Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Best place to build your
property career in Canberra

Fact checking statements about Dickson Parklands

By Paul Costigan 28 July 2015 19
Parklands-2014-2

There have been inaccurate media statements and comments online by the bureaucracy and others about the actions of residents to save the Dickson Parklands.

Here are some key points about the debate for the Dickson Parklands

  • There was a series of well attended workshops in late 2014 on the future of the Parklands. Since then there was absolute silence on this topic from the bureaucracy. It was the residents who approached the agencies for an update.
  • At the 23 July meeting residents were informed for the first time that a decision had been made for apartments on the parklands. This was a surprise given the feedback from the workshop participants for enhanced community cultural facilities and that an overwhelming majority clearly requested no more apartments within Dickson Parklands.
  • There was no previous notice for 850 apartments. To say that the number has been reduced from 850 to 200 is one of many furphies.
  • The inner north Canberra suburbs are experiencing a growing number of residents and massive changes. Residents do not oppose the infill – just that it should be well planned, designed and appropriate.

Parklands-2014-1

  • Residents are trying to work with the many agencies involved (far too many) to obtain an integrated approach to the increases in houses and apartments.
  • Agencies continue an ad hoc approach to development that lacks relevant evidence based arguments. This is clear in their new pamphlets about the Dickson Parklands.
  • The argument for the Dickson Parklands (as community cultural parklands) is a pro-development push. The parklands are part of the infrastructure that will be required for the increasing number of residents. There is also the need for improvements to the sewage and other infrastructure.
  • The parklands are on the edge of Dickson, but all the surrounding resident groups are working to have this community infrastructure enhanced with arts and cultural facilities for the growing inner north population.
  • The parklands should part of the infrastructure that planners would otherwise be providing in advance of the population increases.
  • The Dickson Parklands is not an abandoned site. But it is true that it has been managed badly by the various agencies.
  • The part of the site in question includes large grassed areas, the Salvation Army building and the site of the former club (that burnt down).

Parklands-2014-3

  • The leases under question are in government hands. The details of the lease changes are unknown.
  • The links to the light rail is another furphy. The major redevelopments along Northbourne will be far more relevant to the future usages of the light rail.
  • The Dickson Parklands are well beyond established distance of 400 metres that planners use as the distance that residents would most likely walk to and from public transport. The Parklands are at least 800 metres from Northbourne. Residents more than 800 metres away would catch the many available buses.
  • Another agency has let it slip that there is no need for apartments on this site as the present zoning across inner north Canberra will supply more than enough new residences to meet the infill targets.
  • The proposal is about using the ‘development banks’ – a term used within the development bureaucracy for open spaces that could be sold. Look around your suburb and any non-residential land and car parking spaces are probably classified as being in this ‘development bank’.
  • The proposal is cloaked in the provision of social housing. Social housing on isolated blocks does not work as has been learnt time and time again across Canberra. Social housing should integrated into established areas.
  • The loss will be to the wider community in the loss of community facilities and to potential occupants who will be isolated and living in ‘branded’ estates.
  • The government’s proposal is another clear example of how badly Canberra planning continues to be managed.
  • No local politicians have so far stepped forward with any real visions for Canberra’s urban development.
  • There is now a complete lack of trust in the chief minister and his development bureaucracy.

Residents are urging the government to cease this stressful and wasteful process. The ACT Government needs to engage honestly and transparently with the residents on the future options for this important community site.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
19 Responses to
Fact checking statements about Dickson Parklands
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
JC 6:07 pm 31 Jul 15

sepi said :

There is great potential for something special for the community – or at least pleasant, or useful.

Once they have squashed the land under an apartment block all potential is gone.

Such as? A mosque maybe?

Seriously though what do you suggest and who do you suggest is going to stump up for it?

sepi 3:47 pm 31 Jul 15

There is great potential for something special for the community – or at least pleasant, or useful.

Once they have squashed the land under an apartment block all potential is gone.

JC 1:59 pm 29 Jul 15

Paul Costigan said :

All the points in this post could be expanded with heaps of details – but that would have made for a very long post for RiotACT.

About the title ‘Dickson Parklands’, it has use amongst locals. We have noted that the LDA (and whatever its attached department is called) is very reluctant to acknowledge this title. Instead they are pushing the technical ‘Section 72 Dickson’ as this denies this site’s long standing community zoning and allows them to spin the myth to the mainstream media that the site is derelict and unused.

Not that your using this myth to spin this to make this sometimes Salvo overlfow carpark sound like something it is not?

Just like your pictures of the woodlands, or what ever you called them. When in reality it is a row of trees alongside the stormwater drain. But gee the picture of them, of the grass above really makes it sound like something special, which it isn’t.

No_Nose 1:46 pm 29 Jul 15

This is RiotAct – when have we ever allowed ‘facts’ to get in the way of our righteous indignation?

Paul Costigan 1:33 pm 29 Jul 15

All the points in this post could be expanded with heaps of details – but that would have made for a very long post for RiotACT.

About the title ‘Dickson Parklands’, it has use amongst locals. We have noted that the LDA (and whatever its attached department is called) is very reluctant to acknowledge this title. Instead they are pushing the technical ‘Section 72 Dickson’ as this denies this site’s long standing community zoning and allows them to spin the myth to the mainstream media that the site is derelict and unused.

Unfortunately the local mainstream media got fooled again as they used the LDA’s media release without checking it – sad day for local journalism – again. There was no 850 unit announcement prior to this most recent spin and the site is not derelict.

‘Parklands’ in this case is a generic overarching title. This whole site is a valuable asset for the future of the area as the population continues to intensify – as it must.

There could be a mix of opportunities developed, including community buildings, arts and outdoor cultural activities. The large grass area in the middle should be kept – see the second picture in my post today on ‘empathy’. The Salvation Army building should be re-used rather than demolished (definitely not derelict). As for the former vacant Downer Club site, there are many options to be considered. And somewhere on the parklands site there should be regular community markets.

The bureaucrats informed us at the 23 July meeting that they had ‘acquired’ the leases. But were very careful in their wording not to let on what deals were done. That remains a mystery. I hate to think about who benefited and how.

Final point: Loved the way the Planning Minister was asked a couple of times on ABC the other day – ‘so who’s running planning in Canberra, the LDA?’ He was not comfortable having to answer that very obvious question – knowing what is the reality.

rosscoact 10:51 am 29 Jul 15

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

About the only valid one I saw was the one that said the development didn’t have anything to do with light rail. Though of course in another thread some on ‘his’ side of the argument were the ones saying it was. Wish they could/would make up their minds.

Anyone who thinks this proposal & other infill developments on the fringes of the light rail corridor arn’t significantly influenced, if not driven by the mantra to infill and densify, are delusional.

Residents will use the park and ride facility to be built at the Dickson tram station, they will ride push bikes to the tram, they will catch busses to the tram. That is what the ACT Govt says will happen, so it must be so !

And yoiu say that the tram has nothing to do with this proposed development (and others not within 800 metres of the track). Rubbish.

And of course, the 200+ apartments new apartments on that site will not significantly increase traffic congestion (which is already bad) will it. It will not help send Dickson car drivers rat running through other suburbs to get to Civic and beyond, will it. Of course it will. And the ACT Gov’ts own EIS says that the tram & associated densification along the corridor itself will in fact increase traffic congestion too.

Its all too easy for shallow minded people to yell “Nimbyism” (which is a front for the politics of envy) at every opportunity rather than look past the ACT Gov’ts spin and push for development at all costs. The current ACT/Greens Gov’t seems to have done a great job of dividing the community. But even more sadly, their rusted on supporters have taken the spin – hook, line & sinker.

A opinion piece in today’s CT which crashes the spin and myths about the government’s light rail project.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/light-rail-jobs-claims-dont-stack-up-20150728-gim1pz.html

Goodness, David Hughes, Gungers, Rommeldog criticising the tram, well chop me off at the knees and call me Shorty.

oops, Dungers not Gungers, I do apologise old chap.

rosscoact 10:50 am 29 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

About the only valid one I saw was the one that said the development didn’t have anything to do with light rail. Though of course in another thread some on ‘his’ side of the argument were the ones saying it was. Wish they could/would make up their minds.

Anyone who thinks this proposal & other infill developments on the fringes of the light rail corridor arn’t significantly influenced, if not driven by the mantra to infill and densify, are delusional.

Residents will use the park and ride facility to be built at the Dickson tram station, they will ride push bikes to the tram, they will catch busses to the tram. That is what the ACT Govt says will happen, so it must be so !

And yoiu say that the tram has nothing to do with this proposed development (and others not within 800 metres of the track). Rubbish.

And of course, the 200+ apartments new apartments on that site will not significantly increase traffic congestion (which is already bad) will it. It will not help send Dickson car drivers rat running through other suburbs to get to Civic and beyond, will it. Of course it will. And the ACT Gov’ts own EIS says that the tram & associated densification along the corridor itself will in fact increase traffic congestion too.

Its all too easy for shallow minded people to yell “Nimbyism” (which is a front for the politics of envy) at every opportunity rather than look past the ACT Gov’ts spin and push for development at all costs. The current ACT/Greens Gov’t seems to have done a great job of dividing the community. But even more sadly, their rusted on supporters have taken the spin – hook, line & sinker.

A opinion piece in today’s CT which crashes the spin and myths about the government’s light rail project.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/light-rail-jobs-claims-dont-stack-up-20150728-gim1pz.html

Goodness, David Hughes, Gungers, Rommeldog criticising the tram, well chop me off at the knees and call me Shorty.

dungfungus 10:20 am 29 Jul 15

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

About the only valid one I saw was the one that said the development didn’t have anything to do with light rail. Though of course in another thread some on ‘his’ side of the argument were the ones saying it was. Wish they could/would make up their minds.

Anyone who thinks this proposal & other infill developments on the fringes of the light rail corridor arn’t significantly influenced, if not driven by the mantra to infill and densify, are delusional.

Residents will use the park and ride facility to be built at the Dickson tram station, they will ride push bikes to the tram, they will catch busses to the tram. That is what the ACT Govt says will happen, so it must be so !

And yoiu say that the tram has nothing to do with this proposed development (and others not within 800 metres of the track). Rubbish.

And of course, the 200+ apartments new apartments on that site will not significantly increase traffic congestion (which is already bad) will it. It will not help send Dickson car drivers rat running through other suburbs to get to Civic and beyond, will it. Of course it will. And the ACT Gov’ts own EIS says that the tram & associated densification along the corridor itself will in fact increase traffic congestion too.

Its all too easy for shallow minded people to yell “Nimbyism” (which is a front for the politics of envy) at every opportunity rather than look past the ACT Gov’ts spin and push for development at all costs. The current ACT/Greens Gov’t seems to have done a great job of dividing the community. But even more sadly, their rusted on supporters have taken the spin – hook, line & sinker.

A opinion piece in today’s CT which crashes the spin and myths about the government’s light rail project.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/light-rail-jobs-claims-dont-stack-up-20150728-gim1pz.html

rommeldog56 11:12 pm 28 Jul 15

JC said :

About the only valid one I saw was the one that said the development didn’t have anything to do with light rail. Though of course in another thread some on ‘his’ side of the argument were the ones saying it was. Wish they could/would make up their minds.

Anyone who thinks this proposal & other infill developments on the fringes of the light rail corridor arn’t significantly influenced, if not driven by the mantra to infill and densify, are delusional.

Residents will use the park and ride facility to be built at the Dickson tram station, they will ride push bikes to the tram, they will catch busses to the tram. That is what the ACT Govt says will happen, so it must be so ! And yoiu say that the tram has nothing to do with this proposed development (and others not within 800 metres of the track). Rubbish.

And of course, the 200+ apartments new apartments on that site will not significantly increase traffic congestion (which is already bad) will it. It will not help send Dickson car drivers rat running through other suburbs to get to Civic and beyond, will it. Of course it will. And the ACT Gov’ts own EIS says that the tram & associated densification along the corridor itself will in fact increase traffic congestion too.

Its all too easy for shallow minded people to yell “Nimbyism” (which is a front for the politics of envy) at every opportunity rather than look past the ACT Gov’ts spin and push for development at all costs. The current ACT/Greens Gov’t seems to have done a great job of dividing the community. But even more sadly, their rusted on supporters have taken the spin – hook, line & sinker.

JC 11:00 pm 28 Jul 15

sepi said :

You are right, I would have far less objection to a mosque than I do to yet more apartments.

So you would object then, so goes to show its not about community use, it is about getting what you want.

banco 9:58 pm 28 Jul 15

This is what NIMBYs always say:

“The inner north Canberra suburbs are experiencing a growing number of residents and massive changes. Residents do not oppose the infill – just that it should be well planned, designed and appropriate.”

In practice you don’t and won’t support any infill.

rosscoact 6:03 pm 28 Jul 15

JC said :

Though guess if you want the land to remain as community you would have no objections what so ever if the Salvos land was transfered to another religous group for a place of worship, say the Islamic faith to build a Mosque?

What would be wrong with that?

dungfungus 2:24 pm 28 Jul 15

sepi said :

You are right, I would have far less objection to a mosque than I do to yet more apartments.

A community facility can be for some members of the community – I don’t begrudge others the Ovals, but I never use them.

Both the mini-golf and the planetarium were very run down, and were operating before the massive explosion of children into the inner north.

Other failing attractions like the train at weston park, the dinosaur museum and cockington green are now doing well – it isn’t a fair comparison to say that because one business model failed years ago, nothing will ever succeed except units.

Unless you work for ACT planning.

Or a developer/property investor.

If it comes to a choice between apartments or mosques, you won’t be able to object.

sepi 11:53 am 28 Jul 15

You are right, I would have far less objection to a mosque than I do to yet more apartments.

A community facility can be for some members of the community – I don’t begrudge others the Ovals, but I never use them.

Both the mini-golf and the planetarium were very run down, and were operating before the massive explosion of children into the inner north.

Other failing attractions like the train at weston park, the dinosaur museum and cockington green are now doing well – it isn’t a fair comparison to say that because one business model failed years ago, nothing will ever succeed except units.

Unless you work for ACT planning.

Or a developer/property investor.

JC 11:43 am 28 Jul 15

Richard Fox said :

Also, I’m not sure the “fact” part of your piece is present in at least the final 4 bullet points.

Think it was more than 4 bullet points. About the only valid one I saw was the one that said the development didn’t have anything to do with light rail. Though of course in another thread some on ‘his’ side of the argument were the ones saying it was. Wish they could/would make up their minds.

Another one that I am scrathcing my head over, apparenltly this land should stay in community hands (not sure what this means actually) so that all these new residents have somewhere to be a community. However if all this group does is object to development proposals then where are all these new people actually going to live? In fact I think this is the point, like many self intrest groups, say they are happy for development, but then put out a list of demands, that can never be met, then object to every development that doesn’t meet these demands, but still say they are not anti development, when in fact they are.

JC 11:39 am 28 Jul 15

sepi said :

It would be even better to have an actual family activity available close to home, like the mini-golf, or the planetarium.

You going to stump up the money to pay for something that has been done before and failed?

sepi said :

Community land should be retained for the community. It would be nice to have a convenient little club to go to in Dickson, without having to deal with the traffic/parking around Dickson shops.

I believe most clubs are located on Government land, on long leases. the govt leases them the land fairly cheaply, as they provide entertainment or facilities for the community.

To put it in context, this community land was in the past in the hands of a religous group, and a members only club. Hardly available to all. Though guess if you want the land to remain as community you would have no objections what so ever if the Salvos land was transfered to another religous group for a place of worship, say the Islamic faith to build a Mosque?

sepi 11:29 am 28 Jul 15

Community land should be retained for the community. It would be nice to have a convenient little club to go to in Dickson, without having to deal with the traffic/parking around Dickson shops.

I believe most clubs are located on Government land, on long leases. the govt leases them the land fairly cheaply, as they provide entertainment or facilities for the community.

It would be even better to have an actual family activity available close to home, like the mini-golf, or the planetarium.

An Oval does not meet every need. A Community does not consist of endless units, with an occasional sports oval, or shopping mall.

We can do better than this.

Richard Fox 10:33 am 28 Jul 15

I’m not aware of the complete ins-and-outs of this proposal, so I’ll stay away from that, but the photo of the former Downer Club is a sad state of affairs and is surely due for at least a little bit of TLC.

I’m struggling to find any reference anywhere to a “Dickson Parklands”. Could you point me in the right direction as to where to find the government titling of this area?

Also, I’m not sure the “fact” part of your piece is present in at least the final 4 bullet points.

JC 10:16 am 28 Jul 15

For one there are no parklands, or grasslands (can you make up your mind what they are called BTW), the only reference to Parklands is the name of the hotel next to the old club site. And the picture of grass above is part of what was/is the Salvo’s land. Likewise there is no open space, there are two parcels of land that have been previously used that are being rezoned.

BTW can you provide any evidence that the government owns these blocks? Seems strange for them to have purchased/taken them off their original leaseholders.

Secondly as I understand it the government was open in their approach and have modified their planning decision based feedback from residents/self intrest groups.

Your self interest group didn’t get what they want, that is clear with the two overly emotive posts you have made here, that’s not to say what they are doing is wasteful, nor lacking honesty and transparency.

As for what future residents what, what is wrong with the oval and the wetlands

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site