Capital Golf Course Redevelopment

I can’t beleive the rants about the Vikings. I have lived in Canberra for nearly 40 years and am a parent who has benefited from the support of the Vikings. My kids have played many sports, not rugby, and all of these have been financially supported by the Vikings.

I hope that the Vikings continue to make smart business decisions and remain financially viable to be able to support my grandkids sporting groups in the future … I bet the members of the Tuggeranong Aussie Rules Club, Royals Rugby Club Weston and Wests Rugby Club Jamison wish they had!!

Well there’s viable then there’s good old fashioned 1980’s assett stripping for maximum short term gain, this is closer to the latter.

DeadlySchnauzer said :

As for a golf course being made out as some kind of every man’s community facility… sheesh give me a break. That’s the kind of thinking that could only come from well entrenched Canberran’s living in their little Canberra middle class bubble**.

** Disclaimer: i don’t play golf.

clearly, you don’t… nor have much idea about who does. the ‘well entrenched’ fat cat middle class you infer are the ones who are members of other course. golf is actually a pretty democratic sport in australia enjoyed, as noted above, by folk from pretty well all walks of life, but accessible for many of these folk at public course like capital. i for one wish i could afford to play at royal canberra (i rate it among the country’s best dozen course) but it is waa-aaa-aay out of my league.

come out of your bubble and support your community’s interests for their own sake and stop making assertions on which you know little..

If it was a viable long term money making machine, it perhaps should not have been given special status as a community use lease, with all the attendant advantages.

If it still is same, why are they asking for more income?

The desire of the petty bourgeoisie (in this case management committees of sports clubs) to big note themselves as property developers is pathetic and should be resisted.

We should never, never set a precedent whereby because a community group has found itself in financial strife, they should be allowed to alienate public land to bail them out and make them look like financial geniuses.

You better get some proper reasons for objecting to the future possible development application. The things you have listed are no more than people with their panties in a knot jumping up and yelling NIMBY! just because they can, rather than legitimate reasons for objecting to any future possible development.

I wonder how many of the “action group” who value “the public recreation facility” and “community green space” actually frequent the course on any sort of regular basis, or just object because it sounds bad. I would think that if the course was a viable long-term money making machine, that the Vikings would not be looking to redevelop the site.

It’s just wrong in principle. Community groups get cheap land, pay reduced rates etc on the basis that the primary focus is community benefit. I am not a golfer, but as PPs have said, there are only two public golf courses in Canberra.

If said community group gets into financial strife, the answer is not to turn their management into property developers and alienate the space from the public. Otherwise, before long most land allocated for community purposes will become housing.

Perhaps management of the golf course should be put to public tender?

The Vikings situation is really getting out of control. Licensed Clubs were created to assist parts of the community to raise some money for their cause and have a place to socialise. There was a wide variety of them representing many sports, ethnic communities and other interest groups like returned servicemen etc. Previous ACT Govts have allowed the greedy ones to expand massively, and in Vikings case, create a complete monopoly in their area. This ate all the smaller ones. Look around and see if any new ones have popped up in the past 20 years. And before you say Mawson, Calwell and Gunghalin clubs, they are simply franchises of larger clubs. This pretense that Vikings represent the community is a sham. They represent Rugby. Sure they support other sports but that’s just a show, they are in the business of Rugby. They refuse to support any opposing football codes. That is fine except that they now control the whole Tuggeranong market, meaning any other community groups cannot start their own clubs. The result in the sporting world is that the other football codes in Tuggeranong are the poorest in the whole region, despite the huge participation rates. Sure they should have started their own clubs back in the good old days, but now that Vikings have a licence to print money and a monopoly they can’t. Ever. The one that tried, League, has struggled since the beginning and are now propped up by other Leagues clubs. The result of this mega-club trend outside the sporting world is that Vikings have turned into compulsive profit seekers. Profits that they spend on whatever they like. They are now into the property market, having bought Chisolm Shopping Centre,and now the Golf Course, which they want to knock down to make even more money. If they want to act like a business then tax them like a business, and let other businesses get their sweet deal on pokies.

Rant over.

I was expecting the next comment to be positive, but it may not be. I should preview my post before I post it.

verbalkint said :

It should probably be noted that if the land was rezoned (i.e. the terms of the lease are altered) then the they have to pay 75% of the change in the value of the land is paid to the Government.

So, lets say it is worth $4m now and that value goes up to $30m after it is zoned for housing, they would have to pay $19.5m to the Government. All the values are done by the AVO.

The Liberals are the ones who oppose the “Change of Use Charge”, calling it a “tax on units” when really it is just an excuse for them to line the developers pockets. The current government are the ones who are clawing back a significant part of the easy profits developers recieve, simply by changing a lease, rather than from actual improvements to the property.

Verbalkint, you should really look at the detail of the problems with the proposal to adjust how change of use charge is calculated. You obviously are not across the issue at all apart from what you read in the Crimes. The proposed changes to CUC would have hardly any effect on this development, and pricing, if it were to get up. It has a great effect on other inner developments where you need to knock something over to redevelop it. There is not much to knock over when you a redeveloping a golf course.

CGC is one of the few golf courses that can be accessed conveniently by the public (perhaps this is its problem?). If it was redeveloped, a golf course would never be created in the future to replace it. I agree that the stuff across Hindmarsh would be the better place to start with getting some more density in. This will fill in the areas around the TGA, Geoscience, the caravan park, etc. Develop these areas and the golf course makes a nice central green zone for the local area, and it may start becoming viable. They should just give them some notional handouts or exemptions to keep it running in the meantime.

One final point, I don’t mind appropriate development, but I don’t think that the loss of a view/outlook of some private residents should dictate how proper planning decisions are made. You have no right to views on your neighbors property, even if your neibour is a golf course. The development that you bought in should have been designed to stand on it’s own two feet. If it didn’t, buyer beware.

On a positive note,

If development occurs it should be in high rise in the CBD and around transport hubs. Rolling out all these new suburbs trashes the reason people live in the bush capital. Leave the golf course as a public amenity and as a green space.

las said :

georgesgenitals said :

If you want more available residential housing, this is the sort of thing that needs to occur. That way, the wealthier end of the market can buy into the new unit complexes that will be built (it IS a nice location after all), reducing load on the stock further out, which would then be more affordable.

This really is an alternative to the “up or out”.

If this is a real need, why not just release the land across the road near Geoscience building rather than destroy a perfectly good golf course!

Provided planning rationale can be addressed, sure – why not?

Disgraceful grab for cash by the Vikings, but they are just following the Brumbies lead of attempting to take over a small club and selling the facility for a massive profit – at a loss of facilities to the local community…

What is it about Rugby clubs?

As for a public facility – and this is for the Snauzer – Capital and Belconnen are the only two public golf clubs with tee times available for most of the weekend at the expense of members.

Royal, Federal, Gold Creek, Yowani, Gungahlin Lakes, Queanbeyan, RMC and Fairburn are all ‘private’ or semi private clubs that put members into priority tee times on weekends.

Capital has to stay – its the only club where beer wenches on corporate golf days is condoned!

DeadlySchnauzer said :

Oh and where did this concept of Vikings being a community organisation come from? Afaik they are a commercial, for profit business with every right to do what they want to assets they have acquired.

As for a golf course being made out as some kind of every man’s community facility… sheesh give me a break. That’s the kind of thinking that could only come from well entrenched Canberran’s living in their little Canberra middle class bubble**.

** Disclaimer: i don’t play golf.

Oh good, handing back their pokie licences are they?

Oh and where did this concept of Vikings being a community organisation come from? Afaik they are a commercial, for profit business with every right to do what they want to assets they have acquired.

As for a golf course being made out as some kind of every man’s community facility… sheesh give me a break. That’s the kind of thinking that could only come from well entrenched Canberran’s living in their little Canberra middle class bubble**.

** Disclaimer: i don’t play golf.

astrojax said…

but the residents immediately proximate to the course are not the only ’stakeholders’ here; indeed, they are not the critical ones – it is the broader regional canberra community who use the facility, so this is a shallow statement.

As a resident who backs onto the golf course I have a few points
1st – We were not consulted until it was raised with us by our body corporate (who found out by a chance viewing of a flyer at the local shops) at which point we were invited to attend information sessions and provide feedback on their website. The vikings consultant claimed to make letter box drops to our complex which is directly next to the course however out of the body corporate committee members 0 received this notification.

2nd – Taking away a community facility seems to fly in the face of the vikings mission (see two extracts from the vikings philosophy below)

To provide recreation and sporting facilities for Members of the company and the community generally

To promote social intercourse and good fellowship among players of, and persons interested in, Rugby Union Football and other Amateur Sports

and 3rd – the Vikings group are obviously not interested in consultation, I went to an information evening and asked if financial members of the Vikings club would be given an opportunity to vote on the proposed development (or future of the course) and the flat answer was ‘no, that would be a board decision’.

I have been a member of the vikings clubs for approximately 13 years and always been impressed by the support they show the south side community, all I can say now is that I feel like they are only interested in the money!!!

georgesgenitals said :

If you want more available residential housing, this is the sort of thing that needs to occur. That way, the wealthier end of the market can buy into the new unit complexes that will be built (it IS a nice location after all), reducing load on the stock further out, which would then be more affordable.

This really is an alternative to the “up or out”.

If this is a real need, why not just release the land across the road near Geoscience building rather than destroy a perfectly good golf course!

Was the club given the land by the ACT government (i.e. us) for use as a golf course? If so, if they don’t want to use it as a golf course they should give it back.

Did they buy it at market rates? If so it should be handled the same as any other redevelopment.

If you want more available residential housing, this is the sort of thing that needs to occur. That way, the wealthier end of the market can buy into the new unit complexes that will be built (it IS a nice location after all), reducing load on the stock further out, which would then be more affordable.

This really is an alternative to the “up or out”.

And of course, once stage one of the development is done and sold, Vikings will be back saying a 9 hole golf course is not viable (and customers will have voted with their feet) and hey presto, we need to do stage two and develop the rest of the site.

Can’t see that happening! [/saracasm]

las said :

Does anyone have any information about Magpies golf club also potentially closing or being re-zoned. If this is really occuring then surely the lack of any public courses in Canberra is a serious issue for the ACT government.

AFAIK, proposals for the Magpies club only involve redeveloping a section of the course that’s no longer used – I believe it used to be a 27 hole course, but 9 holes were closed down and the land is sitting unused. I haven’t heard anything about development of the active part of the course.

verbalkint said :

The owners of the Golf Course asked the residents surrounding the course what they would think about their idea of redeveloping the land into houses, rather than a golf course.

but the residents immediately proximate to the course are not the only ‘stakeholders’ here; indeed, they are not the critical ones – it is the broader regional canberra community who use the facility, so this is a shallow statement.

+1 to chewy

hmmmm,
Vikings acquire the golf course on the cheap with promises to keep it a golf course.
Wait a few years.
Say that they aren’t making enough money.
Put up a development proposal to rezone the land.
$$$$$$$

What could possibly be wrong with that??? [/sarcasm]

Normal cities have things like public pools, golf courses, ovals and parks.

I don’t even like golf but I think it should stay as a golf course.

And it certainly shouldn’t just turn into extra profit margin for a ‘community club’.

The golf course and greenery would be missed long after the vikings club disappear.

The ACT government deserves to be blamed if the changes do go ahead. In the meantime we should all blame vikings for supposedly being a community club, but actually are more interested in property development.

verbalkint said :

I can’t see how people can blame the ACT Government for this…

I don’t think anyone did…?

Unless you’re talking about comments that have been made elsewhere.

I can’t see how people can blame the ACT Government for this…

The owners of the Golf Course asked the residents surrounding the course what they would think about their idea of redeveloping the land into houses, rather than a golf course.

This hasn’t been approved by the Government and they haven’t even asked for planning approval! Yet somehow the plans of one community group to redevelop something is proof of an ACT Government/Vikings/Developer conspiracy… It is getting pretty ridiculous.

It should probably be noted that if the land was rezoned (i.e. the terms of the lease are altered) then the they have to pay 75% of the change in the value of the land is paid to the Government.

So, lets say it is worth $4m now and that value goes up to $30m after it is zoned for housing, they would have to pay $19.5m to the Government. All the values are done by the AVO.

The Liberals are the ones who oppose the “Change of Use Charge”, calling it a “tax on units” when really it is just an excuse for them to line the developers pockets. The current government are the ones who are clawing back a significant part of the easy profits developers recieve, simply by changing a lease, rather than from actual improvements to the property.

legitimate concern for mine. its a fact of course that golf courses take up a lot of space, but there is only capital as an accessible golf course in canberra and this should be able to remain as community resource (golfers come from all walks of life, pretty much…) as much as a small space for others’ recreation outlets…

Does anyone have any information about Magpies golf club also potentially closing or being re-zoned. If this is really occuring then surely the lack of any public courses in Canberra is a serious issue for the ACT government.

This whole proposal is ridiculous, if the ACT government was serious about the need for housing in the area why not release some of the thousands of acres directly across hindmarsh drive rather than re-developing an existing public area.

If this gets approved through government I fear I’m moving to outer mongolia as there must seriously be some pay off back to the politicians to allow this to happen.

DeadlySchnauzer said :

Honestly, If we can’t re-develop a freaking golf course what can we re-develop? NIMBYs.

I would expect that the objections have more to do with the loss of the golf course than with whatever they’re putting up in its place. Which would make the objectors IMBYs, presumably.

The concept of a “community” organisation acquiring and closing down a public facility in order to redevelop the land as premium residential just seems incredibly wrong to me. The only way I’d say this was reasonable is if the golf course is operating at a loss and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Reminds me a bit of that caravan park debacle a while back…

Honestly, If we can’t re-develop a freaking golf course what can we re-develop? NIMBYs.

A couple of questions…

1) Do they own the facility (as best anybody can ‘own’ something in the ACT)?

2) Does the rezoning process take stakeholders concerns into account?

3) If it does, who defines the stakeholders?

4) Is it a democratic process?

5) How can the legitimate land ownder be protected from a handful of vocal people?

Remember that consultation does not mean simply bowing to all pressures.

And – Johnboy – if it is re-auctioned, then it should be purchased back at the current value of the property. That should be interesting

On the other hand – if it is a loss maker – put up a fence, and close it off – essentially abandoning it till the economic environment changes.

Agreed,

btw, a nine hole course does not qualify as a golf course.

I think any time land is rezoned it should also be re-auctioned.

That would slow down a lot of monkey business.