It seems like a good idea at the time.

Opinion by Dave Richards

This could be a watershed year for Alice Springs: how it looks, how it feels, and where it’s going.

Decisions will be made that will influence both the way people live here, and the face we show the world.

Advocates of eased building height restrictions have said planning for the future is a matter of going “upwards” or “outwards”, but the proposal to develop the former Arid Zone Research Institute south of  Heavitree Gap, clearly demonstrates it may well be both.

I am one who believes towns can actually be overplanned, ending up with an excessively ordered layout in which everything works like clockwork, and as a result has the monotony of clockwork.

Towns on the frontier face the opposite dilemma. Settled wherever people lay their hats, their spurts of growth and development occur equally haphazardly, catching governments and residents on the hop.

With more knowledge of nature’s way, for example,  we might have built back further back from the Todd, or at least insisted that Eastsiders  and  traders build like Queenslanders if they wanted to be close to the river.

True, we might also have lost some of that “old Eastside charm” which real estate agents are constantly identifying. There are tradeoffs. But sometimes in the evolution of a town the tradeoffs are less impressive.

Generations after the first shops were built, “we” might have foreseen that the 1980s boom developers would have regarded our most historic and characteristic buildings as targets for demolition. Instead of having to argue interminably about the merits of our heritage, we could have just pointed to our incredibly well-considered long-term planning guidelines and said: “No, you can’t do that. Don’t bother asking. It’s good for us and it’s good for business.”

Now it’s 2010, and the imperatives are residential not commercial. Creating a subdivision on the southern side of the Gap is worthy of serious discussion, just as any proposal to change building height restrictions in some part of the town might be. The land looks like an easy solution to the serious land/housing shortage. It’s flat, adjoins the highway and it’s already owned by the Government. No negotiations are required.

But as with all solutions, there will be problems – problems that, like tall buildings, could undermine the reasons people like living here. To name just one, traffic jams in Heavitree Gap could not only tarnish one of the town’s  most iconic landmarks, but jeapordise our advantage over the cities so many of us are happy to keep at a distance. Altering the road through the Gap could have the same effect.

And then there is the traditional understanding of what the Gap means to Alice Springs, as a natural boundary with a long cultural lineage that predates white settlement. There is no reason one should never abandon a tradition, but we should think carefully about it when we do.

And the many hundreds of people who have invested all they have in a lifestyle that celebrates the open space and peace and quiet south of the Gap don’t deserve to be labelled “selfish’ for resisting a proposal that could have an ultimately fatal impact on that lifestyle.

The Government has extended the deadline for comments on the AZRI proposal. That’s good. The Christmas break is a bad time for democratic processes. Let’s talk about it. And no shouting.

As part of this discussion, I include a copy of  a letter the Alice Springs Rural Association sent to the Alice Springs Town Council. It makes an interesting read.

Deputation

Alice Springs Town Council

Thank you for this opportunity, and an even bigger thank you for your joining our request last month to the Minister to extend the exhibition period.

But I must remind Council, that it was at the August 03 meeting I believe that Council passed a motion that it would activate its own Policy of Public Consultation, and consult with the Rural Area Association in relation to Planning issues south of the Gap, and that Council has NEVER been proactive on this decision – we had to ask for this deputation.

We are very aware of the limitations on Council in relation to the planning process, and understand that this proposal is a Planning Scheme Amendment(PSA), and not a re-zoning, but if this PSA is passed, it is inconceivable that the subsequent rezoning would be rejected, and hence our question to candidates, and the responses of Elected Members prior to the 08 Election are 100% relevant.

Most of our arguments will also apply to the other part of this PSA, relating to the area west of rail line, erroneously referred to as Blatherskite Valley.

Rural residents are very mindful of the current perceived issue of shortage of vacant land. While only five blocks were sold immediately after David Lindsay surveyed the CBD in Oct 1887, land shortage has been the cry for probably 100yrs. We do not live south of the Heavitree Range incommunicado. This Association has on more than one occasion since 1988, come before Council, to explain that south of the Gap we do not consider ourselves as a separate community – we absolutely see ourselves as an inseparable but discreet component of the community of Alice Springs.

Discreet because that the one common denominator that defines almost all rural residents, whether we are artists, builders, dentists, doctors, electricians, firies, landlords, lawyers, magistrates, market gardeners, mechanics, nurses, police officers, pastoralists, plumbers, public servants, racehorse trainers, tourist operators, retailers, retirees, single mums, town clerks or directors, truckies, vets, or the even more important people in our community, such as cleaners and labourers, whatever we are, what defines us more than any other sector of our community, is that we live in the rural area because we very much want to, and we do so at considerable cost, and I’m not just referring to purchase price. Renters are extremely rare. This is because of that one thing, variously called the amenity, or character, or unique values, that saturates our chosen location. It is something that can manifest itself differently to each of us, but each of us values it greatly.

Furthermore, Alice Springs has only one Rural Area. Adverse planning decisions in the Rural zonings affect us all, and we cannot then say, “Bugger, oh well, we’ll sell up and move to another (Alice Springs) Rural Area, and every thing will be fine.” Many many Rural residents are here for the long haul. We have a commitment to the rural area and all that it means.

That is why we are so protective of our Rural Zonings. There is no foreseeable, realistic, or even suggested replacement for what we have, and for which we should have every reasonable expectation to be able to keep.

I was asked by the Mayor on what grounds we had such an expectation.

As far as I can determine, this proposed PSA is in conflict with every planning policy document produced for Alice Springs since 1975.

Before anyone says these documents are outdated, remember over time they are the basis on which people have made their choices, spent their money, lived their dreams. And when you examine the way these documents have evolved over time, it gives an understanding of what people – landowners, planners, bureaucrats, and Governments – have had as the evolving vision for Alice Springs, and why this PSA is such a backflip.

Alice Springs Urban Development Study 1975 – Looked at but rejected the AIB Reserve (as the AZRI site was then known) option; it clearly promoted what later became known as the Undoolya option. It also had some pertinent and topical things to say about protecting the visual impact of Heavitree Gap, and the risks of increasing traffic through the Gap.

Alice Springs Regional Outline Structure Plan 1985

This discussion paper looked at five potential future areas of urban development, three south of the Heavitree Range, at a time when the projected population was expected to have reached 50K well before now, with none of the existing or proposed residential in Mt Johns Valley.

Ultimately this resulted a favouring the so called Undoolya option.

In 1987 the NTG endorsed the Undoolya option, committing 10.5M to headworks. The ASTC were heavily involved in lobbying for this decision, and sang its praises.

Alice Springs Regional Land Use Structure Plan 1989 – looking to 60k.

Predicted a requirement of 40 rural blocks per year, and stated “In delineation of areas suitable for rural residential use it would be wise to be generous in predicting future land requirements.

This PSA will reduce the available land zoned Rural in the Municipality. It will also reduce the available agricultural land in the Municipality, something that some of these documents warn against.

A Review of the Alice Springs Regional Land Use Structure Plan 1989 Issues/Options Paper March 1998

“looking at up to 50,000 people.”

On page one “A Land Use Structure Plan provides an outline or broad policy framework for the future . . While structure plans are living documents, in that they are likely to change over time, they are intended to provide the necessary direction for developers and land use decision makers and a degree of certainty for landholders.

Urban Residential south of the Heavitree Range was not supported for the following reasons:

• The desire for existing residents in the area to continue their rural uses.

• The land offers no natural advantage over Undoolya.

• Any new development would be isolated from existing community and commercial facilities.

And “It is envisaged in the plan that rural residential lot sizes would decrease, the closer they were to the town centre. Rural Residential . . . not seen as a transitional use, but as an attractive alternative to urban residential living”

Draft Alice Springs Land Use Structure Plan 1999 & Proposed Land Use Objectives Pamphlet

“The scope of the work has included extensive public agency consultation, a review of the relevant documents, statistical analysis and consideration of land use options. Following careful consideration, including an assessment of infrastructure costs, a revised Land Use Structure Plan and proposed Land Use Objectives have been prepared.

The Revised Structure Plan builds on the AS Regional Land Use Structure Plan 1989 but highlights . . . preservation of the existing rural character of land south of the Heavitree Range .

Following community consultation and subsequent refinements . . . Land Use Objectives are the NT Gov. policy basis for the Alice Springs Town Plan.”

Both these documents flagged urban development south of the Heavitree Range for discussion, but the resulting

Alice Springs Land Use Structure Plan 1999 and Land Use Objectives -

rejected this, with a Land Use Objective “to consolidate urban development north of the Heavitree Range” and identified Undoolya as the future option.

Remember, this is NT Government Policy.

One of the reasons for the refusal for the urban development application for Whitegums was its departure from the 1999 Structure Plan.

In 2006 the draft of the New NT Planning Scheme came out, and ASRAA members were granted a exclusive hearing with Jim O’Niell, Senior Director, Development Assessment Services. No mention of Urban south of the Heavitree Range.

At the last meeting I had with John Baskerville, he offered that Udoolya was still the one.

This PSA is also in conflict with a press release of the then Minister for Central Australia, Dr Peter Toyne, (Sept 2003) restating the position of the current Government, and then Minister for Lands and Planning, Kon Vatskalis, in relation the Rural Area of Alice Springs. The status of this Press Release was reinforced by a letter from the then new Minister for Lands and Planning, Dr Chris Burns, to our Assoc. in May 2004.

We have every right to have an expectation that urban development won’t happen south of the Heavitree Range.

We can be forgiven for thinking that the community of Alice Springs has always treated south of the Gap as a big spare room where you shove anything you don’t want to look at, haven’t got room for, or is too hard to deal with. Think of the jail, the airport, the cemetery, the night-soil depot, the sewage ponds, the rubbish dump, the showgrounds, shooting complex, motorcycle track, the original history behind Amoonguna, Little Sisters and Ilparpa Town Camps, or Brewer Estate.

We’re not arguing that none of this should have happened, but we suspect it has created a mentality of less than due respect towards the Rural Area, that we have seen many times in bodies such ASTC – eg I note that to the best of our knowledge the only map the ASTC has ever had on public display that includes the Rural Area is the 2007 Alcohol Restriction Area map.

There is now again a temptation to use the Rural Area as a quick fix for a problem in the urban area.

We urge Council not to apply short term solutions to relieve the urban pressure that will adversely affect the long term amenity of the rural area. Why should our amenity be sacrificed? Further, we urge Council that the delineation of the urban and rural areas by the Heavitree Range should be treated as sacrosanct to any plan for Alice Springs.

I would remind you of the concerns raised by Alderman Stewart at the December mtg, in relation to the Alice Springs Transformation Plan – “very often these things have been done for expediency, and it ends up costing us more”. We argue most strongly, that like the ingenious OH HV power lines, this proposal will cost us more, and not just dollars, and not just the rural residents.

The Alice Springs Rural Area Association Inc. is not against development per say, and never has been, despite what some people may think and say. But we have argued against ad hoc proposals, proposals that do not exhibit good planning, proposals that have no vision, proposals that are flawed, and proposals that are detrimental to the existing Rural Lifestyle and amenity.

This proposed PSA exhibits all of the above.

We again urge elected members to be mindful of the long term vision of Alice Springs; so that future generations will acknowledge that development from 2010 on, and in particular the part played by this and subsequent Councils, displayed vision, and had sound planning issues at heart.

If council were to support this proposed PSA, what do Elected Members say to those existing residents throughout the rural area who have invested heavily in a chosen lifestyle and selection of amenity, a choice that was based on all the documents and utterances I have mentioned?

Sincerely

Rod Cramer, Chairman, ASRAA Inc.