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

My husband enjoys walking with a stick on the safe tracks whilst birdwatching. I enjoy photographing the plants and landforms. It is an inappropriate location for a crematorium which surely would affect the enjoyment of this natural bushland so easily accessible from the suburbs .

My husband enjoys walking with a stick on the safe tracks whilst birdwatching. I enjoy photographing the plants and landforms. It is an inappropriate location for a crematorium which surely would affect the enjoyment of this natural bushland so easily accessible from the suburbs .

Excellent proposal and a process that should be replicated in more ACT Housing properties that have been allowed to degrade, or have reached the end of their viability as adequate housing to modern much less special needs. This includes many properties built before 1990.

Do NOT sell off public housing - revamp it like this proposal!

Hello. Where do I see the floorplan for this development?

This plan only shows demolition of the site. Please can we have what is PLANNED for the site? What will happen to the Wheelchair parking slots? How will the demolition affect access to ALDI via its rear door and through access to the other medical centre opposite Kelseys Hair? Both these access points to the Kippax Centre are significant - they allow for example access using a shopping trolley to the rear carparks and to ALDI. The only other access point involves 6 steps.

This proposal does not take the nature of Aranda as a bush suburb into account. It also visually breaks up the stepped, regular and repeating unit designs on Jalanga St which follow the street up from Bndjalong st.

This proposal does not take the nature of Aranda as a bush suburb into account. It also visually breaks up the stepped, regular and repeating unit designs on Jalanga St which follow the street up from Bndjalong st.

I have just seen comments on this issue in the earlier consultation a year ago suggested as a solution putting the disadvantaged women in “studios” as part of commercial apartment developments, rather than in grounded townhouses a short walk or wheel from the Ainslie Shops. I’ve also seen comments claiming that tenants would somehow feel “shame” at being identifiably in social housing. Ainslie has never been a place where that mattered. It is a deep shame if that sort of culture is being introduced into our suburb.

-Demolition of existing residence went ahead prior to DA completion. Aren’t they supposed to wait for the process to be completed? At least pretend to listen?
-This contravenes the government’s own process
-Strong indication that DA submissions from community will be ignored

I have just seen comments on this issue in the earlier consultation a year ago suggested as a solution putting the disadvantaged women in “studios” as part of commercial apartment developments, rather than in grounded townhouses a short walk or wheel from the Ainslie Shops. I’ve also seen comments claiming that tenants would somehow feel “shame” at being identifiably in social housing. Ainslie has never been a place where that mattered. It is a deep shame if that sort of culture is being introduced into our suburb.

I am greatly concerned about the loss of green space and significant trees at Bill Pye Park. As a local family who regularly picnic and play in this area, we consider the park to be an essential community space that adds to the beauty, character and amenity of our suburb. We recognise the history of the suburb by visiting the park and admiring the large trees. My son recently found a toy buried under one of those trees, we suspect the toy had been there more than 35 years. We collect acorns and have monitored birds nests in those trees. Many children will miss the trees and play space if this application is approved.
The suggestion of rezoning is disappointing given I have personally experienced how difficult it is to get childcare and preschool places in the area. As housing density increases in the inner north, our population continues to get younger, and more families travel through the area on their way to work in the city, additional childcare places will be needed.

I'm writing to very strongly object to the YWCA Canberra’s Development Application number 202139743 to build supported housing on Block 1, Section 87 in Ainslie.

I very strongly object to the current Crown Lease existing purpose clause being changed from:
“for the purpose of a childcare centre and communities activity centre”
to have a variation added to allow for “supportive housing to a max of nine units”.

There is very insufficient childcare in the area, and the use should be like that of Baker Gardens preschool and feed into North Ainslie Primary School.

I'm writing to object to the YWCA Canberra’s Development Application number 202139743 to build supported housing on Block 1, Section 87 in Ainslie.

I strongly object to the current Crown Lease existing purpose clause being changed from:
“for the purpose of a childcare centre and communities activity centre”
to have a variation added to allow for “supportive housing to a max of nine units”.

I am disappointed the YWCA Canberra has not met with the terms of their lease for many years and that there has been no accountability or community consultation about this. The site has not been used for either childcare or as a community facility but has been sublet as office space. Could it have been used as a Pre School annex to North Ainslie Primary School instead of local preschoolers travelling to Hackett? I am especially annoyed the YWCA Canberra has been able to access an ACT Housing Strategy fund aimed to facilitate partnerships between community housing providers and either the private sector or current lessees of underutilised land to grow the stock of community housing, when the YWCA themselves are primarily responsible for the land being underutilised!

I don’t believe the YWCA can achieve their goal of “delivering high quality, energy efficient, safe and comfortable housing” to their target group within the proposed budget of the project.
According to their Development Application Application Number: 202139743, they will be constructing these nine units for $975,000. Even with an associated works budgeted for $475,000 and a total budget of $1,540,000, I don’t believe anything near “high quality”, “energy efficient” or “comfortable” can be achieved.

In the Conclusion of their Statement Against Rules and Criteria, it is stated “the proposed buildings are compatible in height, bulk and scale to the existing streetscape and the desired character”. This is manifestly misleading. There is nothing about the proposed buildings that is compatible with the “desired character” of the existing streetscape.

The YWCA suggests their project “addresses an important need in the community, and will be the best possible use of this land which the organisation owns.” I completely disagree with this claim. There are many possible uses for the current facilities, and the land, that would be equal or better in merit and I think that the current and future use of the land should be a community made decision.
For example, a community based micro-forest project (similar to that in Watson) could be instigated and the current building/facility could be used as storage for tools, propagation area and a forest classroom with links to learning about the flora and fauna on Mt Ainslie. Local community walking groups, bird watching groups and volunteer bush regeneration groups could be invited to be a part of this community hub.

While Block 1, Section 87 is not itself technically a green space, it is visually and spiritually a part of the greater block that makes up Bill Bye Park. It is part of the beauty, landscape and character of Ainslie. Once these valuable green spaces are built on, especially with high density housing, they are lost forever.

I recognise that YWCA Canberra has a significant history and expertise in providing housing support to women and their families, and I mostly support their endeavours to continue to do so, just not this development. I also acknowledge that disadvantaged women, especially older women, are in huge need of supported and affordable housing and I would love to see the ACT Govt step up in providing land for affordable housing in Ainslie. Why couldn’t they forgo some of their profits and give up those huge Mr Fluffy blocks in Ainslie for this purpose? Or more consolidation of current government housing land for multiple unit developments?

Compromise For Neighbours, the Love of Trees and Green Space

The 1828 sqm block at 11 Rutherford Crescent zoned community facilities land is heavily constrained by its shape, that fact that it is surrounded by Bill Pye Park and has a number of what have been described by the Conservator of Flora and Fauna exceptional mature trees. Even a pre-Canberra habitat tree. The site that was designed into Bill Pye Park as a childcare centre and community centre is a green oasis in a suburb that provides cool, clean air to the rest of Canberra. Rapidly increasing density and all the concrete and other hard surfaces that are associated with these multi-unit developments are spreading into the surrounding suburbs from the Northbourne Avenue corridor and is heating up the Inner North. It’s as if the planners of this Garden City have not heard the warning bells of climate change.

The developers could be more sensitive to the constraints of the site and think about the buildings design impact on local residents, potential future tenants and surrounding environment. Instead of cramming as many units onto the site as possible. The new proposal to reduce the number of units from 10 to 9 is really a token incremental gesture. The densest developments that suit the character of the area are the dual occupancy dwellings already in Rutherford Crescent. These have been built by both the private sector and Housing ACT. These are particularly sensitive to the street scape. Using a similar pattern would allow 4 dwellings on the site which is effectively the size of a double block. That’s 8 bedrooms rather than 11, and far fewer carparks. The proposed new design sees most of the surface area covered either by roof or hard surfaces (carparks, paving and decks). The proposed design requires the removal of 15 of the existing 18 trees. The three remaining trees are considered significant and can’t be removed.

The best outcome for the community and local residents would be the adaptive re-use of the site for enhanced community use, this could include a preschool and community centre. The connection of this site to the Park could be restored rather than demolition and then exclusion of the community.

The proposed development could be modified further and the density reduced. This would enable the boundary setbacks required by the Territory Plan to be met. The legislated tree protection zones for the significant and registered trees could also be met reducing the threat of damage to these magnificent trees. The smaller scale would reduce the impact on the local residents and support measures to combat climate change. The site could get greener rather than hotter.

The new proposal that reduced the number of units from 10 to 9 enabled the setback to be increased from 3 to 4 meters on the boundary facing the Park. This was for the future tenants as it gave them slightly more private open space. It should also prompt the developers to reconsider which trees on the site need to be removed. For example one tree on the northern boundary of the site facing Bill Pye Park, is a Washington Hawthorn which is described as ‘one of the showiest medium sized deciduous trees with great autumn colour’. It is also the Rutherford Crescent street tree so probably over 60 years old. With a bit of TLC it would be a magnificent specimen in anybody’s personal private open space. Listed as getting the chop.

The supporters of this proposal really make only one point and that is that more social housing should be built for disadvantaged older women. On this point we all agree. Interestingly, most seem to agree that the design is poor and inappropriate for the site. There needs to be more social housing for all those groups that are in housing stress that only seems to be getting worse. The solution is not the piecemeal demolition of community facilities. It will require a sophisticated and planned release of sites over a ten year period to meet the problem. The Government has a policy that all new developments include of 15% of social housing. If this had have been implemented over the last 5 years the current problem would be largely resolved. But Government has largely dodged responsibility and where they have acted tried to do things on the cheap. Pushing social housing onto community land, green spaces and areas zoned for sport and recreation. The community as a whole is the poorer for this exercise in lazy asset management.

[image of Hawthorn at 11 Rutherford Cres]

Washington Hawthorn in bloom, arborist states that has good form, structure and health, worth preserving.

What is a block of land in Ainslie worth?

The YWCA has received significant public funding and concessions to ensure that this development is built on land zoned for community facilities with lease purpose that it be used as a childcare facility and a community facility. The YWCA has excluded the community from using this site for over a decade by subleasing it to other community organisations. This ‘dealing’ in community zoned land is not allowed under the Territory Plan except for a short amount of time. The problem is that no one in the Government checks to see if the land is being used appropriately. Although the YWCA had stated that it had bought the site at market value in 1993, the ACT Administrative Tribunal found that the land had been sold to the organisation at below market and that it was still concessional land. The YWCA received $125,000 from the ACT Government to put together a development application for supported accommodation on the site. The Commonwealth Government has provided $1.2 million for the construction of a facility for crisis and emergency accommodation for women escaping domestic violence.
Imagine how good the existing childcare centre and community facility would be with that sort of support. Instead, the proposed redevelopment will exclude the local community from the site.

The study undertaken for the Common Ground project in Dickson highlighted the need for additional community facilities in the area due to the growing population, including childcare and community meeting rooms. It seems either poor planning or poor financial management to sell community facilities only to have to replace them later. And how much would a double block in Ainslie cost when replacement is required? You would expect to pay around $5million.

The Development Application Valuation

Some 2021 sales in Ainslie for a house and land have been,
1. Raymond St $2,444,000 759 sqm Unimproved Value $791,000
2. Higgins St $2,400,000 1176sqm UV $1,049,000
3. Officer Crescent $2350000 838 sqm UV $800,000
4. Wakefield Gardens $2200000 806 sqm UV $774,000
5. 5 Angus St $2170000 1099 sqm UV $824,000

It difficult to understand how a double sized (1828 sqm) block of land in Ainslie surrounded by a small park with permission to build nine units could be valued at $765,000 [document VALUE-202139743-01]. This is what the valuation documents with the development application show. That the valuation is the same as when its lease purpose was a childcare centre and community centre. The difference in the before and after price is used to calculate the Lease Variation Charge (LVC). The rationale behind the LVC is to repay the community for the increase in the use value of the land. The land would have to increase in value when its use changes from a childcare and community centre to a multi-unit residential development. The new use has the ability to charge the tenants community rent which is 75% of market rent. This is potentially a significant annual income for nine units.

Housing ACT recently paid over $1 million per block for five houses in a row in Cowper St, Dickson ($5100000) in September 2020. The total land area is 3379 sqm. This is a little over double the size of the block in Rutherford Crescent. One would expect a reasonably significant multi-unit development when the blocks are amalgamated and be used for social housing. Public housing tenants are generally charged lower rent than community housing. Prices have increased since 2021 and the Ainslie site would be a more valuable location than the Dickson site.

Given these factors you would expect the Ainslie site to have a UCV value over $2 million. Can ACTPLA provide the more detailed comparative report behind this calculation? An independent valuation of this site needs to be undertaken. If the before and after valuation remains the same the community loses in two ways. The demolition of a community facility and replacement by residential units will result in the exclusion of the community from the site. Secondly no lease variation charge means no contribution for future community facilities that we know are required. Whether they be childcare centres, preschools or community centres. This looks like a considerable transfer of wealth from the community to the developer and a real threat to other similar community facility sites. Or is this another concession to the developer?