PlanningAlerts

4 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. Dear ACT Planning
   I have examined the development application for 9 Verdon Street and, superficially, it appears fine. On closer examination, however, I see that the new dwelling will have 8 bedrooms, 6 with en suite bathrooms. This means that there will be 11 bedrooms and 7 bathrooms at 9 Verdon Street. I have no idea of the future family dynamics at 9 Verdon Street but the ratio of bathrooms to bedrooms, suggest a predominantly adult population. If we assume one adult per room then 11 people will reside at 9 Verdon Street. Given the tendency for adults to own motor vehicles is there not an inadequacy of parking at 9 Verdon Street? Cars already choke Verdon Street (as I predicted when multi-unit developments arrived in our street in 2007) and cycling in the street is already far more dangerous than before any development. Thus, I would like to know where the anticipated cars will be housed. Alternatively, is it possible to limit the number of cars that can be associated with those living at this address? More importantly, I would like someone to confirm the nature of the new 9 Verdon Street. Is it a typical dual occupancy or is it essentially a boarding house. If the latter, please clarify that this development is appropriate on this block? After all, the section plan indicates that numbers 9 and 11 Verdon Street have "mandatory block amalgamation".
   Cheers IAN WALLIS

2. Dear Actpla,
   1. The development application proposed for 9 Verdon Street does not comply with the controls as outlined in the O'connor Section Master plan for developers intending to build a dual occupancy residence in a B12 section. Part 3 section 2 of the O'connor SMP states as a requirement that for a Dual Occupancy Development...'No additional dwelling is permitted in B11 and B12 areas where the additional dwelling is located to the rear of the block behind the original dwelling or where the additional dwelling is located to the rear of the new dwelling.'
   2. Element 5 Building design Rule 5.2 Building entries R48 (b) requires a direct line of sight between the front door and the public footpath or road. The proposed addition of a front yard carport and courtyard fence to the existing residence prohibits compliance with this requirement.
   The proposed rear situated building similarly does not comply with R48 (b) of the Multi unit Housing Development Code Sept 2016.
   3. Part 3 section 2 of the O'connor SMP states as a Rear set back Control requirement, 'a 7m rear setback to most blocks in B11 and B12 sections to allow a deep root planting zone' and clearly marked on section control plan 4.2 of the O'Connor SMP.
   4. The floor plans in the publicly displayed DA material do not show internal room divisions sufficient to understand clearly the intended purpose for the dwelling. The high correlation of en-suite bathrooms (6) to bedrooms (8) plus the large number of bedrooms suggest a 'commercial accommodation' intent akin to a motel or serviced apartment commercial development, rather than for strictly residential purposes. As the existing dwelling is currently advertised offering furnished accommodation it is a reasonable step to draw the conclusion that a similar use of the proposed new dwelling is the likely intended use.
   5. A tree exceeding 12m in height exists in the front which may be a 'significant' tree and subject to tree protection laws.
   6. The O'Connor SMP designates Blocks 2 & 3 Section 42 for minimum block amalgamation or integrated development. I believe this control should apply as the proposed development is contrary to the aims intended for land use adjacent to Northbourne Avenue corridor. Can you confirm if this is correct.
   Regards John Wilkinson

3. Dear ACTP
   I am a resident who live 5 Verdon Street. As we all know, the Verdon Street is a small community( The Street length no more than 200m). It already has three apartment buildings on this street. I think the street can not afford such more people to enjoy their life. Even the street car park is hard to find when you back home late.

4. Hi there,
   I have looked at the floor plans in the publicly displayed DA material and I am worried that the proposed dwelling is going to be very big with a highly unusual composition. I live on Verdon street in the Orana complex next door and don't feel this proposed structure is appropriate for such a small culdesac, especially as there are already some apartment complexes. I am also concerned that a dwelling with an additional eight (8) bedrooms and few parking spots poses a real issues to our already very congested street. Can you confirm what type of development this will be?

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished over 6 years ago. If you chose to comment now, your comment will still be displayed here and be sent to the planning authority but it will not be officially considered by the planning authority.

Your comment and details will be sent to ACT Planning & Land Authority. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment