A DEVELOPER-led redevelopment of Manuka is the last thing needed in south Canberra. A developer is attempting to dictate Canberra planning once again.

The national capital has been served well by its planners and by its developers. However, it is served best when each sticks to their own roles. In a fair process, politicians across the political spectrum should stop jumping on the bandwagon of individual developers and support planners to decide the parameters. This way, not just one, but all of the developers have a fair chance to participate.

In the 2012 Budget there was $3 million set aside to examine designs for a new hotel, cafés and shops and two new stands around Manuka Oval. The process started appropriately. The proposal was in preparation for a bid for the Twenty20 World Cup in cricket. The land swap with the Canberra Services Club, after their club was destroyed by fire, provided an additional catalyst.

Enter Australia’s largest privately owned developer – Grocon. And football – AFL style. Forget about cricket. A developer puts together a sweet deal with the risk that good planning flies out the window. No longer is it about a hotel and cafés. Serviced and general residential apartments along with 140,000 square metres of retail and office space become part of the equation as a trade-off.

Sport as their entrée. Who needs planners? This is about greater participation in national sport. The Greater Western Sydney Giants AFL team is committed to a $23 million, 10-year deal to have just three matches a year at the Manuka Oval.

The chairman of the GWS Giants, Tony Shepherd, provides assurances the three-game deal will continue if the development goes ahead. Big deal! That just takes continuing negotiations. It does not mean selling our souls to a developer. Especially when there is a deal already in place.

Mr Shepherd is reported as being “confident the proposed upgrade would change the face of Canberra sport forever”.

Chief Minister Andrew Barr assures the community that the proposal will be subject to the strictest scrutiny. But the temptation of big money, construction jobs, ongoing rates revenue and urban renewal has a way of interfering. These are just some of the factors that form careful planning in the community interest. Barr has recognised it as a “constructive proposal”, but assured the community that it was not a “fait accompli”.

Nor should it be. Let as many developers throw as many “unsolicited” ideas as they like. Our planners should take these ideas into account and then determine what is best for Canberra as a whole, set the parameters and put them out to tender. This process would be fairest for Canberra and fairest for all of the developers who build in this city.

There are significant heritage issues around Manuka. This is an early development area established within a few years of the Old Parliament House and the surrounding public service buildings such as Treasury. The oval and the swimming pool were part of providing appropriate recreation facilities for the burgeoning national capital. The character of the area needs to be retained.

However, planning must also consider Canberra as a whole. A key planning issue is Gungahlin, which is desperate for office space. While Canberra continues to allow more and more office space in the central parts of the city, the decentralised concept of Canberra suffers and the Gungahlin town centre fails to thrive in the way that the original planners conceived.

Had the “spy building” on Parkes Way, or the office space that was built at the airport, for example, been in Gungahlin there would have been much less justification for a light rail project. Peak hour traffic would have operated in both directions. The number of peak hour commuters heading to Civic and surrounds would have been considerably reduced. (Although, it ought to be recognised that both were Federal Government foibles rather than that of ACT planners or government). These mistakes should not be repeated in Manuka.

The redevelopment of Manuka Oval must be seen in the context of all of Canberra planning. Grocon should be thanked for its contribution – but an unsolicited proposal should not stop thoughtful planning or cut out the opportunity for other developers.