HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-03-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Grievance Debate

Burnside Community Land

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:46): In January this year, Burnside council advised local residents in the Rose Park and Burnside areas around the J.B. Cleland preschool and the Rose Park area known as the Gurney Road gardens that the council had determined that the community land was surplus to its requirements and was resolved to pursue the sale of the sites to the state government.

I particularly want to refer to the Gurney Road garden area, which is in Rose Park. Members may be aware that Burnside council, as indeed have a number of other inner metro councils, continues to operate an open space strategy. The importance of that is to recognise the value of open space, particularly pocket parks, where there is limited open space and public area available to residents in the inner metropolitan area of Adelaide. The specific area around Gurney Road gardens is listed as community land, and that has been the case since 1988.

Residents around the area who use the amenity, including those who use the Scouts hall on the property, of course have an interest in continuing to have access to and use of these facilities, not just as an open space but obviously to use the local hall. Indeed, the Rose Park Primary School is adjacent to this area; they are neighbours. They have a high use of the area and they contribute to its upkeep. That is not unusual in our area, because schools and the Burnside council frequently join together in having a multi-use of public space. Burnside Primary School is a classic example where they do that, and they share the facility for both the community and the school.

What is concerning about the current circumstances is that the government, if they are to receive this land via the Department for Education, are under no obligation not to onsell it. As I said, this is land which is highly utilised by the school, the local community and the Scouts group. I have met with Grant Fergusson, the property manager of Scouts Australia, and other community residents, including people like Mrs Elizabeth Floriani, who is a local resident. These are people who are committed to their local community.

Why has the government done this? The government decided that the memorial to Constable Hyde in Leabrook was no longer needed from their point of view. They obviously indicated that to residents in Leabrook and it became widely known, including to the Police Association, that this memorial property, formerly on land owned by the state government, which was an old school that is now closed, was going to be disposed of.

There was outrage and despair. Prior to the election, minister Portolesi, the then member for Hartley and minister in the government, made a categorical statement that there was no intention to sell the property and that the memorial would be preserved. Indeed, there was absolutely no indication at that time that that was conditional upon some side deal of a transfer of property between the council and the government.

That commitment having been made, it followed that the Burnside council agreed to enter into discussions about exchange of land that each had surplus to requirements, and that is quite a reasonable thing to do. If they have both got property that is identified as surplus to their requirements that they are both willing to exchange, which has commensurate value and the like, then there is no reason why that cannot be negotiated. As part of that process, however, the council have given notice, as I say, to the community that they have determined that this land is surplus, but they have indicated that it will be subject to community feedback.

Why is there a concern? There is a particular concern because there is no protection against the government taking over this property which is, as I say, well used by the local community, Scouts and the like and the school. There is no security against that property being on sold by the government. Their refusal, so far, to accept a 99-year lease option back to the community and to the Scout hall only corroborates the concern of the local community that there is no bona fide commitment on behalf of the government that they will not sell. Sadly, when they promised to not sell the Repat Hospital, that is also now being ignored.

Time expired.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT