Current Issues

Brumbies Redevelopment (several posts)

October 13, 2014

in Past Issues

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.

Rushed new planning bill to give call in powers to Assembly

April 29, 2014

in Past Issues

The Government is rushing to pass the Planning and Development (Project Facilitation) Amendment Bill 2014.  It was introduced to the Assembly for the first time on 20 March 2014, the last day of the March sittings, and was scheduled for passage on the next sitting day, 8 April.  This did not happen as Minister Rattenbury persuaded the Assembly to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Planning, Environment, Territory and Municipal Services for consideration with a requirement to report by the first day of the May sittings on 6 May 2014.

This consultation period is ridiculously short for a complex bill with many provisions, which is over 60 pages long.  The shortness of time was amplified by the fact that the Easter and ANZAC Day holidays fell in the middle of this period, so the Standing Committee was compelled to ask that submissions be submitted the day after the Easter holidays on 22 April and to hold hearings two days later, on 24 April.

Why the rush?  This has never been explained.  In fact, the Government has never commented on the time table for introduction, let alone explained why normal legislative procedure is being set aside.  The Bill is however, somewhat controversial.  It gives the Government the right to call in any project that meets the rather low criteria required for the project to be made a Special Precinct Variation or declared a Project of Major Significance.  Such a decision may be disallowed by the Assembly as a whole, but no other appeal is permitted.  Special provisions remove any possibility of appealing to ACAT for review, or to seek redress in the Supreme Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act (AD(JR) Act).

What the Government has not done is explain what the problem is that this Bill is trying to solve.  If we knew what the problem was, we could then rationally evaluate the actions proposed in this bill and decide whether they were an effective and appropriate response to the problem.

The GNCA has prepared a submission for the Standing Committee.  This is available here.  The ISCCC has also lodged a submission which is available here.  Margaret Fanning, a member of the GNCA, was not able to participate in drafting the GNCA submission as she was on holiday at the coast, but lodged her own submission.  We think that this is also a very good submission and you can see it for yourself at this link.   All 23 submissions made to the Standing Committee are available for public inspection at:

.

We expect that transcripts of the hearings will be available in the next few days.  The GNCA and the ISCCC both gave evidence to the Committee, but the star turn was probably Eric Martin and Brendan Priesse, giving evidence on behalf of the National Trust.

Minister Corbell and ESDD back down on TA2013-12

January 13, 2014

in Past Issues

Minister Corbel has written to Minister Rattenbury indicating that ESDD does not intend to procede with the proposed changes to the definition of “northern boundary” as proposed in Technical Amendment 2013-12 (TA2013-12).  This Technical Amendment proposed to introduce a number of changes to the recently introduced Variation 306.  The change to northern boundary was one of the most controversial elements of the changes proposed, and had drawn adverse comments from a number of groups and individuals.  These ranged from considered opposition to the policy basis for the change to objections that the proposed change was meaningless nonsense, as ESDD had drafted a legal instrument using a mathematical formulation and had gotten their maths nomenclature wrong.  Some of us taxpayers believe that if ESDD must draft legislation, its officers should go to the trouble of drafting it right!  Minister Rattenbury was one of those who objected to the Technical Amendment, and his letter to Mr Corbell can be read here.  Minister Corbell’s response to Mr Rattenbury can be read here.

The GNCA, along with many other groups and individuals, consider that it is entirely inappropriate to use a Technical Amendment (which is a document prepared and Gazetted by ESDD without any scrutiny by the Assembly) to modify a variation to the Territory Plan.  Any change to a Variation is in effect another variation to the Territory Plan.  We appreciate that such modifications to the Plan can be time consuming and labourious, but maybe the need to convince a large number of people that what one wishes to change is in the public interest is what democracy is all about.  We are disappointed that Minister Corbell’s letter does not concede that this has been an inappropriate use of a Technical Amendment, but hope that ESDD has learned a lesson.

 

7 Lindsay St

November 28, 2013

in Past Issues

Some of you may have noticed this letter in the Canberra Times of Sunday 17 November 2013.

“Neil Evan, executive director of the Housing Industry Association ACT, said: ”Too many developments are drawing objections because of their height or size.” (“City’s future will benefit most from fewer residents resisting progress”, November 10).  I agree, but my reasons probably differ from those of Mr Evans.  He infers that too many residents object to height or size just because they are opposed to infill or to change.  I disagree.  I know that too many times residents NEED to object to development applications because too many proposed buildings are higher or bigger (or both) than rules allow.  I have reviewed many development applications that exceed allowable height and/or size rules, and/or fail to meet rules regarding setbacks from boundaries.  I (probably naively) hope for a rational, law-abiding society where development proponents would respect and follow rules.  Too often this is not the case.  I just reviewed a development application for a dual occupancy (very near where I live) that was publicly notified in the newspaper less than a week ago.  The development proponent’s own supporting documents admit that the proposed development does not meet height rules and setback rules. Development proponents must play by the rules to protect the present and future interests of all Canberrans.

 G. Fitzgerald, Griffith”

We share G. Fitzgerald’s sentiments.  We believe the dual occupancy DA referred to is that for 7 Lindsay ST, Griffith, DA 201324241, which closed for comment on 25 November 2013.  The proposed development involves the demolition of the existing unextended late 1940s solid brick house, and its replacement with two  three-bedroom dwellings.   So far this is unexceptional, and is indeed considerably more in keeping with the character of the area than the 31 apartment Altair development on Stuart St, which lies over the back fence from 7 Lindsay St.  However, a close reading of the Statement Against Criteria reveals problems: the proponent concedes that the proposed building would breach the vertical envelope for the building, but dismisses this as a minor excursion.  Similarly the Statement concedes that the proposal breaches the side setback rules at the rear, but again suggests that this is a minor transgression.

If the plans are examined in detail it becomes apparent that this understates the matter.  The planes defining the allowable height of the building penetrate the side walls at both front and rear, sometimes up two 2 metres within the building.  Similarly the side setbacks are significantly breached.  In one case a side wall permitted to be no closer than 6 metres from a side boundary would in fact be only 3 metres from the boundary.  These are not trivial infractions.  Furthermore, although the proponent asserts that the development would comply with the rule restricting the plot ratio to a maximum of 50%, it appears that this is not the case, although it is impossible to draw a firm conclusion either way,  because the development would include a large basement for which no plans have been submitted, so the area cannot be precisely determined.

The GNCA lodged and objection to the DA, and this can be read here.

GNCA members John Edquist and Deborah Price also lodged an objection, which is here .

 

Technical Amendment 2013-12

November 27, 2013

in Past Issues

The Planning and Development Act 2007 permits the Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate (ESDD) to make Technical Amendments (TA) without consulting the Assembly to correct typographical errors in drafting, consolidate already existing provision of the Territory Plan, and the like.  It was not intended that this facility would be used to introduce new legislation.

However, ESDD has already used TA’s to introduce Precinct Plans for all Canberra suburbs in late 2012.  This move drew a lot of criticism form various residents groups.  However, undeterred by this, ESDD has continued to use TAs to introduce new planning policies.  The latest example of this is TA2013-12.  This TA introduces a number of new policies.  The most egregious excession of ESDD’s powers in this is the decision to repeal the new solar access provisions introduced into the Territory plan by Variation 306, which took effect on 5 July 2013.  This would have the effect removing the protection of solar access across the northern boundaries of properties where these boundaries faced more that 20 degrees west of north or more than 30 degrees east of north.  This would effect residents of a large number of streets in Griffith, and Stuart St, the principal axis for the street grid, runs north east to south west.   For those who would like to know more, the TA itself is available on the ESDD website at http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/tools_resources/legislation_plans_registers/plans/territory_plan/current_technical_amendments.

We lodged a submission objecting to the decision to reverse the newly introduced solar access provisions.  Our submission can be read here.

Others were also upset by this proposal.  Leon Arundel, the Secretary of the Inner North Canberra Community Council, circulated this email Leon Arundel.

 

Issues with the Proposed Brumbies Development

November 12, 2013

in Past Issues

In late July this year (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.

Questions in relation to the proposed Civic to Gungahlin Light Rail

October 13, 2013

in Past Issues

The GNCA does not have a position on the proposed Civic to Gungahlin Light Rail, but believes that before the Government commits the ACT to this project it needs to answer a number of questions.

The GNCA recently lodged a submission in response to DV327, which proposes re zoning a number of blocks along the proposed Light Rail route.  Read the GNCA submission here.

Variation 306 Commences

July 13, 2013

in Past Issues

Variation 306 commenced on 5 July 2013.  All development applications submitted after 18 June 2013 will be assessed against the Territory Plan as amended by Variation 306 , whilst all development applications lodged before 18 June will be assessed under the rules applying before Variation came into effect until 5 July 2014.  The Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development has issued a media release about the commencement of Variation 306, which is available at http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/corbell/2013/variation-306-commences-5-july-2013.

Variation 306 introduces a number of changes to the Territory Plan.  Amongst the changes introduced are:

  • changes to the single dwelling and multi unit housing development codes, including restrictions on development in RZ2 residential zones
  • revisions to the residential zones objectives and development tables, introduction of an overarching Residential Zones Development Code and a Lease Variation General Code
  • replacement of existing Residential Subdivision Development Code with a new Estate Development Code.

Many of these changes have been a long time in gestation, as Draft Variation (DV) 306 is itself partly the product of merging earlier draft variations DV301 and DV303 which were withdrawn in June 2011. 

 

Parking at Brumbies Development

June 15, 2013

in Past Issues

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.

M16 Artspace exhibitions

May 29, 2013

in Past Issues

M16 Artspace is a wonderful community facility located in the Blaxland Centre on Blaxland Crescent, Griffith. Local residents remember with regret the loss of the old Griffith Library but are now delighted with the conversion of the building into a lively artists space with regular exhibitions and other community activities.

M16 Artspace provided the fantastic venue for the 2013 Centenary Street Party on 18 May.

GNCA is pleased to link in with M16 and provide information about exhibitions on this website: check out the link here http://www.m16artspace.com.au

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →