House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Onkaparinga ONKAPARINGA Ms THOMPSON House of Assembly Reynell Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (15:33): I rise today to express my concern at the way in which the City of Onkaparinga has allowed a prominent site in Morphett Vale to deteriorate, and failed to take action against the owners to require them to restore the premises to a degree of safety and make it less unsightly to the community. I speak of the Sizzler site on the corner of Main South Road and Wheatsheaf Road. I note that this has been a problem since the middle of last year. The site is vacant and is the subject of litigation. Indeed, I am involved in the litigation, so I will not make any comment about that. I am commenting simply on the fact that the site is an eyesore—the technical term under the Local Government Act is 'unsightly'. It is also unsafe. My reason for claiming that it is unsafe is that about two-thirds of the windows have been broken, jagged glass is protruding from most of the windows and glass is lying around the area. This is a very prominent site, which is past by numerous children on their way to and from school each day. It is located next to a mental health facility and a disability facility. It is located across the road from the City of Onkaparinga Memorial Gardens. Indeed, I know that the RSL is also concerned about the degradation of the site and the impact that that has on the importance and the solemnity of the war memorial gardens. I wrote to the City of Onkaparinga in November and December 2007 about this issue. In her reply, the mayor, in part, says: We are aware of the graffiti and vandalism on the site and have contacted the owner/developer recently to discuss their management of the site. We have been advised that cleaning contractors have attended the site on a weekly basis until very recently, however, this service may be less frequent pending the Court matters. Staff have advised the owner/developer that we will take action if the site is allowed to deteriorate to the point where it is considered to be 'unsightly'. I think the body language of the member for Finniss sitting on the opposite side of the chamber and who passes the site fairly regularly indicates that he would now consider it to be unsightly and certainly many of my constituents— Mr Pengilly House of Assembly Mr Pengilly: Dreadful. Ms THOMPSON House of Assembly Ms THOMPSON: Many of my constituents see it as unsightly, dangerous and degrading to the community. I again wrote to the Mayor of the City of Onkaparinga on 8 September. I also wrote to the local police asking them to increase their patrols of the area because of the safety aspect. The local police superintendent replied in a letter dated 25 September. Superintendent Peter Anderson indicated that police from the South Coast Local Service Area had contacted the Onkaparinga council, the owner and developer of the site and had discussed the concerns raised. He says: The advice I have received is that the developer of the site is engaged in litigation relating to the use of the premises. It appears that until this litigation is resolved, the site will not be further developed. It is the responsibility of the owner to maintain the site and this has been raised with the Onkaparinga Council. The council has had advice from the police as a reminder of its power, yet it has failed to act. Councils do have powers under both the Local Government Act and the Graffiti Control Act. It has been pointed out to me by many constituents that the City of Marion uses its powers. From talking to the City of Marion Manager of Regulatory Services and the Coordinator of Community Health and Safety, the feedback I have is that the council had taken legal opinion about the powers in the Local Government Act when it was dealing with an owner who refused to clean up a site and the City of Marion, following legal opinion which confirmed that council had the power to step in and clean up the site and then charge the cost to the owner, did just that. Marion council finds that it rarely has to resort to this legal action.