Page 4136 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This is a key concern and is exacerbated by the fact that the approved centre overall is larger than other local centres, and it does not seem to be supported by a reciprocal growth in the number of local residents. Giralang is a fairly stable suburb, not a high growth area such as Braddon, Turner or Kingston. The issues are further exacerbated by the fact the apparent size of the supermarket is 1,500 square metres. But the definition of “floor area” which has been applied to this development appears to differ from that applied to other supermarkets, depending on how you define “ancillary use”. Other operators’ comparisons state that the Giralang supermarket is actually closer to 2,800 square metres if you include ancillary use and also spaces which are expected to be operated by the same basic owner.
I understand that it is not only the smaller supermarket operators who are concerned by the apparent change of approach by the government to developments in local centres. Coles has also written to all three parties to express their concern about the change in the longstanding policy. They note that Coles are not present in any local centres and it is only recently that Woolworths have started entering into the local centre market in Downer—sorry, not Downer; a Freudian slip wishing for it—in Bonner and Dunlop. They believe local centres are best left for smaller operators to ensure ongoing retail diversity, financial competitiveness and viability. They also state that, in their opinion, competition is best served by co-locating Coles and Woolworths in group centres, and that was one of the pushes of the Martin report.
When the majority of stakeholders, barring one major company, agree on a planning policy which would work for Canberra residents and the companies involved, it means that, if the government is going to step outside existing policies, including the intent of the territory plan, we need a significant public discussion on this rather than the calling in of one particular DA which has, in effect, made new policy on the run.
My motion also raises the fact that ACTPLA are in the process of undertaking a review of commercial codes in the territory plan, including asking the broader public about whether they support the existing retail hierarchy. It is thus highly questionable that decisions are being made which depart from this general understanding of what constitutes a local centre and an appropriately sized supermarket.
It is worth noting that this development cannot undergo a merits review in the administrative and civil appeals tribunal due to it having been called in by the minister. This is particularly frustrating to many of those concerned by this decision, as an application for a substantially similar proposal was withdrawn by the proponent on a previous occasion when an appeal of the DA was lodged in ACAT, and thus it has not been tested on its merits. As a result, and as outlined in my motion, an appeal has been lodged in the Supreme Court which calls into question the validity of the basis of the Giralang shops development approval.
I am sure that when the minister called in the DA he thought it would settle the issue once and for all and he thought this would solve the problem for Giralang. However, because the decision sets such a precedent, it could well be two years in the Supreme Court. Thus, it will not, in fact, have solved the problem for Giralang in the short term.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video