October 2014

The Government has announced that it intends to redevelop the Stuart Flats (cnr of Captain Cook Av and Stuart St, Griffith) and Gowrie Court (McIntyre St, Narrabundah).  The Government also wishes to redevelop the Red Hill Flats, behind the Red Hill shops.  While all these flats are now several decades old and consequently in need of maintenance, at the least, the Government is keen to pack as many residences as possible onto these sites in the belief that this will maximise the short term returns to Government.

The GNCA has some reservations about this approach, and together with the Inner South Canberra prepared this submission on the issue.

ACT Housing is consulting with the public about these proposals.

Design Workshops October 2014

Design workshops were held for the Stuart Flats, on Monday 13 October, and for Gowrie Court on Tuesday 14 October.

Update 24 October 2014 –  Update on the Stuart Flats, Gowrie Court Re-development Proposals

 Background

The government’s plan is to re-develop several sites in Canberra that currently house public tenants.  The Community Services Directorate, which is responsible for the re-developments, has been told that no new money will be provided for this work and the future public housing stock will have to be funded from the sale of units at each site.  Consequently the government is aiming to maximise its returns from each re-development.  It plans to have a mixture of public and private residents at each site with a mix of at least 10% at each location.

The Canberra-wide timetable has yet to be determined.  As part of the consultation process the government has organised workshops where stakeholders can participate in developing plans for each site.

Approximately forty people attended a workshop, on 13 October to explore possible configurations of buildings that might be constructed on the Stuart Flats site and on 14 October about thirty people attended a similar workshop to study Gowrie Court.

 Stuart Flats

The government’s proposal for the Stuart Flats was to combine Section 39 (20,339m2) with Section 43 (9,738m2) to create a site of total area1 of 30,077m2, and increase the number of dwellings from 146 to 550; including a multi storey block on the 6,518 m2 Block 5 Section 43 (the Public Open Space on the knoll enclosed by Light St and Evans Cr).  There was a unanimous recommendation that the public open space should be preserved because of:

  1. The need for accessible open space in a re-development of this size;
  2. The undesirable effect of any multi-storey building overlooking the neighbours; it would be too dominant over the surrounding buildings, and
  3. Because of the hardness of the rock, it would be very expensive to build underground car parks and would probably require the use of explosives to level the site – not to be recommended in a residential area.

There was not time to construct a model to accommodate 550 dwellings on Section 39, but the community representatives at the workshop recommended that the number of dwellings on the site should be reduced from 550 to something less than 500.

The government should also investigate the possibility of re-zoning the site to RZ4 – medium density residential.

The maximum height of any building in the RZ4 zone is 12.5m and the maximum plot ratio is 80%, whereas the maximum height in RZ5 is 21.5m and there is no specified maximum plot ratio.  Under the existing RZ2 zoning the maximum height is 8.5m and two storeys and the maximum plot ratio is 65%

 Gowrie Court

Gowrie Court

The Gowrie Court (13,775m2) enhancement recommended by the government was from 72 dwellings to 150.  The Government has agreed to exclude the wedge shown on the southeast side of the site from the re-development area (it is part of Section 64, the adjacent park including Jerrabomberra Oval), which it had initial proposed should be added to the redevelopment site.

The controlling factor in determining the number of dwellings on the site was the number of cars that could be parked underground.  This was limited because the main sewer is aligned NW-SE through the centre of the site and consequently it would not be possible to have one large car park covering the whole site.

The attendees at the workshop favoured much lower heights than the two central six storey buildings proposed by the architects.  Because of the site’s distance from any local shops (the nearest is ~650-700 m to the Griffith Shops), and its suburban location, it was recommended that the architects investigate building many more one or two storey town houses rather than one and two bedroom apartments in multistorey buildings as is currently proposed.  Attendees felt that such a style of redevelopment would be much more in keeping with the character of the area and would meet a local need for townhouse style dwellings, increasing local choices.  The Griffith Narrabundah area already has a plethora of apartments.

RZ5 (maximum height 21.5m, no plot ratio limit) was considered to be unsuitable for the redevelopment and the architects are going to investigate an RZ4 zoning (maximum height 12.5m, plot ratio 80%).  The site is currently zoned RZ1, with a maximum height restriction of 2 storeys and 8.5m and a maximum plot ratio of 65%.

The next steps

 According to the government representatives at the workshop, the architects will be analysing the outputs and opinions raised at the workshops and prepare revised plans for each site.  These are expected to be completed by the end of 2014 and the government hopes to prepare the draft variations in the first half of 2015.

Conclusions

The GNCA representatives considered both workshops to be extremely valuable and we commend the government for embarking on this very thorough and extensive review/consultation process.

The proof will be when the second pudding is produced and we will know the extent to which the government has adopted community opinions.  However, the GNCA is disappointed that the government appears determined to ignore its own planning rules in making decisions in relation to the appropriate zoning of the various sites.  While a case could be made that the Stuart Flats should be upgraded from RZ2 zoning because of their proximity to the Manuka Group Centre, and location on the junction of two major roads, Canberra Avenue and Captain Cook Cr, and consequent good transport connections, there appears to be little justification in zoning Gowrie Court as RZ4 or RZ5, remote as it is from shopping, employment opportunities or major transport routes.  The site is archetypically suburban.

This issue highlights the conflict of interest that the government has – it either complies with its own planning rules, and has to find more money for public housing, or it ruthlessly dumps its own planning policies to save money, but in so doing undermines the rationale for its planning policies.  If it is good enough to bend the rules for the government when acting in the roles of property developer, why should the same opportunities be denied to other developers?

PDF Version here

February 28 2012

Rezoning of Brumbies’ site

This continues to be a ‘hot’ issue with the Brumbies being very active in seeking ways of redeveloping the site.

Firstly, there is the recent approval of DV307 to rezone the site. The approval did take into account the recommendations of the Standing Committee. You can read the Notification here: DV307 notification May 2012

The next step is expected to the lodging of a Development Application for apartments.

Would you support the construction of 150 apartments on the former South Canberra Bowling Club/Brumbies ACT Rugby HQ site?

The case for re-zoning from ‘Leisure and Accommodation’ to ‘Medium Density housing’ is flawed. Here are a few of points to illustrate this:

  • Part of the Block is prone to flooding and unsuitable for any housing – which is why it has never been zoned as a residential area.
  • RZ4 zoning breaches Government undertakings that multi unit residential development will be restricted to areas within 200–300 m of a commercial core or local centre.
  • The height and mass of the buildings in the proposed development would be out of scale with the surrounding dwellings.
  • The existing infrastructure of Griffith was never designed or intended to sustain such a high density of urban living.
  • It is not consistent with the 2004 Griffith Neighbourhood Plan, which states:

‘Whatever the change in the low-density (residential) character, established street trees and mature garden setting will remain.’

‘Maintain and enhance the existing street pattern by ensuring buildings relate to the street rather than detract from it (as a general strategy).

‘Maintain and enhance physical facilities for community-based activities’.

 

October 21 2012

As expected, the Brumbies have now lodged a DA for the construction of 134 one, two and three bedroom apartments on their current club house site.  The DA is very large, comprising 448 pages which takes up over 185 MB.  You can access the documents at http://apps.actpla.act.gov.au/pubnote/pubnoteDetail_new.asp?DA_no=201222226.  Any objections must be lodged with ACTPLA by cob Wednesday 7 November 2012.

December 11 2012

The Brumbies have lodged a DA proposing the construction of 134 apartments of various sizes (one, two and three bedroom) at their club house site in Griffith.  These will be located in seven three storey buildings with one level of basement parking below ground (and flood water) level.  The period for comments closed on 21 November 2012.  This had been extended by two weeks from 7 November when we pointed out to ACTPLA that not all the information required had initially been provided by the proponents.

We now await ACTPLA’s decision on the application.  The GNCA lodged a submission about the DA.  You can read it here GNCA Submission on DA 2012222261

April 9 2013

The Brumbies application for development approval to redevelop their club house site in Griffith has been called in and approved by Minister Corbell, after four months of consideration by the planning elements within the Environment and sustainable Development Directorate.  Read further details here.  The Ministers media release is here, and the University of Canberra media release is here.

November 12 2013

In late July (2013) we wrote to the responsible Minister, Simon Corbell, expressing our concerns about some elements of his decision to “call-in” the Development Approval for the proposed development on the Brumbies clubhouse site in April.   One consequence of a Ministerial call-in is that the Approval in question cannot be subjected to the usual review process by the ACAT.  This exemption from scrutiny might lead a Minister, or the planners that advise him, to adopt positions that some might regard as more questionable than those that might have been taken had they been likely to be tested against alternative views.

Minister Corbell responded to our email on 9 September 2013.  You can read his letter here.

We felt the Minister’s reply raised a number of issues, in particular the need for guide lines in relation to the use of the Ministerial call in powers, and the need for some objective criteria to determine if there is any public benefit involved (rather than the Minister merely asserting that there is public benefit, as in the present case); the lack of any legally meaningful formal and objective definition of medium density (or of low density or high density, for that matter) in the current Territory Plan; and the inadequate information available in relation to possible flooding at the site, as well as other matters in relation to the development.

Our response to Minister Corbell is available here.

June 15 2013

The excessive size of the development for the Brumbies site has several flow-on effects.   For instance visitor parking.  The Parking and Vehicular Access (PVA) Code requires the provision of 0.25 of a visitor parking space for each apartment.  For this site the developer needs to provide 33 visitor spaces.  In fact only nine have been provided on site, and the Minister has reduced the requirement from 33 to 25.  So what is the point of a code if it can be overruled at will?

The current proposal is for visitors to park on Austin Street, but these parking spaces already exist, so it cannot be said they will be provided by the developer.  As a result, the developer will not have to fund a further 16 (or 24 to comply with the code) visitor parking spaces.  The public has been deprived of these spaces in the street and the developer has been effectively subsidised by the public.

With visitors parking in Austin St it will look like this.