Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Donating over $1.5 million to 350
local Community Groups each year

Protect our national capital heritage

By TheYRA - 2 June 2015 9

Screen Shot 2015-05-29 at 4.43.28 pm

The Yarralumla Residents Association supports the views of senior heritage experts and the Inner South Canberra Community Council, who are urging the Commonwealth to push ahead with recognition of Canberra on the National Heritage List.

As pointed out by the immediate past chairman of the ACT Heritage Council, Duncan Marshall, Canberra has played such a central role in Australia’s story that “you couldn’t have a credible National Heritage List without Canberra on it.”

It is disingenuous to claim that existing ACT Government planning rules will be sufficient to protect nationally significant areas in Canberra. The ACT Government has shown an appetite to sweep aside its own planning rules and policies to progress particular developments.

Look no further than the proposed Brickworks and environs development proposal. The ACT Government’s Land Development Agency (LDA) plans to build a road that will cut off up to 20 percent of heritage listed Dunrossil Drive that leads to Government House, fell up to 30 of the heritage listed elm trees on that Drive, demolish ridges on either side of the entrance to the Drive, and defile the landscape setting through massive earthworks. In other words, it shows no respect for the national significance of that place, which is the setting for the home of Australia’s head of state.

It is worrying that there are moves to try to reduce the planning responsibilities of the National Capital Authority (NCA) vis-à-vis the ACT Government. An exposure draft of a revised National Capital Plan will be released on 3 June. We expect that the ACT Government will seek to maximize its planning responsibilities through this process. If the NCA’s role is watered down, and the heritage listing of Canberra is not approved, there will be nothing to stop open slather on the core fabric of the national capital.

For these reasons, the Yarralumla Residents Association supports the heritage listing of those parts of Canberra that make it the unique national capital that it is, and that contribute also to its global significance.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
9 Responses to
Protect our national capital heritage
TheYRA 2:38 pm 04 Jun 15

Kim F said :

I note that the tree removal from Dunrossil Dr started according to schedule but not a solitary tree has been replanted since. The whole redevelopment looks hideous and the expense of another flyover over Adelaide Ave ??? Please!

Tree planting in Dunrossil Drive commenced last week.

Acton 11:50 am 04 Jun 15

Maya123 said :

I rarely go there for recreation, so I can’t be included in that claim, “we all use it for recreation”. We don’t all use it; in fact I would say most of us rarely use it for recreation.
While the federal government continues to increase the population, we do need infill. If you don’t want infill and increased residents in your suburb, lobby against the large immigration numbers.

I may not go to Kakadu, Antarctica or the Serengeti but I wouldn’t want those areas developed. Why? Because I want to know they are there. I may not use all the recreational areas of Canberra, but I wouldn’t want those areas filled in. Why? Because I love an uncrowded Canberra, a city of open spaces, of woodland walking trails and birdlife, cycling paths and views to the distant Brindabellas.

For a liveable city we must retain these green recreation areas within the suburbs, for ALL of us to enjoy, as and when we so choose. Urban infill is not incompatible with a garden city, but must be more creative than simply cramming as many people as possible, into as little space as possible, wherever possible. This development in Yarralumla is dreadful and must be stopped. Think globally, act locally.

The immigration program is not responsible for poorly planned urban developments. That responsibility lies with local government.

TheYRA 10:40 am 04 Jun 15

Acton said :

It is not nimbyism to want to protect your home and local environment from the ravages of a poorly planned, money grabbing development aimed at subsidising a white elephant to the north.

Yarralumla is an iconic leafy suburb of Canberra. It belongs to all of us because even if we don’t live there we all use it for recreation. We walk, jog and drive through it, admiring the changing autumn colours, the views, the green spaces, the range of housing and appreciating it is there, in our liveable city, just the way it is.

Yarralumla and the brickworks is an area of local beauty and significance. It’s of heritage value to us all, so we all have an interest in protecting it. Indigenous populations anywhere could be accused of being nimbies when protecting their homelands.

The more this local government (backed by its supporters in the Property Council), pushes ahead with plans to build a dense Sydney like mini-suburb of high rise apartments in Yarralumla the more I conclude they are no longer considering or governing in the interests of the people who elected them.

So what to do? The YRA suggests heritage listing. This idea has merit and is worth exploring, but Paul C. has his doubts. He mentions the local elections next year.

From the 2016 election, the Assembly will consist of 25 members, up from the 17 there now.

This seems to be a great opportunity for the Yarralumla Residents Association and the Inner South Canberra Community Council to join forces, pool resources, mobilise supporters and nominate a candidate for election.

Someone who can better reflect and protect the interests of the inner south compared to the mob currently in office.

So what about it YRA?

Polling day for the 2016 election is expected to be 15 October 2016. Plenty of time to organise.

The YRA is not a political organization, but does appreciate the fact that Steve Doszpot and the Liberals have recently released an alternative proposal.

We are also concerned when the Chief Mininster makes statements such as

Quote
The Brickworks Strategy has been designed to improve traffic flow inside Yarralumla, while at the same time reducing “rat running” through Yarralumla’s suburban streets.
End Quote.

The current LDA proposal has a direct link from the Cotter Road to Bentham Street (the Yarralumla Shops). It’s hard to fathom how this will reduce ‘rat running’ through Yarralumla suburban streets.

TheYRA 10:30 am 04 Jun 15

watto23 said :

Kim F said :

I note that the tree removal from Dunrossil Dr started according to schedule but not a solitary tree has been replanted since. The whole redevelopment looks hideous and the expense of another flyover over Adelaide Ave ??? Please!

The flyover came about because the residents complained about the traffic. But now they oppose the flyover also…. Sounds like Nimbyism now. I’m happy for the development to not go ahead and the rates go up accordingly in the suburb to cover the amount of lost revenue the government doesn’t get.
I’m all for opposing ideas that are not sensible, but there needs to be an increase in the housing density of Canberra. we can’t keep building suburbs on the outskirts.

Your reference to the ‘flyover’ is presumably to the Mint Interchange that would take traffic from Weston Creek/Molonglo/Belconnen directly into Deakin without the need to rat-run through Yarralumla. The Mint Interchange would also allow residents of Yarralumla and Deakin to access the Cotter Road if Dudley Street is removed. This is a must if any additional housing is to be built between the Brickworks and the Cotter Road/Adelaide Avenue. We are aware of some objections to the Mint Interchange from residents in Deakin, Forrest, and Red Hill, but the Yarralumla Residents Association has been consistent in its stance that any housing development near the brickworks must also have the Mint Interchange or other major road links to alleviate the already congested Dudley Street/Kent Street bridge roundabout from increased traffic from Weston Creek/Molonglo. This should have been thought about when those suburbs were planned and any development near the brickworks will only exacerbate the problems.

Maya123 6:43 pm 03 Jun 15

Acton said :

Yarralumla is an iconic leafy suburb of Canberra. It belongs to all of us because even if we don’t live there we all use it for recreation. We walk, jog and drive through it, admiring the changing autumn colours, the views, the green spaces, the range of housing and appreciating it is there, in our liveable city, just the way it is.

I rarely go there for recreation, so I can’t be included in that claim, “we all use it for recreation”. We don’t all use it; in fact I would say most of us rarely use it for recreation.
While the federal government continues to increase the population, we do need infill. If you don’t want infill and increased residents in your suburb, lobby against the large immigration numbers.

Acton 5:21 pm 03 Jun 15

It is not nimbyism to want to protect your home and local environment from the ravages of a poorly planned, money grabbing development aimed at subsidising a white elephant to the north.

Yarralumla is an iconic leafy suburb of Canberra. It belongs to all of us because even if we don’t live there we all use it for recreation. We walk, jog and drive through it, admiring the changing autumn colours, the views, the green spaces, the range of housing and appreciating it is there, in our liveable city, just the way it is.

Yarralumla and the brickworks is an area of local beauty and significance. It’s of heritage value to us all, so we all have an interest in protecting it. Indigenous populations anywhere could be accused of being nimbies when protecting their homelands.

The more this local government (backed by its supporters in the Property Council), pushes ahead with plans to build a dense Sydney like mini-suburb of high rise apartments in Yarralumla the more I conclude they are no longer considering or governing in the interests of the people who elected them.

So what to do? The YRA suggests heritage listing. This idea has merit and is worth exploring, but Paul C. has his doubts. He mentions the local elections next year.

From the 2016 election, the Assembly will consist of 25 members, up from the 17 there now.

This seems to be a great opportunity for the Yarralumla Residents Association and the Inner South Canberra Community Council to join forces, pool resources, mobilise supporters and nominate a candidate for election.

Someone who can better reflect and protect the interests of the inner south compared to the mob currently in office.

So what about it YRA?

Polling day for the 2016 election is expected to be 15 October 2016. Plenty of time to organise.

watto23 3:18 pm 03 Jun 15

Kim F said :

I note that the tree removal from Dunrossil Dr started according to schedule but not a solitary tree has been replanted since. The whole redevelopment looks hideous and the expense of another flyover over Adelaide Ave ??? Please!

The flyover came about because the residents complained about the traffic. But now they oppose the flyover also…. Sounds like Nimbyism now. I’m happy for the development to not go ahead and the rates go up accordingly in the suburb to cover the amount of lost revenue the government doesn’t get.
I’m all for opposing ideas that are not sensible, but there needs to be an increase in the housing density of Canberra. we can’t keep building suburbs on the outskirts.

Kim F 1:24 pm 02 Jun 15

I note that the tree removal from Dunrossil Dr started according to schedule but not a solitary tree has been replanted since. The whole redevelopment looks hideous and the expense of another flyover over Adelaide Ave ??? Please!

Paul Costigan 11:29 am 02 Jun 15

I totally agree with the concerns about the development proposed.

However I am not so convinced that the heritage listing is the solution. It would be a tangential band-aid at best to such development issues.

I have little faith in the NCA. I consider that it has passed its use by date. The real problem needs to be addressed – being the ACT Government’s planning and development processes.

Here in Dickson we have had, and continue to have, our fair share of such problems. It comes down to the culture of those in the agencies involved as well as the laissez-faire attitude of the local politicians to these matters. (having said that – we are still surprised by the Dickson Shop decision).

Local elections are next year. Is it timely to suggest that residents should collectively identify the individual Minister most implicated in most of these bad urban development decisions? That candidate should be put last on the ballot paper no matter how else you vote (Greens, Liberal, Labor, Blue Sky Party). The ballot box is a still a democratic tool for change.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site