Northbourne Avenue, Lyneham, ACT

AMENDMENT TO DA202037894-S144B - PROPOSAL FOR TWO, NINE STOREY MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Amendment to development application for Construction of 415 residential apartments, three levels of basement car parking, landscaping. Which is still under consideration - the amendment comprises of reduced building scale, units and car parking with revised apartment layout and facade, revised communal areas and landscaping, additional rooftop garden and increase in lift lobbies. Subdivision of the site to allow for a future stratum subdivision of stage 3 and 4. Full description in supporting. Documents

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website over 1 year ago. The date it was received by them was not recorded.

(Source: ACT Planning & Land Authority, reference 202037894)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. ******* S commented

    For anyone that lives in De Burgh street like myself, you too are probably tired of people parking illegally, ESPECIALLY on the Wattle st end, where there is a bend in De Burgh st. There is already a traffic issue through our street, it already takes more than 10 minutes some mornings to get onto Wattle st, a massive increase of residents in an already crowded street is a really bad idea, and everyone I have spoken to that lives in De Burgh street about the development, has disagreed with the idea of it.

    We do not want apartments towering over us, we do not want our already terrible half blocked street to become even worse, the people parking illegally are never being fined for it, we have the Lyneham shops 1 minute away by car or a 5 minute walk, or the Dickson shops, 4 minutes by car or 10 minute walk, we do not need any more shops nearby, and we certainly do not need any more apartments in our street. Over the last 24 months De Burgh st has gone from fairly quiet and a breeze to drive through, to being painful with having to pull over and wait for people to go past, simply because of people parking illegally. People already take silly risks and endanger others in our street because of these issues, we get people driving out of Owen cr all the time without looking, if they can even see past the illegally parked cars that are parked outside the apartments and units. We do not want our street any more crowded, we do not want any more dangerous hazards in our street, we are already tired enough of people parking illegally, tradies that drive like maniacs at the end of their shift (there have been plenty of them so far, several have almost hit my car driving out from their sites without looking or speeding) who leave rubbish everywhere through our street, the constant poor traffic flow and management, and every single person I've spoken to who lives in my street has had enough.

    There are no positives in this proposal. You will just be taking away from everyone that already lives here, and that is both unfair and morally bankrupt. We were here first and we disagree with the planned development. New apartment buildings are not welcome in our street. My neighbors and myself should not have to tolerate such a large inconvenience logistically, emotionally, and financially (again, no one buying a house is interested in being surrounded by apartments) so a developer can make a few bucks. I don't have an issue with apartments, but I do have an issue with them being built where the locals do not want them.

    The issues we already face in our street will be exacerbated if the development goes ahead. We need planning and land authority that looks after it's residents, not developers. Thankyou for taking the time to read.

  2. DHamilton commented

    I support every point in the comment made about the impact on traffic and parking in De Burgh St Lyneham of more residents and construction although I don’t live there, I have lived nearby before 30 years and seen and experienced the effects on traffic, road safety.

    This development needs to include sufficient parking for all residents on site. This means at a minimum 2 car parks per unit and visitor. If this means reducing the number of units to accommodate cars then the proposal should be redesigned accordingly.

    The ACT Government parking rangers need to make regular patrols to book illegally parked cars to deter this behaviour.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts