News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 Community divided on Brumbies' plans 

Community divided on Brumbies' plans

24 Nov, 2009 07:03 AM
Have your say on the Brumbies' plans for the Griffith Oval precinct in our poll here.

Opinion was split last night at the first meeting to discuss the Brumbies' plans for the Griffith Oval precinct, with some welcoming them as good for the area and others raising concerns about the loss of local amenity and public space.

An online poll by The Canberra Times was also divided on the issue last night.

The Brumbies have so far released only indicative plans, which may see them build about 150 apartments or townhouses on the site of their current Austin Street offices and the former Canberra South Bowling and Recreation Club, which the Brumbies bought last year for more than $2million.

Consultant town planner Tony Adams said the units might be graduated, starting with lower levels on Austin Street and going up to a maximum three storeys towards Flinders Way. The Brumbies also want to develop their new administration headquarters on Griffith Oval, with sales of the housing bankrolling that development.

There is also provision on their concept plans for a community facility such as a sports medicine centre or child-care centre to be built between Griffith Oval and Oval No2. The Brumbies need approval from the ACT Planning and Land Authority to rezone the bowling club site from leisure and accommodation to medium-density residential.

Griffith Oval would also need to be rezoned from urban open space to restricted access recreation, which allowed ''a range of sport and recreation facilities whether in public or private ownership which may be commercial in nature''.

The ACTPLA has asked the Brumbies to do a planning report to justify the rezonings.

More than 70 people attended last night's information session, including Opposition Leader Zed Seselja.

Captain Cook Crescent resident Lachie McOmish said he was concerned about the general concept of the Government allowing the commercial use of a public asset, such as Griffith Oval, without a competitive tender process first.

Planning Minister Andrew Barr said one might not be required.

''Yes, a direct sale or sub-lease is possible,'' Mr Barr said.

''The Government will consider a proposal to provide the Brumbies greater tenure and management control of the site based on a full assessment of the proposal by the Legislative Assembly planning committee, including feedback the community provides to the Brumbies.''

Brumbies chief executive Andrew Fagan has said it was too early to say if a redeveloped Griffith Oval would be shut off to the public. But he said if the project went ahead, the resulting multimillion-dollar investment might need ''protection''.

''To what extent, I don't know. Whether that actually happens, I don't know. I don't want to say categorically everything will be exactly the same as it is,'' he said.

Consultant landscape architect David Telfer said there were 279 trees in the precinct but it was unknown how many would go until further plans were done.

Barrallier Street resident Belinda Bodman said she was ''all for'' the redevelopment as long as community access to the oval remained. Wells Garden resident Charles O'Hanlon said as long as ''the accommodation footprint was respected'', he believed the development ''would add value to the community''. ''My concern is if the Brumbies did not get what they wanted and they left, we would get untrammelled development and the end result would be a lot worse.''

Another resident who did not want to be named said she believed there was enough open space in the No2 Oval and playground.

''I'm all for what the Brumbies want to do and I wouldn't mind living in one of the apartments.''

Griffith resident Genette Purnell said she was opposed to the development because she didn't have faith in the planning processes.

The second public information session with be held at the former bowling club in Austin Street today from 4pm to 7pm.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
This obsession with sport must stop!Sportspeople earning ten times the average wage should not be supported with taxpayer funds. Taxes should go to need not greed. How dare the pollies consider handing over public resources for private gain. Just another sellout really.
Posted by bo, 24/11/2009 9:12:43 AM
I am uneasy about this proposal. we know these things are open ended and this looks like the thin end of the wedge. Let the Brumbies get their funding from Corporate sponsors if they're such a Canberra asset. I do not buy the argument that the redevelopment will be a boost for the area. It's already one of Canberra's prime locations and values can hardly be boosted higher than they are. We don't need it and are likely to lose one of most valued and attractive recreation areas.
Posted by Resident, 24/11/2009 11:01:34 AM
Who cares. Rugby is not a spectacle anyway. Bring on a Canberra AFL team.
Posted by Micky D, 24/11/2009 11:43:30 AM
Don't forget what the Brumbies put back into the community Bo. As we speak the players are riding bikes from Canberra to Mt. Kosciuszko to raise money for Canberra charities. Besides, who do you think maintains that oval?? The ACT gov or Brumbies, because it's in a hell of a better state than some around Canberra!
Posted by Pip, 24/11/2009 4:43:25 PM
Pip, you are exactly right. Brumbies maintain the 2 Griffith Ovals. The development could only add value to the area and provide more housing- remember, that there is a shortage of houses in Canberra, and more and more people coming in. People need to get over themselves and realise it is good for the community- upgrading of facilities, child care, doctors- everyone benefits in the long run and not just the Brumbies.
Posted by Alex, 24/11/2009 10:10:13 PM
Handing over a public asset to an organisation which has to regularly address suggestions that they may leave for greener pastures is a concern. What redress will the Government have if they leave or fold? I'm also annoyed that they are happy to accept ACT taxpayer funds and use public assets to fund their growth, but refuse to be identified as the "ACT Brumbies". I'd rather see money go towards the Canberra Capitals, Canberra Raiders or any other team that isn't embarrassed to be known as one of us.
Posted by Yuri, 24/11/2009 10:53:51 PM
Why should this be allowed to go ahead. If the Brumbies were wanting to move into property development go and buy a block of land that is zoned for such development and then build on it. Oh, that's right they would not get it for $2 million. As to the Brumbies putting so much back into the community. What a joke. They took $750000 out last year so they better keep riding past Kosciuszko in order to raise enough money to repay that debt
Posted by concerned, 25/11/2009 8:34:59 AM
bo. Go along and see a Brumbies, Riaders or Capitals match and see how much pleasure they give their supporters. I don't go to the ballet or opera but I certainly don't mind supporting it. Better the government stops spending money on redoing the GDE THREE times, does away with 'whimisical road side sculptures' and actually starts giving the community want it wants and not what the government thinks it wants.
Posted by Al, 25/11/2009 5:22:57 PM
Is there any good reason why this long standing public asset this recreational area represents should be handed over to one small group for their profit ? This is PUBLIC ACCESS recreational land and has always been so and should remain so. There is no need to change the zoning of ANY of this land. Rugby is just one community group interest and if the Brumbies were such a fantastic asset to Canberra they would be able to pay their own way. By not being run efficiently as a business, they apparently need to sneak their way into profiting out of a community loss. It is disgraceful for the ACT Government to even allow people to imagine that the recreational lands of a Capital City are supposedly "up for grabs" like this. THE ANSWER IS NO !
Posted by ACT ratepayer, 30/11/2009 10:33:19 PM
The two ovals are a major flood remediation asset.If developed massive flooding could result as we had back in the 70's before the levee banks were built. This could also impact on the ability of residents of Red Hill to extend their houses as doing so would add to the load on the flood canal. If global warming is real then flash flooding willecome much more common. Factor that into the costs of the development
Posted by Lachie, 2/12/2009 5:46:42 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Brumbies chief executive Andrew Fagan on the old bowling greens of the former Canberra South Bowling and Recreation Club. Photo: MELISSA ADAMS
Brumbies chief executive Andrew Fagan on the old bowling greens of the former Canberra South Bowling and Recreation Club. Photo: MELISSA ADAMS

Most popular articles

Design competition - click here
 
Canberras newest magazine - read now
 
Click here to enter the art show
 
Canberra Times photo sales - click here
 
Ready, Set. Drive!
 
Classifieds
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...