Page 2404 - Week 07 - Thursday, 4 August 2016

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

As the facility is privately owned and operated, the Territory cannot comment on the cost of the land; construction; equipment required to build the facility; and the ongoing maintenance costs over the past five years, as this is a matter for Sports Centres Australia.

Planning—Coombs shopping centre
(Question No 760)

Mrs Jones asked the Minister for Planning and Land Management, upon notice, on 7 June 2016:

(1) Further to a Canberra Times article of 10 May 2016, which states, “the Environment and Planning Directorate has twice knocked back a development application for the proposed centre” for the Molonglo Valley Shopping Centre, can the Minister provide the reasons why the Directorate has rejected two development proposals for a shopping centre at Coombs.

(2) How long has the approval process taken until now, including when the (a) first development application was submitted and rejected and (b) second development application was submitted and rejected.

(3) Is there another development application currently under assessment by the Directorate and does the Directorate has a timeframe in which they will have this development application approved.

(4) How long does the Directorate envisage complete construction of the shopping centre will take once approved.

(5) What alternative services does the Directorate suggests residents use in the Coombs and Molonglo Valley area until such time as the centre has been built.

Mr Gentleman: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1) A development application for the Coombs local shopping centre was refused by the planning and land authority on 4 January 2016, primarily due to poor design

The proposal did not meet the requirements of the Territory Plan or Planning and Development Act 2007 and was not considered to present an attractive, safe or suitable shopping centre for the community.

The authority also had concerns about safe pedestrian movement and access for the mobility impaired.

A reconsideration application was then lodged which also failed to addresses these issues and was refused on similar grounds on 18 March 2016.

(2) The original development application was received on 12 October 2015 and the decision to refuse the application was made on 4 January 2016, following a request for additional information and within the statutory timeframe.

The reconsideration application was received on 19 February 2016 and the decision was made on 18 March 2016, within the statutory timeframe.

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