LYNEHAM  Development Application: 201426427  Address: NO ADDRESS  Block: 21 Section: 41

LYNEHAM Development Application: 201426427 Address: NO ADDRESS Block: 21 Section: 41

Proposal: COMMUNITY FACILITY-ADDITION & ALTERATION . Proposed construction of a two storey community activity centre & sports pavilion. Construction of a new sealed carpark with new verge crossing; New outdoor playing courts and Associated landscaping, paths and external lighting.  Period for representations closes: 19/11/2014

Click here to view the plans


  1. I went looking for “Lyneham Community Development”.
    I found nothing relating to the 2014-15 group mentioned below.
    Interestingly, I found this –
    from 2003. It provides a ten-years-back perspective.

    In addition, it might be relevant to note here that this is the current NCCC summary statement for Lyneham 2602 –
    “Lyneham is a suburb of Canberra, in the Australian Capital Territory. It is named after Sir William Lyne, premier of the Australian state of New South Wales from 1899 to 1901. The suburb was gazetted in 1928, but development did not commence until 1958. Like many other suburbs in inner Canberra, it is currently undergoing gentrification.”

    Gentrification can be defined as –
    “the buying and renovation of houses and stores in deteriorated urban neighborhoods by upper- or middle-income families or individuals, thus improving property values but often displacing low-income families and small businesses.” []

  2. Apologies there is also a Twitter social media website –
    For example –
    LynehamOval @LynehamOval · Nov 17
    Deputy Chair NCCC Greg Zwajgenberg, Board member @ourBCC no mention of BCC development at peak planning body. Conflict of interest? #ICAC?

  3. Hello Denis O’Brien, as another NCCC Member and the “Interim Convener of the Proposed Lyneham Community Group”

    I can only wonder How on Earth does one get to be the interim convenor of a proposed ‘community’ group ? Sorry, that’s just an ironic aside.

    Actually, I was writing in commentary to a “Helen”, below. I did not know I was finger-pointing at anyone, not even at “Helen”, whomever she may be. I simple wanted to express my reservations about her three-liner.

    My comments below did specifically note that I have some doubts relating to / with a seemingly stop-the-world NIMBY Facebook Group (i.e., on ‘social media’).
    That Group is at
    and it is called the “Lyneham Neighbourhood Oval Committee”.

    You appear not to be a member of it, and it is now become a ‘closed group’, whatever that may connote. However, I do commend that Group to your consideration as their summary stance is –
    “For community members concerned with the land grab proposed by Brindabella ‘Christian’ College, under the guise of ACT Sports and Recreation Services.”

    May it be taht they may want to be aware of your own membership in the NCCC, as distinct from the Vice-President’s ?

    In a dialogue I read, they endorsed the “land grab” to use their own terminology, by the
    for community gardening – allotments.
    Their previously expressed opposition to Brindabella College is not based in neutral terms, in my opinion.

    They were (like you) offended by the inadequate consultation (which below I DID also advocate needing to be open and cooperative, not petty (leaf-blower noise !) and not confrontational [or bigoted even if Senator Brandis says it’s OK !]).

    I’ll admit to being rather nonplussed by your other assertions about the car-park all having been a fiasco “on community owned public open space”, in the face of the Canberra Times’ detailed article last November by Meredith Clisby –
    That article in part stated that –
    “According to documents tendered in the application, the sports facility will be built next to the Brindabella Christian College and will be run by the school. The college was granted a sub-lease over 11,168 square metres of unirrigated and “informal” open space adjacent to the oval in 2009. Sports and Recreation Services manages this sublease on behalf of the ACT government.”

    Also, my understanding of the plans put the propsed building down the back near Sullivan’s Creek channel to the far East away from Brigalow Street. ( I accept having tarred car parks would cut down the present dust nuisance.)

    As another Member of the NCCC, I would have hoped that you might correctly differentiate between “leased” Territory lands, and truly public “community owned” ACT-Government land.

    But perhaps I misunderstand ?
    OR Perhaps Marx was Correct ?

    AH ! Whatever, cheerio !
    John Douglas (An old friend of Cassandra and of Cordelia.)

  4. Hi John,
    you wrote “I am Old enough (and a few may even say Mature enough !) to observe that I am more concerned for the adequacy of my Grandchildren’s Christian-ethical education, than to pander to the few loud-mouthed NIMBYs who are resisting this initiative which the ACTSRS have supported.”

    I guess you are pointing a finger at me as one of ‘the few “loud-mouthed NIMBY’s” as I initiated a discussion amongst members of our community and took on the task of doing the consulting that neither ACTS&RS or Brindabella school did.

    I will not take umbrage or offence at being called a NIMBY let alone being labled red-necked however I suggest that it is very presumptuous to suggest that the concerns were due to a ‘NIMBY’ attitude or because it was a proposal by a “private school” to gain use of even more community owned public open space. While it may have been the concern of a minority it was not the driving force of many of the people involved even though they may not be as old and ‘allegedly wise’ as you good self and have lived in our community for anywhere near as long as you. The majority are people committed to seeing our community develop in an appropriate way and be able to live in a vibrant and well informed community whose members are not only its’ residents but all the schools, businesses and other groups that inhabit Lyneham.

    Given the fiasco over the eyesore that is the current car park on community owned public open space and the undertaking of Brindabella School at that time to consult with the community regarding development by the school a number of people were quite rightly miffed that the first they heard of the proposal was either via a letter in the mail (which had an extremely limited circulation) or the originally misplaced DA Notice Sign.

    It will be interesting to see when Brindabella lodge their next application, as they most likely will in the near future, what consultation is undertaken prior to lodgement. I am once again taking steps with a number of other people to ensure that our community is well informed and has a voice regarding the way our great suburb grows into the future and invite you to be an active participant in that process. If you are willing to participate you can contact the school principal and/or the NCCC Deputy-Chair who are able to pass on my contact details.

    Denis O’Brien
    NCCC Member & Interim Convener of the Proposed Lyneham Community Group

    Denis O'Brien
  5. I do not agree, Helen. Having been a resident of Lyneham since December 1959, I am Old enough (and a few may even say Mature enough !) to observe that I am more concerned for the adequacy of my Grandchildren’s Christian-ethical education, than to pander to the few loud-mouthed NIMBYs who are resisting this initiative which the ACTSRS have supported. ACTPLA is of course, monitoring the PROPOSALS, which are being revisited to address red-necked NIMBY objections BECAUSE this is a “private school”. Social Media go so far as to accuse the NCCC Deputy-Chair of a quite unsubstatiated Conflict of Interest ! Of course, CONSULTATION IS THE ANSWER, but some obstructionist (dare I even say, seeming anti-Christian bigots ?) NIMBYs are NEVER going to be satisfied. They presumably want to go back to the barren novelty of December 1959 ? I disagree, Helen, but support your right to comment : eeven if it is only three sentences which to me only constitute a non sequitur. John Douglas (NCCC Member)

  6. I think this should have been opened for community consultation before it was even submitted. I think any community activity centre should involve decision with the community itself. We are an ageing community and I’m not sure we need a sports pavilion.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *