Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Home loans made clear

Capital Towers residents demand perpetual monopoly of lake views

By johnboy 8 April 2006 9

The Canberra Times and the ABC are both reporting of the planning approval for a massive redevelopment around Acton House on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin.

Sadly the residents of Capital Towers, having paid and paid and paid for their lake views, are unhappy to have competition in their niche of the market and have discovered a deep and abiding passion for the heritage values of Acton House.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
9 Responses to
Capital Towers residents demand perpetual monopoly of lake views
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Indi 11:11 am 13 Apr 06

From what I’m told there are about 50 permanent residents at the Tower and the rest being serviced apartmetnts.

From a Planning Minister’s perspective, not a lot to worry about there…

Chris S 8:15 am 11 Apr 06

An interesting development, so to speak, in terms of land use is that business is successfully applying the rule of “prior occupancy” when it suits their purposes. For example, many jurisdictions are now legislating to protect pubs, clubs etc from having to moderate their activities when residents in new developments complain about the noise.

Likewise, farmers whose operations include spraying, or create noise (trucks picking up animals and produce during the night) or where there are smells (like pig farms), are being successful in preventing action by sea or bush changers.

All of this is as it should be – people moving into an area know if there is a noisy pub or some agricultural activity going on.

Yet developers in city areas can over-ride the legitimate interests of existing residents with impunity.

It would be nice if the principle of prior occupancy became equal for all.

Les Whinin 5:10 pm 10 Apr 06

If you’re worried about your view then common sense prevailing you would investigate the potential for future development in the area BEFORE you bought, right?

In addition to Thumper’s comment, “Backs onto a reserve” is also code for “Easy criminal access”

kimba 3:40 pm 10 Apr 06

Saw the development in Saturday’s Times…looks stunning. Also recently saw a pic of the NIMBY Capital Tower’s residents…they look like silly old buggers.

Thumper 12:16 pm 10 Apr 06

Backs onto a reserve is code for ‘kangaroos eat your flowers and veggies’.

RandomGit 12:14 pm 10 Apr 06

‘Views’ is that number one zero cost real estate item that can be resold from buyer to buyer without any guarantees whatsoever.

Second after that one is ‘backs on to a reserve.’

bonfire 12:06 pm 10 Apr 06

like those folks at kingston foreshore who in 10 years when a luxury tower goes up ruining their view will whine ‘i thought all that empty land was a park’…

Sssanta 11:15 am 10 Apr 06

Reason four million for not to invest in inner city apartments

Vic Bitterman 4:52 pm 08 Apr 06

I can see their point – I’d hate it if a massive structure was built in front of my place disrupting my Brindabella views.

But on the other hand, I bet there was never any guarantee that they’d have those views forever to the exclusion of anyone else….

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site