Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Home & Garden

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

Surprise development proposals shouldn’t come as a surprise

By damien haas - 2 March 2013 24

Do you know the height restrictions for buildings in your street? The proposal by Geocon for a 35 storey residential building in Belconnen has forced many enjoying suburban bliss to focus on the reality of increasing densification in Canberra. Most Canberrans are completely unaware of the zoning regulations that apply to their home. A developer once told me that he knew that the home he lived in could one day be replaced by a multi-unit residential complex, as could every house block in the same street, but he doubted that his neighbours knew that.

This ignorance about what can actually be built next door to us is something that a public rarely engaged in planning issues, find themselves suddenly faced with. When a bold proposal like Geocons arrives – out of nowhere – it shouldn’t. There needs to be a proper debate between residents and those who govern us, on what we want the future of our built city to be.

How did this 35 story building proposal arrive as a surprise? The Land Development Agency sold Block 47 with a maximum of 235 residential units and commercial space, set out in the sale documentation. The developers business case was prepared within those guidelines. At the public forum held by the Belconnen Community Council, attended by over 100 concerned residents, many questions were posed to the developer and his architect. Some related to the height of the building, others to the Town Centre Master Plan. The two issues should be related in legislation, but they aren’t.

Unlike the Woden skyscraper, the proposal for Belconnen is a strikingly bold, solar friendly building, which is to be built while adhering to as many environmentally friendly credentials as possible. While it will cast a shadow across surrounding buildings, only one current user of the affected area will be seriously impacted. The design is a compromise between unit size, ventilation and access to natural light. The setback design also provides service roads, primarily for access to the building, but to serve in future as laneways if and when that entire area of Belconnen is redeveloped. To their credit Geocon have put thought about community impact in the proposal.

When asked why the building couldn’t just be made shorter the architect replied that if the building was short and squat, many of the residential units would lose access to the amount of daylight that they would receive in the current design. Whether this building ends up at 20 storeys or 35, it will still contain 235 residential units. Although the height is of genuine concern to many, is a short squat less aesthetic building a better solution than a tall thin environmentally friendly building?

The primary issue is that residents had no idea that a building on this scale could be built in the proposed location. If proper guidelines were in place the issue wouldn’t exist. The Belconnen Town Centre Master Plan has long expired, and the current government appear to be in no hurry to work with the community on preparing a replacement. Although they currently lack any enforcement powers, Master Plans should provide a set of principles and enforceable guidelines to be used by developers and architects. To be publicly accepted they should be a product of consultation between residents, government and developers.

The architect for the Belconnen proposal, Cox Architects, concedes the Belconnen Town Centre Master Plan has no statutory effect and is merely a set of diagrams and principles. When asked about the height the architect stated that they didn’t apologise for the height, they celebrated it. Principles are not legislated rules for architects to follow. The lack of any mechanism for developers to adhere to the desires of Belconnen residents when proposing projects in the Belconnen Town Centre (or projects such as the failed Jamison proposal) means that similar bold proposals will continue to be put forward.

The Minister when asked by the media about height restrictions said that while there were height restrictions in Civic, there were none in the Town Centres, and this would give them a competitive advantage attracting development and jobs that flow on from this economic activity. This recent news came as a surprise to many. Height restrictions are a conversation the residents want to have, whether the government will listen or act remains to be seen.

Although Government Ministers and MLA’s do like to parade in front of cameras when revealing new ‘Master Plans’ the reality is that these paper creatures are often the end result of industry bodies and government keen for more land sale and tax revenue. Territory Plan amendments rarely attract the same interest, yet are far more influential in that they are the rules architects and developers must adhere to, not principles which can be debated, argued and mean different things to different people. We need enforceable clarification.

Our population density will continue to increase and the opportunity to buy a quarter acre suburban block will continue to decline and become more expensive. Developers will fill the vacuum of desire that we all experience for our own home. Arguably it is better that residential density increases in our Town Centres. There are public transport hubs, services within walking distance, and regulations in place to permit taller buildings than can be built in our suburbs. This does not mean that development should occur without enforceable guidelines in place.

These guidelines need to be created with a discussion between residents, developers and government. It is currently very difficult for residents to influence planning guidelines. Like it or not, donations to political parties do provide at least access to decision makers, if not influence. Legitimate resident concerns are also often denied their opportunity for a hearing under current legislation, especially when a Minister will ‘call in’ a development they believe is of benefit. Of benefit to whom is a question that is always left to others to consider. It is rarely of benefit to the residents that suddenly find a very jarring addition to their suburb being built in the new style, piece by piece as it arrives in precast form by lorry and craned into place.

Whether the 35 story tower in Belconnen proceeds or not, its developer has already provided a significant benefit to the residents of Belconnen. It has shown that a conversation urgently needs to be held between residents and Government so that future development surprises do not occur. The positive impact of new residential development in the Belconnen Town Centre should be celebrated. It has bought life back to a problematic area, but the desires of new Belconnen residents must also be balanced by the desires of existing ones. A new Belconnen Town Centre Master Plan can assist that.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
24 Responses to
Surprise development proposals shouldn’t come as a surprise
1
Martlark 11:16 am
02 Mar 13
#

This whinge is based on the unstated and unsupported assumption that height is directly correlated with ‘somethings bad’. What these undesired effects are, if any, is left to the imagination of the reader. I’m presuming damien is one of those concerned citizens who lives no where near the building but assumes everyone else knows what he’s worried about so he/she does not have to really express them. As long as various concerned correspondents continue to fulminate about ‘height’ without making their case for deleterious effect I’m just dismissing them as fuming fogeys.

Report this comment

2
kea 11:42 am
02 Mar 13
#

Martlark said :

This whinge is based on the unstated and unsupported assumption that height is directly correlated with ‘somethings bad’. What these undesired effects are, if any, is left to the imagination of the reader. I’m presuming damien is one of those concerned citizens who lives no where near the building but assumes everyone else knows what he’s worried about so he/she does not have to really express them. As long as various concerned correspondents continue to fulminate about ‘height’ without making their case for deleterious effect I’m just dismissing them as fuming fogeys.

Did somebody feel a twinge of TL/DR?

Report this comment

3
stonedwookie 12:02 pm
02 Mar 13
#

hey nimby nothings gonna be built nextdoor to you,You dont live at the isac centre or in the mcdonalds car park !!!!!! or at amf bowling quit whinging and holding back the future

Report this comment

4
damien haas 2:05 pm
02 Mar 13
#

Martlark said :

This whinge is based on the unstated and unsupported assumption that height is directly correlated with ‘somethings bad’. What these undesired effects are, if any, is left to the imagination of the reader. I’m presuming damien is one of those concerned citizens who lives no where near the building but assumes everyone else knows what he’s worried about so he/she does not have to really express them. As long as various concerned correspondents continue to fulminate about ‘height’ without making their case for deleterious effect I’m just dismissing them as fuming fogeys.

Thanks for not reading the article. It is not a whinge about the height, or the design. Those are concerns raised at a residents forum held by the BCC.

My primary concern is over the lack of consultation with the community over development in their communities and town centres. Why does it take a developer announcing a proposal for people to realise that a significant decision has been taken in the recent past, with no input sought from them by the government and bureaucrats that administer the territory on their behalf.

Report this comment

5
miz 6:04 pm
02 Mar 13
#

A thought provoking post. Totally agree that ‘a conversation urgently needs to be held between residents and Government so that future development surprises do not occur.’ Otherwise the Canberra we love will become a city we hardly recognise – and not for the better.

Report this comment

6
Felix the Cat 6:18 pm
02 Mar 13
#

So let me get this straight, Canberran’s don’t want urban sprawl, they don’t want infiill and they don’t want high rise apartments?

Report this comment

7
Aeek 6:49 pm
02 Mar 13
#

Thanks Damien. From what you say, this is the sort of developer we should be encouraging as they have thought about their impact. Given the push for solar, maybe developments that block the sun should at least either supply power from their solar harvesting, or pay for the lack. Guess it wouldn’t be significant for a well planned development like this one.

Report this comment

8
Pork Hunt 8:19 pm
02 Mar 13
#

Build as high as you like, I work in construction for a lift company…

Report this comment

9
dtc 9:31 pm
02 Mar 13
#

Felix the Cat said :

So let me get this straight, Canberran’s don’t want urban sprawl, they don’t want infiill and they don’t want high rise apartments?

well, they may not want 35 story high rise or 34 units into 2 block infill

The zoning on my street was changed (several years ago) without any warning or consultation. From allowing dual occupancy to allowing medium density (which apparently equals – given a recent approval – to 11 units a block).

I have said it before and wont repeat in detail, but infill/high rise etc is good for Canberra but not good for people who already live in that area and want to stay. Shouldnt those people get some benefit from being sacrificed for the common good – even if something like a stamp duty exemption for buying a new house to move out of the now higher density zoning.

Report this comment

10
Martlark 10:41 pm
02 Mar 13
#

dtc said :

Felix the Cat said :

So let me get this straight, Canberran’s don’t want urban sprawl, they don’t want infiill and they don’t want high rise apartments?

well, they may not want 35 story high rise or 34 units into 2 block infill

The zoning on my street was changed (several years ago) without any warning or consultation. From allowing dual occupancy to allowing medium density (which apparently equals – given a recent approval – to 11 units a block).

I have said it before and wont repeat in detail, but infill/high rise etc is good for Canberra but not good for people who already live in that area and want to stay. Shouldnt those people get some benefit from being sacrificed for the common good – even if something like a stamp duty exemption for buying a new house to move out of the now higher density zoning.

You do get a benefit. Your property becomes worth far more than if there was not high density development in your area. And you don’t have to leave, you can buy one of those properties.

These area changes are not snuck in. They were well known policy changes for ages.

Report this comment

11
thatsnotme 10:54 pm
02 Mar 13
#

To be honest, I have absolutely no idea what your point is here.

damien haas said :

Why does it take a developer announcing a proposal for people to realise that a significant decision has been taken in the recent past, with no input sought from them by the government and bureaucrats that administer the territory on their behalf.

What is the ‘significant decision’ that’s been taken in the recent past exactly? I’ve read through your post a couple of times now, and I can’t find it. Surely you’re not talking about the lack of height restrictions in the town centres – that’s not exactly new is it? The Woden tower going up should have been a pretty big clue that similar developments could happen in Belconnen.

I don’t understand how the developer’s comments from your first paragraph has any relation to the desire for a new Belconnen Town Centre Master Plan. The street he lives in would almost certainly be outside the area affected by any such plan. When you ask whether I know the height restrictions for my street, I also know that any master plan makes no difference. I know I’m covered by the Territory Plan though. I can only assume that the developer you mention lives in a core zone, and if his neighbours don’t know where the home they’ve purchased fits into the territory plan, then I have no sympathy for them.

I also don’t understand why you’re pushing for a new master plan, when you’ve spent so much of your post reminding us that a master plan is barely worth the paper it’s written on, being as it’s not legally enforceable. So where is the surprise in all of this? Is it simply the fact that a developer has now chosen to propose a development that fits within the current guidelines?

damien haas said :

Of benefit to whom is a question that is always left to others to consider. It is rarely of benefit to the residents that suddenly find a very jarring addition to their suburb being built in the new style, piece by piece as it arrives in precast form by lorry and craned into place.

Now this is just nonsense. Which residents are you talking about here – because my understanding is that when it comes to this development, there are none anywhere near it. You talk as though skyscrapers could suddenly start popping up in the middle of Kaleen, Holt or Aranda – but that’s obviously not the case. Any residents of the Belconnen town centre would almost certainly be living in apartments themselves, and I’d argue that if you choose to live in a town centre, that you have to expect development to occur. If I chose to live in a town centre, I’d actually be hoping that development occurred – if I wanted to live somewhere with little change, there are plenty of suburbs that can give me exactly that.

So what exactly does a Master Plan provide, aside from the chance for some people to put forward their utopian visions, which developers are free to ignore anyway?

Report this comment

12
poetix 12:22 pm
03 Mar 13
#

Pork Hunt said :

Build as high as you like, I work in construction for a lift company…

If the company wins the contact for lifts from the bottom to the top of that post, you’ll be set for life.

Interestingly, all the paragraphs look to be the same length, like storeys in a building.

I got stuck on the fifth floor.

Report this comment

13
JC 8:17 am
04 Mar 13
#

Call me naive but I always thought that land in this territory had specific zoning which in turn dictated what the land could be used for, and in the case of residential land how many residents etc could be accommodated on that land. I am also under the (maybe misguided) impression that if someone wants to change what that land can be used for then they can apply for it to be changed, with part of this process being consultation through the planning site below.

I was also under the impression that when they were ready to build that they also had to put in a development application where one could comment.

So really I don’t understand how much more consultation the OP wants. Does he want every DA in Belconnen to be personally sent to him for his stamp of approval, or something else?

http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/your_say/comment/pubnote

Report this comment

14
dixyland 8:37 am
04 Mar 13
#

Why is it that people feel they need to be consulted on everything? We elect members of the legislative assembly to make decisions for us. If they consult us on every little trivial things (which this very much is), they would never get anything done. Saying that, I think 35 stories is unnecessary. Now we just need light rail to transport of of these residents.

Report this comment

15
tim_c 8:52 am
04 Mar 13
#

Of course, you all realise, don’t you, that this “proposal” is just a decoy to distract all the NIMBYs (those with nothing better to do than protest against development) so the developer can quietly obtain approval for the actual project they are planning?

Report this comment

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

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

Search across the site