Future site use

The majority of people who took part in the consultation process selected option 1.

e.g. retain the site as open space.

Thanks for your input, we certainly value all comments in this process and welcome open discussion.

Cheers

Chris Wark (GHD Stakeholder Solutions)

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.

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 idea that medium-density housing represents the ideal 'solution' for the Melrose site is bizarre (unless you're a government looking for easy money). And it begs the question: if this is the solution, what 'problem' is it attempting to solve? The problem of open, green space? As a mother of two small children, I don't find that a problem.

It was bad enough that Melrose Primary School was axed (my children no longer have the option of walking to school - something the ACT government seems to consider an outrageous desire). But if the new community facilities - which would seem a good use of the buildings - are to be ringed by medium-density housing, I would be genuinely angry, and would express this to the government in whichever way I could (at the ballot box is always a nice option). Perhaps residents in my 'demographic profile' have been a little overlooked in this process, and our voices not heard? I'd be happy to attend a community meeting on these issues, if the government could just send someone 'round to bath my toddler, feed the baby, get them both to bed and then cook dinner. No? Thought not.

So, online participation is the best I can do. But rest assured - the fact that I am typing, rather than expressing myself at a meeting, is no indication of any lack of feeling about this matter. Once the open spaces in Chifley are gone, we'll never get them back. Some people are holding out hope that the old school buildings might one day be returned to their former use. But a primary school with no playground, surrounded by units? That'll never happen. If we get this wrong now (and the Purdon recommendation is the wrong option), we will never be able to correct the mistake.

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.

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.

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 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 by the Government.

For years we have had to put up with the units the other side of Hindmarsh Drive in Lyons.

We have been broken into three times, constantly hear fights in the park opposite our home, smashed bottles on a regular basis, cannot walk in this area at night, syringes and other drug gear in the park and on several occasions suffered abuse by drunks. You only have to walk around the Lyons units to realise that this is where a lot of the problems originate.

To add further housing along the lines of those in Lyons would just make our problem worse.

Like a lot of people in this suburb we have reached a stage where we feel that the ACT Govt. literally doesn't give a dam about us. In other words we are probably wasting our time even sending this in.

It would be nice if this time you would have a very close look at our suburb before someone who doesn't live here makes a decision that causes further problems.