Sign In
or Create a new account
Future site use
The Purdon & Associates report made certain recommendations regarding the future use options for the community site? Which option do you prefer?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Relates to
document:
Melrose Final Site Report (2.592 MB)
Comment 1 7 Jun 2008, 5:54 PM
The majority of people who took part in the consultation process selected option 1.
e.g. retain the site as open space.
Comment 1.1 8 Jun 2008, 5:20 PM
I agree, we should not give up our precious open space
Comment 1.2 23 Jun 2008, 6:21 PM
Changes to the zoning in Chifley over the past few years (over half is zoned 410 - allowing dual occupancy) means that the very nature of Chifley is going to change dramatically. The traffic study (if you could call it that) done by Maunsell's was sketchy to say the least. Any residential development on the land surrounding the school buildings would not be good. If ACT Housing gets hold of it watch out for anothe Melba Flats or Burnie Court!!
Comment 2 8 Jun 2008, 11:28 AM
Thanks for your input, we certainly value all comments in this process and welcome open discussion.
Cheers
Chris Wark (GHD Stakeholder Solutions)
Comment 3 9 Jun 2008, 2:00 PM
I noticed in the report that most residents wanted option 1 so that buildings are retained for community space (including a child care centre or school if it is needed in future) and to retain the open space surrounding the school buildings for community use too.
I notice also that residents had shown some support for aged care accommodation (although not as popular as retaining for community use).
There does not seem to be enough justification in the consultant report to sell off the surrounding land for medium density residential development (not even specifically aged care accommodation). I am very disappointed that this is the recommendation going to the ACT Government, after all the effort put into telling the consultants what the community wants.
Comment 3.1 10 Jun 2008, 9:11 AM
Some of us just want an affordable home emd. This will help.
Comment 3.1.1 15 Jun 2008, 7:32 PM
I understand how you feel ashleyp, unfortunatly with the current land prices in Chifley I just can't see that happening. In the Purdon recommendations they also suggested that any new development "could" be taken up by existing residents who wish to downsize. Again I believe that this is an unrealistic expectation. The reality is that Chifley is a very sought after suburb in the geographical centre of Canberra and unless the ACT Govt. actually controlls the sale price any new development will be sold at market prices. At the moment that is between 400-450K for a three bedroom semi detached.
Comment 3.2 15 Jun 2008, 7:36 PM
In all of the forums that I attended it was never discussed, especially the addition of currently zoned 4E space, (currently disused urban green space) to be added towards the land to be used for residential development. Oh by the way, the Purdon reports recommends building residential units etc NOT aged care. Again, this was not brought up at any meeting I attended, and believe me I attended a few. Cheers
Comment 3.2.1 19 Jun 2008, 6:03 PM
You cant just have all the land as parks, sell some off to fund better services I say.
Comment 4 23 Jun 2008, 1:33 PM
The Purdon report indicates that the 'ageing' population of Chifley is around the same as the Canberra average (24% versus 21%). I can't see a compelling reason for Chifley to be designated a hot-bed of ageing, downsizing babyboomers. Even if it was, why should this population be provided with new housing, on their doorsteps, at the expense of the other three-quarters of the population? And who says that 'older' Canberrans are clamouring for our green spaces to be covered in bricks and concrete?
The recommendation in the report represents, to put it very gently, quite a stretch of the imagination. The more…
Comment 4.1 30 Jun 2008, 2:17 PM
well put,
if you would l;ike to be part of the Chifley Action Group mailing list please send an email to duckthel@grapevine.com.au and I will explain who I am and what I do. cheers Louise
Comment 5 23 Jul 2008, 9:21 AM
The GDH summary of the Melrose forum is reasonable, but it doesn't reflect our tables view. Our table said if there was to be development we didn't want single use development, ie only aged care or only affordable housing.
We said we wanted it to be mixed residential, multi generational that would attract families into the suburb.
Please make sure this view is reflected in the summary to government.
Comment 6 23 Jul 2008, 4:26 PM
I simply don't understand, our voices are not and in all probability will not be heard. We can shout all we like but it will fall on deaf ears. I see this meeting/consultation we participated in recently as gratuitiously including us as 'just part of the process'so the government could not be accused of excluding us. The minds of the mindless are already made up and have been for some time. We all know the drill! I am and have never been open to urban infill.
Comment 7 24 Jul 2008, 2:23 PM
I haven't had time to read the report and probably wont have time before the 31 July cut off for feedback (I have a demanding 3 month old to look after) but wanted to express my strong view that the site should be retained as open/community space.
Also, in relation to the use of the site for a community park and the recent building of the playground, it would be really great if picnic tables were included near the site (possibly even bbq facilities) so families can use the areas for picnics etc.
Comment 8 28 Jul 2008, 5:58 PM
COMMENT EMAILED TO ADMIN BY NICK
My wife and I have lived in Renwick St. Chifley since 1966.
It is a great suburb however we are concerned about what the ACT Govt. will do to us if you decide to sell off any remaining land, not required for a health and well being community hub and hall, for residential development.
Chifley is changing at a rapid rate (lots of dual occupancy and redevelopment - units) which is OK but we would be very worried if the left over land adjacent to the former Melrose School was released for low cost housing for rental more…