was going to be used by the club to improve its facilities and particularly to take care of grey-water recycling, water retention and fairway maintenance, together with some minor works to the clubhouse and its environs.
What has happened now is that, since the variation had been rejected, the club has had a look at its options and, on the basis of a letter that it wrote to me-and I am sure that I was not the only member of the Assembly that received this letter about a month ago-it has decided to go ahead with what it describes as an "as of right" development under its lease. That proposal is to build a golf lodge-style hotel with up to 140 bedrooms, catering for one, two or three persons, together with a conference facility, a banquet hall and an area for the club's own administration and social activities.
To my mind, the objection of the community in Hughes and Garran to such a proposal must be much stronger than its objection to the original proposal of a few townhouses, because at least townhouses are consistent with the general development in the area. But the development that is now proposed by the club will be quite out of character with the general residential amenity of the area.
Furthermore, because of its very nature, a residential development there would not have denied access to that area by the general community. A lot of people said, "We used to work through that area as part of our recreation." I think that the residential development that was proposed would have still allowed them to do that. But the proposal that the club is now putting forward would seem to me to make it totally unusable by the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .