Woolworths
General Manager Property Peter Thomas has agreed to outline his
perspective regarding the controversial supermarket development on the
banks of the Obi Obi Creek.
?The reported presence of platypus in
the Obi Obi Creek is well-known to both Woolworths, the developer of
the site, and most particularly, to the authorities who have
categorically approved the development proposed,?? Mr Thomas said.?The
consents for development incorporate strict conditions as to the manner
in which the development is to be carried out, both in construction
technique and timing. An independent platypus expert has been retained
by the developer to specify these particular methods and inspect the
progress of works in accordance with these conditions of consent. We
note the recent comments of the Environment Minister Desley Boyle, who
stated that ?every environmental requirement for development has been
satisfied, and a stringent monitoring program for the construction
period is in place? (Courier Mail - 25/6/05).? Quarter of block to go back to community. ?The
site development conditions require the complete restoration of the
current riverbank - removal of weed species and replacement with
specified local species. These works will be undertaken by the
developer of the site. Following completion of the site works, the
developer has committed to return to council ownership via dedication
approximately 25 percent of the site (being a band along the bank of
the river) to allow the community to own, access and enjoy this area,
which is presently virtually impossible due to the weed growth on the
riverbank. ?Finally, I note that the actions of the construction
company are not illegal in any form, as evidenced by the actions of the
police in upholding the rights of the developer.? ?We?ll talk, but the block is not for sale?. Mr
Thomas says he is prepared to meet with Maleny representatives, but not
for the purposes of discussing a sale of the Obi Creek site. He reacted
to criticisms by Member for Glasshouse Carolyn Male that Woolworths had
refused to negotiate the sale of the block. ?In a long discussion
with Ms Male on the 18th of July, I told her that I was perfectly happy
to meet with people on matters other than the sale of the site, as the
site was not for sale, with Uniton having rejected the offer very
clearly on Saturday the 16th,?? Mr Thomas said. ?Greg Quinn is
similarly happy to meet, but not for the purposes of discussing sale. ?Ms
Male has correctly reported that I was ?not prepared to meet as there
was nothing to discuss in relation to the sale? but has also omitted to
mention my willingness to meet at a later stage on other matters. ?Caroline
also mentioned to me her belief that ?the site has never been offered
for sale? which puzzles me, as I distinctly recall her being involved
in the fundraising activity during 2004. At that time Woolworths
facilitated the offer by Cornerstone to sell the site to council,
expressed a willingness to walk away at that time if the site was
purchased, yet also made it clear that if the site was not bought by
the council/community, that the development would proceed.? Mr
Thomas told TRN he was able to provide some more background to the
circumstances of July 16 in relation to protesters? offer to purchase
the site. By way of background, Jon Woodlands told ABC radio on July 14
that he had spoken with Uniton boss and site owner Greg Quinn who said
he would consider selling the block to the community if it could come
up with $2 million in 24 hours and pending Woolworths? approval. The
deadline was not met. Although protesters subsequently did raise a
cheque for $2 million. ?Woolworths do not own the development
site,?? Mr Thomas said. ?It is owned by Uniton, the developer, who
recently acquired the site from Cornerstone, for a total price (being
$1.6 million for land and further payment for design of the site)
similar to that at which the site was offered for sale by Cornerstone
in 2004 to the council/community. ?Uniton rang me on the 16th of
July at around 10.30am saying that they expected an offer to be made
later that day. They advised me that they were not going to accept this
or any offer, as they had decided to continue and complete the
construction. The offer from the community was later made and rejected
by Uniton. Woolworths were never asked for a release from the
agreements with Uniton.? Mr Thomas was keen to point out that,
irrespective of the latest events, the community had chances to
purchase the block last year. ?The property was offered for sale
to the community/council between February and July/August of 2004,?? he
said. ?During that time, Woolworths stated very clearly that we would
walk away from the site if it was bought, and would seek no
compensation of any form. We also said very publicly that if the site
was not bought by council on behalf of the community they represent,
the development would proceed and we would take a lease of the store.
That was the time for an offer to purchase the site and the
community/council did not take it up.?
Mr Thomas said Woolworths had
tried to provide every opportunity for the community to see their
desires for the future use of the site realised. ?Woolworths has
been aware of the sentiment of some parts of the Maleny community
against the construction of the proposed development. For this reason,
we took the unprecedented step of making the site available for
purchase by the Caloundra City Council on at least three occasions,
with council, as the elected representatives of the Maleny community,
being the appropriate party to act to realise the expressed desire to
see the land utilised for community purposes. ?These delays also
allowed all avenues of consent to the proposed development to be fully
tested, and now, with every aspect of the site being tested and
approved at local, state and national levels, Woolworths intend to
honour the legally binding arrangements between our company and the
developer of the site to take a lease of the premises once completed. ?We
believe that the several moratoria created by our company, the delays
to the normal development process and our open willingness to allow the
community the opportunity to purchase the site, have indeed
acknowledged the wishes of the community. ?With no action to
acquire the site, we have no choice now but to respect the agreements
that we are a party to on the approved development and proceed in the
manner outlined above.?
Photo above: Peter Thomas (file photo), with Andrew Harper from Cornerstone in background.
|