Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 284 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
I would like to hear from the minister when the decision was made to approve the variation. Why did the minister not take more interest in Easts' proposal. I understand from conversations he has had with residents that he is not really familiar with that proposal. I would also like to know what was done to evaluate the seriousness or viability of Easts' expression of interest. I would like to know how the minister was assured that there was no longer a need for community facilities, given that the Planning and Environment Committee concluded that the Narrabundah community already had a shortage of community facility land use blocks. What is the reason that we do not need community facilities there? If we do not have a shortage, I need to know that and the community needs to know that.
Serious questions have been raised about how far the contractual arrangement with the developer was advanced before this variation was approved. What impact, if any, does that contractual arrangement have on the potential for this land to stay in community hands?
I ask for support from members for this disallowance motion, even from proponents of such redevelopment, on the grounds of process and in support of the very shocked Narrabundah community.
MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (11.07): Mr Speaker, variation No 174 to the Territory Plan concerns blocks 2, 3, 14 and 15 of section 124 of Narrabundah. The Hungarian Australian Club currently occupies blocks 2 and 3. Blocks 14 and 15 are vacant unleased territory land located on the corner of Kootara Crescent and Keira Street.
The existing Territory Plan land use policies are entertainment, accommodation and leisure for blocks 2 and 3, the club site-not community facility-and community facility for blocks 14 and 15, the vacant territory land sites.
The proposal contained in the original draft variation that was exhibited for public comment was to change the existing land use policies applying to the land to residential with a B11 area specific policy overlay. The B11 area specific policy would have provided for a residential development up to a maximum of three storeys.
A total of 57 submissions were received in response to the exhibited draft variation, and following the public consultation process PALM revised the draft variation by removing the B11 area specific policy. The implications of this were that the general residential land use policies would apply, and the residential development would be limited to a maximum height of two storeys. It was proposed that all detailed design and siting matters would be considered at the development application stage and would be subjected to the high-quality sustainable design process. These processes require, amongst other things, a detailed site analysis to be undertaken and a comprehensive design response report to be prepared before the development application can be lodged.
The Planning and Environment Committee considered the revised draft variation, and in its report No 4 of May 2002 recommended that draft variation 174 not proceed and that the existing land use policies be retained.