Access Canberra head: we could be 'more transparent' in our decisions around leases

The head of Access Canberra has conceded it could be more transparent when explaining its decision-making around leases and how it punishes people not complying with their lease.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

or signup to continue reading

Josh Rynehart made the concession to an Assembly inquiry on Thursday after it had earlier heard evidence from Canberrans who said they were sick of leaseholders not using land for the purpose it was leased and not being punished when they did not comply with the lease.

The community members, including representatives from the Save Big Splash and local Hawker groups, were also mystified as to why Access Canberra appeared to not use its existing powers to the full extent to bring the wayward leaseholders into line, instead giving them second chance after second chance.

"There's just an endless string of excuses that seem to effectively protect the owner's opportunity to keep redeveloping this site for some other purpose and it doesn't play well," Save Big Splash's Mark Pickering said.

"I mean, on whose side are you?"

Giving evidence to the Assembly inquiry on Thursday were Save Big Splash representative Mark Pickering, Melissa Ricketts from the Hawker/Weetangera Neighbourhood Watch, Belconnen Community Council secretary Keiran Stroh and and Chris Gingell from Friends of Hawker Village. Picture by Keegan Carroll

Access Canberra head Josh Rynehart conceded it could do better.

"I think that there's some thinking for us to do about how it is that we can be a bit more transparent and open with the community about how we formed views and how we form positions," he said.

The standing committee on environment and planning is conducting an inquiry into the use of controlled activity orders, measures used by Access Canberra to address breaches of planning laws, unapproved developments or lease non-compliance.

Mark Pickering said the owners of Big Splash were subject to a controlled activity order but the waterpark still remained closed to the public, for reasons that were never made clear.

"Under the lease, there are very clear provisions for breach and termination and, in the case of Big Splash, there is no compensation for termination, as with any commercial agreement. You breach, you lose it," he said.

"But the regulator doesn't seem to want to use the provisions of the lease. It defaults to the Planning Act and the processes under that. And it defaults to the 'just terms' of the Commonwealth framework and we don't understand why.

"If you have in the lease a clear legal path to an outcome and it is justified, why not follow it? So that's a mystery to us."

Committee chair, Greens leader Jo Clay, said there had been 1046 planning complaints including landbanking in the ACT over the last year.

Of those complaints, 25 were subject to enforcement actions - three infringement notices, nine controlled activity orders and 13 show cause notices.

Belconnen Community Council chair Lachlan Butler said in a submission to the inquiry it was not convinced that stronger penalties were needed if those already in place were not used or enforced.

"The ACT does not necessarily need more enforcement powers. It needs the government to use its existing powers consistently," he said.

The inquiry also heard that no control activity order had ever been issued for the former Hawker tennis centre site which had been left to rot by its leaseholder since 2012.

Chris Gingell, from Friends of Hawker Village, said she would like to see a public register of controlled activity orders.

"I think we need a register that tracks what's happening and contact officers who can provide information if you want to find things out because I'm always asking people for information and I get nothing back. Very bland responses from everybody. Particularly the regulatory authority, quite difficult to talk to anyone there," she said.

Mark Pickering from Save Big Splash said there should be a presumption in the ACT that a leaseholder would lose their lease if they weren't using the land for its intended purpose for two years.

"It can be a rebuttable presumption because there will always be a case where there are extenuating circumstances," he said.

"But leaseholders should not be able to simply squat on land and not perform the function that land is meant to serve. They should believe the lease will be terminated if they continue to not perform the purpose of the lease."

Former minister Yvette Berry has told the inquiry that the Big Splash waterpark and Hawker tennis centre situations are "both shit" as the community demands more action against leaseholders who don't follow the rules and instead landbank sites in the hope of turning them to a more lucrative use.

"They're both shit, right? To be fair," Ms Berry said , referring to the ongoing lack of action at the Big Splash water park and Hawker tennis centre.

More from Federal politics