Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (11 November) . . Page.. 3919 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

ROCKS area and a developer over the redevelopment of the ROCKS site to include free community group accommodation and various types of commercial space - in fact, very similar things to those proposed for the Bunda Street car park. I note that the plan for the Bunda Street car park also includes a new community complex to replace the Griffin Centre. Does this mean that the Government is dropping its interest in the redevelopment of the ROCKS site and will now be focusing all its attention on the Bunda Street proposal?

MRS CARNELL: No, it does not mean that at all. The Government will always respond to ideas, particularly good ideas, that come from the private sector. The section 35/56 proposal came to us from the private sector. We made it clear to the developer that we would not give a proposal for that site a second look if it did not include a redeveloped Griffin Centre. We have been speaking to the Griffin Centre people over a number of years, as the previous Government did. Their view that they needed accommodation centrally placed in the city was very strong. When the developer came to us with a proposal that did include an exciting proposal for a redeveloped Griffin Centre with performance space, outdoor market areas and all sorts of things that they do not have right now, we were quite willing to allow them to put that proposal out to community consultation. You would also be aware that that proposal was run past the Planning and Environment Committee.

With regard to the ROCKS area, there is a proposal, but my understanding is that it initially did not come from my department but came from the Migrant Resource Centre and the Ethnic Communities Council, in cooperation with a particular developer. Again, if a good proposal is put forward that has a real community benefit, then this Government will always look at it positively. Obviously, appropriate processes have to be gone through. The people have to have appropriate input. We told the developer of section 56 that even before he puts in a formal proposal for that particular redevelopment he should take it out for general community input. Ms Tucker, you have been one of the people who have been a bit negative about proposals that get into the system before people have had input. The approach we have suggested be taken is that people have input before the project is finalised and goes into the formal procedures.

MS TUCKER: My supplementary question is: What planning studies have been undertaken by PALM about the desirability of redeveloping the Griffin Centre and the Bunda Street car park, or is this proposal another example of developer-driven planning in the ACT?

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, it would be inappropriate for me to ask a question of Ms Tucker, because I actually know the answer. Ms Tucker has been to the Griffin Centre lately and she has seen the big cracks in the walls. I am sure that she is aware that the building really is, I suspect, past its useful life, not close to being past its useful life. I understand that the electrical fittings and so on are really past it now. That is the reason that the previous Government was looking at options for redevelopment. In fact, it had significant conversations with the tenants there. Similarly, we have had discussions as well.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .