“There are people out there that want to build more adaptable and affordable housing and legalised monopolies like Icon are actively imposing unnecessary costs,” says letter writer FRANK WALMSLEY.

Despite the ACT and federal governments’ push to develop more affordable housing, local builders and Canberra homeowners remain hostage to unreasonable bureaucratic requirements.

In a property in Gordon, Icon Water declined a minor work application due to the location of a water meter and driveway from a block approved in 1992.

Despite no work interfering with the existing infrastructure, Icon Water insists on moving the meter, costing the owner over $10,000.

The simple reality is that there are people out there that want to build more adaptable and affordable housing and legalised monopolies like Icon are actively imposing unnecessary costs.

Most homeowners in Canberra would be shocked to know that a simple development request in their backyard could trigger an unappealable decision imposed by Icon Water to require them to move a water meter that has worked perfectly for a third of century.

The question that remains unanswered is why a homeowner would need to move a water meter at the cost of $10,000 where the proposed building works are in the backyard and do not go anywhere near the perfectly operating infrastructure.

It’s bureaucracy gone mad, undermining attempts to solve the housing crisis.

The inflexibility of the entities in housing development actively undermines the ACT government’s affordable housing initiative and causes unnecessary delays and costs for the owners of existing blocks.

As Canberra’s leading builder of secondary dwellings, we call upon the ACT government to take control of the ratepayer-owned Icon Water and demand that work to efficiently and effectively manage building approvals is in place to encourage more affordable and practical housing development.

If the government has the inability to direct the Icon Water monopoly to have a consumer and community focus, then it should legislate to create an independent tribunal that can oversee and review these imposed and impactful decisions.

Frank Walmsley, director, Canberra Granny Flat Builders 

Disrespectful way to close the local bank branch

I can hardly believe that the CBA branch at Dickson shops will be closing in August. 

I was told that there was not enough “foot traffic” for it to remain open, but it certainly looks busy each time that I visit. 

There are many reasons why we need to continue to see and be served by our banking staff, face to face, and of course using cash should always be an option. 

Even the style by which the news has been communicated is devoid of a mannerly, respectful fashion and no written explanation is given.

In the past the communication would have started: “Dear customers, We regret to inform you that this Dickson CBA branch will be closing. The reason for the closure is…”

On the stock exchange, CBA shares have increased by a whopping 30 per cent over the past 12 months; happy shareholders, unhappy customers.

The main reason for visiting Dickson shops will now be denied to me, and surely to others. I will need to travel to another shopping centre, further away and less convenient.

Also, what is happening to all the staff who used to work in “onsite” rather than “online” banks? I would have asked that question… had I not been in shock at the unexpected news.

Karen Boreham, via email

Anyone else thumped by land tax rise?

I’m wondering if anybody else got a land tax assessment notice with a 34 per cent increase, without explanation or justification and even after a reduced UCV.

Do let CityNews know for me, please.

Michael Delaney, via email

What’s with not turning off the engine?

Has anyone noticed the number of people these days who seem to have an aversion to turning their car’s engine off when parked?

In my observations over several years, I have witnessed: 

• People sitting in their car in a car park, engine idling, chatting on the phone, eating their lunch or working on their laptops.
• A man who left his young children in the car, engine idling, while he went shopping.
• A group of young people enjoying a barbecue at a local picnic spot while their car idled nearby.
• Four federal police vehicles parked outside a certain Middle-Eastern embassy, all with their engines idling.

Are you starting to see a pattern?

Is it any wonder that Australians, per capita, have the largest carbon footprint of any country in the world. 

Given the climate change emergency facing our precious planet, isn’t it time we all made a bit more of an effort?

Ian Johnson, Florey 

Is Canberra a well-planned city?

I was letterboxing in a suburb previously unknown to me and, to pass the time, I asked myself: is Canberra a well-planned city?

This was my answer:

1. At the macro level (meaning the overall plan); no, it is much too big. Confronted with the vastness of the site, the first planners used the space, rather than restraint. If Canberra were half as long and half as wide, covering one quarter of its site, it would be livelier, more interesting, with better transport and cheaper to run.
2. At the medium level (meaning layout, landscaping and big buildings): Yes, this was well done, anyway until self-government in 1988. The National Capital Authority and related bodies laid out the lakes, parks and roads skilfully, and organised the construction of public buildings of high architectural and construction standards. It is hard to think of any quality large developments since, except perhaps New Acton.
3. At the micro level (meaning small constructions): no, and again no, the houses are mostly abysmal. The Roman architect Vitruvius said good construction had three qualities: commodity (meaning fitness for purpose), firmness and delight.

Almost all Canberra’s houses fail all three tests: (a) they are unfit, built without thought to orientation or climate suitability, unnecessarily big for modern families, on excessively large blocks challenging to maintain. 

(b) they are not firm, rather, flimsy, built of the cheapest materials available, assembled by workmen rather than built by tradesmen.

(c) as to delight, they are “designed” by anybody, you need a certificate of competence to remove an appendix or drive a car in the ACT, but anyone is allowed to “design” a house, and who would waste money on having it done by a qualified architect when your brother-in-law can knock something up?

I would be interested in readers’ responses.

Hugh Dakin, Griffith

Time we ditched Griffin’s hilltops dictum? 

Given the current fashion for building on everything across Canberra, maybe it’s time we ditched the Griffin dictum of not building on hilltops?  The Italians have been doing it for centuries! (eg Montepulciano in Tuscany, above).

Richard Johnston, Kingston  

How is anyone today guilty of ‘complicity’?

I take umbrage with columnist Robert Macklin and his claim that “we whitefellas were thoroughly complicit in colonial crimes”.

How were we complicit in a crime that took place 200 years ago?

The Oxford dictionary defines complicit as: involved with others in an activity that is unlawful or morally wrong.

How is anyone alive today guilty of being “complicit” in an action that took place long ago?

I agree with acknowledging injustices in our history but, making a broad statement like that is totally wrong.

John Koundouzis, via email

We ‘whitefellas’ won’t be held responsible 

Columnist Robert Macklin may engage in self-flagellation over the colonial crimes “we whitefellas” engaged in as much as he likes (CN July 18). I decline to participate. 

I and no one of my family will be held responsible for events occurring a few generations ago. We have nothing against our Aboriginals, wish them success in anything they aspire to.

Get off it Robert, the farce of the “Voice” and the subsequent referendum settled it. The majority of Aussies smelt a rat and voted accordingly. 

The real problem, too prevalent in our society nowadays, is that some won’t accept a democratic process and shut up. They persist in white-anting, pushing their authoritarian garbage, doing their best to destroy democracy.

Ray Atkin, Ngunnawal

Invasion? What invasion of Australia?

After reading Robert Macklin’s column, “We whitefellas were complicit in colonial crimes” CN July 18), I wonder where all the recent claims of Australia being invaded have come from. 

Robert claims there was a violent occupation, he claims the Aboriginals owned and cared for the land and its creatures for many thousands of years. How could they care for the land when they were a nomadic race and they ate the creatures, and how is that taking care of them? 

Robert claims: “It is now time to begin talking about reparations in recognition of all the benefits that the British extracted from their far-flung empire and the ubiquitous violence which accompanied the pillage”. 

Has Australia not been giving a vast amount of money for a very long time? 

Capt Cook came and then left, there was no conflict. When the first fleet arrived, again, there was no invasion. 

In all the history books I have read about early settlement in Australia, none contain claims about violent occupation. 

In fact, one book I have is all about the first five years of the first fleet’s settlement in Australia. They were trading with the Aborigines and made friends with some of them. Capt Phillips even took Bennelong to England to meet King George lll. 

Vi Evans, via email

Nuclear base load avoids uneconomic investment 

The 100MW Wallaroo solar farm proposal, just over the ACT border, should help people grasp the enormous scale of the renewable energy infrastructure implicit in the 2024 Integrated System Plan recently published by the Australian Energy Market Operator.

The plan specifies that another 106GW of wind and solar farms, the equivalent of more than 500 developments each twice the size of Wallaroo, be connected to the grid by 2050. 

The intrusion of these grid-scale renewable energy farms that has stirred local residents cannot be avoided because remote locations would incur the costs of transmission and energy loss. 

Even if the average distance of farms from the grid were only 10 kilometres that would mean 5000 kilometres of transmission line.

Nearly 200 of these farms have to be operational by 2030 to meet the government’s emissions legislation. That’s a laugh!

The plan also requires a seven-fold increase in the energy storage capacity on the grid by 2030, from the current 3GW to 22GW. This would be dependent on dubious battery technology for short timeframe backup and at least one more large-storage pumped hydro project the order of Snowy Hydro 2.

The maturity and safety record of nuclear technology compares well with the Australian statistic of 2000 deaths a year from skin cancer caused by exposure to the sun’s radiation. Base load nuclear power would avoid some uneconomic investment in wind and solar and provide a path to net zero emissions.

John L Smith, Farrer

Nuclear power is ‘hopelessly uneconomic’

I refer to the letters about nuclear power from Ian Pilsner, Peter Kenworthy and John L Smith (CN, July 25). Mr Pilsner wrote that I seem to think “the sun is always shining in Australia”, which is not true, and that “renewables are only effective 20 to 30 per cent of the time”, again not true. On average, solar and wind energy are available about 40 per cent of the time.

Mr Pilsner claims that, in contrast to nuclear power plants, there have been “thousands more deaths (from) wind turbine fires”. Fires in wind turbines are very rare, and it would be a remarkable coincidence if anyone were close enough to the turbine to be in danger when the fire occurred. 

He also claims that most nuclear power stations “last at least 60 years and many in America are extending their life to 80 years”. The average nuclear power plant has a serviceable life of 30 years, and newer plants can operate for 40 to 60 years. Solar PV panels have a useful life of 25 to 30 years (not 20 years), and the aim is to extend this to 50 years.

Mr Kenworthy says my arguments lack “real science data”: where is his “real data”?

John L Smith asserts that I exaggerate the water requirements of nuclear power plants. He overlooks the limited resources of clean water to cool the reactors at most of the sites chosen by Peter Dutton. 

Only Liddell, on Lake Liddell in the Hunter Valley has sufficient water, but it would have to be recirculated, and the heated water would risk damage to the lake’s fragile ecosystem.

The final nail in the nuclear coffin is the conclusion from the highly regarded John Quiggin, Professor of Economics at the University of Queensland that, in the Australian context, nuclear power is “hopelessly uneconomic”.

Dr Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin

An almost political campaign statement

Reader TOM MORRIS is not standing for election. But if he were, here’s his campaign pitch (you’ll have to guess who he’s chanelling) …

Good evening ladies and gentlemen.

Tonight I stand before you seeking re-election. And I must admit my position here has been extremely rewarding over the past decade or two.

I am always the first to admit some minor mistakes have been made in the past (behind closed doors, of course). But I can reassure you that if you re-elect me in a landslide there will be no need to secure the balance of power by promising ridiculously expensive, pie-in-the-sky transport schemes that were only ever designed to service five per cent of the population.

And as we all agreed, we already had a perfectly good bus system that is rapidly converting to electric (behind closed doors, again).

I do accept there have been some rumblings about the state of our parlous economy (and my competence as a fiscal manager – which, to be brutally honest, has never been my strong suit).

Yes, it is a fact that each taxpayer now owes in the vicinity of $90,000, which in large part is due to the astronomical cost of iron rails. Just the other day someone mentioned to me that the cost is approaching $1,000,000 a metre.

But please, don’t be alarmed by this figure because, as soon as I am elected, I will be contacting each and every one of you with a view to immediate recovery of this outstanding debt so that we can square the books – and be able to start with a clean slate (preferably on a level playing field, depending on our stakeholder’s whims… blah, blah, blah… you know how it goes!).

One small observation, though: please don’t get your hopes up about the feds bailing us out. In confidence, they told me the other day that “we had better get our act together because they are fed up with funding our wanton extravagance” (a little harsh, don’t you think?).

In finishing it merely behooves me to thank you for your patience in putting up with the potholes and the disgusting state of the roads. I am sure you all realise by now that we spend nothing for the first three years of a term so we can have a cash-splash before the election. 

In this regard, with all the works packed into the next three months, (which is incredibly expensive for you, the taxpayer, due to unavailability of road crews), please bear in mind you will need to double your normal travelling times (as well as your petrol costs).

Well, I think that covers it: I believe I have been as much help to you as I can in these very trying times.

And please do not forget at election time to vote for; “yours truly” – your hard-working member, Tom Alphonsus Morris.