Mr HATTON - 1997-11-27
I refer to correspondence that I received from his predecessor in July of this year in response to a request by me for a comprehensive land-use objectives study of the Nightcliff/Rapid Creek/Millner/Coconut Grove area. His predecessor gave an undertaking that there would be such a land-use objectives study, but it would take its priority after the existing development study being conducted in the Parap project area.
I ask the minister a 3-part question. Firstly, will he confirm the undertaking by his predecessor that the Nightcliff/Rapid Creek area land-use objectives study will be done immediately following the study being conducted in the Stuart Park/Parap/Fannie Bay area? Secondly, when does he expect that study to commence? Thirdly, will he ensure that there is a high level of community consultation in that process? Will he support the undertaking by his predecessor that the moratorium on any rezoning of further medium-density development in the Nightcliff/Rapid Creek area will be continued? Would he be prepared to consider down-zoning to prevent redevelopment, provided it can be demonstrated that all the affected landowners support the proposal?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, in relation to the land-use objectives study for the Nightcliff area, I can confirm that the government intends to embark on that process. I can confirm that the Nightcliff study will follow on from the Darwin southern suburbs land-use objectives study. I cannot put a definite time frame on that. We have circulated only recently the issues paper relating to Darwin southern suburbs. I anticipate that that will take some time.
In respect of the assurance the member sought in relation to rezoning in the Nightcliff area, I cannot give such an assurance on a broad scale. I can assure him that any rezonings will be adequately advertised and the public will be consulted. I am unsure what applications may flow through in the meantime, and I am not prepared to give a broad-based undertaking that no rezonings will occur.
In relation to down-zoning, if landowners - and I mean 100% of landowners in a particular area - are content to have their land down-zoned from, say, R2 to R1, we would consider that. However, where landowners are not prepared to down-zone their land, I certainly would not do that arbitrarily. As the minister would be aware, that would be acquisition of property and, in the terms of the Self-Government Act, we would be required to pay compensation.
Page 34
I ask the minister a 3-part question. Firstly, will he confirm the undertaking by his predecessor that the Nightcliff/Rapid Creek area land-use objectives study will be done immediately following the study being conducted in the Stuart Park/Parap/Fannie Bay area? Secondly, when does he expect that study to commence? Thirdly, will he ensure that there is a high level of community consultation in that process? Will he support the undertaking by his predecessor that the moratorium on any rezoning of further medium-density development in the Nightcliff/Rapid Creek area will be continued? Would he be prepared to consider down-zoning to prevent redevelopment, provided it can be demonstrated that all the affected landowners support the proposal?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, in relation to the land-use objectives study for the Nightcliff area, I can confirm that the government intends to embark on that process. I can confirm that the Nightcliff study will follow on from the Darwin southern suburbs land-use objectives study. I cannot put a definite time frame on that. We have circulated only recently the issues paper relating to Darwin southern suburbs. I anticipate that that will take some time.
In respect of the assurance the member sought in relation to rezoning in the Nightcliff area, I cannot give such an assurance on a broad scale. I can assure him that any rezonings will be adequately advertised and the public will be consulted. I am unsure what applications may flow through in the meantime, and I am not prepared to give a broad-based undertaking that no rezonings will occur.
In relation to down-zoning, if landowners - and I mean 100% of landowners in a particular area - are content to have their land down-zoned from, say, R2 to R1, we would consider that. However, where landowners are not prepared to down-zone their land, I certainly would not do that arbitrarily. As the minister would be aware, that would be acquisition of property and, in the terms of the Self-Government Act, we would be required to pay compensation.
Page 34
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016