When Brindabella Christian College was awarded a Commonwealth grant in 2014 to build a much-needed sports pavilion and outdoor sports courts, administrators faced a conundrum: the only feasible site was on land that is nominally part of the Lyneham Neighbourhood Oval. But since the college was already using part of the oval as a car park (with the ACT government's permission) administrators foresaw few obstacles in siting the development there. But how to get around the pick-up and drop-off issues stemming from the car park's loss – not to mention the proposed sports pavilion's intrusion on to the oval beyond the boundaries of the existing car park.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The BCC conceived a plan to apply to for an enlargement of its existing sublease of 7769 square metres to 11,178 square metres to allow for the pavilion's spill on to the oval and to upgrade public car parking along Brigalow Street to accommodate about 145 car spaces. To enable the proposal's acceptance by government and the public, the BCC proposed that the pavilion would be available for use by students from the nearby Lyneham High School, the Lyneham Primary School and the community (by negotiation) and that the upgraded car park would improve community safety and amenity in a heavily trafficked area where set-downs and pick-ups were problematic. Additionally, the school proposed recommissioning the oval's irrigation system (shut down in the drought of the early 2000s) to enhance its amenity and public use.
It might be imagined the BCC's development application, having been prepared very much with "public benefits" in mind, would be untroubled by naysayers. The ACT government endorsed it without demur. But Lyneham residents were not won over so easily; indeed many were angered at news of the DA. Undaunted, the BCC revised the pavilion design (adding an external barbecue for public use) and proposed that landscaping and tree-planting around the car park be expanded and enlarged.
Unfortunately, the BCC's efforts to sell the redevelopment proposal remain inadequate, at least according to concerned residents and parents whose children attend the two nearby public schools. Their objections are four-fold: that the original application lacked transparency, that initial consultations were inadequate, that public open space has been lost to what is essentially a private entity, and that there are no guarantees BCC will abide by its promises to allow public use of the new facilities, or at least in any meaningful sense.
Those at a respectable remove from this dispute might deduce some "nimbyism" in the complaints – even dog-in-the-manger sentiment. BCC students have been deprived of adequate sports facilities for some time, and seeking to stymy their aspirations will strike some as petty. However, the BCC's approach has also lacked subtlety and understanding. Development of any community open space demands judiciousness, and the BCC – having failed to prepare the ground initially and then raised hackles further by saying opponents were engaged in "a deceptive and misleading campaign" – has veered off script. Without persuasive and logical argument to sustain them, good intentions are rarely good enough.
