Housing, land, Mr Fluffy, and ACT Government priorities

This is than email I sent to the ACT Gov opposition and local newspapers.Ive lodged my objection I will keep you posted of developments.

Dear Canberra Labor/Green Government,

Was the Mr Fluffy debacle which seriously and negatively affected the lives of so many innocent people a opportunistic strategy by the ACT Government to increase its number of inner suburb dwellings. There is some evidence to indicate that the Government may have acted inappropriately and in a greedy and callous manner. https://the-riotact.com/housing-land-mr-fluffy-and-act-government-priorities/199269

Unfortunately, the saga continues. The cul-de-sac where I live has always only been single story dwellings due to its rating of RZ1. However, within the 12-18 months preceding the Mr Fluffy second round debacle, the government changed the rating for the northern side of Ossa Place to RZ2. This allows for two storey dwellings to be constructed on those blocks. Guess what, one of the blocks on the RZ2 side turned out to have a Mr Fluffy house on it. The Government failed to sell the block because it is small and oddly shaped. The Government now proposes to build a two storey apartment block of 2-4 units on that block. It will negatively impact on the RZ1 households as it will stick up like a sore thumb. Further, as far as I can tell, this will mean that Ossa Place will now have a higher proportion of government owned dwellings than is permitted in a typical Woden Valley suburb. It is an insidious urban increase by the government in specific locations. I invite the ACT government to respond to this letter and correct any errors I may have made. Please click ‘ Reply All’ when you do.

If you look at how we abuse our land it is a wonder we survive here. We should be charging people for the land they use at a rate of over $200,000 / m2 yes $200k per square metre. That way we could have large vertical complexes, more efficient public transport and other public services, better green space and far more affordable housing for all. The Island of Manhattan is smaller than the developed land of Canberra and house 11 million people.
If you want the green space use then use the common area and mingle with the rest of society.
If you want everyone to have a back yard then pay the price for more roads and more congestion like Sydney and Melbourne

HiddenDragon said :

“I was informed by the auctioneers that in accordance with new planning rules, the developer who bought the blocks would most likely cram as many apartments/units as possible onto the dual site.”

Interesting – surely the rules which allow a dual occupancy on a single Mr Fluffy block would mean four apartments/townhouses on a double/adjoining block(s)?

I’m not sure that there are any Fluffy specific changes that apply to either of theblock individually, or when consolidated. The main Fluffy rle change affected dual occupancy for blocks between 700 and 800m2. Each of these blocks is greater than 800m2 and the combine 1771m2 is obviously larger again.

That being said, these blocks are in an RZ2 planning zone, which has always allowed greater than single residential development. As such, as long as the design is not especially apalling, then this development prospect across from retained green space, on an elevated position overlooking the Woden Valley, and close to major employment centres, is probably a good development.

Also, I am not sure why planning folks should care about whether a developer knows a block is steep, or has water flowing through it (unless they are environmental flows). That’s what the developer’s architect, engineer, builder and financier need to worry about.

Finally, as to whether the government has been fair with Fluffy buybacks. The Government has no doubt been lucky that the market has soared at the right time for them, but I don’t think we can say that the sellers are unlucky – they should be paid fair market value at time of sale, not at some designated time in the future. How does the 1.9m compare to the combined price paid by the government for the two blocks, and their costs in remediating the land? How much of that 1.9m is because of the rapid price inflation in the last two years?

“I was informed by the auctioneers that in accordance with new planning rules, the developer who bought the blocks would most likely cram as many apartments/units as possible onto the dual site.”

Interesting – surely the rules which allow a dual occupancy on a single Mr Fluffy block would mean four apartments/townhouses on a double/adjoining block(s)?

I doubt they would have any detail of when houses had Mr Fluffy installed unless records were kept by the proprietor and handed over some 20 years later to the original Mr Fluffy clean up project.

Hi Roger, This is advice only and not in any way to be taken as official.

Mr Fluffy pumped their asbestos into houses during the 1960s and 1970s. In areas that Included Garran. OK that bit you know……

However, If your house was bought as new from your builder it is ‘unlikely’ to have had Mr Fluffy installed at the time of the original build. Some Public housing in Garran had Mr Fluffy installed during the build, but new builds ‘tended’ not to, as Insulation was either not installed at all by the builder or a product other than Mr Fluffy was simply and cheaply installed during the build.

If you did not independently purchase an install of Mr Fluffy during the first five years you lived at your house (I presume you would remember this), it was more than likely installed by someone in the house in the mid to late 1970s. As was often the case in this period, Mr Fluffy installers would door knock houses across Suburbs particularly Kambah and Pearce (but also other parts of Tuggeranong, Woden & Belco etc).

I am personally shocked that you are not provided with an install date from the Mr Fluffy business records that the Government and Taskforce has to allay your fears. This is a pretty weak excuse you have been given and I would try and FOI request. Good luck.