The following information regarding the status of the residential development proposal by the Federal Golf Club, has been provided by GAHRAG (Garran and Hughes Residents Action Group).
To Fellow Community Groups
I am writing to you on behalf of the Garran and Hughes Residents Action Group (GAHRAG) one of the ten community groups that signed a letter dated 3 July 2016 to Planning Minister, Mick Gentleman, expressing strong concern over another Federal Golf Club (FGC) proposal for a residential development on the golf course, close to the iconic Red Hill Nature Reserve.
OFFER FOR A COMMUNITY PANEL
At a subsequent meeting with the Minister on 26 August 2016, Gary Rake, Deputy Director-General of the Environment and Planning Directorate suggested that a “community panel” was appropriate for this proposed development where key community groups such as yours would be represented on, or participate in, the Panel’s enquiries. Employing a Panel process would present an opportunity to examine alternative proposals to that proposed by FGC.
GAHRAG has been in regular contact with Gary Rake to promote the use of a Panel and continues to receive Gary’s support. It is ACT Government policy (introduced by Minister Gentleman himself) that community panels should be utilised, for major contentious developments, as a preferred alternative to the much criticised “old style” community consultation conducted solely by and for the developer. GAHRAG has formally advised Gary of its wish to proceed with a Panel.
A MAJOR ISSUE HAS ARISEN.
We have now learnt that whilst Gary is laying the groundwork for the use of a Panel, FGC has been pushing full steam ahead finalising its own development proposal and planning its own “old style” public consultation commencing in March as a final step before actually lodging the Development Application of Club’s February 2017 “Development Update”. We can only surmise that FGC does not want a community panel to examine this development, to ask questions, and to look at potential alternatives. If this is allowed to happen, the community will undoubtedly be faced with a fait accompli where major parameters for the development have all been locked in and the capacity for any change limited. There has always been concern that there are many flaws in the FGC scheme and that it does not achieve the necessary balance or compromise required to satisfy community and resident concerns.
WHY IS THIS PROPOSAL SO SENSITIVE.
You will no doubt remember the many past failures of FGC to obtain approval for previous development schemes were primarily due to the environmental impacts that any development would have on the Red Hill Reserve, particularly the endangered red gum yellow box grassy woodland community located both within the Reserve and within the boundaries of the golf course. The proposed scale of the development is huge with 120 residences covering 5.7ha. This will result in a wide range of direct and indirect environmental and social impacts both on the golf course and in the surrounding region.
The present access arrangements to the Club via the Red Hill Lookout road, which cuts through the Reserve and is in a bushfire zone, is anything but ideal. The new development will utilise this road necessitating a significant widening and upgrade and resulting in much increased traffic flows with resultant impacts on walkers and cyclists who use the area along with the Reserve and its wildlife. We understand the Club is already contemplating an increase in the size of the development should the ACT Government require it to pay for the upgrades to the access road and the Lease Variation Charge. It has remained a key feature of the Club’s platform that its $18m profit expectation remains untouched.
Many consider this development only the tip of the iceberg and a precursor to much more development on the golf course in the future. The number of additional residences required to cover road improvements and betterment has not been disclosed but could well be very substantial. Additional units will themselves only add further to the amount of betterment payable. One ponders why the community is being asked to consider and comment on a development that lacks so much detail on fundamental financial and political considerations and questions that could well impact on the very feasibility of the development.
HOW THE FGC PROPOSAL HAS PROCEEDED.
The FGC proposal was based on a low budget, 2013 planning report, “A T Adams Consulting, Redevelopment Options Report, Block1 Section 56 Red Hill”, funded by ACT Government and provided by town planner, Tony Adams in the context of supplying FGC options to compensate for any lost poker machine revenue. It was produced with no community consultation whatsoever. Since that date FGC has closely mirrored that option recommended in the Adams model and ignored numerous objections from residents, including a fully documented recommendation to FGC that this proposal should not proceed to a ratification vote of club members. This was rejected by FGC.
GAHRAG initiated a “compromise proposal” in early August last year that was fully documented and included a revised development location plan and suggested changes to the Course layout that would remove a number of the community concerns. We have not received any response whatsoever from the Club.
RIGOROUS ASSESSMENT REQUIRED BEFORE DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS ARE SOUGHT.
I trust I am accurate in stating that at the meeting with Minister Gentleman, Eric Martin (National Trust) made the point that the sensitivity of the location for this FGC project necessitated extensive impact assessment. In many instances, snap shot assessments would not suffice and more lengthy assessments should take place over time to establish base conditions and parameters. Obviously this advice has not been accepted, as 6 months later we are to be confronted with a full Development Application. It was our observation that the developer was not even aware, until briefed by Dr Michael Mulvaney (of the Red Hill Regenerators), that parts of the course close to the proposed development contained remnants of the endangered red gum and yellow box grassy woodland so important to this special area. It is clear that insufficient work has been done by FGC on the potential impacts of the proposal. This includes the impact on the Red Hill Nature Reserve of the planned upgrade of the Club’s Access Road and the much increased usage of this Road and the Red Hill Lookout Road by new residents. I recall that Gary Kent and the Inner South Canberra Community Council were strongly interested in this matter for a variety of reasons.
A RETIREMENT VILLAGE ON THE GOLF COURSE.
As you may recall the cornerstone of the FGC proposal is the location of a “retirement village” of 120 residences (some multi storey) covering some 5.7ha of golf course land at the termination of the Red Hill Access Road (Gowrie Drive). In addition to the potential environmental and social impacts the proposed location of the “retirement village” is totally unsuitable for retirement type homes as it is remote from basic services such as public transport, community services, medical services, shops, entertainment etc. Furthermore, it will be located in an ACT Emergency Services designated “high bushfire prone area”. In its assessment of the FGC proposal (see “Greens Policy on Course Development”), the Greens stated “if any development was planned for the Course it would seem sensible for it to be located closer to existing infrastructure and services in Garran, Hughes and Woden Town Centre”.
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS NEED TO BE ASSESSED – WHY HAS THIS NOT HAPPENED?
A majority of our members do not dismiss the possibility of some form of “retirement village” on the course provided that all the potential detrimental impacts are properly addressed. Our major concern is the total lack of any meaningful and objective assessment of alternative, more suitable, locations. FGC has only ever presented its preferred scheme and now proposes to consult with stakeholders on that scheme where major parameters for the development have all been locked in and the capacity for any change limited. Community Panels are specifically designed to prevent this sort of outcome. In Gary Rake’s words, community panels are there ‘to ensure that all relevant voices are heard, that all the right questions are asked and that all answers to those questions are robust and reliable.’(GAHRAG correspondence from Gary Rake)
It is clear that FGC have pursued a development that best suits its personal requirements and financial returns. This has not provided a formula for the best possible outcome. It is not acceptable to reject out of hand all possible alternatives some of which may better meet stakeholder and community expectations.
GREENS POLICY ON COURSE DEVELOPMENT.
During the recent ACT Election we received a great deal of feedback from candidates of most parties who had consulted closely with the local community and found there was much disquiet over any planned residential development on the course. In particular the Greens reacted to this and provided us with an official policy position on development on the FGC Lease. It illustrates the faults of the FGC scheme and clearly states the fundamental criteria that should form the basis of any development proposal for the course. It offers alternative solutions that are worthy of consideration and should not be put aside as inconvenient or “too difficult to undertake at this late stage”. Key aspects of the Greens blueprint are:-
- Any residential development (at Federal Golf Course) is “problematic”;
- “The current proposal would have environmental impacts both inside and outside the FGC area”;
- An approved development now could well be followed by further developments later on with worsening impacts on the adjoining Red Hill Nature Reserve;
- The Red Hill access currently used by the FGC “is not suitable for a residential development on the Course”;
- The current proposal is poorly located (too close to Red Hill and the Reserve) and if any development was planned for the Course “it would seem sensible for it to be located closer to existing infrastructure and services in Garran, Hughes and Woden Town Centre”;
- “The impact on existing residents is a key factor and any impact should be minimal…”;
- We “do not believe clubs should be able to make large windfall profits by turning community land into a private asset”;
CONCLUSION.
- Gary Rake, Deputy Director-General of Environment and Planning Directorate has recommended that the FGC development should be the subject of a “community panel”. GAHRAG has formally advised Gary in November last year of its commitment to see a Panel formed and to participate.
- It is now evident that FGC has used the intervening period since the meeting with Minister Gentleman, to push full steam ahead with its proposal to the point that it is finalising its own Development Application and plans its own “old style” public consultation as a final step before actually lodging the Development Application.
- This type of consultation lacks objectivity, is self-serving, has been discredited over past years and has been the subject of ACT Government reform which has led to the use of community panels for recent major developments.
- Accordingly a Panel is the only satisfactory vehicle for taking forward analysis of this significant and contentious proposal. The panel would present an opportunity to examine alternative proposals to that promoted by FGC and “that all the right questions are asked and that all answers to those questions are robust and reliable.” (GAHRAG correspondence from Gary Rake)
- There is an urgent need for interested community groups to make representations right away to help prevent the assessment pathway of the current FGC proposal from avoiding essential and proper process and scrutiny.
- We commend the required use of a community panel to ensure that the FGC proposal is subject to rigorous examination and comprehensive public consultation.