Page 738 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Minister, what is the status of this application? Have you instructed your department either to withdraw or review its application?
MR BARR: I thank Mr Mulcahy for the question. Yes, I am aware that there have been some community concerns expressed about the nature of the fence that is proposed for Griffith oval No 1. Members would be aware that the background to this is that our world-class rugby union team, the Brumbies, use that facility for training purposes, together with a number of other rugby union clubs.
The proposal that has been put forward is for a 1.2 metre high steel fence. The proposal from the Brumbies was to have that fence in their team colours, but I am aware that that has attracted some comment from the Griffith community in relation to the aesthetics of the fence and perhaps to the broader issue of whether there should be a fence encircling this particular field.
I think it is important to note that the proposed fence is a picket style fence, but I understand that there are varying views in the community around whether that should be wooden in nature and coloured, like similar fences, and an example I would use is the training facility that the Raiders have out at Bruce that has a white picket fence around it.
The desire is to ensure that the quality of the training surface is able to be maintained, and I would acknowledge the fact that the Brumbies make a significant financial contribution to the maintenance of that training facility. It is something in the order of $100,000 to $150,000 a year. I think it is important to note that the Brumbies are paying their way in terms of the maintenance of that oval as they are the primary user of the facility, most particularly during the super rugby season.
I am aware, as I say, that there are concerns about the nature of the fence proposed and that the Planning and Land Authority, with its independent statutory authority basis for assessing development applications, is currently assessing that project. If and when the planning authority make recommendations back to sport and recreation services, who are sponsoring the development application, to make amendments to the fence, the government will respond at that time.
MR SPEAKER: Is there a supplementary question?
MR MULCAHY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, will your department, as the applicant, give regard to the views of local residents and consider amending the application?
MR BARR: Yes, certainly the government is going to consider all of the views that are put forward. There is a statutory process in place around a development application. I am aware that there is a preference for the fence to be white, and there is some concern about it being described as colourbond. I stress that the fence will be a picket fence, but there are certain advantages in it being steel rather than timber. So that is why the proposal was put forward for a steel fence.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .