Images of Canberra - The Goodwin Trees of Ainslie

Anyone describing six stories as a “tower” is being at best disingenuous.

and when they are presented to the assembly im sure that the alp will ram through what they want anyway.

ive been listening to house of reps all day…

‘1252 pages of INFAMY’

So was it looked at closely, or shelved until 5mins before the developers walked in ?

Re Consultation
From Assembly Hansard October 19

DR FOSKEY: My question is to the Minister for Planning. It concerns the proposed redevelopment of the Goodwin homes site. At a public hearing of the planning and environment committee’s inquiry into aged care accommodation last year, the chief executive officer of Goodwin Aged Care Services, talking about his plans, said that people were going to have to weigh up “I want mum to go in there” against “I don’t think you should be allowed to build that”. It is clearly no surprise to anyone that there are concerns across the suburb at the intended scale of development. Nonetheless, the consultation on the development application was a standard process, with advice going only to immediate neighbours….
DR FOSKEY (Continued): Given the predictability of the suburb-wide distress, why didn’t ACTPLA or the community engagement unit initiate a broader and more open community consultation process?

MR CORBELL: It is one of those issues: how many people do you advise of a proposal? For example, you could advise the whole suburb of every proposal in a suburb and nine times out often no-one would really care because it would not be contentious or controversial. It is very difficult to predict those proposals that will garner community support or concern and those that will not.

The Assembly has, itself, voted on what the notification requirements are. They are outlined in the land act and the regulations to the act. If members had concerns about those regulations and provisions, they had the opportunity to raise them in debate in this place.

Members would be aware that the government, through its planning system reform project, is proposing to change the arrangements in relation to notification, depending on what type of development is being proposed. For example, those developments consistent with a code assessment will not have the same level of notification as those developments that are subject to merit or impact assessment under the proposed performance.

So there is the opportunity in the coming 12 months for the Assembly to look at this issue quite closely, and I am sure the Assembly will. Through you, Mr Speaker: I am sure Dr Foskey will do so when the bills come before the Assembly for discussion and debate. But at this stage the government will be continuing with the existing arrangements until the planning system reform project outcomes are presented to the Assembly.

Are you guys in an organised group or something ?

I’m talking oldsoldier, martin, ainslieresident, henry, etc.

Re: FEDERAL FUNDING

Dear JR

A spokesperson from the Federal Department of Health and Ageing advised on the 24th October that “an extension would be favourably considered if any delays occured because of circumstances outside of Goodwins control.”

I wonder whether Simon Corbell is being pressured by Goodwin to call in the development more to avoid the provisions of the Tree Protection Act 2005 (which comes into effect on 29th March) than anything to do with Federal government funding deadlines.

It would be a pity if the Minister caves into this pressure, effectively circumventing a law which his government introduced. Hmmmm……

Trouble with call-in powers is that the Minister then determines ALL the parameters of the proposal and there is absolutely no recourse to any legal or other means to have things changed.
Now, if Simon Corbell can come up with a sympathetic development for the 30 new aged care beds then great. (You do know, don’t you, that the number of beds will only go from 78 to 108 – the rest will be costly ‘Independant Living Units’ that people can buy in to).

By the way – what is betterment tax? Does the governemnt have a vested interest in stuffing as many people as possible onto the site?

Jr and all, good points, however in some games it’s often better to let some things go in order to achieve a higher objective.

From what I have observed here, this federal deadline won’t be able to be met comfortably by either side.

One of the wonderful things about living in Australia at the moment, is that it’ll come around again (federal funding that is). Perhaps it’s a good time to raise the issue of getting in on the next round of funding, and using the gap in between to come up with a better proposal that suits the environmental concerns, suburban aesthetics, and the requirement to put old people in homes somewhere.

We don’t have to live in this secretive society we’ve created, we can let this go. The old people can live in their houses for a few years longer. It’s not as if there’s any kind of housing shortage in Canberra at the moment anyway, and a market for meals on wheels and aged care in the home is a sign of a good and functioning community.

Then again, if all they’re going to come up with in the gap time is treehuts, then we’ve achieved nothing.

Fiskie, is that you?

As much as I hate to say this… this is one of the few development propositions that warrants the considered use of the Ministerial “call-in powers”. The use can be justified on the basis (a) the current premises will not meet upcoming accreditation standards (b) Goodwin will otherwise lose their Federal funding – which will result in the complete loss of Goodwin as a charitable provider.

In the WIN news yesterday (1/11) Bruce McKenzie, CEO of Goodwin, aksed why all this information about the trees, heritage etc were only now being commented on.

The reason is simple, the consultation process was a sham from the very beginning. For instance, a notice placed on page 3 of the Christmas 2004 issue of the Ainslie Neighbourhood Watch newsletter, under the heading ‘Ainslie Retirees Update’ noted that ‘Goodwin Aged Care Services is planning a redevelopment of their Ainslie site, and some community consultation will be happening soon.’

It’s amazing how invitations for community consultation somehow always seem to be placed around Christmas, when nobody will notice them!

What the notice didn’t say, was that the development was going to be massive:
*two 6 storey buildings
*three 4 storey buildings
*two 3 storey buildings
*three 1 storey buildings

I guess they really didn’t want Ainslie residents to know!

We haven’t heard anything from the developers on this tree issue, so I thought I’d post a transcript from ABC’s Stateline Program (21 Oct). Interestingly, all of Goodwin’s comments are missing from the site, so I thought I’d transcribe them for those that missed the show.

The transcript can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/act/content/2005/s1488959.htm

Here are the additional comments from Goodwin CEO Bruce MacKenzie made on the program:

BRUCE MACKENZIE: “One of the key issues we’ve got on this site is the amount of trees that we’ve tried to preserve on the site. To do that, we’ve had to increase the height [of the buildings].”

……….

BRUCE MACKENZIE: “There is no building on site that is taller than any of the trees on the site. That is what we’ve been trying to design around; that the existing height of the trees sets the scale for the site.

EMMA RENWICK: “How tall will the buildings be?”

BRUCE MACKENZIE: “I think the maximality [sic] might be 21 metres”
—————
Both Bruce’s comments about the trees appear to be factually incorrect. Dr Cris Brack measured the trees on site and they will not cover the tallest trees. In fact they fall well short (if anyone’s interested I can transcribe all of his comments from the program).

We also find now that Goodwin plans to destroy a massive 46% of all significant trees on site. A further 38% of trees will be damaged by having groundwork (including excavation of underground carparks) within 3m of their protection zone, according to Goodwin document “Significant Tree Damaging Activity.” Only 16% of trees remain unaffected and all of these are located on government-owned verges and nature strips.

Looks like they’ve only tried to preserve 16 significant trees out of 106. Hardly sounds like a key issue for them at all.

It worries me that the government didn’t find any of these issues. They appear to lay down and believe anything big developers tell them. It’s up to concerned residents to try and find the facts. Even then the Minister can call in a development and no further debate can be entered into.

And feel free to run your own site with your own editorial values.

yeah, yeah, yeah – I used to get that from reporters all the time. Unfortunately the Editor rules, OK?

-> johnboy,
this is a hot issue, obviously by the number of comments posted to both news items. The issue of consultation has come up in a number of comments and warrants it’s own post.

It is very easy to dismiss those who object to this high rise, high density redevelopment as the NIMBY brigade. Well I would object to a similar development in anyone’s backyard. Check out the plans. Two six storey towers. Three and four storey wings also. My friends, many in the 70s and 80s living in Ainslie are horrified at the thought of such a huge development. The redevelopment raises many concerns. Parking and traffic are a major concern. We are assured that this has beeen planned for but a drive through Braddon past the three storey units where cars are parked on footpaths (opposite Merici) and on the roadside does nothing to allay those fears. The loss of trees is a huge concern. We are told that the six storey buildings will be shielded by the trees. What trees? What a load of rubbish. This whole plan has been a joke from the beginning. Ainslie residents should be wary. This WILL set a precedent for high rise, high density in Ainslie. Why will our suburb be any different from Turner and Braddon?

–> ainslieresident

with two stories on the front page on this issue I really feel any additional information can be made as comments for the time being.

Bonfire – I am not against building/re-furbishing an old folks home … It’s just the scale of the development and the destruction of heritage trees and other values which disturbs me mightily.
That’s the point of my whole argument – we CAN do things differently and still achieve a great space for aged care facilities. It’s when they lie about the development and pretend that they aren’t slipping in high-rise luxury flats and getting rid of peskly trees that my blood boils. Did I fight for the Australian people and their democratic way of life – or did I fight for the greedy dollar?

It’s that beautiful marriage: the idealist and the pragmatist. But who’s the pretty bride – or the lucky man?

Never thought I’d hear Sonic the Hedgehod described as inspirational. I’m stunned. But I digress… carry on.

As a broader issue it’s interesting to compare two leading figures in this debate, that of Simon Corbell and Jon Stanhope. Stanhope has wonderful lofty (tree and other) ideals that are an inspiration in these cynical times, whereas Corbell seems to be running to a different agenda – considering this and other contraversial development proposals.

but bonfire things are alot different to what they were 217 years ago.

and what do you think are the chances that with high density development in the area, that the householders immediately around the development will be forced to sell to developers?

also it’s interesting to note that in the strive for further information, Goodwin, the developer and architect (Villis Group)’s websites are all being ‘updated’ at the moment.

actually terubo, you are quite right.

the ‘inner canberra’ area was a meeting place for an annual event where the different tribes of the region would congregate, trade goods and wives and catch up on gossip.

i have a book at home which discusses people in reid, braddon etc turning up artifacts like stone tools, spear points etc in their gardens.

im sure these people who didnt have recourse to ACTPLA or the assembly, wished to keep their backyardds as they are so their grandkids coudl frolic through the parsnips with them.

but that didnt happen.

so now we have another proposal for use of the same land, and to me it sounds like a good idea.

i still dont understand how by building an old folks home, oldsoldier wont be able to have his backyard full of whomever he likes. i dont recall the development requiring that anyones current home fall under the developers dozer blade.

perhaps that was one of thos emotional heart pulls with no logical basis that nimbys use when logic has caught the train out of town.

(im dying to use the term softhead)

oldsoldier, 217 years ago there were probably many Indigenous NIMBYs & NIABYs…and look what happened to them.

Correction: I’m not a NIMBY, I’m a NIABY

Not In ANYONE’s Back Yard

Now, after the brain has got in gear, I have to confess that I am a NIMBY!

I want to stay in my old home where we came as newly-weds, where we brought up our children, where our grand-children visit and help me potter in the garden with my roses and little lawn and vege patch (and where I know those same kids will support us until we are ancient instead of just ‘old’). I want to be able to stroll up to local shops and chat with the neighbours on the way. I want to be able to reminisce about the old times with mates in the pub. I want my community to be inclusive of those with diabilities, those who are aged or unable to care for themselves, those from other countries and religions, those who tke their kids to the local kindy and school too, even those who are young and on noisy motor-bikes.

What I DON’T like is being hoodwinked and lied to!

The Goodwin home development proposal is full of half-truths and ‘mistakes’. It wants to skim over the bits that might “upset the locals” and just push through a massive complex to alter the area completely. heritage be damned!

The sad thing is that the Homes could be refurbished in a really beaut way and still provide for aged care – an community values. But it seems that unscruplous developers and harried Ministers are not prepared to put in the time and energy it takes to think of alternatives.

Goodwin Gardens (an aged care complex of 1-story duplex houses which abut the Goodwin site, or the nice sympathetically designed house in Wakefield gardens, are examples of good planning.

So, even if I’m a NIMBY, gimmie those old Aussie values of truth and fairness and consideration AND inventiveness anyday.

I did post a news item last night on the subject of ‘consultation’ perhaps Johnboy or one of the others could post it….

Time/date fixed

Just a tiny observation which is probably immaterial (until the next bushfires – or bonfires – come a’visiting): I’m surrounded by these Atlas trees, they’re great for clogging gutters with lots of combustible needles…just make sure the old folk on the 6th floor clamber onto the roof occasionally, to clear out the drainpipes.

johnboy – are you aware that we are now on dayligt savings ?

Yep im in favour of a nuclear reactor for power generation, but im not sure any canberra suburbs are near a proper water supply for the cooling. except the new kingston foreshore development.

sorry oldoak but the origins of my name are rather more bland. i used the title of a bon scott/acdc cd boxset when selecting a screen name for this blog. this was about an hour after a heated discussion with a female friend on how ac/dc’s ‘whole lotta rosie’ was an ode to larger women and an aural modern equivalent of reubens paintings. she regards it as an insult to fat chicks. i am right, she is wrong.

what name shoudl i use ? should i perhaps use whinging nimby ? or obstruct right thinking ? what about i oppose everything new because im persnickety ?

i foresee a hoard of retired ainslie residents who oppose this development using this blog as a tool in their anti development vendetta.

time for lunch – im off to goodberries.

Glad theonlyjames brought up the issue of ‘no consultation’. Maybe you are not aware that ACTPLA, following its legal requirements, put up tiny yellow signs at Goodwin and letter-dropped only those residents who were immediate neighbours. Oops. sorry that so many of the neighbours were in public housing and therefore had NO right to comment at all (only houseownerss can do that). Besides, for a $90m project to be built over 5 years, and bringing 500 new residents into the area, you’d’ve thought that ACTPLA would have gone to greater lengths to allow ‘consultation’. Oh yeah, they did talk to about a dozen or so people from the North Canberra Community Council, I think.
For my part, I didn’t even think about it … aftr all Goodwin needs to refurbish the Ainslie homes … until the public meeting, by which time it was too late to submit any comments to ACTPLA. I reckon all this falls into the category of ‘no consultation’ – even to the extent where plain-speaking, she’ll-be-right old codgers like me get a very nasty shock when they finally get to trundle down to Dickson to have a look at the plans.

Oldoak, you are taking the piss right?

Bonfire, I’d like to say that people who support high-density/rise buildings in inner Canberra are environmentally irresponsible. But having a name like Bonfire a concern for the environment may not mean much to you.

Bonfire, you’d probably support a nuclear reactor being built in the centre of a residential suburb, but only if it was used to supply power to light rail! 😉

Apologies for the long post – there is just a lot to address.

Good points Martin and Evil, I was simply trying to put some of the wider whinges and complaints into perspective.

Even so, accusations of profit/financial motivation seem simplistic at best. The provision of aged-care services for those less well off to whatever extent (by a non-profit organisation remember) is not cheap and would undoubtedly need to be supported by a decent level of income. In the current environment groups such as Goodwin are encouraged to maintain a substantial income in order to provide such services. To me, aged-care doe not seem to be a cheap exercise, especially when providing such services to those deemed as less well off. Any sensible attempt at this, I feel, should be approached without the shrill anti-development calls exhibited here and in the other thread.

The other charges against the development regrading significant trees and the consultation process raise other issues. While the tree issue seems like a last ditch attempt to hold up the development, it does illustrate possible policy flaws, or at least a questionable approach to such policies. Development policy is another thing. Canberrans have a relatively large say on what others can do with their own property. To call the ACT consultation process ‘minimal’ in light of such a fuss seems wrong.

Arguments in the other thread also arose along the tired old line of ‘needs to be done, but not in my backyard’. Someone raised the Karralika extension in Fadden, and I think this is an excellent example of this. If you don’t like the existence of other people impacting in such a way on your life what are you doing living in a city or even suburbia? At the same time charges of ‘no consultation’ seemed to simply mean ‘we didn’t get our way’. In light of the arguments I raised above, these claims seem a touch silly or to some extent selfish.

Should development in Ainslie be limited to such an extent indefinitely? Should we preserve slow-density suburbs in such a way and simply deal with the expenses and drawbacks later? It is a debate Canberra needs to have and I am pleased to see it is happening here in some form. I would hope that town planning would take into consideration wider issues than just inner-suburban residents aesthetical concerns. An increasing need for aged care and retiree services as well as a wish for the city to grow through higher-density, economically viable accommodation are real issues. Endeavouring to be the ‘Bush Capital’ is important, but at the cost of being a real capital city?

g man to meet!) I would like to say to my grandchildren, ” Sonny, you can thank MDear oh dear, Mr Corbell. Here I was thinking that you spent your time in the office rereading the Labor Party Planning Policy (particularly the “community consultation”) and all the time you have been sitting on the computer reading and writing to the Riotact Ainslie treehuggers! Simon (may I call you that?) when you get to my age, you will realise the (heritage) value of retaining the little history we have in Canberra. I know you are but a mere lad Simon, but we aged persons prefer to live in surroundings we have become used to, not these modern super-duper high-rise buildings with lifts that we are afraid to get in incase they break down and we get stuck for ever. Like Oldsoldier (now he might be an interesting man to meet!) I can say to my grandchildren, “Sonny, you can thank Mr Simon Corbell for keeping the ambience of Ainslie intact.”

people who oppose high density housing in inner canberra are socially irresponsible.

and why should self funded retirees be condemned as being the target of the development ? unles somethoing goes seriously awry with my plans, i hope never to hit the govt up for a penion.

maybe in 40 years or so i’ll move to ainslie and live in a nice 6th floor apartment with doors wide enough for my wheelchair.

whinge away nimbys. pull every pointless little objection out and obsess over it for years.

Well, I’m certainly not a self-serving NIMBY, or what ever else gets thrown at protestors who are trying to stand up for citizen’s rights. I just want to see my children and my children’s children have some heritage left for them. Keep the beaut trees! Make Goodwin a delightful place for the real aged-care residents as well as for the community in which they live. Forget those high-rise latte drinkers and join me for a beer at Edgar’s.

I agree with Martin: most people aren’t saying no to the development, they are saying no to the way it is being done, and the way Goodwin is trying to have it rushed through without proper consultation.

Stateline raised the issue of building height with the ‘voicepipe’ from Goodwin, and he stated that the buildings would “be no higher than the existing surrounding trees”, but when a gentleman from the ANU was brought in to measure the height of the trees it was obvious that this was not going to be the case, and in fact, the buildings would be a great deal higher than the trees!

I agree the site needs redeveloping. I agree we need more aged care, especially for the less well off.

We need to remember that Goodwin are only providing an additional 30 aged care beds here, of which only around 9 will be for financially disadvantaged people.

The rest of the apartments (178 units housing up to 356 people) are for self-funded retirees, not pensioners. Prices for the units will be pegged to Ainslie property prices (or so we were advised by the development manager), with Goodwin pocketing 50% of any price increases, as the units become more expensive.

I notice that Goodwin’s other two sites are moderate, in keeping with the local suburbs. The fact they’ve singled out Ainslie for high rise development seems to me to be more about finance than any real consideration for the needy in our society.

Let’s redevelop the site. Let’s provide more aged care accommodation. But let’s do it in a way that doesn’t destroy heritage values, that preserves garden suburbs instead of turning them into “Multiplexesque” (love that term) and that considers the full impact on the development on people other than those lining up with chequebooks at the ready.

My apologies – I wanted have had the words “increasingly pressing” before “issues such as aged care…” in there.

Curse these late nights!

Ingenious! Vocal complaining and attempts to limit development to low-density, aesthetically approved housing is exactly what Canberra needs!

I do hope that those who complain about such developments on blatantly selfish motives understand the logical extension of such protests. Rises in rates or increased government activity and intervention would surely then be understood and happily accepted by such groups when issues such as aged care/accommodation, affordable housing and support for inefficient public transport systems are being addressed.

In which case I won’t support it. I have heard an awful lot about it, but never really paid much attention to it. And I agree that 3, 4 & 6 Storey buildings have no place in Ainslie. There is a two storey building on the corner of Officer Crescent and Hawdon Street which looks awful (and very Multiplexesque) and I think should never have been built.

That being said, I’m not a huge fan of the current Goodwin buildings, but I’d keep them over the proposed construction if it is as tall as claimed.

the problem is Sam, that it will be just that, with a few 1 storey buildings, some 3 and 4 storey buildings and 2 SIX storey buildings.

the plans look very Multiplexesque to me

I’ve always regarded that site as being in need of development, and it was only recently that I realised it was the Goodwin site.

I will support development as long as it isn’t developed with something that looks remotely Multiplexesque