Recent comments on applications from ACT Planning & Land Authority, ACT

  1. In Curtin ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR DUAL OCCUPANCY...” at 83 Dunstan Street, Curtin, ACT:

    Andrew Summers commented

    Dear Sirs observing the 2 story steel corner structure going up today we are attempting to visualise the elevations approved for the single storey dwellings - unfortunately no access to the plans / elevations any more - would it be possible to foward a .pdf set so that I can forward to my in laws also in Dunstan Street.. thanks Andrew....

  2. In Wanniassa ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR DUAL OCCUPANCY...” at 4 O'hea Street, Wanniassa, ACT:

    Dean O'Brien commented

    I wish to formally have my concerns for the development of 2 x 2 storey housing development of 4 O'Hea Street be heard or read.
    O'Hea street compromises of privately owned homes being 3 and 4 bedroom residences with backyards etc, all of which the current owners of the street have been in ownership of houses for more than 20years, some likemyself being over 40 years.
    The street was never approved for dual occupancy developments up until current legislation was changed.
    Not only will 2x2 level dual occupancy have a impact on the street scape of O'Hea street it will surely have a impact on the current value of the existing homes in the street.
    The block itself is of the smaller blocks made available for purchase in 1976 and is hard to see how 2x2 level dual occupancy housing will be built or how far to the street it will occupy.
    Another issue I see is parking, as all occupants and owners of current housing in O'Hea street have off street parking. No cars are parked on the road side, being that the property being prosposed to be built at no 4 O'Hea street will have at least 2 cars parked street side each day/night with consideration of maybe more depending on the how many people will occupy each 2 level flat/home.
    In summary,
    4 O'Hea street is only suitable for single occupancy housing, with off street parking etc
    A family home in which carries on the facade of O'Hea street currently.
    Also has the consideration of values to properties On O'Hea street been taken into account, and the possible loss of value and rates payable.

  3. In Lyons ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR MULTI UNIT...” at 29 Ulverstone Street, Lyons, ACT:

    Yvonne O'Neill commented

    This is a fantastic initiative for single storey social housing and I welcome such developments at a convenient distance from schools, shops and transport. My only concern is about the location of the common fire pit/BBQ area. I think that this facility should be in a more secure and screened location which is less open to the street so that tenants and their invited guests can have exclusive use of the facility. Otherwise it could be treated as a public access area, creating problems for both the tenants of the complex and the neighbours in Ulverstone Street.

  4. In Wanniassa ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR DUAL OCCUPANCY...” at 15 Mccombie Street, Wanniassa, ACT:

    Emma W commented

    Please consider retaining the existing tree in the principal private open space for Residence 1 to provide not only shade for the residence, but to help keep the street, and our suburb, cool

    Is the fencing for the principal private open space in Residence 2 permissible, given it will not be a corner block?

  5. In Macquarie ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR DUAL OCCUPANCY...” at 23 Richmond Street, Macquarie, ACT:

    Elizabeth Bluff commented

    I wish to object to the proposal for the development at 23 Richmond Street Macquarie reference 201834888), which is to consist of three townhouses and associated works. The reasons for my opposition to this are as follows:
    1. Overlooking – the three town houses have windows on multiple faces which will overlook adjoining properties on Richmond and Arndell Street, Macquarie. This is an unacceptable intrusion to the privacy of adjoining residents.
    2. Removal of trees. This is a Mr Fluffy block on which the demolition and asbestos removal preserved existing trees. Trees have since been cut down prior to submission of the development application and are therefore not acknowledged in the application.
    3. Traffic congestion – the proposed development will add to traffic congestion as it will increase traffic and street parking at a point where Richmond Street bends.
    4. Neighbourhood densification and concreting – recent developments in Arndell Street and neighbouring streets, and another approved subject to conditions at 66 Arndell Street have increased the density of dwellings in the area, increased traffic and on street parking, and replaced single family homes with multiple occupancies. They have also removed trees and shrubs, which have been replaced with broad expanses of concrete, with associated heat and noise amplification. This continuing loss of amenity and change from a pleasant garden suburb to a built up, hard surface environment is unacceptable.
    5. Lack of demand – those submitting this development application should be required to demonstrate that there is actually demand for this type of development in this area. This is uncertain to say the least in view of the failure to sell of two town houses in Richmond Street and three around the corner in Arndell Street, and given others under construction around the corner in Wylde Place, and the 16 town houses approved subject to conditions on Arndell Street.
    6. Poor contractor management – the recent developments on Arndell Street and Wylde Place have been harmful to the local environment during the construction phase. The Arndell Street development routinely used the public nature strip at the rear of the block for truck deliveries, storage of building materials and stacks of soil (for weeks at a time), and discharged concrete contaminated water onto the nature strip at the rear of the development. Contractors at the Wylde Place development have routinely used the park bounded by Wylde Place as a parking lot, damaging ground cover as well as posing a risk to children at this is a local playing area. The lack of government oversight of community and environmental impact is unacceptable.

  6. In Wanniassa ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR DUAL OCCUPANCY...” at 13 Mackinnon Street, Wanniassa, ACT:

    Emma Woolley commented

    The Statement of Criteria in incorrect to say that the encroachment has no impact on the street. The residences appear to have limited parking (particularly Residence 2), and street parking on a corner block may either hinder traffic movement, while verge parking will damage the roots of significant trees. Mackinnon Street is particularly busy at school times and church times. The footprint of the houses/garages are simply too big for the block and the size should be reduced to ensure that they do not encroach on neighbours or the street.

    It is unclear from the plans which tree is the Significant Tree requiring protection. The statement of criteria states there is one significant tree, however the tree management plan provides protection for all trees on the verge. The tree should be accurately labelled in the tree management plan to ensure it is not damaged during construction

  7. In Bonner ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR A LEASE...” at 31 Louisa Briggs Circuit, Bonner, ACT:

    G commented

    The house is on a curb and the way people park on the corner is dangerous for traffic or even cyclists.

    Please consider enough visibility for on coming traffic from both directions when sanctioning the new plan.

    The tree on the corner and plantation provides next go no visibility on the curb and the addition of parked cars is very dangerous.

  8. In Kingston ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR 6 STOREY MIXED...” at 45 Honeysett View, Kingston, ACT:

    Sabina Stellmaker commented

    I object to the proposed development and building of a car park on the lakeside of Honeysett View for the following reasons:

    The current space should be restored to, and maintained in, its natural state as much as possible. The Government must ensure as much land as possible is preserved as park land.

    We, the residents of the Peninsula, Northshore and Azure dwellings specifically chose our properties to purchase and dwell in because of the close proximity to the beautiful Lake Burley Griffin and the unobstructed views of the wetland and its resident bird and animal life. We have chosen this precinct because it is the quiet side of the Kingston Foreshore. This car park will add noise pollution, light pollution and carbon monoxide pollution.

    Additional car parks are not needed
    There are copious preexisting car parks, accessible to the public, along Honeysett View, Kerridge Street, Eyre Street, Dawes Street and the Causeway, which for many hours during the day remain unoccupied.

    Additional cars are not needed, nor should they be encouraged
    The bicycle paths servicing Canberra facilitate and promote transportation via a sustainable environmentally-friendly mechanism. What is the public health and environmental policy evidence backing the accommodation of more polluting vehicles (cars/motorcycles/utility trucks) by building another public car park? We as citizens with the right to clean air, high living standards and the right to shape the environmental future for generations to come must be presented with all facts. Without this evidence, strong opposition will prevail.

  9. In Kingston ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR 6 STOREY MIXED...” at 45 Honeysett View, Kingston, ACT:

    Judi Young commented

    I am writing to object to the proposed development and building of a car park on the lakeside of Honeysett View for the following reasons:
    The current space should be restored to its natural state as much as possible. The car park will have run off to the waterway during wet weather and from vehicles leaking oil/fuel, thereby destroying the quality of the waterways the bird life currently enjoys, and sustains and nurtures its young. We should be aiming to keep this national treasure as pristine as possible by keeping vehicles as far away as possible from the water’s edge. The Government should be ensuring MORE land is preserved as a park and sanctuary for bird and animal life NOT reducing it for a polluting car park, anywhere along the banks of the lake, wetlands and river.
    The owners/residents of the Peninsula, Northshore and Azure dwellings purchased their properties because of the close proximity to the natural environs and the unobstructed views of the wetland and its resident bird and animal life. The proposed car park will detract from these existing views and, at night, some of the residents on the lower levels of these dwellings will have annoying car park lights and car head lights beaming directly into their apartments. Further, residents of these dwellings chose this precinct because of its access to the Foreshore restaurant strip, yet reasonable distance from noisy restaurant traffic on Eastlake Parade.
    Around the areas of Honeysett View, Kerridge Street, Eyre Street, Dawes Street and the Causeway, there are adequate numbers of car parks already provided and which at most times during the day are not being used. So, the argument suggesting a car park is needed due to demand is a spurious one. It appears one of the reasons for the car park being developed is to take the overflow from the Sapphire development. It is not appropriate that public land be used to assist a private developer who should be making appropriate provision of car parks for residents and their visitors within the APPROVED building that’s being developed.

  10. In Kingston ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR 6 STOREY MIXED...” at 45 Honeysett View, Kingston, ACT:

    Derek Robinson commented

    I would also like to object to the positioning of the proposed visitor’s carpark on Honeysett View. It is ironic that this carpark is intended as an amenity for the yet to be constructed headland park but it will itself excise a significant portion of the park. There are clearly better alternatives providing equal access opportunity at the Eastern end of the proposed park

  11. In Kingston ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR 6 STOREY MIXED...” at 45 Honeysett View, Kingston, ACT:

    Craig Pearson commented

    I object to the proposal to alienate some foreshore for additional car spaces. While a resident of the area, I am not affected by the proposal. However I believe it is extremely poor planning to alienate valuable and scarce foreshore for car parking. If there is a need for additional parking in the area -which has not been demonstrated- then please consider the alternatives, ie widening the Causeway for parking on both sides, or creating a carpark east of the Causeway on unused public land between Eyre and Dawes St.

  12. In Kingston ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR 6 STOREY MIXED...” at 45 Honeysett View, Kingston, ACT:

    Kathryn Morris commented

    I wish to lodge an objection against the planned carpark on Honeysett view. To me, this does not seem to be an aesthetically or environmentally sound decision. I have noted the local bird life using this area for rearing of their chicks, feeding and resting. Surely a carpark and its flow off waste would disturb the wildlife.

    Also, using a prime piece of land for a carpark seems silly considering the vast other areas available. Further more, as a resident of the area, I know that there is ample parking around the streets surrounding Sapphire which is primarily used by residents at night and tradesmen building the new constructions during the day. No guests use it while visiting the area for leisure.

    There is absolutely no need for more parking. A park, as originally planned, would better serve the needs and wants of the community.

  13. In Kingston ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR 6 STOREY MIXED...” at 45 Honeysett View, Kingston, ACT:

    Kevin Wojtowicz commented

    I strongly object to the proposed car park to be built on what I thought was going to be parkland. One of the reasons I bought on the quiet side of Kingston was to enjoy the serenity and view across the wetlands. I want to see green, not concrete.

    This is environmental pollution in my view and when I purchased in Northshore, I got the plans of the proposed park for reference and can’t believe this would be considered. There are lots of car parks on the streets around Kingston to service the foreshore and also within the buildings for owners / tenants and guests, so there is no need for further spots.

    It is important to have nature at our doorstep and not disrupt the environment any further.

  14. In Kingston ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR 6 STOREY MIXED...” at 45 Honeysett View, Kingston, ACT:

    Peter Bath commented

    Comment on Development Application: 201834502

    I am writing to oppose the above referenced Development Application as it is non-compliant with:

    height restrictions, and
    parking and access requirements.

    Height Restrictions

    The Kingston Precinct Map and Code provides for a maximum of four storeys on the land subject to this Development Application.

    While many of the buildings in the precinct have pop up elements - primarily penthouses - rising above the four storey limit these are constructed so as to have generous setbacks from the building footprint and are spaced apart from other popups. The overall visual effect is therefore that of a four storey building with one or more pop ups above the fourth storey. This provides a visually pleasing streetscape throughout much of the precinct.

    The proposed construction has much less setback and spacing between popups. The popups dominate the building. The overall visual impression is a six storey monolithic construction, which will clash visually with the rest of the precinct. This is clearly evident in the promotional photographs on the development’s website and in the perspective views forming part of the Development Application.


    As acknowledged in the Development Application, a total of 20 visitor car parks are required for the development.

    The Development Application states that 22 units have allocated “private visitor space(s)”. It then proceeds on the basis that it is permissible to exclude those units from the calculation of the number of visitor spaces required. The requirement is then stated as being (78 - 22) / 4 = 14.

    In my view:
    the required number of visitor spaces remains at 20, and
    the “private visitor space(s)” are properly excluded from that count.

    The reason being that owners / occupiers of the larger units, several of which have four bedrooms, may well use all their allocated parking spaces (including the “private visitor space(s)”) as car parks for their own use. Visitors to those units would still require a visitors car park.

    The Development Application also seeks to double count ten commercial car spaces on the grounds that they would be available out of normal business hours and on weekends. This seems to ignore the very real possibilities that visitors to residents may arrive during normal business hours and the commercial premises may operate on weekends. If such an approach is allowed it would make mandating car spaces for commercial operations in residential projects largely redundant.

    Finally the suggestion that street parking or a car park to be constructed on adjacent public land be utilised for overflow visitor parking will only lead to congestion and environmental degradation in the area.

    I am also opposed to the construction of a car park on adjacent public land on environmental grounds. It would be far better to landscape the whole area to provide a passive recreational facility in a medium to high density residential precinct. Providing a sealed car park adjacent to environmentally sensitive wetlands will increase the risk of run off and pollution after rain events.

  15. In Kingston ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR 6 STOREY MIXED...” at 45 Honeysett View, Kingston, ACT:

    Daniel Uilelea commented

    We have recently moved into the Northshore apartments with the promise that nothing would be built in front of the complex and nothing would obstruct our view. Sapphire is going ahead which we have come to terms with, however, the car park is not required by Sapphire and can be relocated. For all of the reasons listed by concerned residents above, I urge you to reconsider this development. Many thanks.

  16. In Kingston ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR 6 STOREY MIXED...” at 45 Honeysett View, Kingston, ACT:

    Brooke Priestland commented

    I also urge you to reconsider the development of a car park directly on the foreshore at this site. Resident's of the foreshore who appreciate the wetlands and wildlife will no longer be able to enjoy the serenity that the park brings. How can a car park take priority over the preservation of natures green outdoor areas? Thank you for your consideration.

  17. In Wanniassa ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR DUAL OCCUPANCY...” at 21 Leggatt Street, Wanniassa, ACT:

    George Butt commented

    Please ensure off-street parking is adequate for both dwellings?
    Note - this is a 'street', not a 'place'; therefore there is through traffic. The original bitumen area is insufficient for two cars parked legal distance from the kerb and still allow a third car through the centre of the road.

    We're starting to see more and more residential zones where there are (eg) four residents and five cars on the street. Ultimately, this annoyance can potentially lead to something like the death of a child. Therefore:

    Please, ensure that off-street parking is adequate for both dwellings?
    No further comment.

  18. In Kingston ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR 6 STOREY MIXED...” at 45 Honeysett View, Kingston, ACT:

    Sarah W commented

    I would appreciate your reconsideration of the plan to develop a car park directly on the foreshore at this site. Initial advice indicated that this area would maintain the parkland and green space. As many of the residents in our suburb are young families the preservation of green outdoor areas is crucial to quality of life. While it may seem trivial to some, variety and availability of green space is a crucial concern for many parents of young children and the impact of reducing these areas unnecessarily is significant.
    Thank you for your consideration.

  19. In Kingston ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR 6 STOREY MIXED...” at 45 Honeysett View, Kingston, ACT:

    Wally Reid commented

    The people who enjoy the waterfront adjacent to the Sapphire complex and along the wetlands do not need a carpark. They are part of a larger community that value the simple pleasures of nature, of walking amongst the sounds and sights of unique protected wildlife and the quiet relief from traffic.
    If the developers of Sapphire need extra parking then let them fund it.
    What town planner thinks that building a car park at the water's edge of Lake Burley Griffin is a great idea? It sets a disasterous precedent.
    Please do NOT build a carpark in this area.

  20. In Kingston ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR 6 STOREY MIXED...” at 45 Honeysett View, Kingston, ACT:

    Bobbie Vanduren commented

    Further to my previous comment I also request a date for when the fencing of public open land will be removed. It would be much appreciated if the park area be finished prior to construction of Sapphire and not further delayed (ie be completed as the first phase of construction not the last phase).

    Regarding access to the open public area I also request that the Sapphire construction shed NOT be placed on the public land to the east of the old rowing shed, but in front of the construction site itself (same as the shed at the Northshore complex which I understand was originally on public land and moved to the front of their building site because it was on public land and was viewed by residents as an obstruction of their view and disruption to their quiet enjoyment of what is a beautiful environment.

  21. In Gungahlin ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR ALTERATIONS...” at 6 Gribble Street, Gungahlin, ACT:

    Cameron Leslie commented

    Gungahlin residents need to be very concerned over any DA or amendment for the precinct 2b high rise developments. The original business use building code has been compromised to mixed use residential/business but there is more profit for developers and more rates for the government in apartments so now creep in the DA amendments to increase dwelling numbers and often at the expense of the community facilities (cafes, shops etc) in the original plan put to the public. This means just big apartment towers creating more of a ghetto environment. This also creates a greater environment for crime with less daily movement of general public around the area as has occurred in other dense apartment developments. The increased residences add to the population and traffic density stress that was not considered in the original planning submissions. There is no consideration for community by the developers, they will make their profit and leaving the surrounding community to live with the consequences. There is no consolation in hindsight.

  22. In Kingston ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR 6 STOREY MIXED...” at 45 Honeysett View, Kingston, ACT:

    Robert Leticq commented

    I strongly believe the location of the planned car park is shortsighted and should not occupy the site proposed. If a car park is considered necessary, then please look at moving it towards the end of Honeyset View on to vacant land to the adjacent to the Causeway. To my mind that’s a much more appropriate location for such a public facility. The proposed site is not suitable from an aesthetic perspective and will appear out of place. Please re-consider.

  23. In Kingston ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR 6 STOREY MIXED...” at 45 Honeysett View, Kingston, ACT:

    Bobbie Vanduren commented

    I wish to lodge my strong objection to the location of the proposed public carpark on Honeysett View.

    I understand public consultation on the Sapphire development highlighted concerns about parking- and the DA appears to have addressed this- without the need for a public carpark. The DA states ‘While not allocated to the development there is kerbside parking available on the northern verge of Honeysett View to the east of the site and a 10 space public carpark in the landscaped area immediately adjacent to the site (east side) which is available to the general public and not allocated to nearby unit developments as part of the visitor parking.’

    As a local resident I have paid attention to on street parking and how it is used. Overwhelmingly car spaces are used by residents of the apartment buildings. When a complex is being built tradesmen use the carparks. Car spaces are readily available to the extent stolen/vandalised cars have been dumped in the area.
    I realise a small park is proposed for Honeysett View but cannot see that it would attract car-driving visitors, or that additional public parking would be required, let alone a carpark on the foreshore itself.

    Truly I cannot understand how, in 2018 an on-ground carpark directly on the foreshore is considered a good idea. I am sure environmental concerns could be addressed but nothing would mitigate the aesthetic nightmare.

    I thank you in advance for taking time to further consider the need and location of the proposed carpark.

  24. In Kingston ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR 6 STOREY MIXED...” at 45 Honeysett View, Kingston, ACT:

    Kay Eve commented

    I am extremely concerned that there is to be a 12 car public carpark directly in front of my new apartment. There appears to have been no consultation about this.
    I assume this carpark is for people to use when they visit the tiny park which is yet to be created at the foreshore creek. Could it not be better placed at the Causeway end of Honeysett View where it will not upset any of the residents of Peninsula, Northshore, or any other residential development? There is a huge tract of land there which is currently unused.
    Our view of the water and trees was our reason for selecting this particular apartment, and we did not envision staring at parked cars.
    I urge you to please reconsider this carpark placement and consult with Northshore residents in particular.

  25. In Kambah ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR DUAL OCCUPANCY...” at 58 Bissenberger Crescent, Kambah, ACT:

    Nancy and Jason Lee commented

    We would suggest a privacy fence or plants to screen the patio behind the proposed U1 garage from our back balcony. The current plans only have the fence that allow direct visibility from our property directly into this area - giving the residents no privacy at all.

    We have concerns about how close the proposed plans has the U1 garage is to the fence line and would suggest providing more room from the fence line.

    Please be aware that we have established plants growing on our side of the shared fence by the big trees and power pole in front of the proposed U1 garage. If any part of the fence is to be removed during construction all precautions should be taken to limit the damage to these plants

    From the plans it looks like the large tree/hedges on the fence line in front of U1 garage will be retained. We note that the roots from these trees/hedges are pushing up the paves on our side. If these trees/hedges are to be retain we suggest a plan should be put in place to stop any further damage to the paves.

    We are concerned about the shared driveway. The big equipment that was used to demolish 58 Bissenberger damaged the driveway (created potholes). If this happens to the 56 Bissenberger side of the driveway due to the proposed construction, we obviously would want the driveway to be repaired to the state it is in at the moment (we have taken photos).

    The plans state the driveway needs to stay clear at all times. This must happen as we must be able to come and go as we need without any vehicles or equipment in our way.

    Thank you for considering these comments.

  26. In Narrabundah ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR MULTI UNIT...” at 14 Narambi Street, Narrabundah, ACT:

    K commented

    I object to the current proposals outlined in development application 201834164 for 14 Narambi Street, on the basis of density and amenity.

    In particular, I object to the proposed lease variation to combine 14 Narambi Street with 16 Narambi Street as this seems solely based on increasing the density of the proposed development, which would decrease the amenity of that area.

    The proposal covers two blocks (10 and 11 in section 36) on which two 3-bedroom single dwellings are currently located with provision of off-road parking for 1-2 cars on site, and seeks to replace them with six two-storey dwellings, with up to four bedrooms and basement garages. (Although the application states that these existing dwellings are to be replaced with three-bedroom dwellings, this does not quite reflect the floor plans, five of which denote a ‘Bedroom 4 / Rumpus Room’ on the upper floor).

    The plot ratio, at 49.8%, is barely "under 50%", and does not reflect the street in which the proposed development is situated, which is primarily characterized by single-storey dwellings on a significantly smaller plot ratio. While the size of the proposed combination of blocks 11 and 12 is claimed to be consistent with the RZ2’s Table A3 for blocks over 1,350 sqm (assuming the two are combined as proposed), it is inconsistent with the overall density of Narambi Street.

    Recent multi-unit developments of similar density in section 36 have shown that such proposals may be better suited to Boolimba Crescent, as they can be situated across the street from community facilities, with their setback, than the residential premises of Narambi Street. Some have also presented a mix of building heights, whereas the proposal entirely comprises multiple two-storey dwellings that apparently require high-silled windows with frosting for the privacy of all upper-floor bedrooms. Moreover, the develooment would be located a section that is higher than those adjacent to it, including the section on which the other side of Narambi Street is situated.

    While the proposed development is adjacent to a small patch of open space in Narambi Street, this space is simply part of the road access for other properties on the same side of Narambi Street. Existing residents may be disadvantaged by an increased number of vehicles on completion of the proposed 14-16 Narambi Street development and the new development which is nearing completion on the corner of Boolimba Crescent and Narambi Street.

    I am not anti-development; it is just that this proposal, as it stands, seems to be the wrong one for the site. It could therefore benefit from some measures to reduce its density and increase its amenity, for the benefit of all concerned.

  27. In Deakin ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR MULTI UNIT...” at 16 Fergusson Crescent, Deakin, ACT:

    Richard Thwaites commented

    As a resident most directly affected by the Fergusson Crescent frontage of number 16, my comment is directed to the proposed removal of four mature trees that are significant to the streetscape. These are the trees numbered in the supplied Tree Survey as 1, 2, 3 (on the Fergusson Crescent frontage) and number 5 (on the Gawler Crescent frontage).

    Retention of these trees would appear to have only a trivial affect on the proposed building works, but would significantly soften the impact of the stark new townhouse terrace on streetscape viewed both from Fergusson Crescent and from Gawler Crescent.

    Tree number 1 in particular marks and visually defines the Fergusson/Gawler corner of the block. It is noted in the Tree Survey as being "on a mound". In fact this tree is rooted in, and stabilises, the embanked berm that for decades has protected the relevant block from flooding by stormwater that runs down Gawler Crescent and overflows the street guttering on occasions when there is sustained heavy rain. This berm redirects such floodwater to the main stormwater sump on the footpath close to Number 16 Fergusson Crescent.

    I believe this application should not be approved without proper consultation with the ACT Tree Conservator.

  28. In Phillip ACT on “LEASE VARIATION - To vary...” at 15 Bowes Street, Phillip, ACT:

    Angela Brown commented

    Can you please tell me who approved the use of Bowes Place loop to carry multiple large trucks daily to remove building waste and deliver materials for this monstrosity development. It would have been a much safer and option to make them create a road way to their development off Callum St, rather than obstructing traffic and putting pedestrians at risk by the sheer volume of truck traffic that this development will create over a very extended time period. ACT Planning, go home.

  29. In Bruce ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR MIXED USE...” at 9 Thynne Street, Bruce, ACT:

    Lina Wong commented

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I object to this application due to the congestion and noise that would be added by the extra commercial activity that would be generated in what is a nice quiet suburb. The size of the development is too large and adds to an already built up area.

    I hope you will carefully consider the disruption and loss of amenity this large development would introduce and prohibit this application.

    Thank you
    Lina Wong

  30. In Kambah ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR DUAL OCCUPANCY...” at 27 Mackay Crescent, Kambah, ACT:

    Sue Pittman commented

    Thank you for the opportunity to request alterations to the planned development at 27 Mackay Cres Kambah.
    # good to keep development low in profile
    # please consider how this fits in with present suburb look.
    * All homes in the vicinity have gardens
    *Few homes in the vicinity have near solid fence facing the street itis meant to be on.
    # Please consider different options.
    You seem to want older people out of large 4 bedroom homes with large gardens. Those people could downsize within their area if these 2 properties were 2 bedroom and study area. ( instead of 4 bedroom trying to be proper family homes)It would keep a mix of age groups in the area. Good for community health and wellbeing of residents and cheaper for builders.
    Thinking differently might be a game changer. Try it, it might work better than present arrangements

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