His approach suggests he hasn't understood or accepted the community's emphatic rejection of the unsolicited bid, put forward by the GWS Giants and developer Grocon, for a massive overhaul of the precinct.

Community groups rejoiced when the ACT government rejected last year the proposed redevelopment, while saying the knock-back wasn't enough to restore their faith in the territory's planning system.

The proposed $800 million "Manuka Green" project would have seen land around the oval developed for a hotel, serviced apartments, retail, residential and office space.

It would also have bankrolled an $80 million to $100 million upgrade of the oval.

Community members had voiced serious concerns about the impact on heritage, especially the Manuka Pool, traffic congestion in the area, the scale of the development and the unsolicited bid process.

An unsolicited bid is one not requested by the government from a proponent for unique projects of at least $10 million. Those bids have to go through a series of approvals.

In dumping the highly controversial proposal, Mr Barr announced a "panel of community representatives" would advise the government on a detailed masterplan.

He said any development in the area would now be subject to a competitive process.

The panel was cautiously welcomed by those same community groups who opposed the proposal, as they still sought assurances local residents would be represented alongside users of the oval.

Mr Barr said some development at Manuka Oval was necessary to ensure it remained world-standard, but noted the GWS-Grocon proposal had been "outside community expectations".

Under the fresh framework, GWS is still eligible to submit a proposal as part of a competitive process.

Mr Barr also acknowledged last year the community had sent a clear message it wanted to be more involved in the future of the oval and its surroundings.

He said this week his reading of the community response to the GWS-Grocon proposal was that residents wanted the government to drive procurement processes for public assets and mould the nature of such projects.

What the community desires, rather than a government-led process, is a seat at the table to put forward views and raise concerns before such significant planning decisions are made in the first place.

They seek a long-term masterplan process that would allow any development to proceed in a logical, considered way.

Such processes should take into account the entire region and not simply a desire to deliver a new or expanded sports stadium or residential apartments.

Communities do not have a right to veto any and all developments in areas where they live. But when decisions are being made that impact on their neighbourhoods, property values, traffic conditions and infrastructure, they are entitled to have their views heard.