Advertisement

Data centre now moving

By 13 November 2008 24

It seems Michael Costello has given his permission for the data centre to be moved according to the ABC.

This from the TRE people who said that if they had to move, they would leave

Curiouser and curiouser.

[ED - a bluff called.]

Please login to post your comments
24 Responses to Data centre now moving
#1
miz6:17 pm, 13 Nov 08

My bet is there IS something preventing that site from being used but Stanhope won’t want to lose face (and it would be convenient to blame the other assembly parties). He can say he’s heard ‘informally’ pretty much anything.

Though goodness only knows, they would win friends and influence people, ie Canberrans, if they just admitted their gross mismanagement of this whole ‘ball of wax’ and shifted it. Eedjits.

#2
deezagood6:48 pm, 13 Nov 08

Yes Miz – although I would like to believe that Mr Stanhope has finally come to his senses, the cynic in me tends to agree with your take on this … the ‘Independant Assessment Panel’ were literally ‘silenced’ just days before they submitted their report and now, just weeks before the EIS is due, we have a major gear shift from our Chief Minister. I don’t think the truth will ever be known. I only hope the next selected site is well-away from residential areas and located in an area that is zoned as ‘industrial’

#3
cranky7:17 pm, 13 Nov 08

Fairly sure Block 2, Section 23, a 12 Ha block roughly opposite but south of the Gull servo, didn’t sell at auction. I could be wrong, but last heard it was not sold on the day and ‘negotiations had been entered into’. Nothing since then.

Could make a top loction for the data centre, Sonic.

#4
deezagood8:10 pm, 13 Nov 08

That is what we have been saying all along Cranky – that particular block is zoned industrial and there are other (much smaller) data centres already in location. Sigh.

#5
Man With The Plan10:40 pm, 13 Nov 08

How about the block right next door (either side)to the Hume Hilton?
It would be the perfect location.

#6
miz11:11 pm, 13 Nov 08

I recall a flightpath issue – it is dangerous to have planes flying over the power station apparently. Wouldn’t the Stanhope Hilton be more or less under the flightpath?

#7
trevar7:08 am, 14 Nov 08

“We don’t have the numbers, we don’t have control of this issue, that’s what minority government delivers”

Sounds more like Stanhope is blaming the people of the ACT… He would have been much happier if the government could have dismissed the people and elected another one.

#8
housebound8:50 am, 14 Nov 08

trevar said :

Sounds more like Stanhope is blaming the people of the ACT… He would have been much happier if the government could have dismissed the people and elected another one.

So true it’s scary.

#9
poptop9:12 am, 14 Nov 08

I’m not altogether confident of his opinion that the development presents no health risks.

Sonic also believes that a strand of wire and a couple of bits of A4 paper will keep asbestos under control.

#10
captainwhorebags9:48 am, 14 Nov 08

poptop: a fossil fuel power station is going to present health risks. It’s just at the moment we get to cook, shower, use the internet, watch telly etc whilst outsourcing those health risks to the LaTrobe & Hunter Valley areas.

I think the health risks in this case are managable, but I’m not a doctor or an environmental impact specialist.

#11
Gungahlin Al11:49 am, 14 Nov 08

[ED - a bluff called.]

Absolutely. Problem with trying that sort of ploy is how stoopid you look when you are called out on it.

#12
caf11:56 am, 14 Nov 08

It will be interesting to see the finished EIS.

#13
housebound11:57 am, 14 Nov 08

You’ll never see said EIS. Refer to comment by deezagood

#14
caf12:11 pm, 14 Nov 08

Sez you.

#15
housebound12:14 pm, 14 Nov 08

Unless you work somewhere that gives you access.

#16
Gungahlin Al4:32 pm, 14 Nov 08

Now TRE are apparently saying they should be compensated for their troubles.

It just gets better and better…

#17
Whatsup4:51 pm, 14 Nov 08

Compensated? They took a risk and poured money into a project that was clearly going to be controversial and it didn’t work. Suck it up and move on.

#18
Clown Killer5:18 pm, 14 Nov 08

It’s interesting that following an established planning process is somehow considered to be ‘taking a risk’ – it could only happen in Canberra.

Sure if they jumpoed through all the hoops and the environmental impacts just diddn’t stack up you could argue that it was tough luck and they should have thought about it a bit harder. But when you’ve got project that meets all required environmental thresholds that gets the kybosh because a few noisy residents get uppity and schemeing politicians see a vote in it then it’s going to get ugly.

#19
housebound5:38 pm, 14 Nov 08

That would be an ok comment but for the fact that MacKay wrote to CMD and asked the CM to tell the LDA to give the ACTEW/TRE consortium a certain block of land (not the one they ended up with, by the way). That’s not really an established planning process.

Asking for a last-minue EIS to placate the masses – established planning processes under both the old and new planning acts.

Not awarding a lease on a block – still established planning.

The big mistake was:
a) ACTEW thinking it can get whatever it wants and pay only minimal lipservice to statutory planning and development requirements
b) persons mislead the assembly and thinking they can get away with it when it all blows up
c) doing both of the above just before an election (rather than in 2006, when they could do whatever they wanted)
d) spending $3 million without the required variation to the Territory Plan or even a signed off lease to the block.

All that said, TRE probably would have a right to compensation for the EIS costs if the decision not to proceed on that bloack is made before the EIS is published.

The rest was all a risk.

I hope TRE didn’t get this by competetive tender. i don;t think they feel like they ‘won’ any more.

#20
deezagood7:53 pm, 14 Nov 08

Clown Killer said :

It’s interesting that following an established planning process is somehow considered to be ‘taking a risk’ – it could only happen in Canberra.

Sure if they jumpoed through all the hoops and the environmental impacts just diddn’t stack up you could argue that it was tough luck and they should have thought about it a bit harder. But when you’ve got project that meets all required environmental thresholds that gets the kybosh because a few noisy residents get uppity and schemeing politicians see a vote in it then it’s going to get ugly.

So clown killer, if I follow an established planning process to put an extension on my house (get the plans drafted, put the application in to ACTPLA) and my proposal is rejected by ACTPLA (based on my neighbors objections) – then by your logic, I should be compensated? Ummm – okay ….

#21
Whatsup8:33 pm, 14 Nov 08

Clown Killer said :

It’s interesting that following an established planning process is somehow considered to be ‘taking a risk’ – it could only happen in Canberra.

Any project you undertake involves some degree of risk. There was obvious risks with this one which weren’t managed well. It’s not a Canberra thing.

#22
Gungahlin Al12:42 pm, 16 Nov 08

It’s interesting that following an established planning process is somehow considered to be ‘taking a risk’ – it could only happen in Canberra.

Fact is that much about DAs is a risk. There are 3 ways to approach your development idea:

Code Track: If you can comply with the various criteria, then it is as of right – can’t be knocked back and there is no risk at all. In fact, new residential applications in greenfield areas that meet Code don’t even have to go to ACTPLA – they are termed Exempt developments.

Merit Track: you use this one if some aspects of your proposal do not meet the strict letter of the code track criteria. ACTPLA assesses these aspects as to whether they meet the related performance goals, which are more text-based than number-based, if you get my drift. But they can’t refuse an application if any undesirable merit aspects can be conditioned to mitigate problems, and the Code aspects are un-assessable. For example, I got a relaxation on the length of courtyard wall and one setback, but everything else about my house met Code.

Impact Assessment: this is different. It allows for unusual proposals that *MAY* be acceptable, but this is no given as the sorts of applications that fall into this track are likely to be contentious – the exact reason they are impact Assessment. And impact assessment by its nature implies a distinct possibility that an EIS may be required. In fact the lack of EISs in ACT is quite surprising – they are very common requirements elsewhere in Australia.

#23
Clown Killer2:36 pm, 16 Nov 08

Actually Deezagood, if you follow my logic you would undergo an established planning process to put an extension on your house (get the plans drafted, put the application in to ACTPLA) and ACTPLA would ask for more information and provide detailed criteria on how to assess and present that information. You’d be pretty certain that the extension will go ahead because in your preparations you had everything checked out properly and ACTPLA didn’t ask for anything new, just for the information to be presented in a diferent sort of document, you do all that and while ACTPLA is considering the stuff you’ve provided you find that the government is going to introduce special regulations that only apply to you, specifically to stop you building your extension. If I were you I’d be looking for compensation?

#24
sepi2:55 pm, 16 Nov 08

I think if you told the neighbour you were building the extension over the road, but actually it was up to their back fence, you’d be off to a bad start.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP

Are you in favour of Light Rail for Canberra?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.