All recent comments on applications from ACT Planning & Land Authority, ACT

Fantastic to see some more medium density urban infill development going on in the local area. This should mean affordable, centrally located, convenient homes for new Downer residents! Hopefully the rest of Downer will be zoned for multi unit dwellings soon.

Fantastic to see some more medium density urban infill development going on in the local area. This should mean affordable, centrally located, convenient homes for new Downer residents! Hopefully the rest of Downer will be zoned for multi unit dwellings soon.

Fantastic to see some more medium density urban infill development going on in the local area. This should mean affordable, centrally located, convenient homes for new Downer residents! Hopefully the rest of Downer will be zoned for multi unit dwellings soon.

As a Taylor resident, and this being a local center, I am concerned there is a distinct lack of outdoor cafe seating space or gathering spaces for people to meet and enjoy the cafes and other outlets.

Good to see some people making use of the new subdivision rules.
I suggest costs is preventing more people doing the same.
Do we know if subdividing a block (of sufficient size etc) is allowable without a DA to build a second residence?

I’m a local resident and am concerned about the the proposed development over 5,7,9 Melba st Downer for several reasons.
The plans do not look like they have enough parking. As a result people will park on Blacket street. The street already has limited parking and people parking in the street reduces visibly of driveways and makes it more unsafe for lots of the houses with young families.

The intersection at Melba and Antill is already busy and problematic. I suspect that this development would put additional pressure and that the intersection would need to be updated.

Hello,
I’m a local resident and am concerned about the the proposed development over 5,7,9 Melba st Downer for several reasons.
The plans do not look like they have enough parking. As a result people will park on Blacket street. The street already has limited parking and people parking in the street reduces visibly of driveways and makes it more unsafe for lots of the houses with young families.

The intersection at Melba and Antill is already busy and problematic. I suspect that this development would put additional pressure and that the intersection would need to be updated.

I’m a local resident and am concerned about the lack of parking for the proposed development over 5,7,9 Melba st Downer. As Melba st is a no parking area, owners with more than 1 car, or guests will be required to park in streets available. I am concerned that owners or guests to the proposed development will park in Blacket st, where street parking is already overcrowded. It will also increase traffic down Blacket st, which is already very busy and unsafe due to high density street parking and lack of room to get down the street. I believe the proposed DA application will significantly impact local residents in the following ways:
1. An increase in street traffic in Blacket st, resulting in less parking available for Blacket st residents
2. An increase in traffic driving up and down Blacket st, in an already over crowded st, increasing the likelihood of vehicle collisions
3. An increase in traffic at the Blacket st/Melba street intersections, which are already very busy and unsafe intersections for vehicles and pedestrians.
4. Although zoned for high density dwellings, too many high density dwellings do not fit in with the surrounding properties, detracting from the rich history of the suburb and area, which contribute to making the area desirable to live. Some of the history I refer to is; the Dickson Library which is a top 10 in the world for the era’s architecture, and applied for heritage listing, Award winning Architecture of the many duplexes in Blacket and Swindon st, the site of the old CSIRO, and heritage listed gum trees.

The aforementioned issues could decrease the value of properties for local residents, and this kind of high density dwellings does not fit into the area. I therefore think the DA needs to be amended to include more parking for guests, and the government to consider a significant upgrade to the intersection of Blacket st/Melba st intersection if the building is to go ahead.

Thank you for considering my comments.

I’m a local resident and am concerned about the lack of parking for the proposed development over 5,7,9 Melba st Downer. As Melba st is a no parking area, owners with more than 1 car, or guests will be required to park in streets available. I am concerned that owners or guests to the proposed development will park in Blacket st, where street parking is already overcrowded. It will also increase traffic down Blacket st, which is already very busy and unsafe due to high density street parking and lack of room to get down the street. I believe the proposed DA application will significantly impact local residents in the following ways:
1. An increase in street traffic in Blacket st, resulting in less parking available for Blacket st residents
2. An increase in traffic driving up and down Blacket st, in an already over crowded st, increasing the likelihood of vehicle collisions
3. An increase in traffic at the Blacket st/Melba street intersections, which are already very busy and unsafe intersections for vehicles and pedestrians.
4. Although zoned for high density dwellings, too many high density dwellings do not fit in with the surrounding properties, detracting from the rich history of the suburb and area, which contribute to making the area desirable to live. Some of the history I refer to is; the Dickson Library which is a top 10 in the world for the era’s architecture, and applied for heritage listing, Award winning Architecture of the many duplexes in Blacket and Swindon st, the site of the old CSIRO, and heritage listed gum trees.

The aforementioned issues could decrease the value of properties for local residents, and this kind of high density dwellings does not fit into the area. I therefore think the DA needs to be amended to include more parking for guests, and the government to consider a significant upgrade to the intersection of Blacket st/Melba st intersection if the building is to go ahead.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Hi there, this is not a comment against this plan specifically but rather a request for ACT Planning that they make available the overall plan for the number of dwellings and people that the suburb's sewage and water can support into the future. With the future development of the Curtin horse paddocks and along Adelaide Avenue, there does not seem to be any engineering reports into the upgrades that will be needed to cope with the extra sewage, water and power requirements in the future. Curtin is an old suburb and it's in-ground infrastructure was not built for unlimited expansion over time. Is ACT Planning aware of the point at which it will need to either curb expansion of the suburb's capacity or fund an equal expansion of the utilities to service the future residents. Or does the planning only look as far into the future to the next election. There is no problem with planned expansion. It is leaving the problem for the next generation that is frustrating.

Hi
I am 12 years old and I think this is crap. Not only is the building ugly, you're trying to make it a cheap residential. reason 1, there are so many kids around here who ride and walk to school, and by creating this garbage, you are promoting more cars making our neighbourhood full of traffic. next reason, cheap, central apartments, Who does that bring? BAD PEOPLE!! We do not need crime in a family filled neighbourhood in the centre of 4 popular schools. Such as St Anthony's, Wanniasa primary, namadgi and Mackillop. Thanks to all the people who have a heart, and consider this!!

Dear Planner

I understand the date for commenting on this development is finished. However, I do so now because I believe this comment if anyone bothers to read need be taken seriously in the hope it may assist future developments.

First, this development is a very good one, allowing for 12 nicely designed dwellings to take the place of four houses. This will greatly help people in need of nice housing.

However, I bring to your attention a rather significant failing which, hopefully, might be avoided in future developments;

- the construction of a metal fence around the perimeter against a public path and lands, which I notice has recently occurred, while attractive now - will within six months of occupation - I am certain will become a giant bill board for graffiti to such an extent it will destroy visual amenity;

- this is evident, for example, with the metal fence in the senior citizens homes which are just across Boddington Circuit where Mt Neighbour primary school used to be where graffiti is applied and attempted to be removed for years now;

- Graffiti even appears on other spots nearby such as bus stops, electric boxes etc, evidencing to anyone who observes the likelihood of its occurrence;

There is no easy answer to graffiti I know but time must have come by now for our planners, designers/architects to really start thinking of alternatives.

This is so because as surely as night follows day this entire presently attractive metal fence will, unfortunately, end up displaying dozens, if not scores, of meters of graffiti.

Thus, downgrading the local visual amenity significantly.

Perhaps the only answer is a good quality mesh fence of the same height and over which are planted attractive vines that will, over time, grow and provide a permanent and pleasant fence/divide.

Regards

Parking is already a major issue in the area. The proposed location is already a dirt carpark. Building a 10 story commercial premise with 45 apartments and less than half the number of carparks than apartments is not good town planning.
A petition on parking was signed by enough locals to be tabled in the assembly, what was the answer, crickets. Bad planning.
The height of the proposal would impinge on the apartment building across the road blocking sun and views. Nothing worse than looking into someone else apartment, again bad town planning.
Short term accommodation does not solve any of the current issues, just lines some companies pocket. Given Abode across the road is closing down soon to be replaced by more apartments, really where is the need? Bad planning?
Develop the site by all means, but design something sympathetic that adds to the local community, not takes away from it.
Cheers.

1) More congestion to already crowded and busy Gribble and Anthony Rolfe St. The lot is too small for 45 aparments with only 11 car parking provided

2) Worsen the existing car parking issue. Creates traffic jam and risk on road accidents

3) Bad investment on residential and commercial owners of Gribble and Anthony Rolfe St as flow on effect from items #1 as well as creates privacy concern to opposite apartment

I hope the existing issue will be resolved first before approving further developments and those new developments would be reviewed meticulously that would help ease and not aggravate the existing situation.

There are several pressing issues that must be amended by the developer before this planning approval should be granted.
1. This building proposal is too tall and too large for the space it will inhibit. The block size and shape will not comfortably fit a building this large.
2. It will completely derive many of the apartments on 6 and 8 gribble street from receiving any natural sunlight at all, which was a key design feature of the apartment buildings there. Depriving people of any incoming sun also ruins the solar passive aspect and design of the apartments, increasing heating costs for residents. This dearth of sunlight will also tank the value of apartments for owners and landlords.
3. The size and aspect of the proposed building mean that instead of a natural view, many apartments at 6 and 8 gribble street will instead be looking directly into their cross-street neighbours. This raises both privacy and long term value concerns for residents in 6 and 8 Gribble street.
4. The parking and traffic situation is already dire along Gribble street. There are vehicles parked illegally all along the street at all times of day, adding more residents whilst decreasing parking options will lead to more accidents and poor behaviour.
5. Adding another tall building in a row in that location will create an amplify a current wind tunnel effect that occurs along Gribble street currently. This is already dangerous for people and property.
6. The combined emergency services group adjacent to the proposed development have privacy and security concerns around having private citizens directly overlooking their areas of operations. Again, reducing the building height for the proposed development would help alleviate this.
7. That same combined emergency services group utilises a very loud and very large exhaust fan that blows hot air directly into the lot of the proposed development. The developer will have to pay to have that relocated or risk their builders hearing with dangerous decibel levels running 24/7.

As you can see, most of these concerns can be alleviated by reducing the maximum height of the proposed development- the sunlight, loss in value and loss in privacy concerns from residents in 6 and 8 gribble street and For the combined emergency services building staff as well. Do the right thing by the affected gunghalin residents and reduce the size and scope of the proposed development. If the building were to be a maximum of 2-4 stories, almost all of these concerns would disappear, and community acceptance would increase.

Thank you for reading my submission, I hope it helps inform your final decision.

1. Parking in the area is already a huge issue and this new apartment block will have limited parking spaces, increasing the parking issue significantly.

2. The understanding is that these won’t be completely residential, thus not actually helping the current housing crisis.

3. The recommended site is very small and it’s planned development seems unrealistic for the site size.

4. It will look directly over the emergency services centre. I can’t imagine they are overall thrilled about this proposal.

5. The development will cause serious traffic issues as it is on a main commuter route in and out of Gungahlin and situated right on the road.

6. Gungahlin’s current infrastructure is not suitable for the already congested and over populated area. The infrastructure of the area should be priority!

There are several pressing issues that must be amended by the developer before this planning approval should be granted.
1. This building proposal is too tall and too large for the space it will inhibit. The block size and shape will not comfortably fit a building this large.
2. It will completely derive many of the apartments on 6 and 8 gribble street from receiving any natural sunlight at all, which was a key design feature of the apartment buildings there. Depriving people of any incoming sun also ruins the solar passive aspect and design of the apartments, increasing heating costs for residents. This dearth of sunlight will also tank the value of apartments for owners and landlords.
3. The size and aspect of the proposed building mean that instead of a natural view, many apartments at 6 and 8 gribble street will instead be looking directly into their cross-street neighbours. This raises both privacy and long term value concerns for residents in 6 and 8 Gribble street.
4. The parking and traffic situation is already dire along Gribble street. There are vehicles parked illegally all along the street at all times of day, adding more residents whilst decreasing parking options will lead to more accidents and poor behaviour.
5. Adding another tall building in a row in that location will create an amplify a current wind tunnel effect that occurs along Gribble street currently. This is already dangerous for people and property.
6. The combined emergency services group adjacent to the proposed development have privacy and security concerns around having private citizens directly overlooking their areas of operations. Again, reducing the building height for the proposed development would help alleviate this.
7. That same combined emergency services group utilises a very loud and very large exhaust fan that blows hot air directly into the lot of the proposed development. The developer will have to pay to have that relocated or risk their builders hearing with dangerous decibel levels running 24/7.

As you can see, most of these concerns can be alleviated by reducing the maximum height of the proposed development- the sunlight, loss in value and loss in privacy concerns from residents in 6 and 8 gribble street and For the combined emergency services building staff as well. Do the right thing by the affected gunghalin residents and reduce the size and scope of the proposed development. If the building were to be a maximum of 2-4 stories, almost all of these concerns would disappear, and community acceptance would increase.

Thank you for reading my submission, I hope it helps inform your final decision.

There is a privacy incursion. There will be a direct view between the Bedroom Two windows in each dwelling and our Family Room windows (floor to ceiling), Master Bedroom windows (floor to ceiling) and outdoor entertaining area (we are next door at 34 Sturt Ave), which will result in privacy issues for the residents in 32 Sturt Ave and us. Consequently, the Bedroom Two windows in each dwelling need to be adjusted to be clerestory windows, instead of what is currently proposed.

With respect, this development is ridiculously tasteless and large and not in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood. But what else would one expect from Mr Harmouche, a convicted cocaine dealer who claimed he had no money when sentenced to jail in 2020? Crime does pay, apparently.

Apparently Lanyon has turned into a fast food paradise for every child under 20. With the obesity problems happening now should we not be looking at healthy options.
The cutting down of trees in the area is wrong, I had to fight to reduce 3 trees on my nature strip to 2 because of visibility and the risk of car accidents and now they are cutting them down other trees in the same area. Does not make sense.

We strongly support this wonderful proposal.

We love Hungry Jacks and don’t want drive to Kambah. We welcome the convenience of a local outlet, creating employment for our young people.

As for those moaning about changing “the character” of Lanyon Marketplace. What character?
Lanyon shops is a dump because of the planning developers (Woolworths) carried out when it was built. That is, NO PLANNING.
It’s been an ad hoc basket case from day one.

Therefore, a new shop will only improve its utility and convenience: the prime purpose of local shopping centres, after all.

Bring it on!

Hi

Where in the documentation is the rationale for removing the maximum number of permitted dwellings?

Is there a statement on the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the operation of the development and any action taken in the design of the buildings to reduce or minimise greenhouse emissions towards carbon neutrality? Solar panels. Electric vehicle charging. Batteries.

Thank you. Ian Hubbard

Absolutely livid about this development. It wasn’t clear from the plans how different the foot print of the the development would be.

It is already mostly built and and it in COMPLETELY obstructing my parents view of the mountains. It was one of main reason my mum chose the house when they bought it 41 years ago.

So now not only do they not get local shops which they were originally promised they lose their view. Also the development is way closer to their house than the shops and looks like they will be inhabited by guests that have no links to local community and no incentive to be respectful of their neighbours.

I feel like development plans should give an indication if the view will be affected. The planning documents give no context so you know just how different the footprint will be to the previous building.

Im not against the proposal, but if this development is to go ahead the crossing must have an official pedestrian crossing. Otherwise crossing the road will be even more dangerous.

Benham Street is already quite busy and crowded. It serves 2 bus routes, has 2 bus stops, a pedestrian crossing and entry/exits to the busy carpark servicing Aldi, dentists, doctors etc. Despite claims to the contrary, it is obvious that especially at peak times, the proposed KFC drive through will spill out onto Benham Street slowing busses and significantly increasing traffic congestion with flow on increased risk to pedestrians. This is certainly not an appropriate place for a KFC and especially for a drive through. Thanks.