Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Expert strata, facilities & building management services

CHILDREN! not factories [Rumblings at Oaks Estate]

By OEPA - 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!

What’s Your opinion?

Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
42 Responses to
CHILDREN! not factories [Rumblings at Oaks Estate]
Pork Hunt 7:19 pm 18 Oct 12

screaming banshee said :

How about that…Oaks estate has the interwebs now.

Learn something new every day.

FFS. Grow up.

DangerMouse 6:51 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??

Woody Mann-Caruso 6:33 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?


screaming banshee 5:58 pm 18 Oct 12

How about that…Oaks estate has the interwebs now.

Learn something new every day.

OEPA 5:51 pm 18 Oct 12

OEPA 5:45 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.

p1 5:13 pm 18 Oct 12

How_Canberran said :

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

Damn it, now I’m humming it.

c_c 5:13 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.

p1 5:01 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?

How_Canberran 4:43 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”?

arescarti42 4:42 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.

DangerMouse 4:02 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.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 3:59 pm 18 Oct 12

Don’t live in oaks estate…

DangerMouse 3:59 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.

aussielyn 3:25 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?

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site