The Gungahlin Community Council Inc (GCC) is an incorporated, not for profit, community-based association operating within the Gungahlin district of the Australian Capital Territory. This district covers an area in the northwest of the ACT between the ACT–NSW border, and the Barton Highway, and Federal Highway to the south and east.

GCC’s objective is to preserve and improve the social, cultural, economic and environmental well being of Gungahlin and the Gungahlin community. To achieve this objective, GCC undertakes to:

The Gungahlin Community Council welcomes the opportunity to provide our thoughts on the discussion paper Expanding Hospital Services in the ACT. Our attempts to secure ACT Health staff through the consultation enquiry telephone number and email address, seeking staff to attend one of our meetings during the consultation period went unanswered. Therefore we secured instead the attendance of Health Minister Katy Gallagher at our meeting the night before submissions were due to close. Minister Gallagher confirmed that as a result of the problems we experienced, our submission would be received even though after the closing date.

In April 2010, in the light of the problems being experienced by The Canberra Hospital (TCH) during reconstruction works and the failed purchase of Calvary, GCC first floated concerns that the two Canberra public hospitals would not be adequate to cope with the projected population growth in Canberra. With around 50,000 people planned for Molonglo, and still another 60,000 people to come in Gungahlin, plus further densification of the inner north, the idea that TCH and Calvary could cope with a greater than 30 per cent ACT population growth without major reconstruction is not credible. Far better, we argued, that the ACT Government build a third hospital on a greenfield site on the northside, where the Government could masterplan the site from day one. Once in place, then additional capacity would allow for progressive redevelopment of the other sites, without major disruption to services.

In September, GCC’s Alan Kerlin met with Minister Gallagher, at her request, to discuss GCC’s ideas for a third hospital. During this discussion, Ms Gallagher explained that ACT Health modelling had shown that if they tried to accommodate projected population growth on the existing sites, “they would both be construction sites for the foreseeable future, and that’s not an appealing prospect.” We agree entirely with this sentiment, and therefore concur with the underlying need for a third hospital as explained in the discussion paper. While it is reassuring to see the experts confirm it, the requirement is surely common sense? The finding that such an approach would be markedly more expensive that all other options is entirely expected.

During our discussion with the Minister, we proposed that the Gungahlin Town Centre has an ideal location for a third hospital, and the Minister confirmed that an assessment by Land and Property Services had confirmed exactly this location as one of the preferred options for a greenfield hospital development. The other sites she discussed were at the corner of Kelleway Ave and Gungahlin Drive Nicholls and on the University of Canberra campus. We dismissed the Nicholls sites as being poorly served by public transport, lacking in local retail amenities, and of high impact on residents. We also expressed concern that the UC site would be putting student needs above those of the patients and their families, and being very close to Calvary would be losing an opportunity to establish a geographic spread of hospital services. 

We also explained to the Minister that this site would most likely meet with strong community support, even from people in the community with housing close by. Indeed, through all the media coverage, online discussion through our website and Facebook group, and other meetings and online community efforts, the response we have received has been almost 100 per cent favourable for our proposal.

The land we proposed forms part of the 40 hectare area GCC has been successful in getting rezoned by ACTPLA to zones suiting business park development, as shown below. This location would provide the staff and users of such a hospital with immediate access to the Gungahlin town centre, which is now a fully serviced retail core. This would be very different from the geographic locations of TCH and Calvary – or UC for that matter – in that the distance from local shopping areas leaves users essentially locked into using a single on-site concessionaire.

The location is also on a high-frequency public transport route, with bus services at least every 15 minutes during week days and far more frequent during peaks. It is within a similar driving and public transport range from Civic as the Belconnen and Woden town centres. The soon-to-be-built community health clinic a block away would ensure the hospital can focus on cases of genuine need rather than having the emergency ward filled with the non-urgent presentations that seem to plague other hospitals.

The population growth still to come in Gungahlin will see most people going into areas to the north, west and east of the town centre, making the town centre a very central location, rather than at the northern extremity of Canberra, as has been portrayed by some. In time, it will be relatively central to well over 100,000 people from all of Gungahlin, the inner northern suburbs, and the northern Belconnen areas, all within a 12-minute driving radius. The population to come for Molonglo will likely split equally between TCH and Calvary, with that 50,000 people alone likely pushing both hospitals to their limits.

The site has the capacity to develop the planned hospital, as shown in this rendering by ACTPLA of potential development on the site and immediate surrounds. 

The business park land also has ample space to accommodate a broad range of supporting services such as specialist clinics and high-quality residential developments to suit the likely workforce, as shown in the following ACTPLA rendering of potential development within the southern part of the site, shown in purple on the plan above. This site has immense development potential for high-quality apartments that will have uninterrupted views across the grassland reserve to the Brindabellas.

The Gungahlin site will also be counter-flow during morning peak periods, making it easily accessible to emergency services. 

Several stakeholder groups have raised concerns about the Government’s ability to attract adequate staff to any new hospital. This is an important reason why a third hospital at Gungahlin would work. With the lion’s share of new development around Gungahlin, the Government would be able to promote a total work/living/shopping environment to potential medical staff considering relocation – all within easy bicycle or bus distance.

There is an important aspect to this decision that warrants the ACT Government undertaking a whole-of-government assessment of candidate sites, rather than just the current Health/Treasury review. Currently, the ACT Government faces a long road to secure buyers for the Gungahlin business park land, because the potential developers know that they will struggle to secure tenants. We expect that in the current climate the town centre will take at least another 15 years to complete, with considerable holding costs resulting for the Government. However, if the ACT Government were to commit to building a third hospital within this district, it would provide the catalyst to kick-start the business park. Developers would be keen to secure land adjacent to the hospital, and it is reasonable to expect that the Government could clear the remaining land within more like five to 10 years, and for premium prices. Higher prices, sooner, and with the flow-on benefits of greater rates revenue as well. None of these benefits would accrue to the Government for a UC location. Rather, there would likely be considerable pressure on the Government to improve the public transport services to the UC campus to meet demand, given the somewhat isolated location.

Further to the land sale and rate revenue aspect is that of transport infrastructure. The rapid construction of the gungahlin business park would inject some 10,000 jobs into our town centre. Many existing residents would look to transfer to local employers in order to avoid the daily commute. Employees currently living in other parts of Canberra would consider relocation to Gungahlin in order to be closer to their work. In turn, properties in the other areas would be freed up for Gungahlin residents who currently commute out to consider relocating closer to their workplaces. The upshot of this logical geographic shift is that the ACT Government would find itself not needing to supply substantial transport infrastructure projects that, given recent experience, would be likely to cost ACT taxpayers and ratepayers several hundred million dollars. This means that a decision to build a hospital in Gungahlin could in fact be the foundation for major savings that would in turn benefit all people in Canberra. It would also be a key contributor towards meeting the ACT Government’s ambitious greenhouse reduction target.

Assuming the ACT Government accepts the ACT Health advice and goes with a third hospital solution as also recommended by the Assembly’s Committee, our preference of the described options is Option D, with a networked hospital system including an acute and emergency hospital – at Gungahlin – and Calvary converted to sub-acute services. Our sense is that this option best matches the developing demographics, where the younger families in Gungahlin are more likely to benefit from nearby acute services, and the aging demographics of the Belconnen and inner suburbs more likely to be access sub-acute services. It appears to us that there is substantial growth likely in sub-acute service provision, and therefore the Calvary management should be keen to take on this specialised role.

Option D gives the greatest value and return on investment.  It is the least expensive because retrofitting unplanned expansion is always more expensive than a greenfield development. It adds the most value to the total Canberra community assets by using difficult to sell land in a Town Centre and reducing travel and access costs for staff and patients. 

Our second preference would be option C, where all the hospitals provide the full range of core hospital services. Our preference for this option is because our community seeks easy and quick access to emergency services for our children in particular, and waiting times at Calvary are already unacceptably long. It is also a substantially less expensive option than A, B or E.

In summary, we urge the ACT Government to commit to building a third hospital in Canberra, and to undertake a whole-of-government assessment of all the potential flow-on benefits that would accrue to the Government from an appropriate choice of site.

We would welcome the opportunity to elaborate on our submission to the Minister and Health officials.

Regards,

Alan Kerlin, Spokesman – Planning, Transport and Environment

Gungahlin Community Council