House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Glandore Laneways GLANDORE LANEWAYS The Hon. S.W. KEY House of Assembly Ashford The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (15:20): There are a number of laneways running between Nottingham Crescent, Maud Street and Pleasant Avenue, including Mersey and Garland Streets in Glandore. These laneways were owned by the estate of Fredrick Francis Burmeister. The Public Trustee was appointed as executor of the estate in February 1940, and since Mr Burmeister's death has had the care, control and management of the laneways. The majority of adjoining property owners also have a legal interest in an easement in the laneways which provides them with right of way over part of the laneways. The extent of the rights of way varies and details are shown in each certificate of title. The property owners have the right to maintain their laneways for their use but do not have an obligation to maintain the laneways, and also the Public Trustee has no obligation to maintain laneways for the use of property owners. I guess this issue of maintenance in particular was one of the reasons why this issue was brought before me. I understand from just looking at the electoral roll that there are at least 204 residents who would possibly be affected by the status of the laneways and what could happen to those laneways. As I said, this issue was brought to my attention by the then Marion councillor Vicky Veliskou and laneway locals Luke Hutchinson, Phillip Boehm, Lynda May and Garry Hallas. A number of meetings were held, some in Glandore itself as street meetings with residents, at the Ashford electorate office and also at the Marion council. At many of those meetings we had relevant council staff, because obviously there was legal advice that was needed as well as the issues that had been brought to me by the constituents. Because of the issues of the laneways not being maintained, in their view, the constituents—particularly Phillip Boehm and Luke Hutchinson—had taken it upon themselves to get rid of trailer loads full of rubbish, spraying weeds and also fixing potholes. I am pleased to say that Marion council has certainly taken up the challenge of trying to make sure these laneways are not only clear but also looked after, and has commissioned a couple of reports at the very least to work out how to deal with issues like traffic management, safety, security, road treatments and the cost implications of doing that. I understand that the preferred option of Marion council—and this has been taken up by more recent councillors, Tim Pfeiffer and Alice Campbell—is to give in-principle support to take ownership of the laneways. In the report they were given as option (a) that the Public Trustee give consent to the council's proposal, with a signed agreement from affected landowners, and that the outcome of negotiations with the Public Trustee and affected landowners be provided in a further report to be presented to council by August 2012, and so the issues go on. My point is that, although there has been some fantastic work done—and I commend particularly the councillors for keeping this issue going, not to mention the residents, and here we are in September 2013 and there is still not a resolution to this issue—I consider myself a failure, because we have been trying to negotiate this issue since 2009 and so far we don't seem to have a resolution. As I would normally undertake, we have another meeting on Saturday morning in Glandore to see if we can put some pressure on whoever we need to put pressure on to try to get the issue of the laneways resolved. I notice that a number of other councils have dealt with this difficult situation, and there have been some success stories in Unley, Norwood and Adelaide, as I understand it, because those areas have laneways that have different ownership. I am hoping that Marion council will be able to see a light in the near future to resolve this issue.