21 August 2024

Government promises to get 'tougher' on Canberra's epidemic of derelict local shops

| James Coleman
Join the conversation
31
Graffitied wall

Chris Steel: “I think we’ve seen at shopping centres like Richardson … shop owners who have done the wrong thing by the community.” Photo: Joy Burch.

The ACT Minister for Planning has accused the owners of Canberra’s derelict shops of effectively “land banking”, and promised “tougher measures for property owners who leave their local shop spaces vacant or unused” if re-elected in October.

“I think we’ve seen at shopping centres like Richardson, and other shops like Duffy, shop owners who have done the wrong thing by the community by leaving them run down and untenanted for too long,” Chris Steel said this week.

“If a building owner can’t tenant a local shop or redevelop their facilities to make them viable, they should sell them to someone who can.”

The comments came in response to a petition from locals about the state of the Richardson Shops.

READ ALSO Plan to transform Sullivan’s Creek from ‘concrete labyrinth’ to community hub released

Ever since the IGA supermarket moved out of the small shopping precinct on Clift Crescent in 2019, followed by the last tenant – a hairdressing salon – in 2022, nearby residents complained the site has fallen into a state of disrepair.

“It has been damaged extensively – all the windows are boarded up and covered in graffiti,” lead petitioner Caitlin Tough told Region in February.

“I know how important it is for residents to have access to services and to have local facilities maintained and kept clean. The owners of Richardson shops seem to have failed the local community on both of those things.”

Caitlan Tough standing outside derelict shops

Caitlan Tough led a petition to resurrect Richardson Shops earlier this year. Photo: Joy Burch.

The petition, which attracted 372 signatures, demanded a “full update from the owner on any future plans for the site” and “advice of what alternate use of the land and site can be considered”.

The shops are owned by Michalis Holdings*, which has previously told Region “we don’t want it sitting there empty as it’s giving us no return” but accused the government of knocking back plans for a childcare centre, mechanics workshop, and service centre/shop.

In a subsequent investigation, Access Canberra found the “lessee is not currently in breach of the obligations” and “is experiencing difficulties securing a tenant”.

“The subject site is a privately leased block, and therefore, the ACT Government has limited options to make this service available,” the response also read.

aerial view of Richardson shops

Richardson Shops in an age gone by. Photo: Sentia Real Estate.

But in a separate statement, Mr Steel went further.

He said a re-elected Labor government would re-zone local shopping precincts for “multi-use developments” and allow apartments to be built on top of shops in what’s been dubbed “shop-top” housing.

In the case of Richardson, he would also open up an additional three blocks between the current shop site and the nearby skate park for development.

“It’s disappointing to see some owners of our shopping centres engaging in practices that are effectively land banking,” he said.

“Labor will provide incentives to renew these shopping hubs through supporting mixed-use development.

“We will also look at how underutilised land may support broader renewal of these centres. In relation to Richardson shops, there are currently three undeveloped parcels of land … near the shops. The government will look at releasing these blocks to stimulate renewal at the centre and promote a range of diverse uses.”

READ ALSO Build-to-rent: Crossbench backs proposed amendments to give investors, tenants more certainty

However, he also said this may not be enough for some shop owners, and “disincentives need to be considered”.

“As part of our plan to encourage renewal at local shops, a re-elected Labor government will investigate tougher measures for property owners who leave their local shop spaces vacant or unused.”

Canberra Liberals MLA Mark Parton has campaigned vigorously on the state of Richardson Shops in recent months, posting a number of videos to his social media accounts showcasing their decay.

He described Mr Steel’s comments as “finally … an admission that the demise of Richardson shops is the fault of the government”.

“The Planning Minister has conceded that the government will need to provide incentives to get any forward movement here, which is an admission that the government has failed up to this point,” he told Region.

“The ACT is the most expensive and cumbersome place to do business in the whole of the country. The combination of rapidly escalating rates and charges and mountains of red tape combined with the cost-of-living crisis has led to many insolvencies.

“Mr Steel and most of his colleagues have never run a business, and it shows.”

He said the Canberra Liberals will respond with policy announcements “leading up to the election”.

*CORRECTION: This article was updated to state that Michalis Holdings own Richardson Shops.

Join the conversation

31
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Standard ACT Labor practice – do nothing for four years then promise to do something next term.

Incidental Tourist11:39 am 23 Aug 24

Drop commercial rates to NSW level. Give shop owners a break from cumbersome regulations.

Re Abandoned shops The ACT government has a leased shop in the Chapman shopping centre it is abandoned and has been for years, with boards on the broken windows. The inside is disgusting inside with mould and a toilet that has overflowed. Covering a large area of it in black water. Come on ACT government got your house in order as you are doing the same as you are calling others out for.

Nice one Mr Steel. As usual, try and manufacture some credit for “developing a plan”. How come it takes several years of neglect followed by a petition followed by other poiticians getting on board before this government does any “planning”. The word PLAN is a naughty 4 letter word for most of these Ministers. Rarely, if ever used in polite company.
They’ll probably need help reminding them their pants are on fire too.

bev hutchinson4:40 pm 17 Aug 24

Government should stay right not interfere with peoples property. If it’s safe and secure then let’s remember that (at least for the time being) we don’t actually live in a socialist country. Canberra attitude is close though.

If the ACT government wanted premises rented and used, they’d drop the rates instead of continually increasing them so that owners could rent the property out at a lower cost.

This government blames landlords for these problems, even though they were told that increasing rates and taxes would force owners to increase rents. sending businesses broke.

Barr and his ACT government said raising rates would not and had not increased rents, ignoring the facts. It is obvious to all but Barr that increased costs for the owner means the owner must increase the rent to cover the higher costs.

Many businesses cannot afford these increased rents, so they close shop and either move to NSW or end their business. Owners can’t rent their properties out as no-one can afford them. They stay vacant.

Now it’s all happening across Canberra, the ACT government still takes no responsibility for creating the situation, instead blaming owners who have no control over the costs of rates and taxes. ACT government politicians really are incredibly stupid.

Love how steele told all Kambah that the local shops was getting an upgrade. Then had issues / breakdown with woolies and not its nothing. Steele was basically pushing it like he was doing the work himself.

Government constantly land banks. They’re putting gov housing on most of it and sat on Mr Fluffies until it was time to sell them. Not to mention West Tuggeranong.

Yes, government land banking is a major issue. Mr Fluffy owners had to sell at the lowest point of the market, but the government didn’t sell that land until well after the market improved, with many of us being offered our properties back at a much higher price than we were paid, but without a home on it. We couldn’t afford to get our land back, whilst the government made profits which it spent on the tram.

Rates on business premises have skyrocketed, so they cannot be leased at rental costs that many business owners can afford. This is just like residential housing. The ACT government makes money from empty shops and homes, whilst those who’d like to rent them cannot afford the costs due to the increased taxes owners must cover from the rent.

HiddenDragon7:27 pm 16 Aug 24

“He said a re-elected Labor government would re-zone local shopping precincts for “multi-use developments” and allow apartments to be built on top of shops in what’s been dubbed “shop-top” housing.”

So Big Bad Chris is going to get really tough with those naughty developers and give them exactly what they want – they will be shaking in their hand-made boots at the very thought of this.

Shaking with glee and anticipation of even more wealth!

Self government, for those of you at the back, was voted AGAINST twice. However, Bob ‘wife beater’ Hawk decided we should have it anyways. After 19 years of the inevitable labor government does anyone want to tell me anything is better? Anything?

Of course not. This was not about improving things for Canberrans. It was about getting rid of an ongoing cost, whilst retaining all the power to determine how the city could develop via the National Capital Authority.

Agree with your sentiments about the need for a change of government, flap, but just a couple of corrections: it’s an urban myth that there were 2 votes against self-government. There was just one referendum, on 25 November 1978. And it’s 23 years of Labor in government, not 19, which I suppose makes your argument even stronger.

Thanks Gaz, I was flippantly including the vote for the ‘No self government’ parties in my rant. Concur regarding length of time in office. I can’t work out where that time has gone. Canberra is just a mess.

GrumpyGrandpa4:38 pm 16 Aug 24

Comments from Mr Steele like “shop owners who have done the wrong thing by the community by leaving them run down and untenanted” &
“If a building owner can’t tenant a local shop or redevelop their facilities to make them viable, they should sell them to someone who can”, really shows how uninformed the government is.

The value of commercial property is to a large extent determined by it’s rental yield. A vacant, now derelict building isn’t of any real value. Who would buy it? Does the government seriously think the owners are paying their rates, having their property vandalised all for the sake of “land banking”?

It wasn’t that long ago that The Greens were calling for Vacancy Taxes to be applied to these buildings to force the owners to lease them out. Lease to who?

Small suburban shopping centres are dead. They can’t compete with mega shopping malls, online shopping etc. Compare Richardson even to centres like Erindale; Erindale has Woolworths as a key tenant, a chemist, butcher, newsagent & post office, Erindale College, food outlets in Gartside Street inc McDonalds. Other regional centres like Calwell and Chisolm have similar advantages. What do small sites like Richardson have? A new government funded playground, that’s it.

For the government to push the blame onto the owners of properties is disgraceful.

pink little birdie2:20 pm 23 Aug 24

Richardson used to be thriving with a small supermarket, hair care until there was rental hikes by the owners. Places like Isabella plains, Bruce, Holt, Spence, Fraser, Gordon, Castley cct Kambah, Aranda, Manniheim st Kambah etc all have smaller commercial retail businesses either with a smaller IGA style supermarket or without one.
So rents are an issue – but it’s the choice of Landlords to keep them high – investments aren’t without risk and this includes properties – Not to mention land tax is tax deductible if the property is rented.

GrumpyGrandpa5:54 pm 24 Aug 24

Sure, the landlord could have dropped the rent to keep the tenant (or attract a new one), however, hypothetically, if the tenant isn’t profitable does the landlord continue to drop the rent to subsidise the tenants losses?

Tax deductibility of Land Tax, (or any expense for that matter, is

GrumpyGrandpa6:39 pm 24 Aug 24

Sure, better to have a property tenanted than empty, but does
a landlord drop the rent, or keep it at a lower level, if a tenant can’t afford the rent? Suburban shopping centres may still exist, but many have folded or operate in a limited fashion. At the Monash shops, there is just a Vet. The supermarket is closed and it was within walking distance of Goodwin Retirement Village, where you would expect locals would have frequented, as opposed to driving to busy centres like the Hyperdome.

I don’t fully understand why this landlord would leave the property vacant? There are obvious issues with vandalism etc with vacant properties.

That said, there are land use clauses that restrict the nature of businesses that can operate from the site and my understanding is that the owner had received no assistance from the government to vary those land use clauses to attract an alternate tenant.

The concept that a government could introduce a tax to try and force a property owner to lease out their premises interferes with the concept of private ownership. Who would invest in rental property, of any type, if their ownership rights continue to be interfered with. Many residential landlords are leaving the ACT due the government taxes, forced conditions such as minimum insulation requirements etc.

People often overstate tax deductions. Tax deductibility of any expense doesn’t negate that expense. It only reduces the loss. Very simply, if the tax rare was say 30% an expense of $100 reduces the tax payable by $30. The other $70 is still of pocket.

Amazing how Chris Steel does nothing for years, but as soon as it’s a few months out from an election he’s firing off ideas and solutions left, right and centre.

Straight after winning the election in combination with the Greens, he’ll return to ‘situation do nothing’.

Chris Steel should not be making any decisions on behalf of property owners. He has zero business skills which can be seen from all his stuff ups. It’s interesting how the animal.kingdom wouldn’t allow the dumbest in their tribe to be in charge. I can’t wait to stop wasting my money on useless clowns like Steel.

Love this comment.

Must be an election soon. Yet another simplistic thought bubble from a useless government. This time failing to make recognise the reality that local residents don’t use local shops enough anymore making them unviable.

Incidental Tourist1:12 pm 16 Aug 24

If you open small shop in Blue Mountains, NSW on a $500K land then you pay $3,750 commercial rates. In Richardson the same shop will cost you $29,186. I am not even talking about highest payroll tax and the maze of regulations. Are we surprised that all small shops have disappeared?

The biggest landbanker in the ACT, the ACT government, complaining about others land banking! Great to see the minister call it out as a problem but perhaps the ACT government should lead by example, and do more than flap their gums about it? The government has the power to adjust planning controls, call in DAs, cancel crown leases, auction off the property, or publicly develop, & sets rates of land value taxation. Interesting that Steel will ‘get tough on derelict shops’ by delivering exactly what land banking investors have been holding out for – relaxed planning controls, after knocking back their DA. Suggests to me that ACT government incompetence is the real reason for the existence of derelict shops.

Local shops become unviable.
Chris Steel, midwit extrordinnaire: A healthy dose of my useless interference will fix this!

🤣
Seriously, please just stop voting for these morons. I’d honestly vote for joke candidates over any Labor or greens candidate, because even joke candidates will do less damage than those clowns.

If the local shops are unviable, how low is the landlord prepared to drop the rent?

Something needs to be done if it makes better business sense to leave a shopfront empty rather than get a tenant in.

It’s not exclusive to suburban shops, the town centres have empty shops everywhere.
Inside the malls they hide them as a lounge area or an advertising sign because they value the experience. But land investors who don’t care about the foot traffic can just sit on an empty shopfront waiting for an investor to buy it to build a high-rise.

Some sort of interference is required whether from the current lot or the next.

Nonsense.
The owner can and should be able to do whatever they like with their property in regard to tenanting it. If the local clown council want control of commercial real estate, they can buy some of their own.

Capital Retro2:55 pm 16 Aug 24

Good point Ken M.

The current government have tried pop-up container villages and they were a commercial and financial disaster, all underwritten by the ratepayers of course..

Imagine what it would be like if they actually tried something bigger.

GrumpyGrandpa10:37 pm 16 Aug 24

Interesting concept Malb; owners chosing to leave their properties vacant (not receiving rent, paying rates and dealing with vandalism), then just waiting for an investor to buy it, and build high-rises.
I’m looking foward to seeing a high-rise development in Richardson.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.