Future site use

Another retirement complex!! Come on guys did you really pay these consultants all that money to recommend retirement complexes on all the sites. Could they have not come up with something a bit more original and useful for the community - business incubators, arts precincts etc??

There is a clear concensus in the community that if the school is to be closed then the land should stay in public hands and be opened up as community space. A mixture of open space, community gardens, off leash dog walking and regeneration for environmental education would be good.

A bit of history...

***Before*** the consultation process even commenced in 2007 , it was stated by the Government at a public meeting (WCCC), that the Rivett site would be demolished because it was dilapidated, or words to that effect, and it will be bulldozed to make way for aged care residential. Reading the site condition report, it was obvious there was some maintenance necessary, but most of it was NOT deemed essential according to the official report. Save Our Schools have recently commented on this:

http://sos.freeforums.org/condition-reports-for-closed-closing-primary-school-sites-t113.html

Purdon Associates were engaged, according to their brief, to run two rounds of consultation, the first of general site possibilities, with NO site specific input taken, but preferred options from the Government for each site presented and, we were told in no uncertain terms, that the Government's position was no addition to public open space would be considered. The second round of consultation followed relating to specific sites. Rivett's consultation was held out of our immediate local precinct at the Weston Creek Community Centre, when it could have been held at the school. If it was held at the school it would have given the community a better idea of the true state of the building's state of repair. By being held at the community centre from about 3:30-5:30pm, it was very difficult for working people, those whom are transport dependent due to disability or health issues, and those with children to attend. The second round of local site consultation was cancelled due to "lack of interest". This apparent "lack of interest" is hardly surprising given how difficult it was made for the community to participate in the consultation.

A partition of over 1100 signatures relating to the Rivett site was tabled in the Legislative Assembly by Deb Foskey MLA on 5 December 2007 supporting the continued use and access to the existing Rivett facilities by the public.

Rivett has no publicly accessible indoor community facilities other than the school. Weston Creek has an identified shortage of indoor recreation areas that are available for use during the day, ie. not operating school sites. This was stated in an ACT Govt Sport and Rec Report. Those who are not particularly mobile, the young, the disabled and the frail cannot easily access any facility outside their immediate local area, ie. travel more than a few hundred metres without being dependent on others. If we move to a planning regime where these groups are being forced to be driven everywhere, more pressure is placed on families and their time, especially with peak oil driving up oil/petrol prices.

Rivett is a relatively young suburb with the second highest suburb population in Weston Creek after Weston, the lowest median house price and a median age of about 37. The biggest age cluster was between 33-35. Naturally, first homeowners are more likely to buy in Rivett for this reason. These factors mean Rivett needs a balance of facilities, which may include aged care, but not at the expense of all other community groups, such as those who currently use the existing hall. Census 2006 revealed the broad mix of people living in Rivett. I hope GHD will carefully analyse the factors in the Conserving a Liveable Environment Across Rivett (CLEAR) submission to the earlier process and the Government.

http://www.clear.org.au/documents/20071203-Clear-FormerSchoolSites.pdf

Because of Rivett's current age demographic and likely increase in the 0-5 population due to young families coming into the area, there may be a need for a smaller school reopening within a decade, while other parts of the facility can continue serving the community in other ways.

Rivett already has four parks with various forms of play equipment, clearly visible with Google Maps. Why do we need another of a similar format when the existing community park facilities appear to be underused? An extension of the highly successful community garden program to Rivett would be much better for building social networks within the suburb and provide a safe an enjoyable environment for the young and young at heart to play.

As crossy states, there could have been more useful possibilities presented, for example, those in the CLEAR submission, which were derived from community input at a public forum held in Rivett in November 2007. The collation of these views gives a good picture of how residents want to see their suburb change to be a better place all.

Most of the existing buildings of the Rivett site have north facing roof space and could provide a large roof area for a local area solar power facility. This is an opportunity to diversify the ACT's economy and make clean power more accessible. This could provide a showcase example in the ACT of local action on a big picture problem. This power could even be used to power any possible co-located aged care facility. Why waste this opportunity?

After all this history, I am left wondering, how this process of community consultation can be considered genuine when the outcome is stated as inevitable before consultation has even commenced? Some restoration of confidence in this process is urgently needed.

I agree with the comments above, especially the idea of utilising that North facing roof for Solar.

It occured to me the other day that there is a lot of embodied energy in such a building and to buldoze it and build again uses a huge amount of energy. I wonder to what extent the planning process takes this into account.

At the same time there is need for greater decentralisation of workplaces. I'm lucky that my 20km commute to work is generally against the traffic when I drive (often ride), but I see the traffic crawling toward Civic Northbound on Caswell Drive (so much for the GDE solving that problem if everyone still drives their car into Civic). Anyway back to the point, the school in it's current form could easily (with a bit of refirb) be used to house several small businesses. This could be mixed in with some community use. I seem to remember years ago Downer's school was used as a small business centre.

Maybe as many of the thrity-somethings in Rivett start to have kids and the school-age population again proves viable (Chapman is over-subscribed so it may be close to viable now) part of the site can be again used for a school. The path ways through the suburb are designed to take children safely to that site, my eldest goes from our home in Rivett to Chapman Pre School but it often means a car journey at least one way as the nearly 2km's can be too much for his younger brother on foot or bike. Had Rivett stayed open they would not have had to cross a road from door to door.

One thing I'd like to have near Rivett shops is a public toilet. This would encourage walking to the shops - in my case the lack of a public toilet makes it increasingly difficult to make the round trip to the shops on foot.

Lots of native birds use this space - I suggest any parkland or gardens should incorporate nesting sites for native birds.

In general I thought the Purdon & Associates report confusing, hard to navigate & I do not support their recommendations.

Of the future use options mentioned at 5.1 of the report (residential care accommodation, retirement complex, child care centre, community activity centre, educational establishment, health facility, place of worship, religious associated use) my preference would be to retain so much of the existing buildings as could be used for child care, community activities or health facilities.

For example, the Site with minimal alteration could be used to provide facilities for the community comparable to KidSafe at Pearce, or as outreach facilities for the MACH (maternal and child health) clinic at Weston. Just for these two community services, the parking and access at their current locations is poor and likely to get worse rather than better, with upcoming commercial development (e.g. refurbishment to Cooleman Court).

In conclusion, I was disappointed with the narrow approach/ recommendations of the Purdon & Associates Report and shudder to think how much they money they were able to extract from the ACT government (and by extension from us as ACT residents & ratepayers) for a report that seems to be based on a template from "Dodgy Consultants R Us" and prepared as a sop to local developers.

I instead support the consensus approach as circulated by CLEAR, as their community driven proposal seems to take into account greener and forward-thinking considerations which reflect real 'grass roots' consultation with local residents.