There is a lot more at stake in the current debate about the ACT's planning system than many people realise. If you were to believe some reports, there is currently a fierce battle being waged over a site in Lyons that will somehow influence the shape of our city for years to come.
That site, of course, is the old Burnie Court area opposite the Woden Town Centre. And it is true what happens on this site will have an impact on future planning and development in Canberra but not in the way some critics are suggesting.
It will determine whether innovative, environmentally sustainable and architecturally superior solutions to our inner-urban housing needs become the norm or whether we'll be bogged down by planning conventions which are increasingly inappropriate for a city of international standing in the 21st century.
As is often the case in these matters, the Lyons development has generated a number of mistaken and misleading impressions about what is planned. In the process, that has generated an unnecessary level of community concern.
In her article ''Growing growl on Lyons site''' (June 1, p9), Dr Jenny Stewart portrays this as ''another round in the residents versus developer battles that break out periodically in our city''.
In fact, following an exhaustive round of public consultations, the Woden Valley Community Council's planning expert Gina Pinkas recently told the ACT Public Works Committee it was ''one of the best consultations she had experienced''. This hardly suggests a community at war with a developer.
It is true that the council opposes plans for a 10-storey residential building on the corner of Melrose Drive and Launceston Street. (It is actually nine storeys of residential accommodation with the ''extra'' storey being a partial basement car park.) It's also true that the joint-venture partners in the development Hindmarsh and the ACT Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services as well as the ACT Planning and Land Authority believe the Territory Plan should be amended to allow construction of the nine-storey building.
Not only will it provide a landmark entry to the suburb, it will also balance the current and future high-rise construction within the Town Centre, including two 17-storey towers proposed for the Woden Tradesmen's Club site directly opposite.
Furthermore, it means other buildings to be constructed on the site along Melrose Drive can be limited to between three and five storeys (excluding basements), thus avoiding the ''walled'' effect of which Stewart complains. Importantly, the amount of open green space on the site can be maximised while meeting the sustainability objectives of the Canberra Spatial Plan.
Some critics have argued that if the Territory Plan variation is approved, there will be much greater density on the site. They seem unaware that the development is restricted to 240 residential units under any development scenario the same number as the original Burnie Court complex.
Stewart, the vice-chair of the Woden Valley Community Council (a fact not mentioned in her article), also suggests that ''no one would have objected to a redevelopment of the site that produced more upmarket versions of the [three-storey] units that used to be there''.
In the present environment, why replicate anything that simply reproduces the original Burnie Court as opposed to providing a wider range of housing choice?
Much of the site has been devoted to single-storey dwellings, not only to cater for retirees but also, as ACTPLA's Neil Savery told the Public Works Committee, in response to community concerns about the density of the development adjacent to the existing residential area in Lyons.
There have been suggestions also that a significant proportion of the site will again be set aside for public housing. This is simply not true. What is correct is that there will be a small number of community housing units sprinkled throughout the non-retirement section of the development.
That is not to say the development won't make a significant contribution to the supply of public housing in the ACT quite the opposite, which raises the final and most important point.
As already mentioned, the development is a joint venture between a private developer and the ACT Government. Yes, there is a commercial reality to this. The profits will be shared between the two parties. Importantly, on the Government's side those profits will be invested back into public housing elsewhere in the ACT. In other words, the more successful this development, the more the public stands to gain.
However, this debate is not really about Lyons. It is about the viability of a partnership model between the public and private sector which offers the promise of long-term, ongoing benefit to the Canberra community. If it becomes too difficult politically or financially unviable both sides will be wary of entering into this type of joint venture arrangement in future. And if that occurs, it's ultimately the community which will lose.
That is why there is a lot more at stake in the current debate than many people realise.
John Hindmarsh is executive chairman of Hindmarsh and adjunct professor of building and construction at the University of Canberra.
Email a friend