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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 788 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

not where the shops are. I am very surprised that Mr Hird and Mr Rugendyke do not know that, simply because it is in their electorate. Nevertheless, the important point behind this motion is that the proposal by the ACT government to release this parcel of land for development for residential purposes is not the appropriate way to proceed for the release of the land, because it does not promote orderly planning.

I do not think there is any disagreement from any member supporting this motion today that this site should not at some stage be released for sale. Of course it should. But it should be released under a process and in a timeframe that reflect the fact that there has been a decision taken in relation to the adjoining parcels of land; that is, the sale of the land should be dependent upon the resolution of the redevelopment proposal for the Latham local shops. As members know, the Latham local shops redevelopment proposal is the subject of a review by the Commissioner for Land and Planning, because objections have been made to the proposal, and it may be the subject of a hearing by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Mr Speaker, it would be a nonsensical proposition to release this land for development without knowing exactly what is to occur on the adjacent site. To release this land for development without knowing what is to occur on the adjacent site would potentially result in an isolated development next to a burnt out shopping centre.

Is that the sort of outcome that our members for Ginninderra want? Is it, Mr Hird? Is it, Mr Rugendyke? Is that the outcome you want? I can see the ad now: "Two-storey townhouse with sweeping views of a burnt out supermarket." That is the risk that is run by this government's proposed land release in relation to the site.

Mr Hird: It won't sell, then, and you won't have to worry.

MR CORBELL: If it will not sell, Mr Hird, why are you putting it out for sale? Quite clearly, this government just does not understand what is an appropriate process for orderly planning.

Mr Speaker, what this motion says today is this: postpone the sale of that block of land until the issue of the redevelopment of the Latham shops-not this block of land; the Latham shops-is resolved, because there are very keen points of difference within the local community as to what that site should be used for and whether a variation 64 proposal should be allowed to proceed; that is, a proposal which allows for residential redevelopment on this site.

We heard Mr Rugendyke talk about how experts had clarified and confirmed that the shops were no longer viable. The question I have is: who paid the experts? What I can tell you, Mr Speaker, is that the development proponent paid the experts. Is it any surprise that they warranted that the site was not viable for shops when the person paying them to do the work was the person who wanted to redevelop the site for housing? That is not a process that inspires confidence in the planning process from members of the local community. They had every justification for believing that that viability study was not a fair and accurate examination. Mr Rugendyke's argument about the shops site itself is a nonsense purely in that regard, if nothing else.

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