Community Precinct Public Forum -17 June

Community Precinct Public Forum -17 June

Sport & Recreation Services (S&RS) have advised the time and date for the community consultation forum about updated proposals from BCC for development on the Lyneham Neighbourhood Oval and the proposed wider ‘Community Precinct’.

Wednesday, 17th June 7:00 – 9:00 pm
Lyneham High School, School Hall, 61 Goodwin St, Lyneham, ACT

To quote from the email sent today by Jenny Priest, Director S&RS:
… if you would like to participate in consultation with the Lyneham Community about a draft revised proposal by the Brindabella Christian College (BCC), to recommission the Lyneham Neighbourhood Oval for formal hire and use by the community, including the construction of a sports pavilion and associated carparking….”

Considerable work has also been progressed, in discussion with the Lyneham Community Association, to develop a draft ‘Lyneham Community Precinct Strategy’. The draft strategy is cognisant of a range of concerns raised at a meeting with the community in November 2014 and has been developed to provide an all important context, including clear values and objectives for the Lyneham Neighbourhood Oval and its immediate surrounds, against which the BCC’s revised proposal has been developed.

We have here a golden opportunity to shape our community’s future by participating in this process and ask you to tell your friends and neighbours about the forum and get them along on the night or to hear their views so you can take them into account as we consider the proposals that will be put to us.

Remember, History belongs to those who show up so be part of another milestone in liveable, loveable Lyneham’s history.

30 Comments

  1. waterwoman

    On my 3rd or 4th reading of documents from the meeting I point out the following:
    BCC will ‘beyond any mandatory requirements.. appropriately upscale the size of onsite tanks and construct a pump station…’ They then say that further measures will ‘also be investigated’. These involve connecting with the existing collection, storage and watering Inner North Reticulation Scheme that waters both the Primary and High School ‘ovals’. My concern is with the next sentence (my own caps);
    ‘IF THESE OPTIONS ARE FEASIBLE BCC will finance the capital cost associated with these works to support the restoration of the adjacent oval.’

    My concern is that IF BCC decides it is not ‘feasible’ then they are still proposing their building, without even having to pay the capital cost as outlined above and we could be looking at a building with NO improved oval AT ALL.
    S&R made it very clear that they do not have the money to finance such restoration. And I assume that from their perspective even an unwatered field with associated toilet blocks that will one day be able to connected to the existing Scheme is better than an unwatered field alone.
    I know more deserving and needy recipients of public land, but I wouldn’t be offering them this.
    The proposal is not safe, has not been negotiated openly. The unexplained matters left over from the meeting remain to be disclosed. What is happening with the notion of rezoning, touched on and supposedly rejected as an option by both S&R and BCC, also mentioned and never reopened for discussion was the concept of ‘ancillary’ and the idea of using this category as a way of changing development track and thereby avoiding PRZ1 restrictions.
    These matters are urgent and in fact I believe these are things LCA should be concerned about for and on behalf of the community. The potential for avoidance of or changing of development zoning, rules or regulations has dire implications for the future of Lyneham.
    Come on, please.
    How many more of these pleas do I need to make? Could someone else please add their voice?

    1. Secretary

      Hello waterwoman,

      We hear your concerns and are seeking to find a viable outcome which perhaps goes some way to setting a future state option for all the matters you, and many others, have raised.
      To decisively move forward we need to take on board the nuances and desires of all parties and take on the wider communitys comments and issues before we resolve to any position, which hopefully provides an outcome which is satisfactory for all.
      As someone, perhaps even famous and intelligent, once said “when everyone with different views is slightly uncomfortable with the decision, then we have a solution” (or something like that).
      Let’s gather our thoughts and try to drive a reasonable outcome where we are perhaps only a little uncomfortable, rather than completely inconsolable. There are plenty of options open for a mediated outcome.

      Regards
      Rich

  2. waterwoman

    As a member of LCA I ask again for the elected committee to declare it’s position. Or advise when they will be declaring their position. As someone who was involved in seeing the formation of LCA I hate to think you’ve forgotten your roots. Don’t be afraid to take a position, just take one. Not everyone will agree, but at least there will be a decision and at least people can then choose to act for themselves instead of waiting for an unknown. Either way, I don’t really care, just DECIDE one way or the other. I don’t see the need for another fence sitting group. PLEASE DECIDE to either support or oppose the BCC /S&R proposal, don’t wait to see what they do. STAND FOR SOMETHING, don’t stand for nothing.

    1. Chair

      waterwoman
      I can understand some parts of your frustration.

      I apologise for not realising that you were involved in the formation of the LCA which is one of the (very minor) drawbacks of the use of screen names for commenting. As a founding member you will recall that there was considerable discussion on our purposes and objectives and ask you to review them as they are set in our rules.

      I, personally as both chair and Denis O’Brien do not believe it is wise to rush into knee jerk reactions, particularly when there has been a high level of emotion involved, so am taking time to look, listen and learn and hear from the many differing voices.

  3. I Walk The Lyneham

    I agree with the previous comments. A very disappointing meeting and no sign that either BCC or Sport and Wreck are really listening to residents.

    What saddened me the most was Shane Rattenbury’s closing speech where he said that he would rather be home watching the State of Origin and that the views of the people in attendance probably didn’t represent the wider views of Lyneham residents who he thought would be untroubled by the development. If that wasn’t enough of an insult, he then went on to say that maintaining the parkland around Lyneham oval wasn’t a priority for him personally and that any work in Lyneham was way down on the Government’s pecking order. What an insult to residents. Are we expected to pay the highest rates in the ACT (if not the country) in return for this sort of contempt? I hope to return the same level of disinterest to the Greens candidate at the next Election.

    I did however feel sorry for the Principal of Rescinderella who seemed genuinely anguished at the slightest hint that she wasn’t doing all of this for the greater good of the community. She seemed a nice but very fragile soul.

    Perhaps the Bible offers a way forward. To quote Matthew 7.6 ” Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

    Maybe the BCC Principal should heed the words of the good Lord and keep the development within BCC’s own private land and leave us ungrateful swine alone. Despite the preaching, us uncultured pigs seem destined to never appreciate BCC’s cultured, community-minded pearls. So please Brindabella, keep the sporting facilities to yourselves lest the ungrateful cries from us oinks cause you more grief.

    1. Chair

      Hi I Walk The Lyneham,
      welcome to our blog and thank you for your feedback it is welcome.

      As I mentioned to Lyneham lover I, and others, heard some of things differently and while your perceptions and understandings of what was said a totally valid so, equally, the perceptions and hearings of others are just as valid. One of my tasks is to listen to, and hear all those different voices.

      Your quote from the bible is interesting and possibly apposite and can I suggest with your broad knowledge of the scriptures you will find some apposite verses that could offer you a way to reflect and take a slightly different view.

      I invite you to take some time for face to face interaction with the LCA and use your obvious talents to help us keeping Lyneham liveable and loveable.

    2. I am disappointed in Walk the Lyenham’s characterisation of my comments. What I actually said was that as much as I would like to have been at home watching State of Origin, I had come out to the meeting because I was so keen to hear the community’s views. And it was a bit tongue in cheek – meant to be a moment of levity in a difficult discussion.

      Please understand that Sports and Recreation Service have spent many months working with the Lyneham Community Association to develop a response to the many issues raised at last years meeting, and that many of those issues are outside the scope of their core business. The presentation given on Wednesday was designed to reflect the broader precinct, and SRS deserve credit for seeking to repair the damage of the orgianl DA.

      As for the prioritisation of Lyneham Oval, I was observing that there is a list of ovals that are not currently irrigated across the city (the water was turned off during the drought of last decade). The order of the list seeks to reflect need. At the moment there are parts of town that need extra ovals more than Lyneham, based on the fact that there are a lot of ovals in the area (Southwell Park, etc). Other parts of the city have less. That does not mean that Lyneham is being ignored.

      I was certainly not disregarding the views in the room, nor did I say that the views of those who attended the meeting was not representative. My observation was that there were perhaps up to a hundred people in the room, but the suburb of Lyneham has more than 3000 residents as well as the communities of the three schools. We need to think about how to best understand all of those views to help us measure community sentiment.

      Hope that clarifies the intent of my comments.

      1. Chair

        Good Afternoon Shane,
        thanks for taking the time to visit our blog and for your comment/clarification.

        I, as one of the moderators, have hesitated to publish some of the comments and, have in some cases asked if commenters if they would like to reconsider their comments. We have also ‘sin binned’ a few.

        Amongst the deluge of emails, my many face to face interactions and some of the comments here I have been very surprised at the interpretations some have of what was said at the meeting and how in some instances are they are completely the opposite of what I heard.

        I acknowledge the courage it took for you and Sport & Rec Services to admit the first round was not ‘done well’ and in particular for Gary Rake to go on the radio and publicly state that. Also we understand that many agencies of government have stepped outside the standard processes to engage with Lyneham Community. Thank you all.

      2. I Walk The Lyneham

        Hi Shane,

        I appreciate your time in reading and responding to my comments. Your points are taken but I have to say that I am still at a loss as to why Sport and Rec are so strongly supporting this project given that, as you say “there are a lot of ovals in the area” and that the proposal doesn’t conform with the ACT’s PRZ1 zoning laws.

        I can appreciate that there is a swag of Commonwealth money tied up in all of this and that your Department would like it to flow to the ACT in some way. However, infrastructure for infrastructure’s sake is not necessarily the way forward. Canberra is already littered with dodgy private developments and tarnished thought bubbles from past administrations.

        I’d like to see you and your colleagues get more excited about bottom-up developments that resonate with people. Braddon is a world exemplar of what can be done if you give locals a chance to build something special (albeit becoming more gentrified every day). As for Lyneham, the Lyneham Commons garden project would be a good place to start. And everyone I know in Lyneham would love to see Sullivan’s Creek restored to a green waterway rather than an ugly storm drain. These may not be what institutions want but they are what people want.

        Yes, I know these things cost money but as a skilled politician, I’m sure you could harness a lot of good will and community support to make them happen. The Lyneham Commons and Lyneham Wetlands show what locals are willing to do through volunteer work and a fund-raising drive is sure to be well-supported by people and local businesses. It just requires vision and coordination through Government. You will also be loved for it – even if you fail.

        Depressingly, I instead see the Government approve ugly high-density housing, predictable mega-shopping centres (Dickson) and an ill-considered (and debilitatingly expensive) light rail. We are told that these developments are needed and that they will create lots of construction jobs in the ACT. However, I thought that the ACT was primarily a white collar town. Are all those sacked public servants now expected to pick up a shovel? These aren’t the sort of jobs the ACT needs. And what happens to these jobs once these constructions finish? We are also told that these developments will be “legacy” projects but I predict the “legacy” will be one of waste and missed opportunity.

        Similarly depressing is that anyone who disagrees is chastised for being short-sighted and not sharing the grand vision or is labelled a Liberal party stooge. But I’m not sure the spin is washing. I can sense a growing discontent from Canberrans who just want to keep the place loveable, liveable and affordable. If we can’t turn to the Greens for this, than who can we turn to?

        By the way, I should disclose my political affiliation. I used to be a rusted-on Labor supporter until the rust got too much. I then switched to the Democrats and became disillusioned. I then switched to the Greens and the same Democrat-style disillusionment is now setting in. For the first time in my life, I am actually thinking of voting Liberal at the next ACT election as they are the only party opposed to the light rail.

  4. Bravo, both Denis O’Brien and Melanie Spencer,
    If people came away confused from the Meeting, that might actually be a sign of some progress! It is better if our community consultations can be mutually respectful, and that folk might listen more, rather than their being too stridently adversarial.
    Having not spoken myself, upon further quiet reflection I now feel that there might soon to be the (wryly amusing) prospect of Lyneham Community Assoc. Inc. actually supporting the Brindabella Christian (amen, Community) College in its need to moderate the most undesirably intrusive elements of the Lyneham Motor Inn commercial redevelopment proposals. Mutual appreciation of people’s repective positions is likely to be more fruitful than the strident grandstanding.
    Of course, some few NIMBY-folk just cannot help demonstrating their own selfishness and/or narrow-minded perspectives, and yet I left the Meeting wondering whether even they might reconsider in time. For example, ACTSRS hasn’t yet resorted to any of those “This site is reserved for future development” signs along Brigalow Street; and neither has SRS flagged any apparent intention to substantively re-zone the so-called “Community Precinct”. As I understood it, what is proposed is within the Oval’s current zoning scope.
    Of course, ACTSRS have sway (direct and indirect) over a huge area of Lyneham, since so much within the designated suburb’s Sullivan’s Creek flats are dedicated to CANBERRAN’s sport and recreation. From the Horses for courses upstream, to Yowani Golf links, to the redeveloped (now more expensive, very commercial) Tennis/ Squash/ spa /etc., precinct, past the Hockey and the Netball and the playing-fields and Archery, downstream to “the Oval” precinct, which too is split by the Creek.
    So much public money has been invested in those upstream sites, that I cannot see much prospect of the Oval being transformed by Ratepayers’ money; in default, better that BCC’s fund some limited northern-end improvements.
    I do not disagree that most of Lyneham Oval needs to be retained as open space in perpetuity, particularly for the three district schools that border upon it, and yet there is plenty of that open-space room for Lyneham to share some civil-society extension of the BCC’s educational uses.
    Perhaps the Meeting has promoted that compromise, rather than fuelling the ranting of the NIMBYs ?
    Thanks for your and Melanie’s respectively constructive and respectful stances.
    Cheerio !

    1. Secretary

      Good evening Mr Douglas,
      We appreciate and understand your views, though the deep irony must be stated for all who visit here that your acknowledged desire for a mutually respectful community consultation is proposed by someone who rants much hatred and cynical barbs both on this site and on Twitter against LCA and its various supporters. (Much of which we have chosen not to publish here due to their vitriol)

      You cannot restrain yourself, even in this post, by reverting to type and calling anyone who raises a concern about a genuinely questionable development a ‘NIMBY’.

      The more subdued and considered responses voiced at the meeting was perhaps the fact that this design is modestly revised, there is some small token of community amenity (a bbq), the explanation of need and sharing with LPS/LHS has been better defined and the commitment to restoring the oval is actually recorded, rather than a nuanced pipe dream.

      Still some of these items remain questionable and without any evidence to support them, other than an entirely valid BCC requirement to meet it’s own student needs. We don’t disagree with that, though the only real data we have seen is a highly debatable parking needs assessment.

      That BCC failed to communicate, discuss and sell their vision to Lyneham residents is a major failure on the schools part. Because they saw no need? Perhaps because they have an unerring sense of entitlement to PRZ1 land? 

      To replicate the known outstanding concerns of failure to notify from the original subletting of the carpark again, over this much larger and impactful development, demonstrates a distinct failure of insightful leadership from the BCC board.

      It remains entirely a subjective view of some that the original DA was lodged intentionally as ‘under the radar’ as possible. What does this suggest about the honesty and transparency of the outcome you so stridently support?

      No one has a claim of title to PRZ1 land over and above the citizens of Canberra. This, not the building, is the core issue at stake here and that was not adequately discussed. A proposal, not required or requested by any other party, which seeks to redevelop just over 20% of the total PRZ1 space in that lease. For who’s gain and what benefit?

      Your vociferous and disrespectful demands of the ‘right’ to build on public land and claims of NIMBY’ism are contrary to the hard work of some to cautiously protect that land on behalf of all citizens, it is not a challenge the LCA leadership take lightly or with complete disregard to others opinions and desires.

      We are welcoming of a consensual outcome which takes into account the residents’ concerns and needs for the long term future of Lynehams’ recreational open space, and as far as I know, at all meetings and discussions on this matter, the LCA has never formally stated anything differently.

      That we have successfully, if somewhat unwillingly, had to force SRS and BCC to more openly discuss their plans for now and the future demonstrates the good work and goodwill on behalf of Lynehams’ current and future residents, far into the future, that our Chair has assiduously negotiated. 

      On behalf of those who may not even yet be aware they will greatly value this area for its’ amenity and the inherent value it provides, can be recorded as a win for all Lyneham residents and the wider Canberra community.

      Let us find a path forward which respects each others wishes but retains much of the value that many residents place on our shared community space.

      Regards
      Rich

    2. Chair

      Good evening John,
      welcome back, your considered feedback is valued and, admittedly, sometimes with hesitation, is welcome. 🙂

      I also must congratulate you for being one of the few to comment under your own name, presuming that it is your commonly known name.

      There is a considerable amount of deliberation, questioning and negotiation that must happen before the LCA, the broader community and other stakeholders get to a mutually beneficial and appropriate outcome that the local and wider Canberra community can support. There is always the possibility that it will not happen but, at least, for our association we have tried and will continue to do so.

      It is time, I suggest for you to acknowledge, that not all of the members of the LCA, and the wider Lyneham community are not really redneck NIMBY’s or totally opposed to the existence of Brindabella Christian College or it’s students, staff or parents (and grandparents).

      I must also note I am still to work out how I, or anyone else for that matter, can be both a redneck and a NIMBY. One day in the not too distant future we can sit down and enjoy imbibing in a quiet beverage or two, shoot the breeze and discuss that and other deep and meaningless things.

      1. Well Hello Again, Denis,
        Above I began –
        “Bravo, both Denis O’Brien and Melanie Spencer,
        If people came away confused from the Meeting, that might actually be a sign of some progress! ..”
        I am quite gratified that Mr Dean to ‘waterwoman’ says most recently –
        “As someone, perhaps even famous and intelligent, once said “when everyone with different views is slightly uncomfortable with the decision, then we have a solution” (or something like that).”
        That aside, you ask me –
        “It is time, I suggest for you to acknowledge, that not all of the members of the LCA, ..”
        I did write carefully above –
        “Of course, some few NIMBY-folk just cannot help demonstrating their own selfishness and/or narrow-minded perspectives, and yet I left the Meeting wondering whether even they might reconsider in time.”
        PLEASE NOTE that I did NOT assert that those SOME FEW were LCA inc. Members. I said “some few NIMBY-folk”.
        I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM is agreeing that I acknowledge that not all of the members of the LCA are NIMBYs.
        I leave you (and Mr Dean) to struggle with your Members’ respective stances.
        I began “Bravo” , and I ended “Congratulations” to you Chair Denis, and to Ms Spencer BOTH, for your mutual regard and consideration.
        Cheerio ! John Douglas – and yes, my two real names, Denis, and I have been a Lyneham resident for longer than any LCA Member, I’d reckon. (Not that anyone’s Seniority has anything to do with their comparative wit, or the nub of the issues here.)
        P.S. I am onto a Theme here – Development Proposals should be open to reasonable Public Scrutiny. That being ‘reasonable’ does include my never having asserted that there were more than “some few NIMBYs” at large; and if you care to check back into e.g., The RiotACT website, there have been a couple of rank Bigots about as well. Nothing about LCA Members being either.
        You, Chair and the LCA Committee, now have the singularly unenviable task of trying to reasonably present a ‘community’ viewpoint. There are some few NIMBYs and a couple of Bigots out there in lovely Lyneham; and then there is ME – a thorn in everyone’s side, it seems.
        (Assume I am an Atheist concerned about reasonable free-speech, and likely to tilt Quixotically at NIMBYS and Bigots ! )
        Goodnight, Chair Denis. Go well with LCA.

        1. Chair

          Good Afternoon John
          when we finally get to sit down and discuss things over an appropriate beverage or two I am sure we will both come to some different and probably surprising understandings

  5. waterwoman

    I came away from the meeting saddened.

    Question: Does LCA support or oppose the BCC/S&R proposed development?
    If the LCA does not want to take a position either way then please tell us ASAP. Those of us who are clear about our positions need to be able to form a lobby group that supports our view.

    Campaign time for those who oppose.

    1. Chair

      good evening waterwoman,
      welcome back I am not being trite when I say that I am sad that you left saddened.

      Your question on where the LCA stands will be answered in due course as I, and members of the committee, take time to reflect on and take in the comments here, the many emails that have been generated and the face to face conversations that have happened over the last 3 days or so.

      Campaign time for those who oppose and time for a long term strategy for those that wish to maintain and enhance a liveable, loveable Lyneham

      You are more than welcome, and it is your right and privilege, to protest long and loud whether the LCA as a whole and others in the wider community agree with or support your protests only time will tell.

      1. waterwoman

        Chair,
        Your implication is that it’s an either/or proposition. Choose to be one who campaigns to oppose OR choose to be one who wants to maintain and enhance a liveable loveable Lyneham. I really hope you DID NOT mean to say that. Your highlighted ‘long and loud’ seems to indicate that you only think of a campaign in those terms. I recently came across an interesting group in the US who use many different tactics to ‘campaign’ I thought maybe you might find them interesting?? Have a look at the first 3 actions, and the outcomes. Maybe read about their organisation.
        http://www.adapt.org/reports.local
        It is quite possible to argue against private use of public land now and in fact by doing so, even be contributing to maintaining and enhancing the long term outlook for Lyneham.
        One BIG question. Why should Lyneham residents support the proposed development?

        1. Chair

          waterwoman
          there are difficulties (at least for me maybe) in communicating all the nuances with only the written word in forums such as this. It was unintended to imply it is a this or that only choice. There are a multitude of choices and variations on the better course/s we take to get what we consider is the better long term outcome for the community.

          My (mis?)understanding of the campaign you proposed early was to campaign vigorously to stop any development of any sort on the oval. As I write this I am not sure stopping any development is a) in the longer term interests of the Lyneham Community, b) that is what the wider Lyneham Community wants or c) is in the short, medium or longer term interests of the association and its’ members.

          Later today I and some interested members will thrash some of it out. I am unable to predict an outcome of those discussions on My only attachment to any outcome is that is based on sensible and well thought out discussion of the options.

  6. Lyneham lover

    I attended the community consultation with BCC and the reps of the Dept of Sport this evening. Sadly for Lyneham neighbourhood oval and residents, the overwhelming message I came away with is that the Dept of Sport has no interest or intention of doing anything the rejuvenate the Lyneham community space unless a private entity wants to acquire it for their own purposes and put up the cash – their representative actually Gary Rake stated that there was no plans to do anything unless this (or another?) developer put up the cash.

    I find it tragic that the residents of this lovely older suburb are deemed of lesser value than residents of the newer suburbs, who are the beneficiaries of green spaces designed for the use of the entire community, not a private entity who can afford to buy their own space and develop it (this was acknowledged by the BCC). Adding to this insult, the community of Lyneham (& the ACT) will then be expected to pay rates to cover the utilities and upkeep of a structure that they will only be allowed limited access too.

    I support the rejuvenation of this sadly neglected but much loved and used community green space but not at the cost of selling government land intended for green space and community use to a private entity, no matter their ‘community’ intentions.

    Shame Dept of Sport, shame.

    1. Chair

      Good evening Lyneham lover,
      welcome back

      it is a shame that you went away with that perception but I must accept that is your perception and that is your honest and considered assessment.

      I heard some things differently and that is what often happens in forums such as this particularly when emotions run hot and high.

      1. Lyneham lover

        I heard Gary Rake state that (& I paraphrase)
        * There were no funds for any updating or maintenance of the oval, and a vague reference that the BCC proposal (or another entities) is the only way anything is likely to be done.

        * That there was a crying need for more ovals to accommodate (weekend?) sporting events.

        These statements are at extreme odds with each other. The ACT government let the oval fall into an area unsuitable for formal sporting use, BUT claim there is an overwhelming need for such spaces BUT have no intention/funds to bring it back up to grade. It would be nice to get some clarity from the Minister on these oxymorons.

        Cheers,

        1. Chair

          Hi Again L lover,
          everything is open to several interpretations.

          The ACT government let the oval fall into an area unsuitable for formal sporting use, … it could also be said ‘that due to the ravages of the Millennial Drought, and the higher stage water restrictions, the government took the heartbreaking decision to stop watering a number of ovals’.

          We can seek further clarification however, it is clear that, a) the ACT Government has, and will have for the next three to five years or so, a very tight budget situation b) that the government would love a magic wand that could be waved to re-green all the ovals that were de-watered circa 2002 preferably sometime two or more years ago and c) Lyneham Neighbourhood Oval is prioritised further down the list of 40 or so ovals that were de-watered than many would like.

  7. Lyneham Oval

    Let’s hope this meeting is about the proposed Precinct as much as about a new BCC DA.
    I could hear from over my way, the last meeting was over an hour of BCC self justification and developer drivel, which dragged well on into the night.
    There is no legislative instrument for this so called ‘Precinct’ to provide me any protection, so is this just a placatory diversion to give BCC their building and continue the takeover of my precious grounds?
    The building is now proposed above as a sports pavilion, does this mean the (previously false) pretense of it being any sort of community centre is now completely abandoned? In which case, any DA should be rejected because it is simply an illegal private land grab on my PRZ1.
    Will it include another behemoth carpark to suit noone but BCC?
    There are still so many unanswered questions from the last meeting…. Lyneham Oval is very concerned this is just the same old attempt to take over my grounds which suits a private purpose, disguised under a Trojan horse ‘Precinct’.
    I have already given a large portion as a carpark, and noone asked me. Simply on principle, why should I continue to give my precious space away to a private entity which seeks only to selfishly better itself? And where does it stop?

    Lyneham Oval won’t sleep very well this next week or so….help me citizens and friends of Lyneham !

    1. Chair

      The community is listening to your wistful words dear Oval.

      Trick question, do you have a preference for formal sport as was your lot in time past or have you grown used to ‘casual use’ or even, maybe a judicious mixture?

      1. Lyneham Oval

        The real point here is that someone wants to build a new private building and a huge carpark on me for no COMMUNITY need. If there is a need for more formal hire grounds, then I am happy to provide the level playing field for whatever the PUBLIC want. So where is the evidence?
        There are plenty of social teams already using me for summer and winter sports nearly every weekend, quite happily as far as I can tell. If they had to pay for the use they might just go somewhere else. The free accessibility of my space is currently one of my greatest attractions. No rules, no schedules, no fees, no bureaucracy.
        I cannot forget that I am emblazoned with PRZ1, a Public Open Space, owned by the ratepayers of the ACT. I am not a development site for a private entity.
        That is the burden I carry on behalf of my owners, the Public.

      2. waterwoman

        I am getting more infuriated. Every time ‘formal use’ of this oval is mentioned – I want SRS to show the data for usage of the existing ovals across Mouat St, and prove the need for another ‘formal use’ oval in this area. I cannot believe there are figures and statistics to support any such claims. Watering this oval and keeping it ‘informal’ is quite possible:
        Restoration of creek, with associated collection, cleaning and reuse of some water for oval. This could be incorporated with a roof collection system from the schools.
        Radical idea – some grey water from housing and schools that back onto the park could be directed into a ‘watering system’ that could be part of a storage, cleaning, reuse, return to the environment project as part of a larger ‘creek restoration’ scenario (more an urban water development project perhaps?).
        Building an adventure playground with physically challenging activities for people of all ages and abilities, that functions to encourage informal physical activity in an area with few if any of these style options would be more appropriate in this space.
        Heaps more ideas and suggestions in my head, but will save some of them for later.

        1. Chair

          Hello waterwoman,
          thanks for your constructive thoughts and suggestions.

          The two government schools have inground tanks installed which already take roof/stormwater runoff. I am not aware that BCC does this as yet.

          I understand the frustration about the change of use back to ‘formal use’ as it had been for many years prior to a previous lengthy drought period. I suggest you attend the community forum and hear what S&RS present in relation to the need for formal use sporting space and see if the evidence stacks up

  8. waterwoman

    The words are ‘to recommission the LNO for formal hire and use by the community, including the construction of a sports pavilion and associated carparking.’
    Is this statement saying that the oval is currently ‘out of commission’

    I want to state clearly here (again) that I cannot see it as necessary that there be another oval for formal use in this area.

    Every weekday the ovals across Mouat St are available. There is enough opportunity for organised sports activity. Perhaps a sports pavilion would be more suitable in that arena? If BCC wants to ‘give’ the community a sports pavilion give it where it’s most useful and appropriate.
    The only issue that should arise is access across Mouat St. Perhaps a pedestrian bridge to supplement the existing pedestrian traffic lights could be money better spent? A smaller pavilion and a bridge would enable good use of existing facilities, thus allowing the Lyneham NEIGHBOURHOOD oval to remain for neighbourhood use.

    I have commented elsewhere on how we can improve the whole green space to make it not only pleasant, but also to serve environmental and social issues into the future.

    1. Chair

      Thanks for the feedback waterwoman,
      I guess that as part of the process S&RS (and possibly others) will need to provide the evidence that there is a need for more formal playing fields. As I understand it the possibility that the oval will be ‘rewatered’ in the near future is close to zero while it remains an informal use space.

      One thing that needs to happen is that we all need to rethink and change what is possible.

      1. waterwoman

        I still believe a competition with the local schools to design a water collection from the roofs to water the oval would be a good way to involve the community, educate and ultimately come up with a solution to the dry oval.
        This sort of project has potential in many ways and is more than just a watering solution.

        Please, someone else, suggest something.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Do the sum *