Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Get RSM on your side at tax time.

11 Gawler Cres Deakin, Not So DA Exempt

By 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?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
24 Responses to
11 Gawler Cres Deakin, Not So DA Exempt
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?

thebrownstreak69 12:26 pm 01 May 13

Holden Caulfield said :

DrKoresh said :

Good Glob it’s tiresome to see these cryptic threads. If you’re going to have a whinge or a gloat (not sure which this is) then at least spill the beans on exactly what’s got you so agitated.

Seconded.

Thirded.

Holden Caulfield 12:20 pm 01 May 13

DrKoresh said :

Good Glob it’s tiresome to see these cryptic threads. If you’re going to have a whinge or a gloat (not sure which this is) then at least spill the beans on exactly what’s got you so agitated.

Seconded.

DrKoresh 12:01 pm 01 May 13

Good Glob it’s tiresome to see these cryptic threads. If you’re going to have a whinge or a gloat (not sure which this is) then at least spill the beans on exactly what’s got you so agitated.

Izzyduck 11:55 am 01 May 13

The link does not work & you cannot search without block & section numbers.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site