Advertisement

CHILDREN! not factories [Rumblings at Oaks Estate]

By 18 October 2012 42

Would you feel good about industrial factories been built on contaminated land in your suburb – and across the road from a childrens playground. Well it seems to be happening in the village of Oaks Estate.

A recent unopposed decision by Queanbeyan City Council (QCC) has meant just that.

As part of a recent LEP process, Railcorp through the QCC sought to have contaminated land rezoned to industrial use. The land area while ‘technically’ in NSW - is literally on Canberra’s border – fronts Railway St (ACT) and can only be accessed and serviced by driving heavy commerical vehicles through the village of Oaks Estate, which is in the ACT.

The residents of Oaks Estate say no to this and have sought assistance  – but little support given by the ACT government to date. 

There is a cross border MOU in place to allegedly manage ACT/Queanbeyan infrastructure issues and the sharing of…however been told that Queanbeyan has at the expense of ACT residents the right to determine an outcome which is only to their social and economic benefit…just does not stack up.

The community of Oaks Estate wants an outcome that is to the ACT’s benefit also.

We want a safe place for our children to play – not be polluted.

Help us say no!

Please login to post your comments
42 Responses to CHILDREN! not factories [Rumblings at Oaks Estate]
#1
aussielyn3:25 pm, 18 Oct 12

Will our candidates for election to the ACT Assembly commit to sorting out this issue or will they ignore & neglect the concerns of the Oaks Estate Progress Association?

#2
DangerMouse3:59 pm, 18 Oct 12

This article misrepresents the actual re-zoning and potential for development.

The area was zoned 5(a) special uses and is owned by RailCorp. The current zone means there is very little restriction on land use. For example, there is a large fuel depot here and other heavy industrial uses.

Queanbeyan council were asked as part of the NSW state govt LEP process to rezone the parcel of land….. RailCorp lobbied to have it zoned heavy industrial 4(a). The council decided to zone it light industrial 4(b), which means that things like the fuel depot would not be allowed in future (existing use is protected under planning laws so the current depot will not be forced to close). A 4(b) zone restricts to light industry, business, retail, childcare centres, professional offices etc etc. Most factories would not be likely to be considered light industrial.

This is another case of nimbyism.

#3
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd3:59 pm, 18 Oct 12

Don’t live in oaks estate…

#4
DangerMouse4:02 pm, 18 Oct 12

Oh yeah, and RailCorp lobbied to have the land zoned heavy industry but Queanbeyan Council instead zoned it light industrial…. lets get all the facts out.

#5
arescarti424:42 pm, 18 Oct 12

Industrial zoning does not necessarily equate to factories.

I suspect the people of Queanbeyan probably don’t have much sympathy for this issue, after the ACT government built an entire industrial suburb and a prison on their door step in recent years.

aussielyn said :

Will our candidates for election to the ACT Assembly commit to sorting out this issue or will they ignore & neglect the concerns of the Oaks Estate Progress Association?

Considering that Oaks estate consists of a couple of hundred people out of an electorate probably in excess of 100k, I expect they’ll ignore you.

#6
How_Canberran4:43 pm, 18 Oct 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Don’t live in oaks estate…

And why am I now humming Billy Joel’s “Allentown”?

#7
p15:01 pm, 18 Oct 12

Would you feel good about industrial factories been built on contaminated land in your suburb – and across the road from a childrens playground.

I would be more concerned that:
[a] there is contaminated land in my Suburb;
[b] that the contaminated land is across the road from a children’s playground; and – a distant third on the list;
[c] that might happen to this land in the future.

I don’t begrudge you the desire for a nicer place to live. I would have been pushing for the complete removal of any industrial use and the cleanup of the site. But since I can’t see that ever having been a likely outcome I find the OPs post a little, mmm, odd?

#8
c_c5:13 pm, 18 Oct 12

The original poster must be a bit thick. Oakes Estate has had small industry forever, including a leather tanning operation (now closed I think) which used some of the most toxic chemicals you could expect to be exposed to in the region.

#9
p15:13 pm, 18 Oct 12

How_Canberran said :

And why am I now humming Billy Joel’s “Allentown”?

Damn it, now I’m humming it.

#10
OEPA5:45 pm, 18 Oct 12

Im sorry but the issue is to do with short sighted and poor planning practices. For instance QCC could have shown a measure of creativity and sought Railcorp to remediate the land to a much higher standard that surely would of opened up the scope for development here. But no…. What about lets say for creative cultural uses? But no…And why does QCC want to see the potential for their recently pronounced Heritage precinct centred around the Railway Station to be eroded by this decision…

But why should Oaks Estate, that is after 25 years having a masterplan/heritage study completed, be subjected to a poor planning decision from a local government in a different state?

And personally, I do not recall QCC ever consulting with Oaks Estate residents given they will be the the community impacted by this poor planning decision and not NSW residents – so how does the MOU cover this issue?

In fact the plans shown in the LEP submission had a legend to interpret the plans placed exactly over where Oaks Estate is. Not nimbyism – grossly ill considered.

And no there is nothing misrepresented – if RailCorp was able to find a current economic use for it would they not already – I understand (happy to be corrected), that under current arrangement only businesses associated with RailCorp can operate – There is no fuel dump, but a domestic scale gas depot and a temporary fence business operating from an older rail siding building.

You could argue that converting the land to a lesser industrial zoning is an easy out for RailCorp and gives a much greater scope to use this land area inappropriately, for a wide range of industrial acitvities – so the impacts for the children of Oaks Estate are significant.

Given the area is not currently over developed and in little in use, the land is contaminated they have sought and been granted an easy out at the expense of a community and their children.

Potential for development? Sorry, but do you think boutique commercial developments, retail and child care centres will operate here? Beside a ‘fuel dump’ that by your admission cannot be closed down due to a preexisting use. If only your vision of the world was so clear cut. Please.

Overscaled factories (9.000m high), cheaply built will be the order of the day!

Please say no to poor planning and help our children.

#11
OEPA5:51 pm, 18 Oct 12

OEPA said :

The residents of Oaks Estate did – but as I stated above QCC has never directly spoken to Oaks Estate residents on this.

#12
screaming banshee5:58 pm, 18 Oct 12

How about that…Oaks estate has the interwebs now.

Learn something new every day.

#13
Woody Mann-Caruso6:33 pm, 18 Oct 12

We want a safe place for our children to play – not be polluted.

…and you think that safe place is an existing playground across the road from contaminated land? Your kids are playing close to contaminated land, and your biggest worry is that somebody might build a shed on it?

¯\(°_o)/¯

#14
DangerMouse6:51 pm, 18 Oct 12

Ok Opea now you are just getting silly… You say it’s poor planning they did not decide to remediate the toxic land in order to build a cultural centre? Wtf? There is lots of vacant land that has never been contaminated that could be used instead. Why on earth would you put an arts centre on an old railway site?

Let’s face it, you just hate any kind of development that is not some hemp tent arts centre.

I did not say there was a fuel dump, I said the spot had a fuel depot ie the gas depot. Gas is stilla kind of fuel right?

I stand by my post that this article is deceptive… Much like the ACT liberals tactic of saying rates will triple under labor. Did opea provide campaigning advice??

#15
Pork Hunt7:19 pm, 18 Oct 12

screaming banshee said :

How about that…Oaks estate has the interwebs now.

Learn something new every day.

FFS. Grow up.

#16
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd8:26 pm, 18 Oct 12

Pork Hunt said :

screaming banshee said :

How about that…Oaks estate has the interwebs now.

Learn something new every day.

FFS. Grow up.

No, it was actually lol. Get a sense of humour.

#17
OEPA10:19 pm, 18 Oct 12

c_c you need a geography lesson there is no tannery within the village of oaks estate

c_c said :

The original poster must be a bit thick. Oakes Estate has had small industry forever, including a leather tanning operation (now closed I think) which used some of the most toxic chemicals you could expect to be exposed to in the region.

Mr danger mouse lets face it I think you did say fuel dump and only you mentioned arts centre. And I like appropriate development.

DangerMouse said :

Ok Opea now you are just getting silly… You say it’s poor planning they did not decide to remediate the toxic land in order to build a cultural centre? Wtf? There is lots of vacant land that has never been contaminated that could be used instead. Why on earth would you put an arts centre on an old railway site?

Let’s face it, you just hate any kind of development that is not some hemp tent arts centre.

I did not say there was a fuel dump, I said the spot had a fuel depot ie the gas depot. Gas is stilla kind of fuel right?

I stand by my post that this article is deceptive… Much like the ACT liberals tactic of saying rates will triple under labor. Did opea provide campaigning advice??

To be clear. Oaks Estate residents seek an appropriate outcome that reflects the intention and spirit of the cross border MOU. So that would be about balanced objectives supporting both Queanbeyan and Oaks Estate residents. An outcome that supports the ACT funded masterplan and heritage study. That does not result in further inappropriate development and yes we would want RailCorp to show good governance and remediate the land – the LEP allows them to avoid this. I would believe that Queanbeyan residents and their children who use the rail corridor on the Henderson Rd to recreate, play and grow food would also like the laureate of knowing that the land is fit for purpose and not subject to future industrial development.

Remember the land discussed is NSW but only accessible and only serviced by using the village of Oaks Estate as its thoroughfare.

It seems more about government indifference and corporate interest and profit over valuing community needs.

#18
c_c10:29 pm, 18 Oct 12

OEPA said :

c_c you need a geography lesson there is no tannery within the village of oaks estate

And neither is the land you’re talking about.

The ‘village’ as you call it has lived just fine with a tannery nearby and upstream of the residential area since 1977 (http://www.yellowpages.com.au/act/oaks-estate/canberra-tannery-13215582-listing.html), metal fabricator, antique restoration and a heap of other stuff.

It’s always been zoned for residential use, and it’s long had toxic waste around the place.

#19
NoImRight10:37 pm, 18 Oct 12

Why can only hevay commercial vehicles access it? Cars,vans, mopeds banned? Im not entirely clear on your complaint? Is it its contaminated land that will only be fixed up a bit now and have a shed built instead of the performing arts college you’d all dreamed of?

Someone has spent a lot of time leafing through their copy of ‘Catchphrases for storm in a teacup”. I particularly like that youve gone straight to “wont someone please think of the children”

#20
Mr Evil10:39 pm, 18 Oct 12

OMG – I bet they’re going to build a Data Centre nearby that will irradiate all your children AND leave a nasty stain on the bedsheets!

#21
OEPA11:05 pm, 18 Oct 12

I had thought this to do with poor planning, poor governance, poor consultation, indifference and its impacts on communities and yes children.

Why should they have their only safe public place made over as some themed industrial park?

Btw I like Vespas, vintage dodge trucks and horses

#22
OEPA11:25 pm, 18 Oct 12

Thank you for clarifying for others it is in NSW, but deemed by QCC as only easily ccessed by the ACT.

And neither is the land you’re talking about.

The ‘village’ as you call it has lived just fine with a tannery nearby and upstream of the residential area since 1977 (http://www.yellowpages.com.au/act/oaks-estate/canberra-tannery-13215582-listing.html), metal fabricator, antique restoration and a heap of other stuff.

It’s always been zoned for residential use, and it’s long had toxic waste around the place.

So the tannery is now ‘nearby’ and the Molongolo river has been flowing backwards since 1977?… Is there a hydrologist in the house…sorry oaks estate has a limited area of industrial zoning. Which is purely a historical consequence. And should not be used to argue support for further inappropriate development. Btw You cannot undertake industrial activity on land zoned other than industrial.

#23
c_c11:42 pm, 18 Oct 12

OEPA said :

So the tannery is now ‘nearby’ and the Molongolo river has been flowing backwards since 1977?… Is there a hydrologist in the house…sorry oaks estate has a limited area of industrial zoning.

As I originally said, the tannery is in Oakes Estate, and is nearby the specific part of Oakes Estate you refer to as the ‘village’.

Now bad editing on that post admittedly when merging two paragraphs into one so one sentence leads into another and doesn’t make sense. So I’ll clarify:

The ‘village’ as you call it has lived just fine with a tannery nearby the residential area since 1977, and upstream of Oakes Estate is Captains flat, leaching toxins into the river for decades and a far greater concern.

Now I looked on the map and there’s no heavy traffic coming through the village, Railway St links directly to the main Oakes Estate Rd on the edge of the village, they won’t go through it.
That’s of course assuming they don’t just use Henderson Rd

#24
dph12:53 am, 19 Oct 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Don’t live in oaks estate…

This. /thread

#25
OEPA1:30 am, 19 Oct 12

OEPA said :

I had thought this to do with poor planning, poor governance, poor consultation, indifference and its impacts on communities and yes children.

Why should they have their only safe public place made over as some themed industrial park?

Btw I like Vespas, vintage dodge trucks and horses

Btw c_c the tannery I believe is in an area named Beard. Named after a reformed and to do ex convict.

It is also by the map closer to Harman than the village of Oaks Estate. Oaks Estate as a surveyed area containing residences is now confined to an area defined by the intersection of Oaks Estate Rd/Railway St, railway line at Mcewan Ave and of course the mighty Molongolo, which is downstream from Captains Flat.

Can you please explain which map you viewed that shows you traffic movements?

I’m exhausted

#26
milkman4:20 am, 19 Oct 12

arescarti42 said :

I suspect the people of Queanbeyan probably don’t have much sympathy for this issue, after the ACT government built an entire industrial suburb and a prison on their door step in recent years.

A very important point often overlooked by the people of Canberra.

#27
bigfeet6:58 am, 19 Oct 12

OEPA said :

I’m exhausted

I imagine that convincing yourself you live in a ‘village’ is quite exhausting.

It is wearing me out just thinking about it.

#28
OpenYourMind8:10 am, 19 Oct 12

screaming banshee said :

How about that…Oaks estate has the interwebs now.

Learn something new every day.

It’s all the more surprising given it was only last month Oaks Estate residents discovered fire.

#29
NoImRight9:27 am, 19 Oct 12

Is this another committee of one?

#30
miz9:44 am, 19 Oct 12

I know I would not want to live or play that close to industry (albeit ‘light’) and/or warehouses. I doubt the critics posting here would not want to either, being safe in the knowledge that this awful situation you are facing is not happening to them or their kids.
I note that light industry includes the firm responsible for the toxic fire in Mitchell guys (now, excitingly, relocated to Hume. Yay.)

OEPA, can you get out? If you privately own, is selling an option? If you are a govvie tenant, I would contact Housing ACT ASAP about a swap or transfer.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.