Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Glenside Hospital Redevelopment GLENSIDE HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK Legislative Council GLENSIDE HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:45): As a further supplementary question, is the minister aware that the proponents of the supermarket were proposing some eight to 10 storeys on that site? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business GLENSIDE HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:45): I am not sure whether the honourable member is talking about the supermarket or the office building, but the development plan amendment, if the honourable member reads it, does make some reference within its policy to appropriate heights on that particular site: I think it was six storeys. The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting: The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The honourable member should go back and read— The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting: The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The honourable member is making an allegation that the government has done this, but what she does not realise, of course, if she goes and looks at it, is who originally agreed to sell— Members interjecting: The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It was your great colleague, your philosophical mentor, Dean Brown. When the Hon. Dean Brown was minister for health, he agreed to sell that land. It goes right back to that. I invite the honourable member to go back and read all the public submissions that have been made relating to the development plan amendment process. Look at the one from QED. I had to read them, and that is when I discovered, when I was reading that particular submission, that that is what was in there. I think members opposite have very conveniently overlooked the fact that discussions on that matter were going on prior to the election before last. The honourable member may not like the sunlight reflecting on what has happened there, but of course there would be very good reasons why in fact you might want to reach some arrangement with the owners of the shopping centre on that corner. Anyone who drives through that intersection regularly as I do would know that there are very good grounds for the widening of that intersection. It certainly makes a lot of sense and, when I first became Minister for Urban Development and Planning some years ago, I remember one of the first issues that came up was some proposals in relation to dealing with that site and about how that intersection could be improved with some sort of a land swap so that some of those traffic issues could be improved. That is when it was certainly conveyed to me by the then head of the department that in fact there had been negotiations on that issue from some time dating back to the previous Liberal government in relation to land sales. There has been nothing new, not that I am suggesting that there was anything wrong with that. On the contrary, I believe it makes a lot of sense, but I just think that the sensitivity of members opposite who choose to turn their back on those sorts of issues is very interesting. If the honourable member looks at the development plan amendment, if she is talking about the mixed use site on Fullarton Road which I believe she is, and if she looks at the policy that applies to that site, she will see that there are height limits that are not those which some proponents were seeking.