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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 791 ..

MR STEFANIAK: Mr Hird indicates that there could be more than one. I think that that would allay some of the fears of the community and give someone the opportunity to establish a business and live above the business. My understanding is that there are a number of possibilities with that proposed development. I would think that what is actually allowed and proposed for block 3 is reasonably complementary of that; in fact, it has to complement what is proposed there; so it would seem that the checks and balances are there.

I think we have a situation where most people around Latham now want to see something happen. It has gone on for a very long time. There has been a lot of consultation and a lot of notice has been taken of the views of residents, which I am very glad to see, over several years. I do not think Ms Tucker's motion will assist the situation at all. Further postponing anything to do with this area would just increase some of the problems that we are now seeing with the old shopping centre, which is boarded up, dilapidated and has only one shop operating. I understand from what Mr Rugendyke says that that shop might not be operating for much longer, either. If I understood him correctly, the owners wish to retire, so it may well be that even that shop will not last for much longer.

Something does need to occur. A lot of what has been done to date seems to have taken into account the wishes of the majority of the community. There have been a number of public meetings. Certainly, proposals have been put on the table. Some of the proposals have been amended, others have been thrown out totally, and some have come back. I accept Mr Rugendyke's comment that we are up to the tenth plan for block 1.

Mr Hird: There is the committee's report, too, Minister.

MR STEFANIAK: We have the committee's report. My colleague the Urban Services Minister says that the sites must complement each other as they are very close by. Accordingly, I agree with my colleagues in not supporting Ms Tucker's motion. I do not think it gets us anywhere.

MR BERRY (4.24): This debate has been a foolish one. On one side, we have some people who want to make sure that the living environment in Latham is preserved to the point of the best outcome possible being achieved for the residents of Latham. On the other side, we have some members of this place who just want to develop the area at any cost. They do not seem to care about what might be good for the people in Latham.

Until last year, I had had family members in Latham since the mid-1970s and I was a constant observer of events around that shopping centre over those years. What we have had in recent times is an owner who has decided that there is more money in doing something other than running a shopping centre; it is as simple as that. What this land owner decided to do was to stubbornly resist operating that shopping centre in accordance with its lease requirements while he or she pursued a course which would result in a lease purpose change and a more attractive development proposal for him or her.

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