Mr DUNHAM - 2004-12-01
Yesterday, your Chief Minister told this House that 10% of the buildings on the Darwin waterfront development would be above the level of the escarpment, which we know to be 25 m AHD. Can you please explain why, in your proposed amendment to the Central Darwin Plan, there is an allowance made for height to exceed the escarpment in over 90% of the development blocks?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, the answer is very simple: those areas that are shown quite clearly in this document are the areas on which buildings can be built. Not every entire block that is on here is a building. That is the simple answer.
However, in answer to the member for Drysdale’s question - he wants to get into height. The residents of Bridgeport came to see me at the markets. Most members know that I go to the Rapid Creek Markets nearly every Sunday between 8 am and 12 noon. They came to me with their concern, that they felt they had been given an undertaking, under the previous government’s plans for that area, that buildings would not exceed 15 m AHD. I had a good look at the plan that the previous government put out - this is the one that was circulated yesterday - just to find out what the basis for this was. As the Chief Minister pointed out yesterday, the area in green, of course, is the waterfront area. Right in the middle there you can see a big brown bit, that is 120 m …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr Dunham: Now, back to your plan.
Mr Maley: He is being deliberately misleading.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you. What is your point of order?
Mr BALDWIN: I ask the minister to be accurate in his pointing to the area. It is not in the middle of the plan.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr Baldwin: Well, it is very important.
Dr BURNS: I went on further to try and investigate the basis of this particular area. Most of the green bit says, maximum height without demonstrated ...
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Dr Burns: You do not want to hear it?
Mr DUNHAM: The minister is seeking to discard the very plan he is talking about and introduce another one. My question is about the one he is introducing which has heights. It had nothing to do with that. They are your heights.
Madam SPEAKER: That is a good point of order. I ask the minister to answer the question. However, as you know, member for Drysdale, he is able to answer it with a lot of freedom.
Dr BURNS: Well, Madam Speaker, I will cut to the chase. Reading very carefully what is here, these structures on the remainder - apart from the 120 m bit - could have gone to any height at all. What I sought to do through the amendments of the Planning Scheme – which, incidentally, are open for public comment, and there will be a hearing of the DCA on this issue. People can make submissions, and I will see each and every one of those submissions and I will be making a decision on the basis of the recommendations of the DCA.
Mr Dunham: Tell us about your heights.
Dr BURNS: Under your plan, it could have been anything. So, do not come in here talking about heights because you do not have a leg to stand on.
Mr Dunham: Table it!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you are getting noisy again today. Resume your seat.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, the answer is very simple: those areas that are shown quite clearly in this document are the areas on which buildings can be built. Not every entire block that is on here is a building. That is the simple answer.
However, in answer to the member for Drysdale’s question - he wants to get into height. The residents of Bridgeport came to see me at the markets. Most members know that I go to the Rapid Creek Markets nearly every Sunday between 8 am and 12 noon. They came to me with their concern, that they felt they had been given an undertaking, under the previous government’s plans for that area, that buildings would not exceed 15 m AHD. I had a good look at the plan that the previous government put out - this is the one that was circulated yesterday - just to find out what the basis for this was. As the Chief Minister pointed out yesterday, the area in green, of course, is the waterfront area. Right in the middle there you can see a big brown bit, that is 120 m …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr Dunham: Now, back to your plan.
Mr Maley: He is being deliberately misleading.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you. What is your point of order?
Mr BALDWIN: I ask the minister to be accurate in his pointing to the area. It is not in the middle of the plan.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr Baldwin: Well, it is very important.
Dr BURNS: I went on further to try and investigate the basis of this particular area. Most of the green bit says, maximum height without demonstrated ...
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Dr Burns: You do not want to hear it?
Mr DUNHAM: The minister is seeking to discard the very plan he is talking about and introduce another one. My question is about the one he is introducing which has heights. It had nothing to do with that. They are your heights.
Madam SPEAKER: That is a good point of order. I ask the minister to answer the question. However, as you know, member for Drysdale, he is able to answer it with a lot of freedom.
Dr BURNS: Well, Madam Speaker, I will cut to the chase. Reading very carefully what is here, these structures on the remainder - apart from the 120 m bit - could have gone to any height at all. What I sought to do through the amendments of the Planning Scheme – which, incidentally, are open for public comment, and there will be a hearing of the DCA on this issue. People can make submissions, and I will see each and every one of those submissions and I will be making a decision on the basis of the recommendations of the DCA.
Mr Dunham: Tell us about your heights.
Dr BURNS: Under your plan, it could have been anything. So, do not come in here talking about heights because you do not have a leg to stand on.
Mr Dunham: Table it!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you are getting noisy again today. Resume your seat.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016