Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Part of the Canberra community
for over 30 years

No parks for Crace or Casey?

By johnboy - 2 November 2010 58

The Liberals’ Brendan Smyth is crying foul over what he sees to be secret plans to rob the people of Crace and Casey of green spaces.

In what some might take to be a crypto-homophopic dig at Labor’s Planning Minister Andrew Barr this is being presented as an attack on families.

“The revelation that ACTPLA and Minister Barr have secretly been developing major changes to the new Gungahlin suburbs of Crace and Casey looks like it means an end of the family home in a family friendly suburb for people in Gungahlin. In one move, Andrew Barr has taken away taken away their oval, and taken their backyards as well,” said Shadow Treasurer Brendan Smyth.

“In the new plans, the playing fields are gone, and hundreds of new dwellings will be crammed into the same space. No more kicking footy with the kids on the field, no more barbies in the back yard.

“Why have these suburbs changed halfway through the developments? Who made that decision? Why was the community not consulted and why was this not put forward when the suburbs where planned and sold to those people looking for a family home in a family friendly neighbourhood?

But it’s worth than that, it’s the end of the Australian dream:

“We’re not against greater density, but it has to be planned for, not sprung on people after they have bought in a new suburb. The decision and the process are both a disgrace. This secretive, underhanded move by ACTPLA and Minister Barr could turn the great Australian dream into a never-ending nightmare,” said Mr Smyth.

UPDATE: But wait! One release isn’t enough! Mr Smyth also wants Mr Barr to man up to families!

“I am calling on the Minister to show some guts. I am calling on the Minister to show the families of Gungahlin the same level of interest is showing the inner north. Come out of hiding and explain to the community why this is the right decision for the future of our city

“I look forward to hearing from Mr Barr soon,” Mr Smyth said.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
58 Responses to
No parks for Crace or Casey?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
p1 10:09 am 08 Nov 10

My brother lives in Zetland, a suburb which had arisen in Sydney from what was industrial and warehouse land just south of Redfern. So, from a residential point of view, it was basically a greenfield site.

Even with the cost of land close to the centre of Sydney, and the dodgyness of the NSW government, they get to have ovals and playing field.

jimathome 9:08 am 08 Nov 10

My first post on this forum – and while there are the usual lot of turkeys who want to be negative just for the sake of it, I am pleased to see many posts from reasonable folks who recognise that we do have good facilities and environment in Gungahlin. Compare with many parts of outer Sydney or Melbourne and you wouldn’t want to live anywhere else! Duplication of Gundaroo Road, building Monash Drive, extending Clarrie Hermes Drive and the NBN fibre to all homes will make this a Paradise!

georgesgenitals 10:48 am 04 Nov 10

This is what it seems govco wants to turn Crace into. Still, it’ll fit right in with the rest of Gunghetto.

Gungahlin Al 9:41 am 04 Nov 10

I don’t believe so. Check out the original and then (unofficial) CIC concept plans here:
http://www.gcc.asn.au/News/Planning-development/crace-concept-ditched.html

The concept plan ( http://203.9.249.2/draft-tplan/pdf%20files/Folder%203/2%20Concept%20Plans/2.3%20Crace.pdf ) says:

6.4 Community Facilities
The Concept Plan identifies a community facility site adjacent to the local centre which provides good access to public transport, open space and reinforces a sense of community for the local residents. The site area of the facility will be approximately 6,000m². The actual size and use of this community facility site will be determined at a later stage, associated with estate development planning. The use of this site will be consistent with those permitted uses identified in the Territory Plan for Community Facilities Land Use Policy areas.
In addition, other possible community facility sites may be identified within the open space system for those facilities requiring a smaller land take, such as scout and community halls.
Demonstrated demand for the development of these sites will be established in later detailed planning stages and will need to be consistent with the Territory Plan.

There is also this, which is subject of the amendment:

6.5 Open Space Provision
The Crace Concept Plan contains a hierarchy of open spaces totalling about 48Ha serving
different purposes. The spaces are to be provided/ located generally in accordance with
Important Planning Requirements and the Concept Plan.
A neighbourhood playing field (basic sports unit) is also to be provided within the suburb and form part of the open space network. The location of the playing fields is shown in the Important Planning Requirement plan.

Growling Ferret 8:00 am 04 Nov 10

Playing fields in high density residential are essential, and I can’t believe that Barr is getting away with their removal. If there are no playing fields in Crace, Palmerston Oval wwould become the next closest. GunAl – is there a school planned for Crace?

Now for all the slum talk, I hope a few of you watched Kevin McCleods excellent documentary on Dharavi, the slum of Mumbai (on iview if you want to watch it). Gungahlin might be high density living in comparison to the inner north and south of Canberra, but its a long way from a slum.

Want Australian slums? Catch the north going train from Melbourne to Epping – and the dilapidated houses backing on to rail corridors. Go to Redfern, Waterloo and other old inner suburban spots in Sydney. Polluted, overcrowded.

Interesting that today has plans in the CT for a 100m tall residential building in Woden. I’ll wait for the first ‘slum’ call for that…

Gungahlin Al 10:39 pm 03 Nov 10

Oh and I’ve been asked to address a Canberra 2030 planning forum to be held by the Conservation Council Thursday night at Havelock House on exactly this sort of stuff.

Gungahlin Al 10:38 pm 03 Nov 10

Interesting – two front page GCC stories in two weeks, with our comments all in the print editions. But nothing in the cut-down online stories both times…

The issue that seems to have escaped Brendan for this is that these two concept plan changes have the effect of precinct plan amendments. They have no place being stashed away inside a “Technical Amendment” and with just 2 weeks comment period. This is a tool to fast-track minor corrections of errors and largely inconsequential. It is also not in keeping with a commitment given to community councils to discuss significant upcoming amendments beforehand. Further, I have previously discussed with ACTPLA that amendments should clearly state both before and after texts. But there are a number of sections of this amendment that don’t do this, forcing a reader to then dig out the source docs in order to compare the effect of the changes. I’ve discussed all of these concerns with ACTPLA yesterday.

The issue of sports fields is a concern. As the amendment states, it is at the request of TAMS, as they have “changed the requirements”. This is interesting given that it was TAMS’ own study a few years ago that identified that if everything planned for Gungahlin was built, it would still be a 23 hectare shortfall of sports facilities compared to the rest of Canberra. It would seem that faced with such a reality, their solution was to change the requirements. Think about that when you are bitching about how much ‘stuff’ Gungahlin gets.

BTW both Casey and Crace are serviced by single lane roads out.

BTW2 I am not opposed to increased density. In fact no-one has pushed more for increased density in the way of planned apartment complexes in and around town and group centres, nd major transport routes. But this should be in return for reducing the plethora of sausage factory townhouses throughout suburbs, and this phoney war against the suburban backyard. We should not have to be millionaires to have enough yard space to grow veggies or give the kids a trampoline.

miz 7:29 pm 03 Nov 10

I have a cunning plan . . . put people off coming to live in the gorgeous Tuggeranong valley and we will keep our open spaces and get far less urban infill! So yeah, who wants to live in Tuggers, yah boo sux! (*Excellent!* rubs hands together)

PS, a ‘slum’ is defined as an overcrowded street or district inhabited by poor people. (Sounds like ‘affordable housing’ Gunghetto to me!)

Seriously though, the Government needs to have a long, hard look at themselves and get the social and financial into balance. It is currently seriously skewed to the coffer side of things, which makes them very poor managers of this fair city.

MJay 6:17 pm 03 Nov 10

arescarti42 said :

I’d like to know why people think Gungahlin will be a future slum. I’d be putting bets on Tuggeranong,

It’s already a slum.

Just to get in on the suburb debate, it doesn’t get much better than Weetangera. 🙂

random 5:48 pm 03 Nov 10

ThisIsAName said :

* Amend open space provisions to remove requirements for a neighbourhood playing field. As with Casey, minor changes to open space provisions respond to advice from Sport and Recreation Services (Department of Territory and Municipal Services) that a ***landscaped open space be provided for local recreation use instead of a neighbourhood playing field***.

Until they actually show us what the “landscaped open space” looks like, who can say if it’ll be any good?

In principle, I think it’s a great idea. Playing fields are pretty poor for anything other than playing sports that require a lot of space. And a lot of them aren’t even suitable for that — e.g., the surface on my local playing field is so bad that as far as I know no-one has had any sort of match on it in over a decade.

Brendan Smyth might be right about the Australian Dream if he means “all sport, all the time”, but I’d much rather have a nice space where I could sit in the sun and read the paper on a fine Saturday morning, since if I lived in Crace I would hardly have a back garden to do it in.

Enough space (and enough grass) to throw a frisbee around would be nice.

ThisIsAName 5:16 pm 03 Nov 10

MG said :

http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/tools_resources/legislation_plans_registers/plans/territory_plan/current_technical_variations

No. 2010-31.

Looks like it’s true. Comments by 8 Nov.

Casey
? Increase the maximum number of dwellings permitted in the suburb from 1940
to 2600.
? Amend open space provisions to remove requirements for a standalone
playing field.

Crace
? Increase the maximum dwelling number for the suburb from 1200 to 1800
? Amend open space provisions to remove requirements for a neighbourhood
playing field.

Looks like the above post missed the points where the “neighbourhood playing field” would be replaced by “landscaped open space”. Quoting from from the link above, and just on Crace:

Crace concept plan amendments (items 23, 24 and 25)
The following changes are proposed to the Crace concept plan:
* Increase the maximum dwelling number for the suburb from 1200 to 1800, that is, an additional 600 dwellings. The additional dwellings are proposed to provide a range of affordable housing initiatives and housing typologies including multi unit and community title developments

* Amend open space provisions to remove requirements for a neighbourhood playing field. As with Casey, minor changes to open space provisions respond to advice from Sport and Recreation Services (Department of Territory and Municipal Services) that a ***landscaped open space be provided for local recreation use instead of a neighbourhood playing field***.

Maybe this leaves open further possibility for development potential & reducing the area of outdoor space in these suburbs?

sepi 3:52 pm 03 Nov 10

well why did they originally plan for ovals if nooone wants them?

you can’t put an oval back in once you have a built up suburb.

GBT 3:38 pm 03 Nov 10

sepi said :

If these are neighbouring suburbs it is a bit much to cancel both ovals.

And I still want to know what exactly will replace them.

how about something really innovative, like a kids playground with a little white picket fence around it, so that you can actually take more than one small child out to play and let them run around without worrying about the roads.

They’re not neighbouring suburbs. Crace is the bottom of Gungahlin (above Mitchell) and Casey is the top (next to Hall)

The main thing that bothers me is people that don’t even bother to look into things before slandering them. I mean both suburbs still have quite a bit of “green spaces.” Removing the ovals and putting a smaller park next to some apartments isn’t exactly going to turn the suburb into a slum.

The whole slum thing is ridiculous. Canberra doesn’t have any slums and isn’t likely to any time soon. It’s just people trying to make them feel better about where they live by picking on pretty much anything and everything different. Is it that surprising some people don’t want tiny houses on huge blocks and would prefer more manageable backyards? I guess not to some of you with such ridiculous tunnel vision.

Captain RAAF 2:00 pm 03 Nov 10

SolarPowered said :

Sure, P1, but why? Why pick on any suburb at all? It is ridiculous. And you have to admit that the Gungahlin area cops it a fair bit on this site.

From my experience Gungahlin has a lot of interstate people. We have lived all over the place and Canberra just comes off as small minded when I read this shite. I love visiting this web site, but it just makes me sick to read all the geographic snobbery.

Mwah mwah mwaaaah!

If this makes you sick you need to either harden up or go play on news.com!

p1 1:52 pm 03 Nov 10

SolarPowered said :

Sure, P1, but why? Why pick on any suburb at all? It is ridiculous. And you have to admit that the Gungahlin area cops it a fair bit on this site.

Well, in my case, I have spent most of my time in Canberra in Belconnen and so am much more familiar with Gungahlin, and therefore more aware of its downsides (not comparing it to anywhere – every place has it’s downside). Personally I think that most of Gungahlin is nicer then most of the Tuggeranong Valley. For example in Tuggeranong I feel that the town centre is much more isolated from where people live, and not as compact and user friendly.

But I also think that the way new suburbs are being planned in this city has been getting worse. I am all for higher density housing, but think that it needs to be done in ways that don’t make suburbs worse to live in, and places like Crace… well, I guess we will know in 10-15 years.

The picking on is intended to be light hearted banter. Sledging each other about things which should not really be offensive is something of a tradition in this country. Sometime people go to far, or are intentionally mean about it. I’m not trying to be mean, and if I go too far I apologise.

We can still pick on Queanbeyan though yes?

MissPeaches 1:51 pm 03 Nov 10

arescarti42 said :

It is way further out, just look at a map. It is the only district in Canberra located further than 13km from the city.

Anyone who disputes the car dependency of Tuggeranong relative to the rest of Canberra needs to look at this public transportation map from the ABS. Tuggeranong has the lowest public transport usage of any area with the exception of Queanbeyan, which doesn’t have a subsidised bus system.
quote]

I think you are making pretty broad assumptions here that everyone works and commutes to the city from Tuggeranong. In fact I think you’ll find that a lot of people work locally in Tuggeranong and Woden areas and ‘shock’ Gunghalinites will even travel to Tuggeranong for work.

Regardless, this thread isn’t about which area of Canberra is better and IMHO the Tuggeranong and Gungahlin bashing should be discussed in a thread of its own.

sepi 1:47 pm 03 Nov 10

If these are neighbouring suburbs it is a bit much to cancel both ovals.

And I still want to know what exactly will replace them.

how about something really innovative, like a kids playground with a little white picket fence around it, so that you can actually take more than one small child out to play and let them run around without worrying about the roads.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site