Council pursues Western Reserve option
24 December, 2011
Despite widespread opposition, Council is pursuing its indoor pool option at the Western Reserve. This week Council has presented a concept design after what they say was “a thorough design and review process”, and they say they expect to make a decision by March 2012 on how to proceed with the proposal at the Western, not if, as if there is no opposition to their proposal to site the pool on one of the few green spaces close to town.
“The concept design is for a contemporary, multi-purpose facility that will enable our community to participate in a wide range of recreational activities,” Council says.
Being indoor, the Centre will be able to be used all year round. Important design features such as tilt up doors and outdoor water play area will ensure that you can also enjoy an outdoors experience while at the Centre. The open air theme extends to the cafe with an alfresco eating area and the crèche with a secure and shaded outdoor play space.
Council contends that the design is sympathetic to the site, with materials providing a “soft, translucent finish”. The building will be located on the southern end of the Western.
For the environmentalists among us, the design, Council says, will meet Council’s environmental sustainability objectives to limit greenhouse emissions and contain energy costs. They propose to include co-generation and e-water systems cleaning, and for energy usage to be minimised through a heat exchanger for pool hall ventilation and sub-metering technology to control and modify energy consumption throughout the centre.
The total cost of building at the Western is expected to be $15.2 million. Council says 10-year financial modelling based on similar centres in regional Victoria indicates the Centre is likely to generate revenue of $1.405 million per year. Operating costs have been estimated at $1.681 million per year, leaving an annual operating cost to Council of $276,000, which will reduce substantially when they close the existing Castlemaine pool.
You can find out more through an online presentation and fact sheets covering topics such as design, cost, environmental impact, parking and answers to frequently asked questions on Council’s website in the Major Projects section. This section of the website also includes an online presentation of the design with opportunity to provide feedback.
Information will also be available at Council offices and other civic facilities, including the library, senior citizen centres and visitor information centres.
You are invited to attend a series of meetings in late January as follows:
| Date | Location | Time |
| Thursday 19 January | Newstead Community Centre | 7.30 – 9.30pm |
| Sunday 22 January | Castlemaine Town Hall | 1.30 – 3.30pm |
| Monday 23 January | Harcourt Leisure Centre | 4.00 – 6.00pm |
| Monday 23 January | Maldon Community Centre | 7.30 – 9.30pm |
| Tuesday 31 January | Taradale Hall | 7.30 – 9.30pm |
Launceston Aquatic centre subject of review
Ringwood’s $48 million pool: viability still biggest question
Passionate debate over Ararat pool
Posted in Design, Economics, Environment, Featured slide, Local news, Social Justice, Sustainability - current stories
December 21st, 2011 at 2:02 pm
What a terrible shame it is, that the council still isn’t listening to the majority of people in the Shire.I helped, with others, both Greens, Liberal, Nationals and Labor voters the late, Felix Cappy organise the Rally at the Western oval, where 1500 signatures were taken on a petition, plus around 1500 signatures more were gathered after wards and presented to council by Robin Taylor.Despite being poles apart in our political views we all helped do this for the greater good of the city.Yes, the plans for the aquatic center look pretty,but so do the glossy brochures at the Porche dealer ship for the latest 911 Turbo.Both of these things dont suit the lifestyle of the majority of Castlemaine and district people-they are fine in their places, but not needed here. We dont need the aquatic centre,the people of Chewton have proved that.Our small rate base cant afford the aquatic centre, its too small, it uses to much energy to run,its costs too much to maintain and build,and the!
y want to build it on the Western oval- a space set aside by the fathers of the city at its birth as an open and free area for everyone to enjoy.The silent majority wont let that happen, things have been quiet on the “Western” front over Winter, the silent majority as a rule,have been at the footy during the day and at night watching Heart beat on the telly.Looks like they will be asked to gather for yet another rally at the Western, this time during cricket season!.Bring it on, yours etc, Glenn Braybrook
December 21st, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Attending the community consultations is redundant for those of us who oppose the use of the Western for this facility.People can continue to obtain copies of my petition for a moratorium and return them for presentation in the New Year, right up to the March decision. In addition the Calder Ward by-election will be an opportunity for voters to have their say. Perhaps we could encourage voters to write “Not on the Western” on their ballot papers?
December 21st, 2011 at 3:47 pm
I for one support the councils proposal.The Western Reserve location is perfect and the architects clever siting of the facility and car park at the rear of the oval leaves ample ‘green space’ at the Forest street end. The centre is further screened from the road by tree plantings. I believe that this proposal will actually INCREASE community use of the Western Reserve by encouraging people to use the green space for picnics, recreational sports (frisbee not grade cricket obviously) while also utilizing the aquatic centre. It will draw people to what is a largely wasted area of town. I look forward to taking my children swimming here all year round.
December 21st, 2011 at 4:04 pm
The folly of the Save the Western Reserve Mob of not actually waiting until council released the detailed plans before rallying against the proposal proves how short sighted and reactionary this group is. I would be interested to see how community support shifts now we can all see that that compromise has been achieved- we get both a fantastic new aquatic facility AND a central green space.
December 21st, 2011 at 4:10 pm
This pool, like all others of its type and origin (council/shire driven), will end up costing the ratepayers a small fortune just in running the thing, the maintenance etc to say nothing of the opportunity costs.
WONG – Western Oval No Go
December 21st, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Having lived in this district for over 60 years i have got to know a wide cross section of the community,and the sense of opposition to this project is palpable.We simply do not want that site used for that purpose.Open space is not wasted as Josh has stated .If council go ahead and attempt to force this on the ratepayers i can promise they will meet with some very determined opposition.
December 22nd, 2011 at 11:48 am
How can the MAS on one hand refuse to support the MHS proposal based on community feelings and on the other refuse to listen to a greater number of people against this proposal?
It makes no sense.
December 22nd, 2011 at 11:50 am
My family had a beautiful swim at the Castlemaine indoor pool yesterday. We were the only ones there.
Why do we need a new pool at the wrong location, when as a community we hardly use our current indoor pool?
December 22nd, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Fantastic proposal and so well situated on the site, can’t wait!
December 22nd, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Castlemaine ratepayers will not love this project if it ends up costing over 1 million dollars per annum to operate. Similar centres in Launceston and Mildura are costing far more than what was predicted in the consultants report. The old railway good shed would be a perfect building for an indoor pool, but if we arn’t using the present one what is the point.
December 22nd, 2011 at 5:48 pm
To Barney G
the differences between the MHS proposal and the MAS proposal are vast enough not to compare.
The pool deal is a Shire Council driven initiative, after all no one in the community asked for this new pool until it was initiated by someone in the Shire Council.
Who was that?
The pool at the Western can eventuate with or without community support where the MHS proposal cannot because the pool at the Western is a council driven thing and the MHS proposal requires approval from other authorities.
If you do not want the pool at the Western to happen you must convince the local politicians supporting the pool at the Western that they will be voted out at the next election.
Mmmmm….big deal eh?
If you want the pool at the Western to happen, it seems to me based on the inertia coming from council, that you simply do nothing except be prepared to face another hefty rate rise because it is my opinion the costs will force another rate rise higher than the CPI.
This has happened before in other local government areas where new pool costs blow out.
Just fix the old one I say and save millions over not many years.
The money saved over the last X amount of years by not maintaining the pools can be used now. (sounds simple – isn’t)
December 22nd, 2011 at 6:42 pm
The planned indoor aquatic centre, as I visualise it MUST:
- be 50 metres;
- have a high diving facility;
- have underground car parking;
- be close to a big population of young people during the day-the new Castlemaine Secondary College is ideal;
- be zero emissions;
- have supporting community transport for other schools, oldies who need water therapy, and the general public
- have a solar cooking cafe
December 23rd, 2011 at 6:03 am
Grace, You’re dreaming if you think the current crop of councillors are going to agree to any of your ‘Musts’.
The money they plan to spend on the aquatic centre could easily repair, cover and heat the existing Castlemaine pool, but I believe they are claiming that this option would cost more than building a new aquatic centre. Someone should teach them maths.
December 23rd, 2011 at 6:53 am
Offensive comment removed. Someone named “Mark” made an offensive comment on this page. He referred to those who are against the indoor pool at the Western as ‘fringe dwellers’, ‘red neck old conservatives and completely anti-development types’ etc. He’s wrong, but what’s more he’s boorish to use that kind of language.
He is welcome to his pro-pool stance and his respectful comments will be approved. If he or anyone starts demonising people their comments won’t be approved. I made an error and approved his comment initially … (I may disagree with your opinion but I support your right to speak etc …)
“Mark” even wrote that more than half the people he speaks to are pro-pool, demonising the ‘vocal’ others, a tactic the conservative side of politics resorts to frequently.
Keep it nice, or don’t bring it.
December 23rd, 2011 at 10:56 am
If anyone wants to know how our council came to ‘cook up’ this proposal against the wishes of those of us who want to retain the Western Reserve as public open space, take a look at Cr.Christine Henderson’s Councillor’s Chat’ in the latest edition of that other fine online publication, ‘Chewton Chat’.What hope have the residents got when all the information gathering and decision-making happens behind closed doors. No wonder they have no idea what the residents think!
December 23rd, 2011 at 2:26 pm
May i suggest that some time in the new year we organise another rally on the Western oval where people can just come along and show there opposition.No speeches no political agendas.I am happy to help organise this.
December 23rd, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Perfect location, needed facility, old pools are past use by date, accessible to everyone, what’s the problem??????? BRING IT ON!
December 23rd, 2011 at 7:02 pm
The only part that’s not right is that the building should be located right on the corner of Forest and Wheeler (active street frontage is vital), not tucked back toward the creek.
December 24th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Active street frontage is vital……….for what?
“Oh, there’s a pool, I might just drop in do a couple of laps”.
I’ve never met a swimmer who commits random, spontaneous acts of wetness.
The thinking that we might be able to snare some of the ‘shopping demographic’ is simply ridiculous.
December 24th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Who mentioned shopping?
December 24th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
People down the street.
December 24th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
As someone who lives on a very tight budget and who is getting older, I find it obscene that a Council who got rid of the maintenance service for the elderly because it cost too much can saddle us ratepayers with a future debt of these proportions.
As Chris Hosking asked – who in the Council came up with this idea? Bet no ones game enough to own up.
Surely these types of investments should be driven by the community not the Council Officers who are after all employees of the ratepayers. Ive heard a rumour that there is a potential fiscal payoff for someone in the know. Perhaps in the interests of ‘transparency’ the initiator of this proposal should be made public as well as the entire process by which it was approved and all the signatories approving it.
December 25th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Yeah, who on earth gave Council a mandate to get people healthy, provide access for elderly and disabled people to pools and gyms all year round, and create a lovely useable attractive multipurpose facility, all for 1/5th of the annual budget on local roads..??! (1.3m or more…)
Come and show your faces and we’ll hound you for your impertinence!
December 26th, 2011 at 9:57 am
allA substantial amount has been written on the Aquatic Centre & Western Reserve, much being guesswork, speculation or conspiracy theory.
Here are some simple facts in rough chronological order:
The Aquatic Centre proposal dates back many years.
The proposal lay largely dormant until shortly after the appointment of the current shire CEO.
The CEO has pushed the Aquatic Centre proposal at every opportunity.
Despite huge public opposition the CEO has continued to push the Western Reserve as the only viable location.
Despite inadequate testing of the Western Reserve site, the CEO is alleged to have continued to maintain it is the only option.
The CEO has allegedly rejected suggestions that alternate sites be thoroughly examined.
The CEO is alleged to have been heavily involved in similar “pool” projects at other municipalities at which he’s been employed.
The CEO’s wife is alleged to have been involved in “recreation facilities” in other shires. There is no suggestion of any impropriety. It is simply a matter of interesting public record.
Before her appointment as mayor, Cr. Cropley was against the Aquatic Centre proposal. Since becoming mayor (and having at-least-weekly meetings with the CEO) she has become strongly in favour of the Aquatic Centre, as well as it being located on the Western Reserve, i.e. she now parrots the CEO’s opinions.
Some reports relating directly or indirectly to the project have not been revealed to the public or councillors until discovered by third parties.
It is suspected a 2007 report on the condition of Western Reserve may exist but has not been made public.
Proponents, objectors, speculators and conspiracy theorists may make anything they wish from the above.
December 27th, 2011 at 11:46 am
Summer is here with hot days warranting trips to the pool. With a water loving 8 year old, I’m pretty familiar with most local swimming spots. Very happy that Harcourt & Chewton have retained their pools but also know they need to retain and sustain the support of their communities. It was only a few years ago that Chewton struggled to attract more than a handful of volunteers to run the show. Current mob doing a great job!! The problem I find with Castlemaine pool is it’s distance from town – over 2 km from the CBD, even from the train station it’s over 1 km and on a stinking hot day when the objective is to cool down, tramping all that way with kids in tow is no fun. Of course I could always jump in the car and DRIVE to the pool but that assumes (1) I have a car and (2) I have a licence (and desire) to drive. The overwhelming users of our outdoor pools are young people who do not have these resources and must rely on adults or walk. Where are their voices in this debate?
December 27th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Well it’s good to see a CEO with some vision!
The info from ‘Castlemaine Insider’ helps make some sense of this whole furore.
Council have done a terrible job of PR/publicity / community consultation and they are now playing catch-up. People were never properly told where the idea came from, why we need it and why this particular site. Yet it seems a lot of thought has been put into this project, and it has been in the pipeline for some time. I was initially sceptical, but ‘won over’ by the idea when it was explained to me by a Council worker.
My name-calling last comment may have been in poor taste… but I do think that when the vocal ‘left’ and vocal ‘right’ gang up against an issue like this they make a lot more noise than (I’m guessing) the general sentiment out there in the community. Can’t we do some sort of accurate poll to determine what people actually think? Most people I know quite like the idea, but don’t know all the details yet. And they are too afraid to speak up in support since they’re worried about being shot down or hounded from one side or the other. I can now understand that feeling, having had my last comment erased from this site.
Hopefully the upcoming community consultations will help tell the story of how this project came about and why it’s a good idea. If they can’t I’ll start my own CBGWARA (Castlemaine Based Group With A Ridiculous Acronym)…
How about POWO – Pool On the Western Oval?
And remember there was widespread dismay and opposition to the Sydney Opera House being made!
Thank you,
Mark Murchison
markmurchison@gmail.com
Castlemaine 3450
Editor’s note: Your previous comment was not erased because you spoke up. You are not being ‘hounded’ or ‘shot down’. This site welcomes debate. Your comment was erased because you stooped, labelling those who disagree with you as rednecks and ‘fringe dwellers’ and ‘anti development types’. That adds nothing to the debate and weakens your own cause.
I made it clear in my reasons for deleting your comments. What gives anyone the right to hurl abuse at those who disagree with them? This debate is far more complex than you seem to acknowledge. Just because people disagree with you doesn’t mean they’re wrong, and nor does it invite you to sling mud at them. Play the ball.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:07 am
Hear Hear I say! I particularly appreciate some of the comments like those from Jacqueline about the transport issue and accessibility for young people. The real difficulty as I see it is that the Western Reserve is both the best site and the wrong site. It has all the features the council is promoting in the plan, but by placing it there we lose our village green for ever. This patch of ground is almost sacred to many people. I think that is why all the previous working groups put it at the bottom of the pile. Nobody can bring themselves to build on this precious spot. The co-location with High School site and current Castlemaine pool site are, as Jaqueline correctly says, about 2 kms from the centre of town. That is something that would have to be addressed. Apart from that though these two alternatives have a lot to offer and it would appear that there has been no serious consideration of either of them. I can tell readers that the petitions for a moratorium are still coming in and I will have quite a few to present in January and this is despite this initiative being ridiculed by ‘Castlemaine Action’. Apart from that particular group there is a unity of purpose amongst those wanting to keep the ‘Western’ green.
December 28th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Jacqueline, I’m not sure that “on a stinking hot day when the objective is to cool down” going for a swim in a heated indoor pool helps a great deal!
December 28th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
I always thought a ‘village green’ was a space that actually got used!! By siting a needed facility at the Western the project is activating the space and may actually turn it in to a village green. Jacqueline is spot on, accessibility for (largely) kids is absolutely vital. Co-location may have it’s merits, but not at the far northern end of town which becomes completely car dependent – it defies all sensible urban design practice. Hans, to whom is this ground sacred??? I think your wording is somewhat over-reactive and stretching the bounds of reality. Mark has also raised a valid point in this saga – that there are also many people who support the location yet are afraid to speak up for fear of being shouted down as some sort of anti-community heathen, as has so very often happened in posts to this site. Last time I spoke up in support for the proposal, several regular contributors accused me of being ‘not from here’ or obviously not in touch with the community’ etc. etc. I trust the community I have been a part of and have loved for the past 17 years can show enough maturity to engage in a healthy, vigorous and respectful debate.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Phil,the western is sacred ground for many people for many reasons,firstly for those of us who have had a long connection to this town and went to nearby schools it is somewhere that we played sport went to the circus met people played with others had our first sexual experience etc etc it is also sacred because it is open space which is never wasted.You say people are afraid of being shouted down.I have been outspoken on numerous issues over the years and have never been shouted down once and i am not aware of it happening to anyone.Those who use this as an excuse for not speaking up are not genuine and who are they anyway, perhaps they are just a figment of your imagination.
December 29th, 2011 at 6:14 am
People who are relative newcomers to Castlemaine should realise that we have a long tradition of engaging in robust and spirited debates on issues that we think are not in the best interests of the community.This tradition goes back to 1851 when a passive non violent movement laid the foundations for the democracy that we have today.We always accept what the majority want,have a laugh about it and get on with life.This is what i love about Castlemaine and its what makes it a fantastic place to live and raise our families.There will always be a tiny minority who sit back and say nothing and then complain.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:38 am
…..And those who have no history with this town are completely unaware that ALL of the reserves in town became reserves because of massive flood events which happen every decade or so – but seem to be forgotton by all – except those of us who experience them first hand.
Camp Reserve is historically known to double as a boating lake in flood times.
The Sunken Oval was known as the ‘stunken oval’ for its ability to retain stagnant water after floods.
The Western Reserve has a massive bluestone levee, built after 1889 floods which completely inundated the town. Water lapped the Castlemaine Post office steps and numerous people drowned.
Many who have lived here a long time have seen the western reserve under water, because every now and then floodwater will overtop the bank. Environemntal scientists and flood experts expect that – and best practice advice is ZERO development next to waterways which are known to flood.
These reserves became reserves – because they weren’t suitable for further developement. That is historical FACT.
Why is there no flood overlay on this land? Probably because it is designated as a public reserve – with no expectation that anyone would be silly enough to build there. A club hut hardly in the same league as a $15 million dollar development.
But in any case there is no overlay in MOST of the areas that flood, again and again and again. The entire township of Campbells Creek is known to go underwater – and it’s residents left with the heartache of destroyed homes. Ever wonder why Campbells Creek is of Heritage interest – but there are so few buildings left that predate the 1900′s? Floods.
This latest council is issuing permits right on the active floodplain, because there are no overlays to control their quest for housing developemnt at all costs. And we ratepayers get to fund the insurance payouts when lawyers understand the provisions of the Water Act.
An aquatic centre right beside the creek is seen as a higher priority than the promised flood study.
Already we seem to have complacently forgotton the 300 families who lost all their belongings less than 12 short months ago.
Castlemaine history is awash with the destruction of buildings – a tannery, a distillery, a brewery, countless homes and hotels – all destroyed because our predeccessors though it was a good idea to build alongside the banks of our creeks.
We have a CEO who is not in the slightest interested in ‘local knowledge’, and considers objectors as an obstacle to get past – ‘the nuisance factor’ rather than a vital part of the planning process.
The planning scheme has become a tool for manipulation rather than a a laypersons guide to environemental common sense, (and environmental law.)
And of course we, the ratepayers get to pay for this foolishness.
December 29th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Thanks for those facts Andrea you are 100% correct.I too have studied the flood history of this area,and with the changes we are witnessing in the climate we can expect more of these events.So wake up CEO before you waste anymore of OUR money.
December 29th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
I feel compelled to respond to Gloria Melzer’s comments. Her claims regarding alleged comments attributed to me are absolutely without foundation. That some in our community would encourage division through active promotion of misinformation is very disappointing. Council’s process for considering the proposed aquatic and leisure centre has been known for some time. Information is being widely distributed to enable an informed view to be made and I would encourage those interested to attend one of the many infomration sessions planned for the New Year.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
First of all, let’s bear in mind that the community really needs a decent aquatic centre. Castlemaine’s swimming facilities are decrepit.
Public pools are a mainstay of public health. When the beautiful new pool is built, people will flock there, just as they do in so many inner city suburbs (Clifton Hill & Carlton, both 25 mts) and desert towns around this country. The current public pool is delightfully situated but far away from the centre of town – if it were to be totally upgraded, they’d need to add a shuttle bus service for the majority of users. Otherwise, the proposed pool & site is clearly the winner (except for that flood issue mentioned by Andrea, hopefully there could be engineering to address this?)
Whilst I too enjoy a ‘village green’ and a cricket game in progress, it has to be admitted that such charms are available elsewhere around the town. The value of a modern aquatic centre is far more urgent to address our local population’s health and wellbeing needs.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
I’d be much more interested in your response to ‘Castlemaine Insiders’ comments, Mr Rowland.
December 30th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Thank you for that insight Andrea. Co-locating next to the local high school suddenly looks a bit more appealing.
December 30th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Deborah, affordable rates would offer far more widespread sense of wellbeing for our aging population. To be able to afford to stay in their own home when they no longer afford the regular 8.5% rates rise we are forced to endure. I guess many of us will happily bear the inconvenience of driving to Kyneton, Bendigo or maryborough for an Aquatic experience – the difference between ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ you might say..
It should also be acknowledged that our smaller townships which will have to pay through the nose for an aquatic centre that they will then have to pay extra to access. It won’t matter a jot to about 50% of the shire the ‘convenience’ of the western reserve location.
Bringing city-based ideas to smaller communities does not translate well or equitably and those in outlying townships should not be forced to subsidise castlemaine residents sense of wellbeing.
It is trite to suggest that engineering solutions can be found that will protect a building or the environment around the natural watereway in an area designated as HIGH RISK from catastrophic natural events.
There are already best practive engineering solutions readily available for councils wishing to avail themselves of expert advice.
Flood management current national BEST PRACTICE states that decisions should be made on the basis of ZERO RISK around areas protected by a levee.
What do you think it would cost us to prevent the enviromental damage of our supposedly protected waterways from chemical spills and leaks?
Do you have any idea how much Don KRC and the Water Reclamation plant have to spend to keep Campbell’s Creek safe from environemntal spills and thereby safe for wildlife?
What point is there of providing protection of the Aquatic building – if the design then creates floods for neighbouring houses and downstream properties?
The very essence of floodplain management is careful evaluation of risk factors because nature doesn’t follow our rules: if you solve a problem on one site – you always create a problem somewhere else.
It is human arrogance to imagine that urban dwellers can control floodwaters.
December 30th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Another reader has attacked those who are against having a swimming pool at the Western Reserve.
This time the reader referred to those opposing the pool at the Western as ‘luddites’. She referred to others’ feelings for the Reserve as ‘a load of tosh’, although she did admit to not living in town very long (so how would she know?)
Those of us wanting to preserve green open space at the Western are being labelled redneck, anti-progress and now, ‘luddites’.
‘As for calling it a “Village Green”, a “precious spot” and “almost sacred”, what a load of tosh,’ the reader wrote.
There’s a striking and obvious parallel between the newcomer to town who says the longer term residents’ attitudes towards the Western are ‘tosh’, and the whitefellas who came to this continent and said to the Aborigines, ‘Sacred ground? That flat old bit of dirt? You’ve got to be joking, sonny, let’s put up a shopping centre/uranium mine/toilet block and bbq.’
Nevertheless, the swimming pool is not an issue of long term residents versus ‘blow-ins’, of ‘left’ versus ‘right, nor of ‘rednecks’ versus … what, ‘hipsters’? It cuts across all of that.
Dazzle the opposition with your intelligence and the weight of your arguments, not by hurling schoolyard insults.
December 31st, 2011 at 7:58 am
On the flood issue,it doesn’t take much nouse to work out that if the water level in forest creek reaches a certain level ,the water coming down Barker,Hargreaves and Urquart streets will back up and cover the lower area of Castlemaine to a depth of around 1 to 2 metres.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:11 am
The amazing thing about this issue is the way it has united a very wide cross-section of people who otherwise would be at odds on most things. So, if one of the tactics to get this through is ‘divide and rule’ I don’t think it will work.The other refreshing change for me is that the debate is far more respectful than what I am used to in the western suburbs of Melbourne. People can disagree sharply but still be polite.In this respect we are still a lucky country.
December 31st, 2011 at 7:01 pm
I heartily applaud Andrea Ross for her comments and thoughts. The greatest benefit of the Aquatic Centre will be to Castlemaine NOT to the Shire of Mt Alexander-will people drive from Redesdale or Maldon or Newsstead just to use the new ‘heated pool’, I think not. Many of the pro-pool comments I note are by people who live in Castlemaine proper yes its good for them. But what about the rest of us who live in outlying areas who will have to bear the cost of this facility for years to come.
If you run a household you dont borrow money to buy a new car when you need money for repairs to your roof. Are we such an affluent Shire that we can afford this debt? Or are the Council banking on all those moneyed tree changers moving up here in the future to bankroll us. Within the next few years many of us will have to go into debt just to pay our rates.
I think this Council needs to think more about social justice issues especially for those on low incomes such as pensioners or perhaps its hoping to drive us all out.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:18 pm
If the pool goes ahead at the Western Oval are there alternative sites for the circus, cricket, car rallies, Great Vic Bike Ride, air ambulance, fire evacuation point etc? Open space is precious and not easily replaced. The school site, with public transport from town, seems much better to me.
January 1st, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Western Reserve or not is an argument clouding the real issue. Mount Alexander is too small to support such an aquatic centre.
A 2009 aquatic facilities feasiblity study for Surf Coast Shire (available on the web) by Sport and Leisure Solutions (heard of them before?) concluded…
“It is our recommendation that Council should not consider the development of an Indoor Aquatic and Leisure Centre until at least the end of the 2015 financial year. The catchment population will then be 27,500 and the centre will still require Council to subsidise the operation of it until the breakeven trigger point of 40,000 people in the
catchment is reached in 2031. From 2015 and beyond, Council will have greater capacity to fund the capital and operating costs required.”
27,500 people? It’s easy to dream with other people’s money!
Over the years a lack of maintenance has caused a major problem and it must be tempting to redress the problem with a new facility provided by state government funds – but with our population to sustain it?
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Editor, your sophistry in comparing the fight over the Western Reserve with indigenous sovereignty is breathtaking.
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Andrea, thanks for your helpful reply. Knowing little about flood issues, I was impressed by your argument ocncenring the technical and legal issues. What I cannot understand is why Council does not have htese at the forefront of their minds too?
However,on the issue of wellbeing – that is something that extends beyond aged care. There are some interesting new philosophies coming out of community development psychology which pertain to the interconnedtedness of community life & facilties and individual health. It is finding the best possible solution for the longer-term public good which should motivate this decision-making, I think, not expediency in dollar terms. Perhaps upgrading the existing pool site would actually do that more effectively, I don’t know. But I agree with most contributors here that more discussion and community consultation is required.
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:46 pm
You can’t be serious about the existing pool being too far out of town.
It has been that way for many years and there are more public transport options in the town now than every before.
It also has a walking/cycling track that leads to it.
Didn’t worry kids 20 years ago who happily rode their bikes there everyday. Seems as though kids today could do with the extra exercise.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Barney G, what public transport is there to the pool?? Has anything been proposed to provide PT to the junior campus? I think not.
The simple truth is that the existing pool is over 50 years old. We need new facilities. What ridiculous folly to consciously build a new pool away from a central and accessible location.
Doug, although we generally agree with each other on most issues (and will have a good laugh about this over a lap or two when it is built), flood levels of up to 2 metres? Really? The hyperbole on this discussion is outstanding!
Andrea, yes a flood study ought to be undertaken, but tell me who would be the first to complain at the cost of such a study?? Whilst “local knowledge” is appreciated and ought to be valued, it is hardly sufficient to stand up in VCAT, it needs to be scientific and demonstrable. If the whole township is as flood prone as you say – should any development take place? Your rant against the planning system simply highlights a lack of understanding of how planning works(although I agree that some houses should not have been built along Elizabeth St in C/Creek). A lack of shire-wide flood modelling does not automatically translate to bad planners. Are you happy to spend perhaps $200K on the required studies? I think not.
I think there is another agenda at play here. Dare I suggest a pro-Chewton / anti-Castlemaine / anti-council protest? You got your community pool back so just let everyone else get on with supporting the type of direction and development of facilities that this town wants and needs. My kids and thousands of others will certainly thank you for it. Welcome to the 21st century!
January 3rd, 2012 at 7:33 am
Phil the local knowledge re flooding in Castlemaine is well documented in excellent newspaper reports that give graphic details of the total devastation and loss of life.The description of the 1889 flood is similar to the Grantham floods in Qld when a wall of water swept down Forest and Barkers creek.Local knowledge tells me that the tennis courts and western reserve have flooded a number of times and will do so again.The problem with this council is that they ignore this vital information and bring in consultants who give them the answers they want.So lets keep smiling and find the best location for an aquatic centre.I am sure we will remain friends long after this is resolved.
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:35 pm
DOUG: the last person to drown in Castlemaine was as recently as the 1960′s – many older residents remember it.
Flooding around the banks of the creek is by no means an isolated event. see below – 36 separate flood incidences Castlemaine and Mt Alexander up until 1954 (when I ran out steam!) – research in
a) Archives of the National Library of Victoria
b) Local Goldfields Library & Castlemaine Historical Society
In the last 12 years the state emergency services has listed 5 1:70-100 year events causing flood responses in castlemaine.
1. 25 September 1855
2. 19 February 1856 1 person killed Campbells Creek
3. April 4th 1860
4. October 2nd 1860
5. Monday 4 February 1861
6. Wednesday 20 August 1862 > (Heavy floods loss of life)
7. Saturday 21 August 1886
8. February 1867 Main street & Mostyn Street underwater
9. Tuesday 20 September 1870
10. Tuesday 11 October 1870 (bridges washed away)
11. Thursday 16 February 1871 (chinaman drowned Jim crow creek)
12. Monday 13 August 1883 Mc Shang child drowned.
13. Tuesday 13 November 1883
14. Jan 1st 1889 9 people killed
15. Wednesday 6 February 1889 1 man drowned
16. 13 June 1889
17. Wednesday 31 October 1894 Castlemaine creeks 1 person drowned
18. Saturday 9 January 1897
19. Saturday 24 June 1899
20. Saturday 30 November 1901
21. 28th March 1902
22. Saturday 20 December 1902
23. Monday 10 September 1906 Botanic gardens laid waste
24. Monday 17 May 1909
25. Friday 20 August 1909 >
26. Saturday 11 February 1911 (main street submerged to a depth of 5 ft )
27. Fri 7th November 1924 (crop damage
28. Late 1930
29. Saturday 2 December 1933 (photo of Campbells creek in flood)
30. Monday 22nd October 1934 – 3 drowned
31. Saturday 18 February 1939
32. Saturday 8 April 1939
33. Monday 28 August 1939
34. Tuesday 1 March 1949
35. Thursday 10 March 1949
36. Monday 13 December 1954
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Phil: your suggestions that I do not understanding the planning scheme warrant a much more considered response. I will give that to you in due course.
However: – You have a nerve to suggest on this forum that I have a ‘hidden agenda’!
This comment felt like and sounded like a personal attack in reference to your comments about Chewton, and it is not appreciated in the context that I was contributing to a thread (not initiated by me)
If I wanted to discuss Chewton or any other small community – I would do just that. See my notes to you on another thread.
Hidden agendas are the specialty of those wishing to hide something. I make no secret of my values to anyone remotely interested. I put my money where my mouth is in investing my time and life savings in providing a service to a small community.
I am hiding nothing when I say that people in the smaller communities in this shire are resentful of this councils wealth redistribution of their rates dollars to Castlemaine. I’m only saying what many others say to me every single day.
This council has just spent $65,000 on a staged advancement of an Aquatic Centre, and you are suggesting that a $200,000 flood study which would protect us all from the fallout and financial burden of inappropriate unsafe developments would be unpopular. Given the number of people who lost everything (yet again!!), and those of us who live every day with the knowledge that we don’t know what he council is doing upstream that could harm our homes, the suggestion that it should be a lesser priority is just plain irresponsible.
You mention the Planning Scheme. The Environment Protection Act including Waters of Victoria state planning policy framework requires authorities like councils to consider the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle rates a mention no less than 3 times in the MAS planning scheme in relation to waterway management. According to Wikipedia “ The precautionary principle states that “if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.”
This principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.
The Precautionary Principle was once a stalwart in our planners decision making to protect people near the creek. No housing development within 30 metres. Local knowledge of flooding dictated that as sound policy. However the precautionary principle never ever even rates a mention in our current regime. If it was the approach by council we wouldn’t NEED a flood study….and we sure as heck wouldn’t consider the Western Oval a safe place to put an $15million dollar chemical laden facility right in the flood plain that feeds a sensitive catchment.
We are not talking about ANY development in town – we are talking about development right beside a waterway where it is well documented to be LIKELY to flood.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:34 am
John Ellis is right!. We cant afford a 14/16 million dollar aquatic centre!,it’s that simple. Why spend all this time arguing about something we cant afford to have anyhow, it’s basic.
January 8th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
I guess this is not an issue that is open to any form of compromise, the Council wants it, it’s the CEo’s job to deliver it and we will just have to cop it…Democracy equals politics and power!It’s all a bit rank really but that’s life..Unless the Majority take a real interest.
January 10th, 2012 at 1:33 am
so I went to the old Castlemaine pool again and was reminded – it’s a beautiful setting, it’s a 50mt pool, it’s popular. I like it. so, if we were to upgrade this pool, to an Aquatic Centre of 21st century standards, would that be more affordable than the WesternReserve proposal?
January 10th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Phil: in response to your comments on the planning scheme and my supposed ‘rant’ against the processes: It is presumptuous to suggest that anyone lacks understanding of “how planning works”, essentially suggesting that councillors (ordinary people just like me or you) – need town planners to ‘translate’ the planning scheme for them.
That isn’t the role of local government town planners. Council officers have a wider obligation. One main function is to provide planning information IMPARTIALLY. Not make biased assumptions about resident’s capabilities, but provide all stakeholders with the information they need to participate. Acknowledged through its procedures the intent of the Planning & Environment Act is to allow residents and ratepayers to EQUAL rights to participate in planning matters. The scheme was designed for access to all stakeholders.
Getting up to speed on reading planning schemes is easily remedied. The Environment Defenders Office provides an excellent free workshop run by environmental lawyers for those wishing to review council decisions.
In a high profile public interest case such as the Aquatic Centre where there are easily demonstrable scientific environmental risks to the catchment and potential infrastructure damage and loss of public amenity of reserved open space. The EDO may even consider providing legal representation to any group of objectors who want to object at VCAT.
Mayor Copley stated that there are no problems with the processes only that people are unhappy with the outcome. That is simply untrue: out of touch with objector experience.
Up until 6 years ago any development where there were objectors involved, a mediation session, with a councillor present was standard practice. Site visits by councillors were common. The floodplain remained undeveloped, because floods were acknowledged, and the planning scheme was used specifically to protect waterway environments from development.
Cr Christine Henderson admitted recently that that process now involves closed briefing sessions with only council personnel to convey their interpretations of objectors concerns. That is akin to saying you have seen the Mona Lisa – when in fact you have only heard it described. You cannot possibly ‘get the picture’ of an objector’s perspective second hand: by substituting one person’s interpretation for another.
Councillors can’t hope to hear ‘demonstrable science’ from an objector restricted to a 5 minute hearing!
Every major project recently has suffered from council’s inability to incorporate objectors concerns: the police station, the supermarkets, the Bendigo Bank, and I suspect soon the Aquatic Centre – all end up at our cost at VCAT. Or worse: under water.
Given the council’s track record of successes at VCAT, less than 35% fully affirmed decisions in the last 5 years – even up against inexperienced disadvantaged objectors, it is apparent that council is failing to consider many aspects that VCAT considers both relevant and actionable.
January 11th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
The Western reserve is not only at risk from flooding as a result of torrential rain in the catchment but also the fact that two reservoirs exist in the headwaters of Forest creek.The Expedition pass and Mckay reservoirs if breached could cause widespread damage and loss of life.A report on the aging Expedition pass res states that 200 lives could be lost if the water it contains were to be released suddenly.