Money from the Federal Better Cities program intended to fix up grotty inner suburbs has been siphoned off for greenfields development in the ACT, according to the Watson Community Association.
The association was delivering its response to the ACT Government’s preliminary assessment for residential development of North Watson.
The association said the ACT’s application for about $15 million in Federal money had been crafted in a way to meet the Better Cities guidelines, but not its intention. Costly sewerage improvements nominally for urban renewal in North Canberra would in fact be mainly used by greenfields development in east and south Gungahlin and by new residential development in North Watson.
The association argues that North Watson is not an urban renewal project anyway, but a greenfields development on the fringe of the city.
It said the changes to the phasing of Gungahlin (developing the south and east first) and the development of North Watson would enable the ACT bureaucracy to argue that Monash Drive via Stirling Avenue/Mount Ainslie and the Majura foothills should go ahead (as planners had long ago indicated) and that John Dedman Drive in the west would not be needed. This would be because the centre of population would swing east.
The main reason the ACT Government wanted to develop North Watson was because it would help the ACT qualify for Better Cities money to upgrade the sewerage works. This would enable the earlier and cheaper development of south and east Gungahlin and would enable greater infill in inner North Canberra suburbs at a lower cost to developers. There would be no guarantee that the money would flow through in the form of cheaper housing rather than providing higher profit margins for developers.
The the main reduction in North Canberra population over the years had been children. The number of adults had remained fairly static. To now increase the population would result in over-crowding of adult services, notably roads and shops.
The association rejected the assumptions of the Government’s plan, saying it was based on a Melbourne study and had optimistic forecasts of economic savings and wrong assumptions about public-transport use. Rather than put housing on what was presently commercial land, it should put the housing in a new area in Gungahlin. North Watson development would result in reduced public assets by about $10 million more than if the houses were put at Gungahlin.
The association drew on Industries Commission information to show that the economic and social benefits of urban consolidation were illusory.
It said the plan had been driven by agencies such as the ACT Schools Authority, ACTEW and ACTION to reduce operational costs at the expense of the amenity of the residents. It was arrogant for government to say higher density living was preferred.
“”It means lower standard schools and roads, reduced open space. more crime, vandalism and a reduced sense of security. and woud generate a major and unjustifiable windfall to private developers,” the response said.
Urban consolidation was essentially about reducing people’s living space.
The association rejected any “”not-in-my-backyard” accusation, saying the issues it raised were matter of importance for all Canberrans, the way the city was planned and the way people lived.
The executive director of the Conservation Council of the South-East Region and Canberra, Rodney Falconer said the council agreed with many of the prinicples of urban renewal. However, North Watson was so sparsely populated that it could hardly be called urban renewal. He said the Government had failed to publish any outline of theprogram, including potential target areas and dates.
He criticised the lack of third-party appeals in planning decisions and the failure to capitalise on a well-informed and potentially sympathetic community by using good model developments instead of mediocre or flawed precedents.
He said the council was concerned that North Watson could go ahead with adequate improvement of supporting community facilities.