The Franklin River in Tasmania is almost the only river in the temperate world that flows from its source to its mouth through wilderness, undammed, mighty and free. It is a great tribute to Australian society that its heritage value has been recognised and the river and its surrounds preserved for posterity. Its preservation was achieved through World Heritage listing and Federal legislation. Its heritage value is now well recognised.
How bizarre, then, that a man-made dam across a creek in a recently man-made city should be considered as a matter of heritage. The proposal by Labor MLA David Lamont to seek heritage listing (albeit not on a world but local listing) for Lake Ginninderra is perverse. Lake Ginninderra (created by the damming of Ginninderra Creek in the mid-1970s) has about as much heritage value as a three-bedroom brick-veneer with en-suite bungalow in western Sydney.
Sure, it is a pleasant lake with great community amenity. But let’s not confuse our values here. Heritage is about irreplacable things of historic, geographic and cultural value. Mr Lamont’s proposal does not enhance the value of the lake; rather it devalues heritage.
Even his choice of words in putting forward his heritage proposal is a betrayal of genuine conservation value: he wants Lake Ginninderra to be “”set in concrete as an area for the enjoyment of Canberra residents.” Setting things in concrete, particularly in relation to dammed watercourses is hardly a way to describe heritage areas.
All Mr Lamont can achieve by getting the area listed under ACT heritage law is to put another obstacle before anyone who wants to put a development near the shores of the lake. Even then, under heritage law, it can be over-ridden because heritage authorities have only advisory powers. Those powers are important with respect to places such as Blundell’s Cottage or other historic buildings or the Aboriginal sites near Yankee Hat, but to attempt to apply them to Lake Ginninderra will only devalue them.
Essentially, Lake Ginninderra is an urban planning issue; not a heritage one. A balance must be struck between development and parkland use. In its urban context the lake can fulfil both purposes for the benefit of all Canberra residents. Suitable development at the southern (Belconnen Town Centre) end can enhance public amenity, even if it is of a private-enterprise nature: lakeshore restaurants come immediately to mind. That will still leave plenty of room for parkland on the western arm, embracing some eight kilometres of cycleways, woodland, barbecue areas and other parkland. Even then the eastern arm remains undeveloped rural swamp (wetlands, in modern parlance).
To deny sensible development around a couple of kilometres of southern shore on the grounds of “”heritage”, is a misuse of the word and humbug.