Skip to content Skip to main navigation

11 Gawler Cres Deakin, Not So DA Exempt

Canberra_Resident 1 May 2013 24

Despite the claims of the high profile owner, last week Actpla quietly informed neighbours that 11 Gawler Cres is not DA Exempt and that it would be treated as a ‘proposed’ demolition and rebuild. The proposal will now be Merit Tracked by Actpla.

Anyone who is interested can review the DA application – 201323512 and should contact Actpla at actpla_customer_services@act.gov.au by next Thursday with any comments on the design.

As resident of the south I will be interested to see how Actpla deals with this breach.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
24 Responses to
11 Gawler Cres Deakin, Not So DA Exempt
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Col1234 3:21 pm 22 Aug 13

Did the house get DA approval in the end?

Tony4PM 6:54 pm 04 May 13

DeadlySchnauzer said :

In regards to the DA application itself, it is massively limited in detail and completely fails to demonstrate that the house complies with normal building envelope requirements (ie its a monster). The drawing cited as evidence for building envelope compliance is a mess and impossible to draw any conclusions from. Look at any other public DA and you will see alot more effort normally goes into envelope compliance.

Not so. I’ve had a good look over it and anyone with even a modicum of experience in reading drawings can see the building complies. You need only overlay the site survey of existing conditions to ascertain the natural ground levels and the the South West Elevation clearly shows the envelope at 4 points along the boundary in accordance with the ident survey. If anything, the natural ground levels are shown too low, which is in favour of the “complainant”, and it still complies even then. If you can’t read simple drawings you should probably refrain from commenting.

The DA has clearly been lodged because the owner wants to put it to bed, not because a DA is required. Read the letter of support. Judging by the content of that letter the complaint, and the result, purely hinge on whether the South West elevation is facing the rear boundary or the neighbours, and any rational un-biased person will concur that it faces the rear boundary.

I’ll welcome your, or the OP’s, considered opinion to the contrary if you are able to provide any supporting evidence other than “I can’t read the drawing”.

No, it’s not my house. I live in Deakin but no where near there.
Yes, I know the owners, but not well
Yes, I’m a builder, of 30 years experience.
No, I didn’t build that house.

Tony4PM 7:51 pm 03 May 13

SammyLivesHere …

“….Just look along Adelaide Ave st the newish townhouses. … One well over their property boundary…. Actpla not prepared to make them pull out the pool and move the fence.”

I know the property you refer to and it does not encroach it’s boundaries. You really should check your facts before posting as you have just libelled the owner.

dungfungus 10:22 am 03 May 13

After reading all posts on this article I can now apply the meaning of the opening statement that was made by my law lecturer at commencement of the first term.

“There is the law and there is what you can get away with”

Holden Caulfield 9:58 am 03 May 13

Miaow!

farq 10:04 pm 02 May 13

Holden Caulfield said :

I’m guessing Canberra_Resident is the artist formerly known as farq?

http://the-riotact.com/protests-over-deakin-mcmansions/91738

I don’t need any sock puppets, lots of people in Canberra care about development in established suburbs.

ACT planning is way too hands off. No one should be able to do a knock down rebuild without consulting existing residences.

I’ve worked hard for years paying the mortage on my humble old house in west-belco. I do not want a two story house next door that over looks my garden. If I wanted to live in a suburb with houses cheek-by-jowl, I’d have bought in Gungahlin.

p1 3:42 pm 02 May 13

SammyLivesHere said :

You can even extend a new build onto community or Government land in Deakin and get away without buying the land or being fined! Just look along Adelaide Ave st the newish townhouses. … One well over their property boundary…. Actpla not prepared to make them pull out the pool and move the fence.

Where exactly is this pool? If it is public land, I know where I will be swimming next summer.

SammyLivesHere 2:56 pm 02 May 13

You can even extend a new build onto community or Government land in Deakin and get away without buying the land or being fined! Just look along Adelaide Ave st the newish townhouses. … One well over their property boundary…. Actpla not prepared to make them pull out the pool and move the fence.

rosscoact 6:12 am 02 May 13

54-11 said :

So Andrew Kefford has been busted cutting corners! So much for being a Public Administration Commissioner. I see he’s brought in the big guns at Meyer Vanderberg Lawyers.

He just might need them, as there is a risk that the house is so non-compliant that it has to be demolished. But, of course, ACTPLA would never do that to one of their senior bosses in the ACTPS, would they? No, never. So, Andrew, you’re safe, for now.

Unless, of course, the Legislative Assembly grows some balls and has a closer look at what has really gone on here.

Possibly more likely that his building designer and building certified and ACTPLA all fought one thing and did what they thought was allowed under the law.
Angry mob starts brandishing pitchforks and howling for blood.
Minister reacts and says ‘can you check and make sure you’re absolutely fight on this?’
Check reveals ambiguity or error in interpretation so ACTPLA decides to be overly cautious to ensure that they are seen to be doing the right thing.

However, if you have seen something that you believe is incompetence or corruption in the ACT public service, then you should report it to the Auditor General or the Ombudsman. Indeed, if you don’t then you are complicit in the corruption or incompetence.
I’ll be interested in the outcome, please let us know.

54-11 9:39 pm 01 May 13

So Andrew Kefford has been busted cutting corners! So much for being a Public Administration Commissioner. I see he’s brought in the big guns at Meyer Vanderberg Lawyers.

He just might need them, as there is a risk that the house is so non-compliant that it has to be demolished. But, of course, ACTPLA would never do that to one of their senior bosses in the ACTPS, would they? No, never. So, Andrew, you’re safe, for now.

Unless, of course, the Legislative Assembly grows some balls and has a closer look at what has really gone on here.

Roundhead89 4:33 pm 01 May 13

11 Gawler Cres is in Deakin? Judging by the whinging nature of this post I thought it must have been in Macarthur.

fromthecapital 2:09 pm 01 May 13

Innovation said :

Izzyduck @#1 – It seems to be Block 4 Section 68.

p1 @#5 – I think the Op is referring to the previous RA thread

My guess is the OP is having a gloat as well as possibly trying to stir up opposition to the development. I still don’t see what the name or “high profile” of the owner has to do with the issue. To be fair, the OP and the objector (if they are different) should provide their own personal details and any occupation(s).

Who is the owner?

DeadlySchnauzer 2:04 pm 01 May 13

(Note, i have no interest in this other than as a general observer of ACTPLAs flawed operating methods)

Block 6, Section 48, DA 201323512 will let you log in on link in opening post.

What has happened here:
– Someone has built a monster house, and claimed it was exempt from DA using a spurious application to ACTPLA.
– ACTPLA has wised up to the fact, and has re-opened the application to now go through the proper public DA approval process.
– I’m guessing because this was a major ACTPLA screw up, rather than putting it on their normal public approvals page, they have just quietly contacted neighbours directly to comment on the DA application.

In regards to the DA application itself, it is massively limited in detail and completely fails to demonstrate that the house complies with normal building envelope requirements (ie its a monster). The drawing cited as evidence for building envelope compliance is a mess and impossible to draw any conclusions from. Look at any other public DA and you will see alot more effort normally goes into envelope compliance.

rosscoact 1:29 pm 01 May 13

It’s not advertised on the ACTPLA website either under that address or DA number

Innovation 1:10 pm 01 May 13

Izzyduck @#1 – It seems to be Block 4 Section 68.

p1 @#5 – I think the Op is referring to the previous RA thread

My guess is the OP is having a gloat as well as possibly trying to stir up opposition to the development. I still don’t see what the name or “high profile” of the owner has to do with the issue. To be fair, the OP and the objector (if they are different) should provide their own personal details and any occupation(s).

BimboGeek 1:01 pm 01 May 13

I believe this is a follow up to the story from January:

http://the-riotact.com/protests-over-deakin-mcmansions/91738

Someone built a mansion that wrecked up the street and peed off the neighbours. People had a lot to say and 5 pages of comments were generated debating whether the people with the mansion were selfish or their neighbours were NIMBYs. They were apparently exempt from needing any approval so the neighbours couldn’t do much about it except have an embarrassing public whinge.

Now it turns out they actually should have put in an application after all.

Here’s a picture of the monster: http://images.canberratimes.com.au/2013/01/06/3933652/gf-art-planning-20130106200816869673-620×349.jpg

Holden Caulfield 12:52 pm 01 May 13

I’m guessing Canberra_Resident is the artist formerly known as farq?

http://the-riotact.com/protests-over-deakin-mcmansions/91738

ezy10z 12:45 pm 01 May 13

Why the F do Canberran’s whinge so much?

HiddenDragon 12:39 pm 01 May 13

Across the length and breadth of this wide brown land, less-than-gruntled residents would have similar things to say about the doings of their local councils – which can usually rely on the fact that most people couldn’t give a stuff until it directly affects them, or someone they truly care about.

Perhaps, along with the recently revived RiotAct Fuel Watch, we need an ACTPLA Watch thread, with explanations and decoding for those of us who are not experts on the arcana of planning rules and jargon. In time, it could even rival “parking (insert name) style” and cyclists/motorists/pedestrian threads for hits and impassioned comments.

p1 12:27 pm 01 May 13

“….and that it would be treated as a ‘proposed’ demolition and rebuild.”

As Doctor K has asked, any chance you could fill in the blanks a bit? Has the owner of that block already demolished and rebuilt on the site without a DA?

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site