Garran, Hughes residents still fighting golf club’s development plans

Ian Bushnell 30 July 2021 7
Federal Golf Course

The Federal Golf Course in Red Hill. The club says it needs development to stay viable. Photo: File.

The ACT Government may have thought it had everyone in the tent when it released the Red Hill Nature Reserve Integrated Plan, but two community groups have maintained the rage against plans for development on the Federal Golf Course.

A swag of stakeholders signed off on the Plan which allows for the Federal Golf Club to host a proposed retirement village on the southern end of the course to give it financial certainty.

If it goes ahead, the deal will bring $20 million to club coffers.

But the Garran and Hughes Residents Associations have never wavered from opposing any development on the course and say any deal would amount to privatisation of public land, wreak damage on an environmentally sensitive area and bring traffic chaos to their neighbourhoods.

They say Planning and Land Management Minister Mick Gentleman was disingenuous when he said the Plan had community support.

Their petition to the Legislative Assembly has so far gathered more than 1,200 supporters. The two associations support the first six recommendations of the Plan but are calling on the government to remove the offending Recommendation 7.


READ ALSO: A ghost called ‘Bluey’, heritage architecture and a long history of Forrest Fire Station serving the community


Garran Residents Association Convenor Robert Knight said the government had always said that any development would not go ahead without majority community support yet its own consultation admitted it had only received some community support.

“It didn’t get majority support and yet somehow the proposal ended up in the Plan,” Mr Knight said.

Mr Knight said the club’s proposal was the catalyst for the original petition opposing development that led to the Integrated Plan.

“The exact opposite has actually happened. The government has included exactly what the community didn’t want in the Plan,” he said.

Mr Knight queried whether the club’s only option was to use some of the land in its concessional lease to shore up its finances and whether the project would just be a sugar hit or provide any ongoing income.

He said it may provide a windfall to the club but at public expense, including remnant endangered Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland and habitat, and scarce nesting places for the soon to be listed threatened species, the Gang-Gang Cockatoo, and other species.


READ ALSO: Great wineries right on the doorstep? Yass!


The Plan would include a new road at the southern end of the course bulldozed through the green space of the Garran Hughes Woodland to Kitchener Street.

Mr Knight rejected claims that the southern end was more degraded than the northern section, saying he walked that area all the time and he could see no difference.

He said development was ruled out at the northern end mainly due to the fire risk.

“We are not against urban infill for medium density housing – but not on land so critical to our wildlife and our local community.”

Mr Knight said that for whatever reason, other groups such as the Red Hill Regenerators had changed their position over the course of the debate to back the least worst option.

The Plan still needs to be adopted by the Assembly, and the Territory Plan varied to change the lease to allow development on the golf course.

Any development application would then have to go through the normal assessment process.

Mr Knight said it could be years before there were any development moves but now was a really critical step in the process.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
7 Responses to Garran, Hughes residents still fighting golf club’s development plans
Filter
Order
Capital Retro Capital Retro 9:18 am 04 Aug 21

The golf club should become a rugby union club and then the government would give them everything they want, just like the football club that re-developed the bowling club and surrounding parkland at Griffith.

chewy14 chewy14 8:13 am 04 Aug 21

In its current form the golf course is not viable long term and this proposed development should provide that long term viability through an initial cash injection and then a local community who will use the club facilities long term.

The opponents clearly haven’t thought their position through long term. Do they think if the golf course fails, the land it’s on will be retained as public or community spaces? LOL.

    GrumpyMark GrumpyMark 8:50 am 04 Aug 21

    “We are not against urban infill for medium density housing – but not on land so critical to our wildlife and our local community.” – smacks a little of NIMBYism. The burghers of Garran and Hughes should follow the Red Hill Regenerators who decided to “back the least worst option” and agree to a retirement village. That seems like a win-win as the golf club gets a capital injection and more boomers will be able to downsize, bringing new properties on to the real estate market.

    chewy14 chewy14 10:47 am 04 Aug 21

    Grumpymark,
    Yes that’s what I’m thinking, this proposal strikes a good balance of a number of competing interests. Not perfect but does deliver benefits that wouldn’t be achieved elsewhere.

Oiledpengu Oiledpengu 8:25 pm 03 Aug 21

Make the golf course smaller, then less people want to play there. Then sell off more land to help pay the bills. Sounds like Narrabundah. Went from a large course to a small one and not worth playing there any more.

TimboinOz TimboinOz 12:42 pm 01 Aug 21

Reads like some $$$$$ have been p””’d into someone’s pocket. the land is public land.

    chewy14 chewy14 8:14 am 04 Aug 21

    Not really, it’s a failing golf club with a chance to stay afloat through redeveloping some of the land. What do you think will happen if the golf club closes?

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site