news, latest-news

The bitter dispute over the redevelopment of the derelict Giralang shops is set to appear in the highest court in Australia. The site became the subject of a protracted court battle in 2011 when then Planning Minister Simon Corbell used call-in powers to approve the construction of a large Woolworths supermarket, retail outlets, restaurant and car parks. Opponents to the redevelopment, an alliance of Canberra businesses including nearby supermarkets backed by Supabarn, fought Mr Corbell's decision in the courts. The group argued, among other things, the proposed development was too large, would create traffic problems and that the government didn't properly consider the impact on other shopping centres. It was driven by fears that the new Giralang development would kill off nearby businesses at Kaleen and Evatt local shops. The group also argued the proposal was inconsistent with the Territory Plan. It argued in court that Mr Corbell did not have the power to approve the application because it was inconsistent with planning code and that the decision was either an "improper exercise of power" or so unreasonable that "no reasonable person could have so exercised the power". The group also argued Mr Corbell breached the rules of natural justice and that the decision involved an error of law. But their legal challenge failed in the ACT Supreme Court and the ACT Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal said the group lacked the proper standing to challenge Mr Corbell's decision to approve the redevelopment. That prompted the group, including IGAs in Kaleen and Evatt, to take the fight to the High Court, which will hold its hearing on Friday morning. In written submissions to the High Court, the group said the Court of Appeal was distracted by issues like their remoteness, and lack of directness and proximity to the Giralang shops site. It also said the court focused on a "general rule" stating that economic detriment because of a decision - in this case the Giralang shop redevelopment approval - does not give a party standing to appeal. "The manner in which those concepts were actually applied by the [Court of Appeal] is not pellucidly clear," they wrote. "But what is clear is that the effect was to obscure the question actually posed by the statute and to lead the [Court of Appeal] to fail, in any meaningful fashion, to deal with the evidence of affectation." But Mr Corbell, in his written submissions, said the Court of Appeal never applied any "general rule" about economic detriment, meaning the group's argument to the High Court did not properly arise from the very judgment under appeal. Another two respondents - property owners Nikias Nominees Pty Ltd and AMC Projects Pty Ltd - also said the arguments about the "general rule" could not actually raise an error in the Court of Appeal judgment. Residents say they have been left without a proper local shops for roughly a decade. The once busy centre slowly declined for years before the remaining supermarket at the site closed in 2004.

https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/silverstone-ct-migration/a3f8e9aa-cff9-46ce-9722-5507db7a281f/r2_0_728_410_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg