Current Issues

Gowrie Court and Stuart Flats Update April 2015

April 18, 2015

in Past Issues

The ACT Government is planning to re-develop Stuart Flats and Gowrie Court as part of a program to generate sufficient income to revitalise the ACT’s public housing portfolio.

Extensive public consultation was organised by the government.  This included a drop-in session in July 2014 to look at some options for each site, a public briefing in August, opportunities to provide comments on the Time-to-Talk web site and a Design Workshop in October, where there was an opportunity to generate models of possible scenarios at each site.  In addition the GNCA and the ISCCC held meetings with government officials responsible for the re-developments.

We commend the government for embarking on this extensive consultation process.  It was very valuable for the community to hear what was being proposed.  Furthermore, the government planners acted positively to comments by the local residents and a new set of plans has now unveiled.  The figures below indicate what is currently planned.

We were pleased to see that most of the public open space between Light Street and Evans Crescent is being preserved and incorporated into the Stuart Flats plan and that most of the Gowrie Court site will now be developed as town houses.  We had argued for both these outcomes.

The next stage of the process will be for the government to draft Variations to the Territory Plan to change the zoning of the areas and develop Precinct Codes to detail what planning constraints will be applied to each of the sites, following their sale to private developers.

At that stage there will be an opportunity to comment on issues such as the height of the buildings, parking facilities and solar access.  It is a long process, but hopefully it will be worth the effort and we will finish up with good quality developments.

Indicative concept plan for Stuart Flats.  Heights of buildings range from two to six stories.  See our website for details.


Indicative Concept Plan for Gowrie Court; two story townhouses and two 6 story towers.

Response from Chief Minister dated 27 March 2015 re Stuart Flats and Gowrie Court Redevelopments

April 5, 2015

in Past Issues

Shown below is the response from the Chief Minister to the GNCA on the Stuart Flats and Gowrie Court Redevelopments dated 27 March 2015

 

Proposed Parking Changes at Griffith Shops

April 3, 2015

in Past Issues

The ACT Government is working on some changes to the public space in front of the Griffith Shopping Centre. The changes are planned for completion by 30 June 2015.

A copy of the plan can be accessed at the bottom of this post.

In order to meet the gradients required by current Australian Standards, the upgrades include the relocation of the parking space for persons with a disability (PWD), from the western end near the pharmacy to the eastern end.

The initial design relocated this PWD space in front of the Shop-Rite supermarket. However, due to concerns raised by leaseholders, Roads ACT have revised the relocation and alignment of the parking spaces in front of the shops.

The proposal now provides some 90 degree parking to reduce any loss of spaces. It proposes a PWD space closer to the centre of the shopping area. The 90 degree parking spaces and aisle width are compliant with Australian Standards and overall, there would be a gain of one parking space.

The GNCA Committee has considered this and earlier versions of the plan. The current version of the plan is supported by the Committee.

Griffith Shops – Propossed Parking Changes

Gowrie Court and Sturt Flats Letter to Chief Minister Barr

February 26, 2015

in Past Issues

Griffith/Narrabundah Community Association Inc.

PO Box 4127, Manuka ACT  2603

www.gnca.org.au                                                                                       email:  info@gnca.org.au

________________________________________________________________________________________

Andrew Barr MLA

Chief Minister and Minister for Urban Renewal

GPO Box 1020

CANBERRA

ACT 2601

Barr@act.gov.au

 

cc Mr Peter Johns, Senior Manager, Community Services Directorate

     Peter.Johns@act.gov.au

 

Dear Chief Minister

GOWRIE COURT AND STUART FLATS

The Griffith Narrabundah Community Association (GNCA) welcomed the news last year that the Government was moving to redevelop both the Stuart Flats and Gowrie Court.  These are both 1960s structures of no great architectural worth, even when new, and must now be well beyond their original design age.  An intelligent redevelopment of both these sites, which did not disadvantage any current residents that wished to remain in the area, while making better use of these sites, would clearly be an welcome outcome. 

Consequently the GNCA was very happy to be involved in the detailed community consultations in relation to these two sites held in October 2014, and pleased when informal contacts with the Department of Housing suggested that many of our concerns had been noted and that the proposed designs would reflect a reasonable compromise between the various interested parties. 

In particular we were pleased that (as we understood it) the proposed outcome for the Gowrie Court site would be mainly low rise town houses rising to four storey apartments at the rear of the block facing over the oval.  We were also happy with the outcome for the Stuart Flats where the community’s dislike of high rise apartment towers and the proposed appropriation of existing public open space had been heeded, resulting in a less aggressive proposed redevelopment much more likely to achieve public acceptance.  Our experience with the public consultation process was that it was worthwhile, and produced good outcomes for both residents and for the Department of Housing.

The status of the Stuart Flats and Gowrie Court sites is now ambiguous, following the recently announced decision to dispose of the Stuart Flats site.  It is not clear whether Gowrie Court is also to be sold, and was merely omitted from the media release, or whether the Department of Housing is to retain Gowrie Court.  If the latter is the case, it is not clear whether Gowrie Court is to be redeveloped or left in its current aging condition.  In the case of the Stuart flats, are these to be sold with the proposed design overlay resulting from last year’s community consultations applied, or will potential developers be free to propose their own outcomes?

The GNCA looks forward to participating in any consultations that the Government might propose to hold before moving forward in relation to the Stuart Flats.

Yours sincerely

24 February 2015

 

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (CAPITAL METRO) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014

February 9, 2015

in Past Issues

Planning and Development (Capital Metro) Legislation Amendment Bill 2014

Mr Mick Gentleman MLA

Minister for Planning

ACT Legislative Assembly

gentleman@act.gov.au

 

Dear Mr Gentleman

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (CAPITAL METRO) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014

I am writing to you, as a Member for Molonglo, to emphasise the Inner South Canberra Community Council’s concerns about the proposed Planning and Development (Capital Metro) Legislation Amendment Bill 2014.

We are concerned that this Bill proposes to give the Minister for Planning similar powers, at least in some respects, to those proposed in the late but unlamented Planning and Development (Project Facilitation) Amendment Bill 2014. Our understanding is that the Bill is intended to:

  • remove ACAT merit review and ADJR Act appeal rights for development approvals for light rail tracks and associated infrastructure (light rail);
  • restrict to 60 days the period within which a Supreme Court common law appeal can be lodged against a light rail development approval;
  • permit the planning and land authority to declare a proposal to be related to light rail;
  • permit the Minister to reduce to three months the time within which the relevant Legislative Assembly committee must report on a light rail related planning variation;
  • create additional grounds for a development approval decision‐maker to depart from referral agency advice in relation to a light rail development (and presumably, as a consequence, override the Heritage Act 2004 and the Tree Protection Act 2005); and
  • simplify development application documentation requirements for light rail related developments.

Unlike the Planning and Development (Project Facilitation) Amendment Bill 2014 this Bill will only apply to ‘infrastructure’ lying wholly or partially within 1 km of the light rail route. However, this seems to be a broad swathe of territory to be covered by a light rail infrastructure bill, and immediately raises the question as to why these dramatic new powers are not restricted so as to only be applicable within the legislated light rail easement.

The definitions accompanying the proposed amendment are inadequate. Light rail is defined in a circular fashion as ‘a system of transport for public passengers using lightweight rail and rolling stock’, which provided little guidance as to how a light rail (or tram) system is to be distinguished from a normal ‘heavy rail’ system. At present it is not clear that infrastructure within 1 km of the railway line through Kingston (including even those now disused portions to the west of Kingston Station) would not fall within the ambit of this Bill. We assume that this is not the Government’s intention.

A development is a light rail related development if it may facilitate the construction, ongoing operation and maintenance, repairs, refurbishment, relocation or replacement of light rail track or infrastructure within or partly within 1 km from existing or proposed light rail track. Infrastructure in this sentence is not defined but the Bill gives as examples of such infrastructure as: temporary infrastructure for construction of light rail such as safety fencing, scaffolding, access roads and parking; stops, stations, terminus and associated shelters, seating and toilet amenities, ticketing infrastructure, parking, set-down areas and bicycle storage; access roads, footpaths and bicycle lanes; entry and access points and safety barriers; electricity supply infrastructure including substations, overhead lines and supports; signalling and other control facilities; and depot facilities.

However the Bill notes that these examples are not exhaustive and may extend, but do not limit, the meaning of the provision. Without any extension beyond what is written it would appear that the Bill will apply for example to any road, or power line, that passes within 1 km of an existing or proposed light rail track at any point in its length.

The Explanatory Memorandum assures us that the Planning and Land Authority will not be ‘able to declare residential development along the light rail corridor to be related to light rail’, but it is hard to see what this reassurance is based on, as there will be no one in a position to question the Authority’s interpretation of what constitutes infrastructure. There does not appear to be any restriction of who can be a proponent of light rail related infrastructure. Concerns about this could be allayed if a light rail related proposal could only be brought forward by Capital Metro or a company of Government body providing a utility service within the ACT.

We understand that it is intended to debate the Bill as early as Tuesday 10 February. This timeframe seems to be extremely rushed and scarcely allows time for any informed public debate. There appears to be no need for this urgency.

We ask that you act to delay consideration of this Bill to allow a proper public debate about whether it is really necessary. We remain unconvinced that the Minister needs any further powers to override the Heritage Act 2004 and the Tree Protection Act 2005, and the case for these enhanced powers remains to be made. The definitions in the Bill need to be considerably tightened to ensure that no wider range of proposals than is absolutely necessary is covered by the Bill. The scope of the Bill should be reduced from facilities within 1 km of existing or proposed track to the easement of the track as defined by the Assembly. Proposed Light Rail should be defined, and restricted to Light Rail routes whose route has been defined in detail by legislation. Only Capital Metro and providers of utility services should be able to bring forward light rail related development proposals.

Of course, fixing all of the flaws would not make any difference if the removal of rights of review via ACAT and the Supreme Court under ADJR are not restored. Why bother to tighten definitions if no one can question if a proposal falls within or outside the Bill’s definitions? We appreciate that at present review via the ACAT can be slow, cumbersome and unpredictable, rather than providing the speedy justice initially intended. We would agree that planning hearings at the ACAT have become a lawyers’ picnic. The correct response is however to reform the ACAT rather than remove its jurisdiction. It would be inequitable for the Government to exempt itself from the difficulties of ACAT planning hearings while leaving the public to deal with a dysfunctional ACAT system. And we are at a loss as to why you would seek to remove scope for review under ADJR. If in doubt about this reread Brendan Preiss’ evidence in relation to the Planning and Development (Project Facilitation) Amendment Bill 2014.

The Government has sought to justify the restriction of rights of appeal by pointing to the Symonston Mental Health Facility Amendment Act which had similar provisions to remove citizens’ rights, even though the only common theme between the Symonston Mental Health Facility and the Light Rail is that such review rights are tiresome. Passage of further restrictions in this Bill will only provide a precedent next time the Government wishes to further restrict review rights. Executive arms of government invariably find that any kind of restraints on their actions to be tiresome. However, the general experience over the past 800 years has been that such restraints make for better government. The onus is on the Government to argue how this is not true in this case.

We would be happy to discuss our concern with you in person and look forward to significant amendments to this bill.

Yours sincerely

Gary

 

Gary Kent

Chair

Inner South Canberra Community Council

9 February 2015

cc Members for Molonglo

Mr Alistair Coe MLA Shadow Minister for Planning

40 km/h speed precincts in group centres

January 18, 2015

in Past Issues

The ACT Government is seeking community feedback on the proposed boundaries for 40 km/h speed precincts in 18 local group centres.  These include Amaroo, Calwell, Charnwood, Chisholm, Conder, Curtin, Dickson, Erindale, Hawker, Jamison, Kaleen, Kingston, Kambah, Kippax, Manuka, Mawson, Wanniassa and Weston.

We encourage members, and friends of members, to complete the survey and provide the government with comments, particularly on the Manuka proposal.

More information is available on the site:

http://www.timetotalk.act.gov.au/consultations/  and to complete the survey go to

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SD5L23P

The consultation period closes 5 pm Monday 2 February 2015.

The map below, showing the area under consideration, is available on the Government’s website.  It is not the clearest diagram but you can see the area being considered.

Proposed Manuka Speed Limits

 

It includes all the areas in Manuka where speed humps have been installed but does not include any part of Captain Cook Crescent or Canberra Avenue – where a fatal accident took place in October last year at the traffic lights.

As yet we have not been able to obtain any statistics on the accidents that have taken place in the Manuka precinct or the average traffic speeds observed.  So it is difficult to assess whether a 40 km/hr limit would be worthwhile or whether additional signage would just add to the visual distractions.

As most of our members drive through this area it would be good to provide feedback to the Government.

So that we can be kept informed of the views of Members, can you please forward a copy of your comments to the GNCA at info@gnca.org.au

Many thanks

John Edquist President

Inner South Community Councils letter to Mr Gentleman re ‘Mr Fluffy’ block rezoning / subdivision

December 17, 2014

in Past Issues

ISCCC letter to Mr Mick Gentleman re Mr Fluffy block rezoning subdivision dated 16 December 2014

 

Jeremy Hanson – Mr Fluffy Press Release 2 December 2014

 

 

Changes to the required setback for Courtyard Walls

November 3, 2014

in Past Issues

Letter from the Griffith Narrabundah Community Association raising concerns about changes to the required setback for Courtyard Walls setbacks

Attachment A

Attachment B

2014 Annual General Meeting

November 3, 2014

in Past Issues

Cris Brack (second from the left), Fenner School of Environment & Society, ANU – was the key-note speaker at the recent general meeting and provided an informative lecture on the history of the trees of Canberra

Griffith/Narrabundah Community Association Inc.

Annual General Meeting Minutes

Wednesday 22 October, 2014

Location: Griffith Neighbourhood Hall, Griffith.

Welcome

The meeting commenced at 7.00 pm and all in attendance were welcomed by John Edquist, who chaired the meeting.

Attendance: 27 people

Keynote address

Associate Professor Cris Brack, from the Fenner School of Environment & Society at the Australian National University gave the keynote address entitled:

Are urban trees and forests in Canberra really as valuable as you thought?

He started with the observation that the earliest cities had no place for trees.  In fact, the presence of trees within a city or village was often considered a sign of decay and that the human presence in that place was deteriorating.  In Australia today, trees do seem to have a place, and in Canberra they have played and continue to play a crucial role in our city.

The urban forest in Canberra comprises ~400,000 trees.  The early plantings were mainly a mixture of exotic deciduous and confers.  In the 1970s many more native eucalyptus trees were planted and in recent years a mix of natives and exotics has been used.

Assessing the economic value of one tree, a group of trees or a forest is not easy and different economists end up with methodologies and different values.  In an urban environment trees are not cheap, they have to be planted and cared-for, but they have considerable economic value.

They provide energy savings of $0.58/m2/yr; pollution amelioration 0.16/m2/yr; hydrological amelioration $0.11/ m2/yr, where m2 is the canopy cover, and approximately $20 million over 5 years in terms of carbon sequestration.

We also know that trees provide shade in summer and windbreaks (Haig Park) throughout the year.  It has been estimated that – one mature deciduous tree is equivalent to 5 room air conditioners running 20 hours/day.

Finally trees look good and provide a feel good atmosphere that is not present in the concrete jungle of many city centres.

The talk was followed by a lively discussion on a wide range of tree related issues.

The GNCA AGM

  1. Apologies

27 people were in attendance and apologies were received from Marguerite Castello, Louise Gaudry, Peter Forbes, Jennifer Murray and Margaret Fanning.

 

  1. 2.    Minutes of the 2013 Annual General Meeting

The Minutes of the 2013 Annual General Meeting held on 23 October 2013were circulated to members and also available at the meeting.  They were adopted unanimously as a true and accurate record of that meeting on a motion proposed by Wayne Arthur and seconded by Jane McCabe.

 

3.    President’s Report, including Annual Report

Copies of the President’s Report were distributed to all present at the start of the meeting and is attached to a copy of the minutes.

John Edquist thanked all committee members and members for all the hard work undertaken during the year.  He noted that, while there was no significant change in the nature of the Association’s activities, there had been a marked increase in the number of activities which the Association had to deal with.

The achievements of the Association set out in the Annual Report were noted.  Moved by Paul Russell, seconded by Leo Dobes and accepted by the meeting.

Hugh Dakin congratulated the committee on the achievements during the last year , particularly the efforts of the President and the Scretary.

 

4.    Treasurer’s Report

Copies of the Treasurer’s Report were distributed at the start of the meeting.  Marion Newman presented the Report, noting that, due to the successful raffle and donations from members, the finances were good, with a balance of $9,413 at 30 June 2014.  The meeting voted unanimously to accept the Treasurer’s on a motion moved by Marion Newman and, seconded by david denham.

 

5.    Election of Committee

The following people were elected to the committee

Wayne Arthur, Anthony de la Fosse, David Denham, Leo Dobes, John Edquist, Margaret Fanning, Sonia Hathaway, Marion Newman, Paul Russell, Venessa Tripp.

The offices of President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer and Public Officer will be allocated at November committee meeting.

 

6.    Key issues affecting our community, and future directions

The following issues were identified as of concern to the GNCA

  1. Re-development of Stuart Flats and Gowrie Court- as part of an Omnibus Draft Territory Plan Variation to re-develop areas currently used solely for public housing.  The main concern is the government’s proposal to increase the number of dwellings from 146 to 550 at the Stuart Flats and from 72 to 150 at Gowrie Court.  It also proposes to change the zoning to RZ5, which is the highest dwelling density contained in the Territory Plan.

The GNCA will argue strongly against these increased dwelling densities.

  1. As of 1 October 2014 paid parking has been introduced in the Parliamentary Triangle.  It is expected that this will result in increased pressure for on street parking in areas surrounding the Triangle.  GNCA will closely monitor the situation.  If necessary it may require the allocation of Residential Parking Permits.
    1. The allocation and de-concessionalisation of Concessional Leases are still causing problems, particularly with the way the ‘public interest’ in the de-concessionalisation process is evaluated.  We need to improve the method and the transparency of the process.
    2. The government has agreed to install signage to Blaxland Park in early 2015.  We are hoping to develop a long term plan for the park soon with the help of a landscape architect.
    3. Trees, Verges, Open Space and Storm Water Overflow problems at Corner of Throsby & Strzelecki, and Finniss & Sprent streets.  GNCA has been working with the Government to introduce a scheme that will better protect trees and verges during development.  GNCA has started a data base to show changes to the areas of open space that are publicly available over the past 20 years.  We have been consulted regarding the mitigation of flooding hazard in two areas of Griffith/Narrabundah.
    4. The GNCA would continue to monitor Development Applications in the Griffith/Narrabundah area.
    5. The GNCA would continue to discuss with government, plot ratios in low density residential areas where buildings appear to cover the whole block and the lack of any definition in the Territory Plan for ‘Medium Density’ residential developments.
    6. The next Griffith Street Party with M16 will be held on Saturday 2 May 2015

 

7.    Other Business

A complaint was made about the low frequency of buses on the No 6 route.  More information is to obtained before any action is taken

The meeting closed at 9.10pm

All present were invited to gather in Gryphons for a celebratory drink.

 

Marguerite Castello

Secretary

 

 

Redevelopment of Stuart Flats and Gowrie Court

October 24, 2014

in Past Issues

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

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →