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
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
- Apologies
27 people were in attendance and apologies were received from Marguerite Castello, Louise Gaudry, Peter Forbes, Jennifer Murray and Margaret Fanning.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The GNCA would continue to monitor Development Applications in the Griffith/Narrabundah area.
- 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.
- 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
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:
- The need for accessible open space in a re-development of this size;
- The undesirable effect of any multi-storey building overlooking the neighbours; it would be too dominant over the surrounding buildings, and
- 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
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?
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.
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 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.
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 .
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.
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.