1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Date:
Time:
Reporter:
28.11.86
8.30
PMS
12.30
the files on this, show that this was a very important factor at that particular time.
MR HO:
been said in the report.
SLW:
In other words, you agree with what has
I have read both the Audit Report and the
longer Report from which this is a summary and the Audit Report is,
I believe, very fair and accurate.
MR HO:
And perhaps the important thing is on the
12 particular period of time that you have to make such a decision, that
policy need not be followed because of that division.
13
14
15
17
SLW:
I think I should say that throughout the
16 whole of its history, during its formation and ever since, this was
an extremely controversial policy. This is reflected in the Executive
Council paper from which is quoted in the Report. It shows that this
was considered, I mean, that, the policy when it was introduced
shows that at the time it was considered that this was a difficult
18
19
20
21
22
23
policy. It introduced very difficult issues of possible inequities
to developers in terms of the demands which might be made by the
Government on them at the time, so it has been a very controversial
24 policy and it has been on many occasions in fact questioned by 25 developers because it imposes upon them obligations in the public
interest for which they are required to pay and from which they derive
no other benefit than the actual approval of the modification.
26
27
29
It is
28 quite clear that the Secretary at the time considered that in the
circumstances of a very major development of this kind which this 30 policy was not really intended. I don't believe he was so justified 31 in the terms of the EXCO paper but it is quite clear that that was his 32 view.
33
34
MR HO:
Mr Chairman, I am not trying to dispute the
35 policy itself here of course, but I think I must bring out that this 36 policy has been applied to other similar developments, large in size,
163
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.