Page 4394 - Week 11 - Thursday, 25 October 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Environment—Ngunnawal trail
(Question No 1742)
Ms Lawder asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 21 September 2018:
(1) Does the proposed walking track, the Ngunnawal Trail in the Cuppacumbalong Homestead, literally run from Lanyon Homestead, and where exactly or from the Lanyon Historic Precinct Boundary; if so where.
(2) Can the Minister provide a detailed map showing the proposed walking trail especially highlighting the route it takes within the Lanyon Homestead Historic Precinct.
(3) What consultation took place regarding this walking track – with who, what organisations, what form did the consultation take, what were the relevant dates of any letters, meetings, briefings, etc. and who was present at each.
(4) Who receives the grant funds.
(5) What is the legal relationship between Cuppacumbalaong and Murrumbidgee River Corridor.
(6) Why was the leaseholder at Lanyon not consulted (he has stated in writing that he has not been consulted).
(7) Where in either draft 1 or 2 of the Tharwa Draft Master Plans does this walking track appear.
(8) How does the walking track become fact in the final Tharwa Master Plan, without consultation with the main affected leaseholder, let alone public consultation, given it is a Considered Master Plan not a Development Application.
(9) Can the Minister provide a copy of the risk analysis for this walking track, including specific information about fire hazard/risk (within Bushfire Abatement Zone) threat to livestock from dogs both on and off lead, biosecurity safeguards, provisions for litter, emergency vehicle access, increased pedestrian access/egress across Tharwa Bridge, parking/pedestrian facilities (eastern bank Murrumbidgee) and animal welfare along track, security and privacy to residents living immediately adjacent to the proposed track.
(10) What redress does the major affected leaseholder have in terms of detriment to their farming operation, deprivation of income, devaluation of his asset and compromise of his family’s security and privacy.
(11) Was there any reference in the application for a grant to any existing walking track being upgraded, or is this a new walking track.
(12) Given that the walking track development installation, maintenance inspection and policing along the river is the core business to the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate on a day to day operational basis, why was this grant approved in reference to page 8 of the ACT Heritage Grants Guides 2018/19.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video