The 1255-dwelling North Watson development would save the community $13 million, according to the Minister for Environment, Land and Planning, Bill Wood.
Mr Wood has referred to the development to an Assembly committee for further public comment.
The Watson Community Association, however, disputed his costings yesterday.
Mr Wood said the development would be done with very little spending on social infrastructure. He likened it to North Lyneham which had a population of 2000 in a new extension to an old suburb. It had very limited social infrastructure, like schools, medical facilities or community hall. Rather it efficiently used nearby existing infrastructure.
Mr Wood said the Watson plan had already be varied after community input. He re-iterated changes made late last year about greater buffer zones and zones to promote tourism and a gateway to the city on the Federal Highway.
Mr Wood’s costings with doing Watson rather than putting the extra dwellings at Gungahlin as follows:
Gungahlin social infrastructure was $290 million for 30,000 dwellings. On that basis, the social infrastructure for 1255 dwellings would cost $12.2 million. But at Watson it will in fact be $1.9 million _ a saving of $10.3 million.
A further saving would be made on the difference in physical infrastructure costs (roads and the like) of $1.9 million. And $0.6 million would be saved in government estate costs.
In sum, 1255 dwellings at North Watson would cost $16.2 million compared to $29.1 million at Gungahlin _ a saving of $12.9 million. This did not account for a further $7.8 million the ACT Government would get from the Better Cities program for developing North Watson as an in-fill site.
The community association says Mr Wood has over-stated Gungahlin costs and under-stated North Watson.
He had not listened to community views since late last year after the revisions were announced, spokesperson Julie Smith said. The community was still dissatisfied with the revised announcement and the pressure it would put on Watson schools, shops and roads.
“”It makes a mockery of the Chief Minister’s statement in December last year that “North Watson would only go ahead if it had broad community support’,” the statement said.
That support did not just mean the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Association, building unions, the Chamber of Commerce and the Ainslie Football Club.
Every public meeting on Watson had been attended by hundreds of people expressing concern at the development. These meetings have been held both before and after the revision to the plan.
“”North Watson does not stop urban sprawl; it is urban sprawl,” Ms Smith said.
She said the Government had failed to get a proper return on community land assets by failing to levy proper betterment charges when land use changed.
“”It is no surprise that joint-venture partners are queuing up to get into bed with the Government on these projects,” she said.
Mr Wood argues, however, that many residents and lessees approve of the development, saying the current uses on the site are a mish-mash with a lot fenced off, unkempt, unavailable to the community and not a good gateway to the city.
In response to community feeling, the Government had done a lot of work on ecological studies in the new area and on parking, traffic, schooling and shopping demands in the existing area, he said. With the development, the old Watson would not be much different from other areas in Canberra. Traffic calming, in consultation with the community would ensure the old area was not a thoroughfare.
The buffer between them (which in earlier plans had been designated for Monash Drive) was now to be something like Haig Park.
On another planning issue, the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, Bob Chynoweth, announced last week that the committee would seek a private briefing from the National Capital Planning Committee on Acton Peninsula.
He said the committee had received letters expressing concern, especially about the placement of a hospice on the site. Letter had suggested the placement might be unwise, considering land use on the whole peninsula might change.
The committee would not have an inquiry into the peninsula until after the NCPA had finalised a draft amendment to the capital plan which was not expected until next year.