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