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

I would like to register mu objection with regard to proposed development that the allowance for parking spaces are inadequate. This will impact on parking at the adjacent shopping centre and local primary schools. I am please for the redevelopment of this site but believe that it requires a minimum of 35 parking spaces and not the proposed 16 only.

We wish to raise the following concerns about the proposed child care centre at 16 Newdegate Street Deakin.
In short, the proposal is for an ‘industrial’ size child care centre in what is currently a quiet residential area. At 120 places, the centre would be more than 50 per cent larger than the average ACT centre (around 75 places according to the ACT Government’s 2017 report on Early Childhood Education and Care). As such, it would seemingly not be compliant with the guidance in the Community & Recreation Facilities Location Guidelines General Code that there should only be ‘small centres in residential areas’.
Moreover, the Development Application Report & Statement Against Criteria specifies (para 3.1) that the proposal is designed to provide pathways for children into Anglican Schools such as Radford, Burgmann, Canberra Grammar School and Canberra Girls Grammar and meet the demand for high quality child care services in this part of Canberra (emphasis added). It is hard not to draw the conclusion that this very large centre would primarily serve the interests of an already privileged community — and a community which would presumably be better placed than most to finance this sort of large scale development in a non-residential area.
For local residents, the proposed centre would have two adverse consequences— higher traffic volumes and increased parking pressure (see below); and generally increased noise levels during centre opening hours. Such reduced residential amenity would inevitably translate to lower property values adjacent to the centre.
The traffic report paints a rosy picture of traffic flow and parking outcomes and, in the process, largely dismisses concerns raised by residents during a community consultation. Yet it is far from clear that the off-site analysis underpinning the report provides a realistic assessment of the traffic flow and parking issues that would arise were the centre to go ahead.
• Given the characteristics of Macartney Crescent and Newdegate Street, the 200 vehicle an hour RTA limit referenced in the report is a problematic traffic flow threshold in this case. The report’s suggestion that the ACT Government might wish to introduce new parking restrictions in Macartney Crescent is tacit admission that the proposed centre could materially reduce ease of vehicle access through the area. Amongst other things, this would make life more difficult for local residents seeking to exit driveways during the morning and afternoon drop off and pick up periods and raise issues for curb-side waste collections.
• The report is silent on access issues to and from Kent Street during the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up. Kent Street is now a busy thoroughfare. Vehicle queueing back down Macartney Crescent during the afternoon pick up is likely to be one consequence.
• The 12 vehicle deficit in proposed on-site parking at the centre would add further to the existing use of adjacent streets for long term parking by workers from the West Deakin precinct. As the report acknowledges, these adjacent streets are relatively narrow, and were not designed for long term parking. Even with parking on only one side, they are effectively reduced to single lane. Access to the streets for residents from their driveways also becomes more problematic and dangerous due to reduced street vision and smaller turning spaces. Indeed, in recognition of such concerns, solid white lining has recently created a permanent no parking zone between the corner of Newdegate Street and Macartney Crescent and the driveway of No.23 Newdegate Street.
We also note that the off-site parking analysis was predicated on five one-off parking snap shots — two during Covid, and one of the other three on a school holiday day. This is a pretty thin sample, especially given the variability prior to Covid in parking in the streets concerned by workers from the West Deakin precinct.
In raising these concerns, we are not arguing against the development of the St Luke’s site. We were very much in favour of a previous development proposal in 2018 to build a small number of ‘supportive’ townhouses — a form of land use much more in keeping with the residential nature of the area
Rather, our objection is to a development that is at odds with the general guidelines for childcare centres in residential areas; is underpinned by a problematic traffic flow and parking study; and which has the potential to be significantly detrimental to residential amenity and property values in the area.
Ian and Robyn Gibbs

Thank you for making this plan publicly available. While the demolition of the current building on 220 Northbourne is a necessity, the plans do not contain evidence that the impacts on the surrounding buildings and residents, particularly those of Valonia (which is immediately adjacent to the 220 Northbourne site) have been considered and, where appropriate, mitigated or minimised.

Further clarity on the following should be provided prior to the application being approved:

• Duration of demolition process: there is no timeframe for the expected demolition provided, making it difficult to assess the impact on the surrounding residents and roads. At the community consultation for the proposed development of 220 Northbourne, Purdon advised the demolition would take 3-4 months. If this is correct, there is likely to be significant impact on the local area.

• Traffic management: it is unclear what entry/entrance points to the site will be utilised by the demolition vehicles and worker vehicles (ie. will vehicles be able to exit onto Northbourne Ave?). If all site traffic is to enter and exit on Lowanna Street, this is likely to be problematic. As Lowanna Street is bordered by traffic lights on Dooring Street, and traffic lights on Ipima Street, significant traffic delays are often experienced when works are undertaken in the street. These traffic delays then have a flow on effect through Braddon and Ainslie more broadly. It is also unclear whether the demolition works will impact Northbourne Ave (eg cause temporary lane closures). There should be a proper traffic management plan in place to accompany these demolition works.

• Parking for workers: the demolition plan advises that the current 220 Northbourne carpark will remain in situ for the duration of the demolition. However, it is unclear whether this carpark will accommodate the vehicles belonging to demolition workers, and whether there will be overflow to the surrounding streets. As parking is not permitted on either Wakefield or Northbourne avenues, Lowanna Street will bear all overflow parking. However, Lowanna Street has limited on street parking – which is limited to two hours - and much of which is needed by the businesses operating in the street.

• Management of asbestos removal: it is not clear how the removal of asbestos will be managed. While there is an asbestos report attached – with recommendations of how the removal of asbestos from the site should be managed – it is unclear whether these recommendations will be adhered to. A number of Valonia residents have their air conditioners drawing air from the side of the building adjacent to 220 Northbourne, and any loose asbestos is a genuine health concern.

• Impact of dust on surrounding buildings: it is not clear what, if any, measures are being taken to minimise the impact of demolition dust on the Valonia building. As shown in the plans, while colourbond fencing has been erected along the Northbourne and Wakefield avenue boundaries, mesh fencing has been erected along the Lowanna Street and the southern boundary. As such, there are currently no dust management or mitigation measures in place. It is reasonable to expect a considerable amount of dust and debris from the demolition will be blown into the Valonia and other adjacent sites, and that this may impact both health (eg asthma) and property (eg air conditioning units, balconies, windows, vehicles parked in the carpark). Mitigation measures are necessary, as are rectification measures where appropriate (eg cleaning of the Valonia building and other adjacent buildings following the demolition).

Thank you for considering the above points prior to approval of the demolition application.

This building is unattractive and any replacement would be an improvement.

As residents of Yarralumla since 1998, we are pleased to see new social housing like this being constructed in the suburb.

Does 9 stories fit within the framework for height AMSL? I believe Increased heights which breach the planning framework can only be approved by call in powers?
All other buildings along Northbourne in this precinct excepting Axis (which was built in contradiction to the Planning legislation of the time) are 5-7 stories.
The 'height creep' for buildings which sit above the framework height guidelines along Northbourne should only be considered at nodal points along the corridor, not at developer discretion.

I'm all for more higher density dwellings along the light rail corridor, but nine stories seems pretty high for this area. I'm concerned this isn't really consistent with the inner north development plan. I'm worried about shading and wind tunnel effects along Northbourne and surrounding areas.

Why wouldn't the Ainslie Football and Social Club locate land that is zoned for a childcare centre and develop a centre on that rather than going through the expense of rezoning from sports and recreation use.

With the rapidly growing population in the Inner North of Canberra the Club could explore other sports or forms of recreation that the community could use this site for. Basketball seems to be a sport without facilities in the area - I'm sure there are others. Has the club looked at alternatives?

There is a site at 11 Rutherford Crescent that is zoned for a childcare centre. A perfect opportunity for adaptive reuse of the existing building at a much lower cost than is being suggested for the proposed site and no loss of land for the community. The existing building was designed for a childcare centre.

I am glad to see the plan to reinvigorate the site

The site has a previously approved DA (DA201935657) for a six-storey mixed-use commercial and residential development including 58 residential
dwellings. The application states it is only seeking to remove uses "which are considered noisy uses". The application fails to provide any specifics as to the jump from 58 residential units up to 95 residential units and whether that would encompass an increase in the height of any proposed building. The proposed amendment ought not be granted without further information on how 95 units could be accommodated within the currently approved 6 storey height limit. As this issue has not been directly addressed in the application it is difficult to provide public comment on the impact of the proposed change.

Further, the loss of mixed use facilities to purely residential use is an outcome not currently contemplated by the current zoning. Mixed uses of themselves can provide desirable amenities within a location. Approving this lease variation will limit the opportunity for such amenities to be provided within any proposed development (either by the current applicant or any future developer). A reduction in available mixed use spaces represents a lost opportunity to provide more general amenities to the Gungahlin community.

We object to the proposed application to demolish the existing single red brick dwelling at 18 Lockyer Street, Griffith and to construct a three dwelling supportive housing development with parking spaces in the front garden.

We object to the request to the request for a "Lease Variation to permit supportive housing and to remove the maximum number of dwellings permitted on the block." Why is the developer asking to remove the maximum number of dwellings? Are they wanting more than three dwellings on the block?

The proposal requests a Lease change to from RZ1 to supportive housing. If this is approved, the application design ticks all the boxes EXCEPT for the Objectives for an RZ1 zone, which is where it is being built. Three of these are:
• Provide for the establishment and maintenance of residential areas where the housing is low rise and predominantly single dwelling and low density in character
• Protect the character of established single dwelling housing areas by limiting the extent of change that can occur particularly with regard to the original pattern of subdivision and the density of dwellings
• Ensure development respects valued features of the neighbourhood and landscape character of the area and does not have unreasonable negative impacts on neighbouring properties.
We also notice that, at present, approximately 70% of the block is covered by planting areas, but the new proposal only provides about 30%.
This proposal appears to be a continuation of the government’s policy to degrade the desired characteristics of RZ1 by random re-zoning.
Please allow Griffith to retain its existing neighbourhood character and reject this application!

Desperate for a park because so many children in the area near 52 wheeler crescent wannissa act regards Mr w.lane

Hello, I owned a townhouse behind the proposed demolition and construction of the units. I’m a bit concerned about the noise pollutions, air quality and any interruptions that may occur during the demolitions and construction.

Can you give more information on when this will happen. The sizes of the units etc…
How long will construction take to complete.

Regards

The protection of reserves within the ACT should be paramount. This reserve by the ACT Gov’s own wording is an important area. For trees as well as wildlife and insects. Surely it being one of the largest areas of endangered yellow box-red gum grassy woodlands should be something we celebrate and protect rather than destroy?
Please do not proceed with this development.

From act.gov: "The reserve is one of the largest areas of endangered Yellow Box-Red Gum Grassy Woodland and an integral part of a woodland corridor which stretches from Canberra across the border into NSW. It is also home to the threatened Perunga Grasshopper."
How many more trees and reserves is the ACT government planning to deprive us of?
The Callum Brae reserve has become very popular recently, and has supported the physical and mental wellbeing of many Canberrans during the lockdown. This is an asset that should be protected at all cost.
I therefore strongly oppose the proposed development.

This development is inappropriate as it will further threaten this endangered ecological community. Do not approve this application. Extinction is forever.

I strongly object to the proposed DA and lease variation on the corner of Mugga Lane and Narabundah Lane Symonston. The construction of a crematorium on this site will have a significant negative impact on Callum Brae Nature Park. What are the environmental impacts has the report been made available to the public from EPA ?
Alternatively could the company construct a nature park/reserve to protect the wildlife in the area of the proposed crematorium providing a place to sit and enjoy the wildlife in their natural surroundings.

I object to building a new crematorium on parklands. There are better technologies to deal with death, such as hydrolysis and proper composting which will become the future of the death industry. We do not need any more crematoriums. We need to enhance the existing ecology of parklands with better native flora management.

I strongly object to the Development Application and Lease Variation at the corner of Mugga Lane and Narrabundah Lane Symonston. This will have a significant impact on Callum Brae Nature Park.

The proposal does not adequately consider the ecological impacts on this important wildlife corridor, or impacts on endangered local flora and fauna. It also does not take into account local land usage including recreational usage.

Public consultation on this issue needs to be extended as it has been inadequately publicised.

This development will have a significant impact on the Callum Brae Nature Park. Canberra is known for its open spaces and wildlife reserves - please don't allow big business to start encroaching on these places.

Please do not put this development where it will affect Callum Brave. I strong.y oppose this development.

Please don’t cause the deaths of so many innocent and endangered native plants and animals by developing a service that provides for those who have already passed. Surely there is somewhere else more appropriate.

I object to the Development Application and Lease Variation at the corner of Mugga Lane and Narrabundah Lane Symonston.

1. The report by Capital Ecology as well as the determination of the Conservator of Flora and Fauna have not considered the risk that the crematorium’s toxic emissions pose to the endangered species of flora and fauna of Mugga Mugga Nature park and Callum Brae Nature Park. The cumulative effect of toxins needs to be investigated.

2. It looks as if the public consultation period is being rushed. More time is needed for the public to evaluate the impact of the toxic gases on the natural environment. More time is also needed for nearby residents to consider the impact the emissions will have on their health. This is especially important for the residents at the Dhulawa Mental Health Unit which is only 500m from the crematorium.

3. Is another crematorium even needed? The plans for the Southern Memorial Park at Hume include a crematorium.

Cremation is obsolescent and contributes to global heating and air pollution. If the site is to be used for disposal of dead humans it should be by way conservation burial managed by the Nature Reserve and with burial locations recorded by a GPS system without any physical headstones or other redundant nature damaging constructions such as new chapels or car parks. There are already many nearby religious buildings and locations for religious services.