Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Expert strata, facilities & building management services

Dickson development goes to ACAT appeal

By Paul Costigan - 28 July 2016 11


 Following the disappointing actions by the ACT Government to approve what remains a very questionable development application for a major mixed use development on the flagship shopping centre site in Dickson, appeals are being jointly lodged by the landlord of the Woolworths supermarket plus key local community associations.

Local residents groups had exhausted every avenue available to avoid having to spend the time and resources on mounting an appeal to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT). Last year several thousand petitioned the Assembly for an impact assessment but were ignored.

In the past month, residents endeavoured to hold an open public forum on the subject of Dickson shopping centre and its master plan. However they were forced to cancel at the last minute when government representatives announced their withdrawal and the Planning Minister declined an invitation to attend.

Several groups recently met with the key decision makers and planners to seek answers to specific questions but despite an undertaking to provide answers nothing further has been done.

The appeal route has been not been taken on lightly. The resident groups involved all have previous experience with ACAT processes. Politicians and others give the false impression that the planning system is fair because the appeals process is available. Unfortunately, it is not common knowledge that most developments are now exempt from any appeal and if residents dare to seek an independent review of the Directorate’s approval, they face an uphill battle on what is far from a level playing field.*

The adversarial ACAT process for dealing with development disputes such as this is incredibly time consuming, emotionally and financially stressful and potentially destructive. The alternative dispute resolution mechanism typically fails because the stakes involved are high and the parties often struggle to properly appreciate each other’s concerns in the short time frame allowed for mediation.

Resident groups welcomed news that Charter Hall, the landlords of the building occupied by Woolworths, also regard an independent review as necessary. They had leased the building to Woolworths on the understanding that there was a carpark at the front door. That car park could now be a construction zone for the next three years. And then, once the building is complete, the new supermarkets will end up with an indoor carpark while Woolworths and over 50 other local traders will be left with no easily accessible parking available for their shoppers.

Those lodging the appeals maintain that this development application, which is virtually identical to the one that was knocked back last May, contains serious technical, safety, access, connectivity, interface and amenity problems and a range of other flaws. Plus, to put it simply, the design of the building is grossly inappropriate for the site.

Residents groups have their work cut out over the next four to six months to see this appeal through. In the short term they are seeking professional support from qualified architects, engineers, lawyers, landscape architects and urban designers and talented students to help prepare their case.

There is agreement amongst all parties launching this ACAT appeal that a centre that’s attractive, safe, efficient, well integrated and connected with healthy pedestrian flows and good solar access is going to benefit the community as a whole.

Watch this space.


* The point about the costs of taking things to ACAT appeal is that there has been ample opportunities for real and transparent negotiations between all the parties involved. But the government has established restrictive rules to avoid this more consultative process.

Instead residents are forced down this very stressful route that also happens to be very costly. The government will now employ very expensive lawyers at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars – all of which is rate payers money. So residents pay the government rates/taxes to engage in very viscous, avoidable and unnecessary battles with residents.

There must be a fairer and more transparent way of doing this. This is one more reason for a much larger ICAC style inquiry into how this government is doing business in property sales and what they call urban redevelopments.

What’s Your opinion?

Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
11 Responses to
Dickson development goes to ACAT appeal - 8 are blacklisted
random 1:52 pm
04 Aug 16

creative_canberran said :

Of course, the developers will not make pedestrian access to/from the underground carpark most convenient for shoppers to shop at the supermarkets and other shops renting space in their development, instead of spreading customers around all Dickson shops. Of course not.

Did you even look at the plans? The DA is no longer available, but if I remember right the carpark pedestrian entrance is placed to funnel visitors outside, and the majority of the shops (other than the supermarkets) will face outwards to Woolworths or the library, not inwards.

There are reasons to be critical of the development but this isn’t one of them.

rommeldog56 5:45 pm
04 Aug 16

Masquara said :

Did you even look at the plans? The DA is no longer available, but if I remember right the carpark pedestrian entrance is placed to funnel visitors outside, and the majority of the shops (other than the supermarkets) will face outwards to Woolworths or the library, not inwards.

There are reasons to be critical of the development but this isn’t one of them.

Actually, I did – it was linked to a while back – I think it was on here but maybe via Canberra Times, can not remember, but it was a while ago now.

It wont bother me, I only go to Dickson shops very occasionally tor a meal at the great eateries there. It was just an observation……..

JC 6:00 pm
04 Aug 16

dungfungus said :

JC said :

And I can not imagine a more naive or absurd observation.What do they do now? Hmm park car in cold and rain and walk to the shops.So how will this be any different.

And I can not believe how rusted on your support and excuses for this ACT labor/Greens Govt is.

You are not comparing apples to apples – again.

There currently is no under cover parking in Dickson. This will be a first. Hence the difference.

To think that this new protected from the elements underground carpark will not sap business from other shops in Dickson is in itself, a naive view, but suits your argument so u are entitled to it.

Firstly this is not really a government issue as such. This is a planning issue related to a private development. Sure the government support the development, but you seriously think the government is that far into the weeds?

As for apples to apples, sorry but your analogy was plain silly. As mentioned today people walk in the wind and rain, and tomorrow, they can park in the underground carpark, go up the escalators and use what ever supermarket they like. Choice of 3 rather than 2. As the post above mentioned did you even look at the plans, because he is right, and I mentioned it too the escalators came to the surface and exited, they are not feeding an internal mall where only Coles or Aldi would be services.

And besides even if it did, is that a good enough reason to not redevelop and expand the shops. What is the alternative? I know what the alternative is, which someone else also mentioned, essentially the old section of the shops should be bulldozed and the whole lot turned into a more modern, maybe indoor shopping centre, maybe a bit like the new Casey centre.

But not going to happen as the government doesn’t own the building.

So anyway gets back to what I mentioned. Woolworths landlord is worried about one thing only and that is the value of their property and are coming out with every excuse imaginable. Fair enough of course to be worried about the value, but again should the people be punished by having choice limited to prop up a monopoly landlord and supermarket?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site