rosscoact said :

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

You only need to notify adjoining neighbours. I suppose those neighbours directly affected could then make comment if they wanted but I cant see how there would be any point as there’s no development approval needed in established areas. Perhaps you could object on the basis that the development doesn’t meet the suburb code but those suburb and building codes seem to be very broad.

Holden Caulfield said :

Yes, I agree that would suck. But it’s ACTPLA that should feel the brunt of any objections. It’s pretty poor that the new homeowners will now also feel crap about their new home/neighborhood.

Has anyone bothered to consider the position of the new homeowners at all? I’m guessing moving in and pissing off all the neighbours and gaining media attention wasn’t on their list of hopes and expectations.

I do agree, too, that the house pictured in the CT article is pretty fugly, and I wouldn’t like it next to me, but as far as I’m aware nobody has made me judge and juror able to declare what is good and bad taste.

….and to quote from the article “broadbrush residential codes need to be more precise to protect people from themselves”.

I couldn’t agree more. It is amazing that someone could be clever enough to be a high level public servant, but dumb enough to have the inability to visualise the end result from drawings and plans. Either that, or some people are quite happy to have an arrogant and contemptuous anti social disregard for those around them.

farq said :

I was refering to the house across the road from me in West Belco, not the house in the article.

Fair enough.

Up until last year, next-door residents did not have to be notified about knockdown/rebuilds happening on adjacent properties. Knockdown/rebuilds are not on the ACTPLA website. A nine-bedroom house in O’Connor had outraged residents and was raised at the Planning & Development Forum. After the Greens Caroline Le Couteur proposed an amendment, Planning Minister introduced an amendment that made notification compulsory but no appeal rights. Currently a development next door can block your solar access and you have no redress. The govt response to DV 306 was due on 19 Dec 2012.
If you buy into a street you like it may be re-developed with very high plot ratio houses that will change the character. Chalk & cheese developments like this are now commonplace in established suburbs. ACT treasury benefits more from knockdown/rebuild than renovation and ACTPLA will push this, as it is an arm of revenue raising. A private certifier who is paid by the developer and licenced by ACTPLA does building inspection.
The rise of the McMansions in existing suburbs will see further de-forrestation of existing suburbs. There is no room for trees and landscaping, total dominance of the built form. It is interesting to see the solar panels but a lack of windows facing north. The architect/draftsman/owner has shown a total disregard for solar passive design.
Many RAs may dismiss DRA as NIMBIES but they just want a say in how their suburb changes and new developments that are sympathetic and complimentary to what is already there. Transplanting Gungahlin into Deakin is not good planning. Future residents have more rights than neighbours under both the Territory Plan and Planning & Development Act.

That house is totally hideous, but having said that, if it complies with the relevant laws and regulations then *shrug*

I’d be thankful that the crappy neighbour on the block just has an ugly house rather than a whole host of other issues which would actually, you know, be problems. (Barking dogs? Loud cars/music? D***heads who scream abuse at eachother at all hours?)

I had a bit of sympathy until the “this isn’t Gungahlin” comment – just reeks of self-impressed snobbery. And I don’t like Gungahlin either.

farq said :

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.

the house looks nothing like what you posted. You Fail at pushing your own barrow.

Can we have a Riotact photo-stream competition; “Hideous McMansions of Canberra”?

There’s one Aranda (looks like a municipal toilet on steroids,) and one in Cook (“we let our toddler choose the colours”) that deserve recognition.

54-11 said :

I’ll do a Masquara (ie totally irrelevant comment), and just note that Mr Kefford used to be a senior advisor to John Howard.

That’s not irrelevant at all – it puts the house in a context in which it makes perfect sense.

thegirl said :

rosscoact said :

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

You only need to notify adjoining neighbours. I suppose those neighbours directly affected could then make comment if they wanted but I cant see how there would be any point as there’s no development approval needed in established areas. Perhaps you could object on the basis that the development doesn’t meet the suburb code but those suburb and building codes seem to be very broad.

That is simply not true. All redevelopments of this type in existing urban areas have, for at least the last 10 year, been subject to full notification and require a DA.

What you are referring to are IIRC small, class 10A (non habitual structures)

gazket said :

farq said :

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.

the house looks nothing like what you posted. You Fail at pushing your own barrow.

You failed to read the original post.

aussielyn said :

Up until last year, next-door residents did not have to be notified about knockdown/rebuilds happening on adjacent properties. Knockdown/rebuilds are not on the ACTPLA website. A nine-bedroom house in O’Connor had outraged residents and was raised at the Planning & Development Forum. After the Greens Caroline Le Couteur proposed an amendment, Planning Minister introduced an amendment that made notification compulsory but no appeal rights. Currently a development next door can block your solar access and you have no redress. The govt response to DV 306 was due on 19 Dec 2012.
If you buy into a street you like it may be re-developed with very high plot ratio houses that will change the character. Chalk & cheese developments like this are now commonplace in established suburbs. ACT treasury benefits more from knockdown/rebuild than renovation and ACTPLA will push this, as it is an arm of revenue raising. A private certifier who is paid by the developer and licenced by ACTPLA does building inspection.
The rise of the McMansions in existing suburbs will see further de-forrestation of existing suburbs. There is no room for trees and landscaping, total dominance of the built form. It is interesting to see the solar panels but a lack of windows facing north. The architect/draftsman/owner has shown a total disregard for solar passive design.
Many RAs may dismiss DRA as NIMBIES but they just want a say in how their suburb changes and new developments that are sympathetic and complimentary to what is already there. Transplanting Gungahlin into Deakin is not good planning. Future residents have more rights than neighbours under both the Territory Plan and Planning & Development Act.

The only people who can`t see a problem losing solar access have never had it and are happy living indoors 24/7/365.25

For medium density developments, the relevant planning code mandates a plot ratio of 65% for two storey developments (RZ3) and 80% for three storey developments (RZ4).

Perhaps a similar code could be introduced for single houses, limiting the plot ratio of new houses depending on the height of the building, the size of the block and it’s location (greenfield or brownfield).

Surely this wouldn’t jeopardise the freedoms fought for in WW1 and 2?

People could still build a miniature Buckingham Palace on their land if they wished to, but if the maximum plot ratio is 65% in brownfield areas and 80% in greenfield, they will only offend other’s aesthetic sensibility and not their solar access and privacy, nor the overall integrity of the streetscape.

rosscoact said :

thegirl said :

rosscoact said :

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

You only need to notify adjoining neighbours. I suppose those neighbours directly affected could then make comment if they wanted but I cant see how there would be any point as there’s no development approval needed in established areas. Perhaps you could object on the basis that the development doesn’t meet the suburb code but those suburb and building codes seem to be very broad.

That is simply not true. All redevelopments of this type in existing urban areas have, for at least the last 10 year, been subject to full notification and require a DA.

What you are referring to are IIRC small, class 10A (non habitual structures)

Not true. New single dwellings (and alterations and additions) do not require approval if they comply with certain codes. As per aussielyn’s post above, until recently there was not even a requirement to notify adjoining properties.

rosscoact said :

thegirl said :

rosscoact said :

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

You only need to notify adjoining neighbours. I suppose those neighbours directly affected could then make comment if they wanted but I cant see how there would be any point as there’s no development approval needed in established areas. Perhaps you could object on the basis that the development doesn’t meet the suburb code but those suburb and building codes seem to be very broad.

That is simply not true. All redevelopments of this type in existing urban areas have, for at least the last 10 year, been subject to full notification and require a DA.

What you are referring to are IIRC small, class 10A (non habitual structures)[/quote

Incorrect. Here is ACTPLAs number, 62071931. They will tell you that single residential developments in established suburbs do not need to be assessed by them if it is a complying application. This includes knock down rebuilds including two storey. The adjoining neighbors are required to be notified but only for information purposes and there are no objection rights if it is compliant.

Madam Cholet said :

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.

I agree that houses in all areas should be built sustainably and consistent with block orientation etc but I’m not sure common sense can be made mandatory.

buildingquoteHQ said :

rosscoact said :

thegirl said :

rosscoact said :

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

You only need to notify adjoining neighbours. I suppose those neighbours directly affected could then make comment if they wanted but I cant see how there would be any point as there’s no development approval needed in established areas. Perhaps you could object on the basis that the development doesn’t meet the suburb code but those suburb and building codes seem to be very broad.

That is simply not true. All redevelopments of this type in existing urban areas have, for at least the last 10 year, been subject to full notification and require a DA.

What you are referring to are IIRC small, class 10A (non habitual structures)[/quote

Incorrect. Here is ACTPLAs number, 62071931. They will tell you that single residential developments in established suburbs do not need to be assessed by them if it is a complying application. This includes knock down rebuilds including two storey. The adjoining neighbors are required to be notified but only for information purposes and there are no objection rights if it is compliant.

Don’t need the number, the Regulations will do.

Or as I prefer to call them; “Thunderbird” McMansions, those around Ainslie and O’connor (close to Hackett Gardens) are simply, utterly … diabolical. Surely they impact on the value of houses in the immediate area..

schmeah said :

Or as I prefer to call them; “Thunderbird” McMansions, those around Ainslie and O’connor (close to Hackett Gardens) are simply, utterly … diabolical. Surely they impact on the value of houses in the immediate area..

Garage Mahal is one of my faves.

rosscoact said :

Don’t need the number, the Regulations will do.

For Rosco:

http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/design_build/da_assessment/exempt_work/process/single_dwellings

chewy14 said :

rosscoact said :

Don’t need the number, the Regulations will do.

For Rosco:

http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/design_build/da_assessment/exempt_work/process/single_dwellings

Hey, you’re correct. Who’da thunk it?

That makes a big difference. To the OP – suck it up or get the law changed.

chilli said :

For medium density developments, the relevant planning code mandates a plot ratio of 65% for two storey developments (RZ3) and 80% for three storey developments (RZ4).

Perhaps a similar code could be introduced for single houses, limiting the plot ratio of new houses depending on the height of the building, the size of the block and it’s location (greenfield or brownfield).

Surely this wouldn’t jeopardise the freedoms fought for in WW1 and 2?

People could still build a miniature Buckingham Palace on their land if they wished to, but if the maximum plot ratio is 65% in brownfield areas and 80% in greenfield, they will only offend other’s aesthetic sensibility and not their solar access and privacy, nor the overall integrity of the streetscape.

Agreed.

Imagining designing a house with excellent solar access, only to have some neighbour to come along 10 years latter and ruin everything (by building a 2 story box that leaves your house in shadow).

Friends and family in sydney have had this very thing happen to them over the decades.

This is something we don’t have to just accept as inevitable. Canberra still has time to learn from the mistakes of Sydney and Melbourne (just like aircraft noise).

You should be able to build whatever house you wan’t on your own land. Any color, any size, any shape any material. Move to the country side if the thought of other people expressing them selves annoys you.

Martlark said :

You should be able to build whatever house you wan’t on your own land. Any color, any size, any shape any material. Move to the country side if the thought of other people expressing them selves annoys you.

Exactly what I was thinking. If you want to be a nimby, buy a property somewhere.

In my previous post I referred to the amendment to the Planning & Development Act 2008 that was introduced by Greens MLA Caroline Le Couteur. Caroline & Shane Rattenbury always attended Community Council meetings so attendees could always talk them and raise concerns. When I asked her why she did not include appeal rights, she inferred that this was asking too much. Minister Corbell subsequently introduced the Labor, watered down, amendment in April 2012. If they did nothing in an election year on this issue they could be damaged.

The link to the Greens amendment is here: http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/2012/week04/1366.htm

Developments in Code track exempt, as assessed by the private certifier, are just rubber-stamped. Self-regulation is very profitable for the developer and this has been pushed on a Federal level at COAG meetings by the DAF (Development Assessment Forum). The Property Council view consultation & notification as red tape that should be eliminated.

chilli said :

For medium density developments, the relevant planning code mandates a plot ratio of 65% for two storey developments (RZ3) and 80% for three storey developments (RZ4).

Perhaps a similar code could be introduced for single houses, limiting the plot ratio of new houses depending on the height of the building, the size of the block and it’s location (greenfield or brownfield).

Surely this wouldn’t jeopardise the freedoms fought for in WW1 and 2?

People could still build a miniature Buckingham Palace on their land if they wished to, but if the maximum plot ratio is 65% in brownfield areas and 80% in greenfield, they will only offend other’s aesthetic sensibility and not their solar access and privacy, nor the overall integrity of the streetscape.

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2008-27/current/default.asp?identifier=Precinct+Maps+and+CodesSuburb+Precinct+Maps+and+CodesDeakin+Precinct+Map+and+Code

ACTPLA has a requirement of a 30% plot ratio for Deakin already as well as a 10m setback which seems very reasonable for the inner south. In my limited experience a 50% plot ratio is likely to occur in the new suburbs due to the smaller average block size.
Personally I think adding a landscaping requirement for builds of a certain size or location (such as a cnr block as this appears to be) would positive.. It would certainly help the streetscape anyway.

Martlark said :

You should be able to build whatever house you wan’t on your own land. Any color, any size, any shape any material. Move to the country side if the thought of other people expressing them selves annoys you.

No, you shouldn’t. I’d actually argue that if you want to be able to build whatever you want, then that’s the time you should move to the countryside, because your hideous decisions affect only you, and not neighbours living a stones throw away.

What about if your next door neighbour decided that they were going to build a 5 story home, that looked more like an apartment block than a house? In your world, you simply have to suck it up. Personally, I’d prefer to live in a world where at times someone has to live with being told ‘no’.

Does the OP believe that any new house in the street should be early 70′s style 3 bedders with single bathrooms, just like his/hers?

I have some bad news pal. Your house is almost certainly butt-ugly too.

Whinge all you want, but people can and should build what they want, within the law. I marvel at people’s poor taste almost everyday, and I’m sure people do the same to me. Vive la difference.

farq said :

Its big, almost 3 stories

ALMOST 3 stories? So, 2 stories?

thegirl said :

Not true. New single dwellings (and alterations and additions) do not require approval if they comply with certain codes. As per aussielyn’s post above, until recently there was not even a requirement to notify adjoining properties.

I’ll confirm that as the current regulations. Builders start at our house in February and everything in the plan has been done within the guidelines to ensure no holdups due to inner north namby’s. The builder’s send a letter to our adjoining neighbours simply as a courtesy to let them know the duration and times of building.

The Deakin house may not be an architectural masterpiece but it complies with the residential codes. Canberran’s must understand that there will be developments that are not to their liking- get over over it. Canberran’s must also realise that they don’t own a view – approvable developments may spoil your views reagrdless of how long you’ve had them. And, if you are on the lower side of a hill a development may overlook your house.
In general, Canberra is devoid of archiutectural brillance, creativity and individualism.

Do we really want re-builds to ‘represent the character of the area’- surely people should be allowed to be creative (the Deakin house is not an example of this). Can we really say that some suburbs with their repetitive styles should be encouraged (eg thouse single brick dwellings with garage under which are plentiful around Canberra). If we really want to look at bad developments and consider their impact on streetscape etc we should start with the horrid multi unit developments.