Deakin Fluffy Footprint

Click on map to enlarge display

On 1 July 2015 the ACT Government’s Asbestos Remediation Taskforce published the full list of addresses of residences that it intends to demolish, on the grounds that traces of “Mr Fluffy” loose-fill asbestos may remain in the building, and that no safe level of contamination can be agreed.

Twelve residences in Deakin are on the list. DRA extends full sympathy to those residents who are being forced to re-locate, some at considerable personal cost. Under the Government’s policy, the blocks will be redeveloped under new lease conditions set up by a special variation to the Territory Plan. Departing residents will have no control over the future of their blocks, unless they are able to buy them back after remediation is completed. Since the the Government’s intention is to increase the value of those blocks by permitting dual-occupancy development, most current residents expect to be priced out of any buy-back opportunity.

Remaining residents, and particularly residents of adjoining properties, are legitimately concerned about what form of re-development will occur on those blocks. In Deakin, all but one of them are zoned RZ1, meaning only single residences are permitted. The special Territory Plan Amendment will alow subdivision of those blocks for dual occupancy, and thus change the character of the neighbourhood to some extent. The process is likely to be extended over at least five years.

DRA is monitoring and representing resident interests on this matter, and welcomes comment and participation from any resident. Better still, join DRA to show your support.

For your reference, we list below the 12 Deakin addresses published by the Government, and a map showing locations of adjoining residences potentially affected by the demolition and redevelopment.

PUBLISHED ADDRESSES:

5 Normanby Crescent, 3 Northcote Crescent, 14 Carrington Street, 33 Macgregor Street, 70 Macgregor Street, 12 Gormanston Crescent, 12 Galway Place, 11 Beauchamp Street, 7 Norman Street, 13 Norman Street, 17 Norman Street, 45 Norman Street.

The following letter was sent to the Canberra Times on 13 June, following their shallow and misleading reportage of the Gawler Crescent ACAT decision. All Canberra residents deserve to understand the extent to which the current planning system limits their rights.

Deakin Residents’ Association Inc.
PO Box 3310 Manuka ACT 2603

Editor
Canberra Times

Your story “New Deakin development prompts privacy and parking concerns for residents” (CT online 8th June 2015), “Deakin residents fear flood of development” (CT print version 8th June 2015) misrepresents the Deakin Residents’ Association (DRA).

We did not oppose the Gawler Crescent redevelopment, but sought good planning outcomes that are consistent with published ACT Government planning policies.

The proposal now approved by ACAT will replace two existing residences with seven three-bedroom townhouses. This is significantly different from a 2010 proposal for fifteen one- and two-bedroom apartments, opposed by residents at the time as being completely inconsistent with relevant development codes.  Due to DRA pursuit of good planning outcomes, the subsequent proposal for seven three-bedroom residences has also been modified in several important respects – the number of buildings are now appropriate to the site, with a separation of 2.8metres between the two groups of units, whereas the developer originally proposed an unbroken terrace of six townhouses facing Gawler Crescent.

Through public consultations on DV306, the Government developed specific policy requirements with respect to the maximum number of buildings on a re-developed site with communities promised that groups of multi-unit dwellings in RZ2 zones would be separated by “at least 4 metres” to preserve neighbourhood character. The development, as now approved, still contradicts this promise. At the last minute, and without public consultation, the ACT Government introduced criteria to the relevant Rule inviting decision-makers to apply subjective judgment and allow developers to avoid compliance with the Rule.

Subjective interpretation of planning objectives, under the deceptively-named “merit track” of development approvals, is a deeply flawed system which contradicts commitments to community engagement in the planning and development process. If Rules can be so easily avoided we can anticipate developers seeking to push the boundaries within RZ2 zones across Canberra, with only private residents and their associations to uphold planning principles where they can.

John Bell
Vice President
Deakin Residents Association, Inc

An 16 April forum with local Liberal MLA Steve Doszpot and planning spokesman Alistair Coe at Deakin Soccer Club was well attended by residents fron Deakin, Yarralumla and other parts of South Canberra.

Mr Coe outlined a draft alternative proposal which would be smaller, focussed on townhouses rather than apartments, preserved key landscape and recreation resources, and would be staged progressively with a modest first stage. Separate Territory Plan amendments would be required for each stage, rather than a single rezoning process as proposed by LDA.

Following the Forum, on 22 April Steve Doszpot mailed an outline of the Liberals’ plan to people who had registered their names at the forum. It is less explicit on some points than the oral presentation. The Liberal’s statement is available at this link.

Coe also foreshadowed that, under a Liberal government, the LDA would have a much reduced role in the planning and development of ACT suburbs.

There was active feedback from many participants, mainly raising further issues such as traffic, parking, and pressure on existing shopping precincts and infrastructure.

We appreciate that the Liberals made this effort to consult, and look forward to further development of their alternative proposal. We also look forward to some effective response from Government MLAs and Ministers.