Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Sponsored by Crucial - delivering premium web hosting to Australian businesses 24x7x365

Protests over Deakin McMansions.

By farq - 7 January 2013 134

Protests over Deakin McMansion

Personally I think it’s time for this kind of thing to come to and end. Big houses right to the edge of the block don’t belong in established suburbs!

I live in West Belconnen, we had one of these cheap Rietveld-Schröder House knock offs built across the road. It’s big(almost 3 stories, right up against boundaries), ugly (purple), it looks into the neighbours yards and is so poorly designed the main living areas all face west. It goes without saying that not a single tree is left on the block (and the garden is now too small for anything but a patch of fake grass).

We are just thankful it was not built next door.

The big worry is that as our street is full of 3-bedroom single bathroom houses on big blocks (all built in the early 70s) and unless things change it’s only a matter of time before stuff starts getting demolished and the street ends up claustrophobic and over-crowded like Gungahlin.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
134 Responses to
Protests over Deakin McMansions.
1
farq 9:57 am
07 Jan 13
#

For those who don’t know what I mean by Rietveld-Schröder, check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietveld_Schr%C3%B6der_House.

Report this comment

2
thebrownstreak69 9:59 am
07 Jan 13
#

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

Report this comment

3
Ben_Dover 10:06 am
07 Jan 13
#

Totally agree. Some suburbs have their character decimated by these McMansions. Most scream “look what you can do with lots of money but absolutely no taste!!”

Report this comment

4
Madam Cholet 10:11 am
07 Jan 13
#

Obviously there will be differing opinion on this, and for what it’s worth I agree that new homes should try to reflect the existing character of the area if at all possible and should be built with sustainability in mind, so leaving some room on the boundaries, having decent eaves for extra sun protection, facing the direction that ensures it does not become a heat or ice box, insulation, water tanks, solar panels, trees kept on the block for shade etc etc.

What I don’t think is a good idea is for existing and obviously disgruntled residents to compare their area to somewhere else, and allude to the fact that their area is better, and then add the caveat, ‘not that there’s anything wrong with (insert suburb name)’. Houses should be built with sustainability in mind in any area. And if that is done, it will minimize these complaints. For the record, I don’t live in either area.

Report this comment

5
farq 10:16 am
07 Jan 13
#

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

No notice was ever posted, first we knew about it was when the site was being cleared and materials delelivered.

Report this comment

6
NoImRight 10:20 am
07 Jan 13
#

I think they are usually ugly and I wouldnt like one but I also like the idea that I get to choose the house I build and as long as it meets planning regs nobody can tell me what house I should live in. Id be more concerned if we all had to build the same house acording to someone elses’s idea of what looks good based on no more than the fact they happened to get there first.

Report this comment

7
chewy14 10:25 am
07 Jan 13
#

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

According to the story in the CT, they were exempt from needing a DA.

I’m torn here between the thought of this simply being a NIMBY issue and the realisation that the house shown in the article truly is horrible.

I think there definitely needs to be a tradeoff between people being able to use their land but still keeping it within the general character of a suburb.

Two storey McMansions, covering the entirety of a block really don’t fit the character of most suburbs.

Report this comment

8
thegirl 10:25 am
07 Jan 13
#

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

They wouldn’t have have had the opportunity to comment. There is no requirement for a development application for single dwellings (assuming the development complies with relevant codes which seem to be very broadly drafted)

Report this comment

9
chilli 10:30 am
07 Jan 13
#

farq said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

No notice was ever posted, first we knew about it was when the site was being cleared and materials delelivered.

My understanding is that general public notification of a development only occurs in instances where the lease use changes eg a dual occupancy or multi-storey development on a block previously occupied by a single dwelling.

If you are extending your house or doing a knock-down rebuild, then only the residents of dwellings bordering your block will be notified and given the opportunity to object/comment on how the new house or extension will impact them.

Report this comment

10
MisterTee 10:32 am
07 Jan 13
#

Wow. Alllll the things that happen in West Belco and you choose this to complain about?

Report this comment

11
Solidarity 10:34 am
07 Jan 13
#

My NIMBY meter just broke. Thanks guys.

Report this comment

12
farq 10:36 am
07 Jan 13
#

NoImRight said :

I think they are usually ugly and I wouldnt like one but I also like the idea that I get to choose the house I build and as long as it meets planning regs nobody can tell me what house I should live in. Id be more concerned if we all had to build the same house acording to someone elses’s idea of what looks good based on no more than the fact they happened to get there first.

I think this is a classic example of when the NIMBY reaction is justified.

If the house across the road from me was next door, my backyard would lose all privacy and most of its solar access.

Report this comment

13
Pitchka 10:37 am
07 Jan 13
#

OP, Queanbeyan might be more to your liking if its an untouched established area your looking to live in.. Other than that, people have a right to build as they please, following ACTPLA approval.

Report this comment

14
rosscoact 10:46 am
07 Jan 13
#

farq said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

No notice was ever posted, first we knew about it was when the site was being cleared and materials delelivered.

So, you’re saying that it wasn’t publicly notified as required under the Act? That is easy to prove or disprove as the case may be. If it wasn’t publicly notified as prescribed under the Act then you have a case. If you just didn’t notice it you won’t have a case.

I’d be backing ACTPLA on this one though.

You are talking about a Neighbourhood Plan though (or whatever they are called now) and it’s a strategic document. No sense at all complaining about specific developments if they comply with the requirements of the Territory Plan.

But you would know that as I assume you are the person in the paper this morning who is on the community council.

Report this comment

15
rosscoact 10:48 am
07 Jan 13
#

thegirl said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

They wouldn’t have have had the opportunity to comment. There is no requirement for a development application for single dwellings (assuming the development complies with relevant codes which seem to be very broadly drafted)

That only applies in greenfields, they always notify in established areas

Report this comment

1 2 3 9

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site