Mr BURKE - 2004-12-01
I have listened to your previous answers. Could we now try a little yes or no, rather than confusing waffle? Is it true that you are bringing forward a new Planning Scheme amendment for the waterfront development, which you have directed the Development Consent Authority to follow – yes or no?
Is it also technically correct …
Mr Kiely: That is a question.
Mr BURKE: He can lodge the questions.
Are you bringing forward a Planing Scheme amendment which you have directed the Development Consent Authority to follow - first question? Second question – is it technically correct …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Could we have less interruptions and let the question be asked.
Mr BURKE: The second point to my question: under that new Planning Scheme, is it technically correct that building heights on almost all development blocks at the waterfront development will be able to exceed the level of the escarpment under your direction to the Development Consent Authority? Is it also correct that these decisions are not appealable, so the public cannot appeal them? Is it also not true that town planner and Labor stalwart, June D’Rozario, is correct when she says: ‘The formal document, which is the Planning Scheme amendment, is clearly seeking building heights far in excess of anything we have been told’?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, in answer to the question, the Development Consent Authority is considering an amendment to the Planning Scheme, which has been on exhibition - as I said in my previous answer. They will then consider that matter in light of the submissions from the public, and prepare a report to me, which I will consider and make a decision on.
In answer to the question the member for Brennan asked about heights, we made it very plain, throughout the whole process, that the majority of the development on that waterfront site will be below the escarpment …
Mr Burke: Not according to your scheme.
Mr Baldwin: Is it correct that, under your scheme, they will be able to go over the escarpment?
Dr BURNS: Well, you are trying to count a footprint as a number of buildings. It was quite evident within the model - if people care to go and look at that model - and the advertisement that was in the paper, just exactly which buildings there will exceed the height of the escarpment. I believe the number is somewhere around 10 or 11.
Is it also technically correct …
Mr Kiely: That is a question.
Mr BURKE: He can lodge the questions.
Are you bringing forward a Planing Scheme amendment which you have directed the Development Consent Authority to follow - first question? Second question – is it technically correct …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Could we have less interruptions and let the question be asked.
Mr BURKE: The second point to my question: under that new Planning Scheme, is it technically correct that building heights on almost all development blocks at the waterfront development will be able to exceed the level of the escarpment under your direction to the Development Consent Authority? Is it also correct that these decisions are not appealable, so the public cannot appeal them? Is it also not true that town planner and Labor stalwart, June D’Rozario, is correct when she says: ‘The formal document, which is the Planning Scheme amendment, is clearly seeking building heights far in excess of anything we have been told’?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, in answer to the question, the Development Consent Authority is considering an amendment to the Planning Scheme, which has been on exhibition - as I said in my previous answer. They will then consider that matter in light of the submissions from the public, and prepare a report to me, which I will consider and make a decision on.
In answer to the question the member for Brennan asked about heights, we made it very plain, throughout the whole process, that the majority of the development on that waterfront site will be below the escarpment …
Mr Burke: Not according to your scheme.
Mr Baldwin: Is it correct that, under your scheme, they will be able to go over the escarpment?
Dr BURNS: Well, you are trying to count a footprint as a number of buildings. It was quite evident within the model - if people care to go and look at that model - and the advertisement that was in the paper, just exactly which buildings there will exceed the height of the escarpment. I believe the number is somewhere around 10 or 11.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016