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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3323 ..

situations being similar. It is quite clear that the situations at Tuggeranong and Belconnen are not similar. Tuggeranong is effectively defunct; Belconnen is extremely viable and popular.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am concerned that if we allow this draft variation to proceed at Belconnen, we will have the situation where there will be an increasing tendency to allow other retail uses to move into that centre, to the detriment of the provision of fresh food and produce, which is the current condition of the Territory Plan. It is a viable, acceptable and successful market and no justification has been put forward to warrant an extension of the draft variation to Belconnen.

I hope that the government will adopt the position of recognising that this has to be an area-specific variation and that it should not be applied in a blanket way simply for convenience. Let us look at the issues, let us look at where the concerns are, and let us look at ways of addressing those concerns rather than adopting what has been a simplistic approach in incorporating both produce markets.

MR RUGENDYKE (4.41): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to add briefly to this discussion over the change to the plan regarding the Belconnen and Tuggeranong fruit markets. I could see quite clearly the need for the change to be made in respect of the Tuggeranong markets. My concern and, I am sure, the concern of other members of the committee has been with the plight of existing tenants who are currently struggling and who have struggled in the past. I am concerned that they may be treated unfairly by the landlords once this variation is passed in relation to the Tuggeranong markets.

We have been given assurances by the management of the Hyperdome that the current tenants will be treated fairly and that they will be treated reasonably. It was a conscious decision of the committee not to enter into the commercial aspects of the tenancies there, but to recognise and hold the Hyperdome to their assurances that the current tenants would not be disadvantaged. Of course, it remains a commercial decision whether the current lessees will take up the opportunity of a new lease under the revised proposal for the markets.

I had mixed feelings regarding the Belconnen markets. On balance, I think that for two reasons it is appropriate to change the lease purpose of the Belconnen markets in line with the change to the Tuggeranong markets. The first reason is that the Belconnen markets have run out of land, so there is a physical barrier to changing the mix at the Belconnen markets. The other is that, on balance, I did not see the need to keep one piece of yellow on the map in isolation. It seemed unnecessary to do that. Also, the Belconnen markets are thriving, are viable and are a wonderful shopping experience for patrons under the redevelopment by the Efkarpidis Group.

My continuing discussions with members of the Efkarpidis Group indicate that they have no intention of reducing in any way the amenity that exists at Belconnen, that it is to be retained essentially as it is now, as a fruit and fresh food market, but it is now able to recognise officially that there is room for other services, of which the cooking coordinates shop is one and the pasta shop is another. At one stage there was a garden centre there. There may be the opportunity to provide other services in conjunction with the provision of fresh fruit and vegetables, fish and butcheries.

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