3 September 2024

Overshadowing condition will make Braddon project unviable, says developer

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
30
artist impression of apartment block

An artist’s impression of the apartment block proposed for Braddon, in front of the Phoenix units. Image: Cox Architecture.

The company proposing a nine-storey development in Braddon is trying to change conditions imposed by the ACT Planning Authority to reduce overshadowing of the neighbouring apartment building, which it says will render the proposal unviable.

In May, the Planning Authority approved a development application from Moruya-based developer Liebke and Co for a 105-apartment project to be built on a 2090-square-metre rectangular site at 90 Northbourne Avenue (Block 1 Section 19), replacing the ageing low-rise Elouera Street flats next to the Phoenix Apartments.

READ ALSO Watson energy-efficient home wins top HIA GreenSmart award

However, about 40 Phoenix residents objected to the proposal, saying they would be overshadowed for much of the winter and most of the year, and the Planning Authority said Liebke would need to remove 18 of its south-facing units across levels two to eight from the plans.

Liebke has now lodged a reconsideration application seeking to remove this condition in favour of an alternative proposal it says will only result in a small increase in overshadowing but retain the proposal’s viability.

It proposes to reintroduce a number of the south-facing units while still achieving a “significant and comparable reduction” in overshadowing, and make improvements to the amenity of the reinstated south-facing dwellings.

shadow diagram of apartment project

A shadow diagram showing the effects of the Liebke alternative on the Phoenix apartments on the winter solstice. Image: Purdon Planning.

The supporting letter from Purdon Planning says the removal of units as per the Notice of Decision condition results in 65 per cent of Phoenix’s north-facing units receiving two hours or more of sunlight between 8 am and 4 pm on the winter solstice, up from 54.7 per cent achieved in the original design.

Liebke proposes to remove only south-facing units on levels seven and eight in the central section of the building, along with enlarging the windows for the remaining south-facing units to capture more natural light.

Purdon says this results in 63.6 per cent of the north-facing Phoenix units receiving two hours or more of sunlight between 8 am and 4 pm on the winter solstice, and will only overshadow about two more additional balconies/living room windows than the Notice of Decision option.

It contends that this is a reasonable level of solar access according to the planning rules.

The alternative also includes increased cut-ins to the southern facade and removing roof areas on the south-east and south-west “wings” to reduce overshadowing.

The number of parking spaces in the basement would also be reduced in line with the fewer apartments.

READ ALSO ACAT signs off on Geocon’s revised Kingston proposal

Liebke plans to deal separately with a host of other conditions to do with such things as floor plans, vehicle entry, encroachment, tree management, and footpaths.

The objections also raised concerns about the encroachment of the development onto the Phoenix site, the proposed Elouera Street basement driveway being too close to the Elouera Street/Mort Street roundabout and creating traffic issues and endangering pedestrians and cyclists, and loss of mature trees.

Join the conversation

30
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

This is ridiculous. Anyone buying a unit at Phoenix would have known a replacement build was coming. Use the call in powers.

GrumpyGrandpa6:18 pm 04 Sep 24

I agree that it’s not appropriate for a developer to steal my right to the benefits of natural light and warmth provided free from the sun. Why should residents have to pay to turn on their lights and heaters, for the benefit of the developer.

I also have the same objection about the ACT Government stealing my right to the benefits of natural light and warmth provided free from the sun through it’s restrictive tree protection policies. No sun for us and limits on the effectiveness of our solar hot water.

Why should ACT residents have to pay to turn on their lights and heaters, because of a tree that is protected?

“Purdon says…” pretty well anything you pay them to say….

Diddums to the poor hard done by developer. The investors in this and other high rise projects hope to make obscene profits. Is it too much for them to consider the quality of life of the tenants of this and nearby buildings? If we are to avoid creating high rise residential slums, then developers need to demonstrate more vision.

This is a obscene comment

Real residential slums are caused by housing crisis and homelessness. Maybe consider your words. Our nation is grappling with the worst housing crisis we have ever known. Maybe people shouldn’t be so precious about the winter sunlight behind the shut blind when well thought out and considerate design outcomes like this development could contribute to the greater need for more housing. More housing creates more affordable housing.

Not at the cost of really bad building design. The number of poorly designed and constructerd buildings approved in Canberra is an absolute embarrassment that is consistently delivered year in, and year out by this Labor government.

Martyn Black8:37 am 07 Sep 24

The developer has overpaid for the block and is unable to make a profit if they have to comply with the rules. This will set a very bad precedent if a developers profit margin is a key factor in govt decision making.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.