Goodwin is go!

Just a quick follow-up to let Simon “Call-in” Corbell know that the residents of Ainslie will not be letting this issue go. I for one will now be vigorously campaigning against Corbell at the next election.
Maintain the rage Ainslie – don’t let our joke of a planning Minister get away with this!

Has anybody thought of challenging Canberra’s claim to being a ‘bush capital’ ?

It seems to me that we’re quickly becoming the ‘concrete capital’.

Simon “Call-in” Corbell,
In addition, given the absolute debacle that the Goodwin development process has been – how can we be sure the conservator is acting independent of you? Are you able to give an absolutely iron-clad guarantee that you will not, and have not, contacted the conservator to place pressure on her re the Goodwin site? The conservator should have absolute freedom to make Goodwin go back to the drawing board if Goodwin’s tree damaging activity is seen to be excessive (which it genuinely is). I’m sorry to have to ask such a question but we simply can’t believe the ACT ALP Govt anymore when it comes to planning!

Simon “call-in” Corbell,
I take your call-in of Goodwin as a complete retreat from your promises regarding development in Ainslie. You did not have to call this in – you could have left it to the proper avenues.
Five cases of “exceptional circumstances” in one year – what a joke – hopefully voters will use their “call-out” powers at the next election and get you removed from Office.

Simon

Your statements above are intriguing.

You have said you called in the development to avoid protracted delays and that you have not shut down community consultation.

Why then prevent residents from independently testing the development’s merits via the democratic Administrative Appeals Tribunal? This process only takes three months – hardly a protracted delay, given advice from the Federal Government that they would favourably consider a funding extension (advice which you and Goodwin must have known about).

If as you say, you did not call in the development to avoid the enforcement of the Tree Protection Act 2005, then you could have only called in the development to avoid the AAT process. This would have ONLY significantly delayed the development if it was proven that the design was flawed and needed to be reworked. If the development is as good as your endorsement indicates it is, the AAT would not have delayed the process.

Perhaps the AAT would have proven the development caused unacceptable adverse impacts such as traffic, parking, noise or loss of privacy, in contravention of the Land Use Policy. No doubt you considered this in your decision to deny residents a right of appeal.

Your comments about Labor policies significantly protecting Ainslie are great and I appreciate the protection. However, despite this protection, it seems a three storey development has been approved in Wakefield Street (right in the heritage precinct) in the last few months. Also, there is a current dual occupancy DA under consideration in Cox Street (again in the precinct). Why hasn’t the government formally advised this developer that they are wasting their time and money submitting an application – seems a bit unfair on them if they never stood a chance of getting their development approved in the first place.

I am feeling so aggrieved at being told that I was consulted when I most definitely was not, that I am going to conduct a survey of Ainslie residents. I will ask very simple questions. Were you involved at any stage in the consultation process? If not, why not? Would you like to have been consulted about a $90 million, five year, six storey, high rise, high density development in your suburb? Yes, to have been included in the consultation process would have been a fair process. It will take me a while to consult with everyone in the suburb so stay posted.

Oh dear Simon. Still reading the Riotact?? Well I’ve reflected on your last paragraph and would like to know what constitutes “suburban residential land” in Ainslie. Does this mean that your government can rezone any land to suit a developer who wants to put up a building higher than 2 storey under the guise of Aged Care? As the ACT NT president has stated even a 3 storey building will impact on the heritage precinct in Bonney Street. But obviously you are not interested in preserving what little history we have in Canberra.

Sounds fair enough to me. Then again, I don’t live in Ainslie.

*Disclaimer – I still have no idea where Ainslie is, and can’t be assed looking it up on a map*

Simon, at the end of the day it appears that you have made a hard decision, which is what we have voted you into your position to do.

Personally I’ve seen enough photos of Atlas Cedars in the last few days, as well as hearing of other stands around Canberra, to feel that the trees will not be sorely missed in the grand scheme of things.

I note however you have applied a rule that apartment developments are not permitted anywhere in the suburban areas of Ainslie, apart from a different title, how does that affect the development of an apartment style complex that people will live in in (making it suburban) Ainslie ?

At the end of the day, you are correct, the burden of aged care is incoming quickly. A one-way rail system to the Gold Coast may have been a more cost-effective method of reducing the aged care burden on the ACT, however ethical it may be.

Martin

The need for more aged care beds and accomodation n Canberra is clear. We have the most rapidly ageing population in the country, and while this may not be of direct interest to you, I can assure it is for many of the people I have a responsibility to represent. It is for this reason I felt it was in the public interest to call the development in. We need more aged care as soon as possible. Potracted delay’s are not in anyone’s interest.

I cannot agree with your assertion that community consultation was “closed down”. It was not. In fact over a hundred residents from across Canberra made formal submissions on the development proposal. In considering the application I read each and every one of these submissions, and the common theme from those which expressed concerns about the proposal was the height of the six storey buildings. I also visited and talked with residents who were directly affected, including yourself. Finally I attended the public meeting and heard the views of all sides on the proposal. It was from all of these discussions and representations that I felt there was a compelling case to limit the height to four storeys. Far from “closing down’ consultation this shows that the avenues available to people to raise their concerns worked. People were not ignored, they were heard.

Your assertion that my use of the “call -in” power was to avoid the provisions of the Tree Protection Act 2005 is incorrect. The approval of the development does not, in any way, override the requirement for Goodwin to seek, and obtain, approval for tree removal or tree damaging activity. In fact it is a condition of my approval that these seperate approvals are sought and obtained before the development can proceed.

Finally, it was the National Trust itself, in 2001, which placed nine inner Canberra suburbs on its endangered places list beaucse of the ad hoc planning policies of the previous Liberal Government. The National Trust removed these suburbs from this list in 2003, citing the passage of Variation 200 to the Territory Plan ( The Garden City provisions ) as the reason why the suburbs were no longer endangered. This Variation was instigated by the Stanhope Labor Government.

Because of Labor policies Ainslie is significantly protected from any form of redevelopment. Dual Occupany, Triple occupancy, block amalgamation, unit titling and townhouse and apartment development is not permitted anywhere in the suburban areas of Ainslie. The height control for the suburban residential land use policy area is 2 storeys, no attics or basement garages allowed. Perhaps it is worth reflecting on these matters also in this debate?

Has anybody seen the proposed developments out in Belconnen’s direction ?

Coppins Crossing won’t exist anymore, it’ll be the new suburbs called ‘Stanhope Heights’ and ‘Corbell’ (and about 15 others).

Heck, I’ll even scan the development proposal when I get home since I’m in the ‘in’ crowd of the 20 residents who get to submit their opinion on it.

Standby for the post…