Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Tax time headache?
Let us crunch the numbers

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 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
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
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”

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site