We are uniting Canberrans to protect and preserve the fairways of Federal Golf Club for native wildlife, golfers, recreational users and NO residential development.
WHAT’S HAPPENING?
Sydney developer MBark has submitted a large number of Development Applications (DAs) and amendments related to building 125 dwellings (77 houses and 48 units in six 3-storey blocks of flats) in the middle of Federal Golf Club on the foothills of Red Hill. Federal Golf Club Members remain deeply divided over the development with the former Club President resigning in May 2024 saying that new agreements with the developer were “not in the best interest of our club or the members”.
A number of DAs remain “under assessment” while some have been conditionally approved, including DA202342264 for the retirement village. FOFF has made an application to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) for a review of ACT Planning’s Decision on DA202342264.
WHERE ARE THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS?
A further DA is required to deconcessinalise the lease for the subdivided portion of land for the retirement village. This is a necessary condition for any works to commence. This DA has yet to be publicly notified. THERE WILL BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR OPPOSITION THROUGH THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS FOR THAT DA.
Serious concerns have been raised about the environmental damage that will be caused by the development by a number of government entities. The Applicant was sent Further Information Requests on 6 June 2024, on 24 June 2024, on 26 June 2024, and on 27 June 2024. These FIRs make compelling reading. In particular, they state that “The proposed development cannot be supported as there are a significant number of regulated trees on the site which do not meet criteria for removal under the Urban Forest (Approval Criteria) Determination 2023” and “It is recommended to address entity concerns prior to assessment being undertaken/complete as it appears that some design changes may be required to meet the entity advice.”
Meanwhile in a communique to members Federal Golf Club has conceded it cannot start works by March 2025 as it has long claimed.
WHAT CONCERNS DO GOVERNMENT ENTITIES HAVE ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT?
Here are a few key extracts from the second FIR about the retirement village (DA202442901)…
“Site values and the extent of intended impacts have not been sufficiently described or quantified (e.g. summary of general flora and
fauna species recorded in vicinity, listed matters and protected species not considered).”
“The design response did not identify the receiving catchment of any run-off from the site, or the potential impacts which might arise on aquatic and riparian ecosystems during and subsequent to development. It does not sufficiently investigate the potential aquatic and riparian habitats provided by the existing on-site dams, or the opportunities for these habitats to be protected or enhanced through proposed works. There are no descriptions of surveys undertaken to evaluate the use of these habitats by aquatic or riparian species.”
“The design response did not identify the matters for which the site currently provides a key movement corridor for, nor the values of the surrounding landscape which seek to be impacted by landscape fragmentation due to development in the area.”
“The proposed design of the woodland corridor does not consider the minimum recommended design thresholds to maintain or enhance ecological connectivity values through this site.”
“The proposed development will introduce additional light, noise and chemical pollution into the environment due to its proposed use as a residential area. It will also reduce in greater pedestrian and vehicle use of the natural areas and surrounding roads, which will increase disturbance and fragmentation effects already present via Kitchener Street and by the introduction of new roads and other physical barriers. The introduction of roads and waste into this landscape will also increase the use of the site by invasive species such as stray cats, foxes and rats. Buffers and management strategies to reduce these impacts have not been considered in this development application. Impacts of this form of development and the adjusted land use from golf course to residential area will likely have the most profound effect on urban-sensitive small woodland birds, and also ground dwelling species such as turtles and frogs.”
“The proposed bushfire asset protection areas for the site, and their impacts on the protection and restoration of complex native species habitats in the surrounding landscape, are also not considered in the design response or Proposed Biodiversity Values Plan, and hence it is unclear how these oftenconflicting requirements would be achieved.”
“The proponent has not indicated any areas where habitat restoration is proposed.”
“The proposed development cannot be supported as there are a significant number of regulated trees on the site which do not meet criteria for removal under the Urban Forest (Approval Criteria) Determination 2023 Disallowable instrument DI2023—270”
“The Canopy Tree Experts, Arboricultural impact and Assessment and Tree Management Plan indicates the proponent requires the removal of 124 regulated trees for the construction of the water storage dam. 90 trees have been assessed as regulated…however page 8/18 of the Canopy Tree Experts, Arboricultural impact and Assessment and Tree Management Plan concludes that 121 trees will require removal mostly native or endemic species (97 trees being regulated) the maths does not quite add up.”
“The Conservator of Flora and Fauna would not support the removal of medium, medium -high-, and high-quality regulated trees on the site.”
“Considering this DA lodgement is part of a broader proposal, the Tree Protection Unit will require the total number of removals across the site as a piece meal approach does not provide a clear impact of tree loss or the impact it will have of the surrounding suburb or neighbouring properties.”
“The tree protection Unit would like to have the entire project including all the current development Proposals provided in one document so it can be gaged (sic) what impact the development will have on the affected suburbs surrounding the proposed development site.”
The Club’s scaremongering about the future of its land without the retirement village doesn’t stack up. Here are five reasons why the golf club land won’t be turned into a suburb.
1. The Club’s Constitution doesn’t permit disposal of the Club land for a residential suburb.
2. The current land zoning does not permit suburban residential development.
3. The proposed future land use is only for “retirement village” in a Community Facility Zone (CFZ) not “single dwelling” or “multi-unit housing” in a Residential Zone (RZ1-RZ5).
4. The bushfire risk is too high.
5. The ACT Government has no plans for Federal Golf Club land.
The truth is…the surest way to wind up with more development is by not opposing the retirement village. Not only will this guarantee a suburb of 125 dwellings: it also paves the way for future expansion of the village, because when the Club runs out of money again, it will simply flog off more land.
This development is not needed and is NOT THE ONLY OPTION TO SUSTAIN THE CLUB’S FUTURE.
In spite of previous claims by the Club, the development does not have to happen. The Club claims it has no prospect of funding the infrastructure it needs and that it faces ongoing operating losses without the development.
The reality is that Federal Golf Club finances have not been well-managed. The Club has incurred losses in five of the past six financial years, but the losses are typically equivalent to a small percentage of total revenues. Economic analysis shows that fairly minor increases in total revenue and/or fairly minor decreases in total expenses would be enough to return the Club to profitability. The Club only faces ongoing operating losses if it continues to make poor business decisions.
Further, without improving its financial management, relying on the windfall gain from this development to get the Club out of trouble is no guarantee it will become sustainable and makes it more likely the Club will have to develop more of its land in the future.
Two-thirds of the holes at Federal Golf Club have to be altered because of the development. The 6th and 7th holes completely disappear and rearranging the rest of the course to accommodate two new replacement holes will see modifications to nine other holes with only six holes remaining untouched.
The returning nines are modified with an 8 hole / 10 hole split and overall course par is reduced by 1 stroke from 72 to 71 for men and 73 to 72 for women.
The actual playing impact is not yet fully understood as the final development boundaries will be settled in accordance with setback distances from the holes adjoining the residential development (2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). Significant areas of netting will have to be erected for safety of golfers and residents which will further detract from the natural beauty of the course.
This significant disruption to the golf course is unnecessary because the development is unnecessary.
Federal Golf Club’s Crown Lease states that:
The lease variation required for the development will remove the community’s right of passage to the 5.8 hectares of land being proposed for the development.
96 962 321 793
PO Box 3739 Manuka ACT 2603
©2026 Friends of Federal Fairways Inc. All Rights Reserved.