Canberra Centenary Party and Cake Competition

We are holding a Canberra Centenary Celebration on Saturday 18 May 2013.  This will take the form of a Street Party with a large range of art exhibitions, park dedication, live music from school bands, performances by Jumptown! Swing, a sausage sizzle sponsored by the Baptist Community Services, a café-coffee cart, booths from the local Griffith Shop keepers and more, including the Canberra Centenary Cake Competition.  The party will be hosted by M16 Artspace, at 21 Blaxland Crescent, Griffith.

Plot Ratio in RZ1

Although the GNCA agrees with many of the changes introduce by DV306, the plot ratio issue for single dwellings is still unsatisfactory. 

The rules still fail to prevent houses in RZ1 zones from covering more than 50% of a block.  The government has agreed in principle to introduce a sliding scale for blocks larger than 500m2.  Unfortunately, this will not prevent whole blocks being occupied by a single dwelling because courtyards/internal pools are not included in the Gross Floor Area (GFA).  We will continue to lobby for a method in which the GFA is defined as the ground area of the building surrounded by the external vertices.

Clarification of RZ1 Zoning

Most blocks zoned RZ1 are for single dwelling residences.  For historical reasons a few blocks zoned RZ1 are permitted to support multi-unit developments.  Special provision for such “non-standard blocks unnecessarily complicates planning rules for RZ1.  Such non-standard blocks should be rezoned to a zoning which best matches their current use, leaving the RZ1 zoning exclusively for single dwelling residences.

Exempt Developments in built up areas

Many knock down/rebuilds in existing areas are classified as exempt, because they are certified as complying with the planning regime.  If this is the case no notification needs to be made to neighbours or other interested parties, and no plans or other documentation need to be lodged with the Planning Authority (ESDD), so that the planners are also unaware of what is proposed, or its timing.  As many flaws in proposed developments are not (it would seem) initially detected by ESDD, but come to light when interested third parties have occasion to examine the documentation, it is clear that a number of developments, which should not have been approved will slip through the system under the current rules.  

And arguably there are some developments which do comply with all existing planning rules and would not have been approved if they had been subject to the DA approval process because they did not “respect and contribute to the neighbourhood and landscape character”.  This is particularly the case when a redevelopment is proposed in a heritage area, as the planning rules do not seem to explicitly attach much weight to heritage issues.

A further difficulty is where the dwelling to be knocked down and rebuilt is one or a pair of semidetached houses, i.e. a duplex.  It may be that when one portion of the party wall is demolished this leaves the remaining member of the duplex less weather proof, or even uninhabitable.  Depending on the circumstances, the demolition of a party wall might be an action permitted under the exempt development rules.  However, it may be that because its negative outcomes affects the remaining portion of the duplex, some certifiers may not recognize the issue and realize that this should influence their assessment as to whether the proposal is compliant.

This situation is completely unacceptable and ESDD should improve the way in which these exempt rules apply in built up areas.  The rules were originally developed to reduce compliance requirements when building houses in new suburbs without established neighbours.  We are considering possible solutions, in association with other affected areas through the Inner South Canberra Community Council (ISCCC).

Protection of trees and verges 

There is a need to better protect trees and verges during re-developments.  There is a particular problem with exempt extensions and knockdown/rebuilds, as TAMS, which is responsible for protection or street trees and verges, may not be aware of any activity.  Developers who are required to lodge DAs must prepare and obtain approval from TAMS for a Landscape Management and Protection Plan (LMPP) but no such requirement applies to exempt developments (one of the issues which was overlooked when exempt developments were extended from greenfield areas to existing suburbs).  Minister Rattenbury has given a commitment to tackle this issue and TAMS and ESDD are consulting on how this might be best implemented.  

Problems in this area would be minimized if developers were give some incentive to safeguard trees and verges adjacent to building activities.  We are attracted by the suggestion that developers and builders be required to lodge a bond before construction commenced; to be refunded in full if no damage had been suffered by adjacent trees or verges.

Traffic and parking arrangements

Traffic and parking arrangements during re-developments is another issue that needs attention.  Developments requiring a DA must demonstrate compliance with the planning requirements with regard to parking for future residents and their visitors, and that the local roads can handle the increased traffic generated by the development.  However, there appears to be no requirement that the traffic and parking requirements generated by the construction process itself be considered to minimise inconvenience to surrounding residents and the community at large.  While the parking of vehicles by construction works tends not to be a problem when building or extension work on an individual house is in train, on a couple of major developments in Griffith the issue of construction worker parking has become a more serious issue.  

In both the Altair apartment development on Stuart St opposite the Griffith shops, and the Baptist Community Services old persons’ home development on the corner of Stuart St and Blaxland Cr, suggestions have been made by the respective developers that construction workers should be permitted to park in Blaxland Park..  The GNCA has prevented this by pointing out to TAMS, which has responsibility for approving such proposals, that parking is not allowed in an area zoned as PRZ1: Urban Open Space, such as Blaxland Park.  We have also indicated to TAMS that we do not regard it as appropriate or acceptable for the residents of suburban streets adjacent to some major development to be inconvenienced by construction workers’ parking over an extended period in such streets.

Developments which require a DA must prepare and have TAMS approve a Temporary Traffic Management Plan (TTMP), but TAMS appears to lack any protocol for assessing such plans and deciding whether the inconvenience they impose upon the public at large is acceptable.

We will be encouraging TAMS to require developers to give appropriate thought as to where workers are to park, at all stages of building, rather than seeking ad hoc solutions when the issue becomes pressing.  

Precinct Codes

DV 306 was introduced with interim effect from June 2011.  One of the consequences was that previously extant Neighbourhood Plans, (including the Griffith Neighbourhood Plan and the Narrabundah Neighbourhood Plan) were deprived of any effect under the Territory Plan, and so became irrelevant for planning purposes.  

The changes introduced under DV 306 envisioned that the Neighbourhood Plans would be replaced by a series of Precinct Plans.  ESDD has interpreted this as meaning that there should be a Suburb Precinct Plan for each and every Canberra suburb, and has consequently introduced some 108 Suburb Precinct Maps or Precinct Map and Codes.  In addition, there are also 19 District Precinct Maps or District Precinct Map and Codes (for Woden, Tuggeranong etc., but also for rural areas such as Jerrabomberra, Tennant etc.).  Finally there are special Precinct Codes for Northbourne Avenue; and the Inner North.  These are all available under the Territory Plan at http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2008-27/current/default.asp#Precinct+Maps+and+Codes

Apart from the codes applicable to Northbourne Avenue and the Inner North these Precinct Codes have been introduced by ESDD by way of Technical Amendments to the Territory Plan.  Technical Amendments must be notified to the Assembly, but unlike Draft Variations to the Territory Plan, Technical Amendments are not disallowable.  This means that the Planning and Land Authority (now part of ESDD) can introduce a Technical Amendment whenever “the planning and land authority is satisfied that a plan variation would, if made, be a technical amendment”.  Such unfettered delegation of legislative authority to bureaucrats is most unusual and is probably restricted to the ACT.

The GNCA and other residents associations in the inner south area are keen to develop a Precinct Code or codes to apply to Inner South Canberra, and are working to develop a draft for discussion with ESDD under the auspices of the Inner South Canberra Community Council (an umbrella organization representing the seven or so resident associations in the inner south).  Such a combined approach is essential, as the boundaries of the various residents associations areas frequently do not coincide with official suburban boundaries.  About half the area represented by the GNCA is part of Narrabundah, while all of Griffith between Canberra Avenue and Leichhardt St. is represented by the Kingston Barton Residents Group.