Protests over Deakin McMansions.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Deref said :

schmeah said :

Chances are, that house built in 1968 will still be standing when your MacMansion has succumb to the rubbish quality of workmanship and design holding it together.

+1

I have mates in the building industry and the tales they tell of the quality of these abominations would curl your hair. Ten years from now the building industry will thrive on repairing the faults or knocking them down (which will probably be cheaper) and building something else.

Can we get some actual sources to these claims?

I can’t provide a formal source, but anecdotally the rule with buildings in Canberra seems to be ‘the newer, the worse’.

DaveT said :

A house built in 1968 is probably nearing the end of its lifespan anyway…

Next time I’m in Sydney I’ll point that out to people living in 100 year old terraces houses.

Deref said :

schmeah said :

Chances are, that house built in 1968 will still be standing when your MacMansion has succumb to the rubbish quality of workmanship and design holding it together.

+1

I have mates in the building industry and the tales they tell of the quality of these abominations would curl your hair. Ten years from now the building industry will thrive on repairing the faults or knocking them down (which will probably be cheaper) and building something else.

Can we get some actual sources to these claims?

Girt_Hindrance said :

I just wanted a ride on the Mully train.

Toot, toot! All aboard…

schmeah said :

Chances are, that house built in 1968 will still be standing when your MacMansion has succumb to the rubbish quality of workmanship and design holding it together.

+1

I have mates in the building industry and the tales they tell of the quality of these abominations would curl your hair. Ten years from now the building industry will thrive on repairing the faults or knocking them down (which will probably be cheaper) and building something else.

Schmeah yes, indeed. It looks as if DaveT’s comments indicate that he is involved in the building industry and that consulting would just get in his way. Ironic that he says ‘we cannot be greedy’.

DaveT said :

miz said :

It makes no sense that people have no say on what could be built next door to them. This happened to my parents recently (house still unfinished). The new house (a knock-down rebuild) completely blocks their morning sun and now all they see out of the kitchen window is an ugly garage wall, and another neighbour is suffering from constant sun reflections off the new house’s Colorbond roof. You’d think a home owner would have some rights to seek modifications to the plans if you’ve lived in a place since 1968 and will be detrimentally affected. But nope. The plans were approved before they even got to see them – and that, apparently was just the builder being courteous. It really sucks if it happens to you, as it can seriously impinge on your quality of life.
ACTPLA needs to get real about these issues.

A house built in 1968 is probably nearing the end of its lifespan anyway .

Probably the stupidest comment I’ve read on this site for a long time, but one that neatly summarizes everything that is wrong with our the consumerist mindset.

Chances are, that house built in 1968 will still be standing when your MacMansion has succumb to the rubbish quality of workmanship and design holding it together.

miz said :

Slightly obsessive are we, Comic?

What would be a better outcome for you?

Slightly obsessive are we, Comic?

miz said :

Actually Deref all the houses in my parents’ street were sited well – intentionally angled appropriately to maximise sunlight. It is very galling to have a new development stymie this out of greed and in one fell swoop, with no input whatsover able to be made by those who are negatively affected. While the house was built in 1968, it has itself been extended and is not in any way near the end of its lifespan. However the next door development certainly makes it far less pleasant to live in.
I think ACTPLA processes suck – you have to get approval for a pergola, but not a whole house.

Well at least your parents neighbours are not homes that help out homeless kids, right mix?

DaveT said :

A house built in 1968 is probably nearing the end of its lifespan anyway

Regardless of lifespan, almost all houses built at that time are small, hot in summer, freezing in winter, have poor energy efficiency and are surrounded by cracked an unsightly concrete.

I’m not for a second suggesting that our suburbs should be filled with rendered boxes, but let’s not pretend these old houses are something they’re not.

Actually Deref all the houses in my parents’ street were sited well – intentionally angled appropriately to maximise sunlight. It is very galling to have a new development stymie this out of greed and in one fell swoop, with no input whatsover able to be made by those who are negatively affected. While the house was built in 1968, it has itself been extended and is not in any way near the end of its lifespan. However the next door development certainly makes it far less pleasant to live in.
I think ACTPLA processes suck – you have to get approval for a pergola, but not a whole house.

miz said :

It makes no sense that people have no say on what could be built next door to them. This happened to my parents recently (house still unfinished). The new house (a knock-down rebuild) completely blocks their morning sun and now all they see out of the kitchen window is an ugly garage wall, and another neighbour is suffering from constant sun reflections off the new house’s Colorbond roof. You’d think a home owner would have some rights to seek modifications to the plans if you’ve lived in a place since 1968 and will be detrimentally affected. But nope. The plans were approved before they even got to see them – and that, apparently was just the builder being courteous. It really sucks if it happens to you, as it can seriously impinge on your quality of life.
ACTPLA needs to get real about these issues.

It makes perfect sense for your parents not to have a say, providing the rebuild goes through the appropriate building approval process. If I was to buy a house in an established suburb I have to have some kind of idea if my plans to redevelop would be supported or not- I couldn’t risk buying a property and for its future to be decided by neighbours.

A house built in 1968 is probably nearing the end of its lifespan anyway and who’s to say it was sited well etc in the first place. Complaints about overlooking are ridiculous- if you have single storey house, are on the low side or lower then other blocks etc etc ot is possible that you may be overlooked. Likewise your view may be interrupted – but you don’t own the view.

The many negative comments about large houses on small blocks are living in a different reality. In new suburbs many blocks average 450-500m2 (some smaller and some larger)- once you allow for the appropriate setbacks for side, front and rear boundaries the area left to build is pretty small.- Given the cost of the land, sensible utilisation of the block dictates that you must go up and create a second storey. This is not the fault of the home owner but a symptom of a dwindling resource ie land. Unfortunately, we cannot be greedy and build houses or any devlopment without fully utilising the land.

Walker said :

Grail said :

Just because development regulations are followed doesn’t mean a house is going to be aesthetically pleasing to the neighbours.

*If* they’re followed. They don’t even go that far, a lot of the time.

Bingo. And therein lies the main problem. Even in the handful of complete houses out in Wright – where some people struggled to come up with a design that fits the “strict” solar envelope requirements – giant two-story lunchbox houses have sprung up that clearly shadow the neighboring, if currently empty, block.

I loved Simon Corbell’s comment in last Saturday’s CT that the government does not have a duty-of-care (legally speaking) to make sure houses are built properly. You’d think there’d be some moral duty, seeing as the approval system and licensing is run/administered by government.

The current system is borderline corrupt. I’ve heard of builders moving the same bit of steel reinforcement to successive concrete slabs – removed after inspection and before pouring. The building report required each time a home is sold is a joke. They usually contain outright lies but that’s OK, there’s a disclaimer. The cost is passed onto the buyer so when the buyer gets a real inspection done, they end up paying twice.

milkman said :

Do you wear socks with your sandals?

I doubt that someone who cares about the aesthetics of their city would.

It makes no sense that people have no say on what could be built next door to them. This happened to my parents recently (house still unfinished). The new house (a knock-down rebuild) completely blocks their morning sun and now all they see out of the kitchen window is an ugly garage wall, and another neighbour is suffering from constant sun reflections off the new house’s Colorbond roof. You’d think a home owner would have some rights to seek modifications to the plans if you’ve lived in a place since 1968 and will be detrimentally affected. But nope. The plans were approved before they even got to see them – and that, apparently was just the builder being courteous. It really sucks if it happens to you, as it can seriously impinge on your quality of life.
ACTPLA needs to get real about these issues.

I just wanted a ride on the Mully train.

justin heywood said :

farq said :

…most of us build a tasteful and appropriate extension with a second bathroom.

Farq, there’s your problem right there. ‘Tasteful and appropriate’ is entirely subjective. I’m sure the people building/buying these homes believe they are entirely tasteful and appropriate, even if you don’t.

What if you decide to leave your beautiful 1970’s brick veneer and build a full-on eco house in, say Forrest. You want to be entirely sustainable and carbon-neutral; you want big solar arrays, recycled building materials – ugly as sin, but hey, it’s green and you can’t have any more moral authority than that.

Say the good citizens in your street decide that they don’t care about sustainability and protest against your new house on the grounds that it looks like a crashed space station. Would you say, ‘oh well, they have a point. I guess I’ll just buy some acres somewhere so I don’t offend anyone?

Doubt it.

Exactly

farq said :

NoImRight said :

Can you expand on that last bit? Do you see Canberra as some special case that should have more planning requirements than other cities? That may not be popular with the vocal “cheap houses for all” group on here that feel Govt should step out of the housing market.

Canberra still has time to learn from the mistakes of Sydney and Melbourne when it comes to the destructions of established areas character and heritage.

We were given a beautiful city by the last generation. A City unlike any other.

What are we going to leave our kids? McMansions and no backyards? Densely packed suburbs as far as the eye can see with no Gardens?

Do you wear socks with you sandals?

Grail said :

I would prefer to see building envelopes that make sense. For new suburbs, start with a 35% coverage that comes no closer to the fence than 3m for single storey, 6m for multistorey, then allow expansion as entire suburbs get rezoned.

I don’t want my neighbours taking my sky away from me, or having their gutters overhanging my property. Then there is my brother’s place in Dunlop: the neighbour’s wall is 10m vertical rise of brick with no windows, no more than a metre or two from his house.

Just because development regulations are followed doesn’t mean a house is going to be aesthetically pleasing to the neighbours.

*If* they’re followed. They don’t even go that far, a lot of the time.

By the time a lot of that detail comes out, it’s all too late, things have been dug / demolished / rebuilt / plans in crayon redrawn in texter / and lawsuits paid of with settlements that don’t make the papers.

Canberra needs more than just glossy free magazines propped up by real estate concerns.

farq said :

…most of us build a tasteful and appropriate extension with a second bathroom.

Farq, there’s your problem right there. ‘Tasteful and appropriate’ is entirely subjective. I’m sure the people building/buying these homes believe they are entirely tasteful and appropriate, even if you don’t.

What if you decide to leave your beautiful 1970’s brick veneer and build a full-on eco house in, say Forrest. You want to be entirely sustainable and carbon-neutral; you want big solar arrays, recycled building materials – ugly as sin, but hey, it’s green and you can’t have any more moral authority than that.

Say the good citizens in your street decide that they don’t care about sustainability and protest against your new house on the grounds that it looks like a crashed space station. Would you say, ‘oh well, they have a point. I guess I’ll just buy some acres somewhere so I don’t offend anyone?

Doubt it.

I

farq said :

JessP said :

So everyone in West Belconnen should live in a 3 bedroom, single bathroom home?

No, most of us build a tasteful and appropriate extension with a second bathroom. Not knock the place to the ground and build a flat roofed box over every square metre allowed.

+1

You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

I would prefer to see building envelopes that make sense. For new suburbs, start with a 35% coverage that comes no closer to the fence than 3m for single storey, 6m for multistorey, then allow expansion as entire suburbs get rezoned.

I don’t want my neighbours taking my sky away from me, or having their gutters overhanging my property. Then there is my brother’s place in Dunlop: the neighbour’s wall is 10m vertical rise of brick with no windows, no more than a metre or two from his house.

Just because development regulations are followed doesn’t mean a house is going to be aesthetically pleasing to the neighbours.

farq said :

NoImRight said :

Can you expand on that last bit? Do you see Canberra as some special case that should have more planning requirements than other cities? That may not be popular with the vocal “cheap houses for all” group on here that feel Govt should step out of the housing market.

Canberra still has time to learn from the mistakes of Sydney and Melbourne when it comes to the destructions of established areas character and heritage.

We were given a beautiful city by the last generation. A City unlike any other.

What are we going to leave our kids? McMansions and no backyards? Densely packed suburbs as far as the eye can see with no Gardens?

/me claps.

Well said. Unfortunately our government seems no less a captive of the development industry than any other.

Sounds like you should stand for the Greens

NoImRight said :

Can you expand on that last bit? Do you see Canberra as some special case that should have more planning requirements than other cities? That may not be popular with the vocal “cheap houses for all” group on here that feel Govt should step out of the housing market.

Canberra still has time to learn from the mistakes of Sydney and Melbourne when it comes to the destructions of established areas character and heritage.

We were given a beautiful city by the last generation. A City unlike any other.

What are we going to leave our kids? McMansions and no backyards? Densely packed suburbs as far as the eye can see with no Gardens?

JessP said :

So everyone in West Belconnen should live in a 3 bedroom, single bathroom home?

No, most of us build a tasteful and appropriate extension with a second bathroom. Not knock the place to the ground and build a flat roofed box over every square metre allowed.

NoImRight said :

basketofcat said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Can you post a link to a five story house in canberra?

Those other things sound wonderful though.

https://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Canberra,+Palmerston,+Australian+Capital+Territory&hl=en&ll=-35.193218,149.11446&spn=0.001423,0.004128&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=75.625308,135.263672&oq=palmerston,+canberra&t=h&hnear=Palmerston+Australian+Capital+Territory&z=19&layer=c&cbll=-35.193218,149.11446&panoid=7Zt1lQBfYAXq6DSLmCLpBA&cbp=11,288.95,,0,-2.92

Dont know the place but doesnt look like 5 stories? Are you counting a basement?

Nah, it’s not five storeys but it is on the top of a hill, not particularly attractive and sticks out like a sore thumb.

We were designing houses like the in the early 1980’s, it’s the big shoulder pads and fluffy hair of the building world.

farq said :

…As well, unless the CT was insinuating that Andrew Kefford had abused his role as ACT Public Service Commissioner in some way in getting his house plans through ACT Government processes, I think it was unnecessary to have publicly named the Kefford’s and his role.

I don’t think anyone insinuated that.

The article makes quite clear that it’s the planning system (or lack of a system) that is the issue.

Too much red tape has been cut under the guise of making housing more affordable. It’s basically a free for all. IMHO that is not acceptable in a planned city like Canberra.

Can you expand on that last bit? Do you see Canberra as some special case that should have more planning requirements than other cities? That may not be popular with the vocal “cheap houses for all” group on here that feel Govt should step out of the housing market.

basketofcat said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Can you post a link to a five story house in canberra?

Those other things sound wonderful though.

https://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Canberra,+Palmerston,+Australian+Capital+Territory&hl=en&ll=-35.193218,149.11446&spn=0.001423,0.004128&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=75.625308,135.263672&oq=palmerston,+canberra&t=h&hnear=Palmerston+Australian+Capital+Territory&z=19&layer=c&cbll=-35.193218,149.11446&panoid=7Zt1lQBfYAXq6DSLmCLpBA&cbp=11,288.95,,0,-2.92

Dont know the place but doesnt look like 5 stories? Are you counting a basement?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Can you post a link to a five story house in canberra?

Those other things sound wonderful though.

https://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Canberra,+Palmerston,+Australian+Capital+Territory&hl=en&ll=-35.193218,149.11446&spn=0.001423,0.004128&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=75.625308,135.263672&oq=palmerston,+canberra&t=h&hnear=Palmerston+Australian+Capital+Territory&z=19&layer=c&cbll=-35.193218,149.11446&panoid=7Zt1lQBfYAXq6DSLmCLpBA&cbp=11,288.95,,0,-2.92

JessP said :

So everyone in West Belconnen should live in a 3 bedroom, single bathroom home?

Some people out there don’t seem to need the bathroom…

JessP said :

So everyone in West Belconnen should live in a 3 bedroom, single bathroom home?

It’s the vibe of the thing.

So everyone in West Belconnen should live in a 3 bedroom, single bathroom home?

…As well, unless the CT was insinuating that Andrew Kefford had abused his role as ACT Public Service Commissioner in some way in getting his house plans through ACT Government processes, I think it was unnecessary to have publicly named the Kefford’s and his role.

I don’t think anyone insinuated that.

The article makes quite clear that it’s the planning system (or lack of a system) that is the issue.

Too much red tape has been cut under the guise of making housing more affordable. It’s basically a free for all. IMHO that is not acceptable in a planned city like Canberra.

chewy14 said :

Martlark said :

chewy14 said :

Martlark said :

54-11 said :

Martlark said :

You should be able to build whatever house you wan’t on your own land. Any color, any size, any shape any material. Move to the country side if the thought of other people expressing them selves annoys you.

What a pathetic, puerile and selfish view. Taking your (il) logic to its (il)logical conclusion, … rant… …rant… …rant… ..rant…
Your views are characteristic of the US far-right, who believe in nothing but the pursuit of their own selfish ends. You’re not Masquara’s love-child, are you?

If it’s on my property it’s my business. Not yours.

So you’d be OK with your neighbour installing floodlights on his property pointing at your house and using his backyard as a manure storage depot?

Well obviously the light or odour is not kept on their property so your extreme example is not relevant.

Ah, so now you admit that things on one property can affect the neighbours?

You’ve identified odour and light as possible exceptions to your rule.

So how does a 5 storey building on one property blocking out the natural sunlight on another property not qualify under your criteria? They are literally denying their neighbours natural light.

How about a blazing fluoro pink building? Seeing as colour is just our perception of light, and that light is escaping their property, surely this also fits your criteria?

What about a 5 metre mural of a red headed man fellating a dog on your fence line? All good?

I don’t think you’ve fully thought your “I can build whatever I want on my own property” argument through.

Face it, there needs to be some development standards that we all have to abide by for the benefit of everyone. Where we draw that line is up for debate, but I don’t think you can argue that there shouldn’t be any restrictions.

Can you post a link to a five story house in canberra?

Those other things sound wonderful though.

DaveT said :

The Deakin house may not be an architectural masterpiece but it complies with the residential codes.
.

The thing is, does it comply with the code?

frkvk says ” ACTPLA has a requirement of a 30% plot ratio for Deakin already as well as a 10m setback which seems very reasonable for the inner south”.

It is not clear if the Gawler Crescent house is within these limits; ACTPLA can approve non-compliant dwellings if they consider a reasonable argument has been put forward. Adjacent residents may have no right to object.

Andrew Kefford just might get the Mully for February, the way this is going. Keep up the aggravation!

johnboy said :

As long as the photos were taken from public land there’s no issue.

Meh, no one would be shocked by photos of big McMansions taken from a new suburb.

Maybe some of the inner-north trendy hipster types can use their photography skills and take photos of the crap being built in their own suburbs. They could even do it riding their bikes(extra points if they take the shots with a non digital camera)!

Personally I would prefer more dual occupancy, which can fit in quite well with the character of an area, and which is providing more housing for people, than these monstrosities replacing smaller homes on large blocks. Some streets in the inner north are damned ugly now. And there is an inescapable difference between small ugly and huge ugly, when talking about buildings.

No-one, whether in Deakin, O’Connor, Crace or Chisholm, should have to wake up to enormous houses right to the edge of the block looming over them, whether the blocks involved are large or tiny. You expect that feeling of intensity in the CBD of a city, not in the burbs.

Ben_Dover said :

Can we have a Riotact photo-stream competition; “Hideous McMansions of Canberra”?

There’s one Aranda (looks like a municipal toilet on steroids,) and one in Cook (“we let our toddler choose the colours”) that deserve recognition.

I think privacy laws might stop you doing that, but test it if you wish!

Ben_Dover said :

Can we have a Riotact photo-stream competition; “Hideous McMansions of Canberra”?

There’s one Aranda (looks like a municipal toilet on steroids,) and one in Cook (“we let our toddler choose the colours”) that deserve recognition.

+1

It’s even better than pictures of bad parking.

We could have a competition to find Canberra closest houses, or see who has the most windows facing west.

Deref said :

I recall when I was relatively new to Canberra, walking through Kingston and admiring the beautiful old houses. I passed by a real estate agent and looked at the listings. One which sticks in my mind said “Beautiful old Canberra House. Immaculately maintained, high ceilings, gorgeous gardens on a large block. Ideal for redevelopment.

Those greedy fukcing philistines.

Pork Hunt said :

farq said :

54-11 said :

Finally, our heritage is important. You must be a philistine if driving, walking or cycling through our older, tree-lined suburbs does not give you a lot of pleasure. These abominable structures (they cannot possibly be homes) destroy that character – not just the trees and streetscapes, but the sense of times past.?

+1

Again we can learn from Sydney in that you have to work at retaining heritage if you want to leave something for future generations.

Some of the older parts of Canberra are amazing (but getting less so every year). Imagine if every single block in Yarralumla(or any of the older suburbs) had a big bland rendered McMansion on it. It would look like every other ‘up market’ suburb in every other city in the world. It would mean goodbye to any sense of this city having a history.

I like the sentiment, but history has shown us we don’t learn from history….

I recall when I was relatively new to Canberra, walking through Kingston and admiring the beautiful old houses. I passed by a real estate agent and looked at the listings. One which sticks in my mind said “Beautiful old Canberra House. Immaculately maintained, high ceilings, gorgeous gardens on a large block. Ideal for redevelopment.

farq said :

54-11 said :

Finally, our heritage is important. You must be a philistine if driving, walking or cycling through our older, tree-lined suburbs does not give you a lot of pleasure. These abominable structures (they cannot possibly be homes) destroy that character – not just the trees and streetscapes, but the sense of times past.?

+1

Again we can learn from Sydney in that you have to work at retaining heritage if you want to leave something for future generations.

Some of the older parts of Canberra are amazing (but getting less so every year). Imagine if every single block in Yarralumla(or any of the older suburbs) had a big bland rendered McMansion on it. It would look like every other ‘up market’ suburb in every other city in the world. It would mean goodbye to any sense of this city having a history.

I like the sentiment, but history has shown us we don’t learn from history….

54-11 said :

Finally, our heritage is important. You must be a philistine if driving, walking or cycling through our older, tree-lined suburbs does not give you a lot of pleasure. These abominable structures (they cannot possibly be homes) destroy that character – not just the trees and streetscapes, but the sense of times past.?

+1

Again we can learn from Sydney in that you have to work at retaining heritage if you want to leave something for future generations.

Some of the older parts of Canberra are amazing (but getting less so every year). Imagine if every single block in Yarralumla(or any of the older suburbs) had a big bland rendered McMansion on it. It would look like every other ‘up market’ suburb in every other city in the world. It would mean goodbye to any sense of this city having a history.

farq said :

Pitchka said :

OP, Queanbeyan might be more to your liking if its an untouched established area your looking to live in.. Other than that, people have a right to build as they please, following ACTPLA approval.

I assume you live in Gungahlin and want the drag the rest of Canberra down so we suffer the same conditions.

You are a special little person aren’t you

Pitchka said :

OP, Queanbeyan might be more to your liking if its an untouched established area your looking to live in.. Other than that, people have a right to build as they please, following ACTPLA approval.

I assume you live in Gungahlin and want the drag the rest of Canberra down so we suffer the same conditions.

We have had some experience with rebuilds, having done one ourselves 10 or more years ago and having three adjacent houses over our back fence rebuilt recently. The “character” of our suburban area has changed greatly over the last few years. And I mean important things like micro-climate, traffic, solar access, vegetation etc. I think AussieLyn has pointed out a few important facts but thought I would add my two cents.

In our experience if a private certifier certifies that the house complies with the building code, not only does notification not happen (fair enough I guess) but ACTPLA does not even have plans to view. We asked when the property directly behind us was being built because we wanted to prepare ourselves for a possible two storey overlooking our yard. ACTPLA hunted for the plans then told us that because it was compliant they had no information. Lucky for us this turned out to be the only property that is single storey.

I think the codes were not really designed with the intention that new houses would mostly build to the setback on every boundary, to fill the maximum plot ratio whenever possible, but it seems like that is what’s happening. It certainly isn’t improving population density in our area, as nearly every large house has only one or two people living in it. But the amount of sheer concrete, tile and brick in our street has certainly gone up by quite a lot. Rest assured, I have been told that this can only increase the value of our property. Funny that it doesn’t feel that way.

Martlark said :

chewy14 said :

Martlark said :

54-11 said :

Martlark said :

You should be able to build whatever house you wan’t on your own land. Any color, any size, any shape any material. Move to the country side if the thought of other people expressing them selves annoys you.

What a pathetic, puerile and selfish view. Taking your (il) logic to its (il)logical conclusion, … rant… …rant… …rant… ..rant…
Your views are characteristic of the US far-right, who believe in nothing but the pursuit of their own selfish ends. You’re not Masquara’s love-child, are you?

If it’s on my property it’s my business. Not yours.

So you’d be OK with your neighbour installing floodlights on his property pointing at your house and using his backyard as a manure storage depot?

Well obviously the light or odour is not kept on their property so your extreme example is not relevant.

Ah, so now you admit that things on one property can affect the neighbours?

You’ve identified odour and light as possible exceptions to your rule.

So how does a 5 storey building on one property blocking out the natural sunlight on another property not qualify under your criteria? They are literally denying their neighbours natural light.

How about a blazing fluoro pink building? Seeing as colour is just our perception of light, and that light is escaping their property, surely this also fits your criteria?

What about a 5 metre mural of a red headed man fellating a dog on your fence line? All good?

I don’t think you’ve fully thought your “I can build whatever I want on my own property” argument through.

Face it, there needs to be some development standards that we all have to abide by for the benefit of everyone. Where we draw that line is up for debate, but I don’t think you can argue that there shouldn’t be any restrictions.

Martlark said :

Well obviously the light or odour is not kept on their property so your extreme example is not relevant.

So what about shade not being kept on a property?

chewy14 said :

Martlark said :

54-11 said :

Martlark said :

You should be able to build whatever house you wan’t on your own land. Any color, any size, any shape any material. Move to the country side if the thought of other people expressing them selves annoys you.

What a pathetic, puerile and selfish view. Taking your (il) logic to its (il)logical conclusion, … rant… …rant… …rant… ..rant…
Your views are characteristic of the US far-right, who believe in nothing but the pursuit of their own selfish ends. You’re not Masquara’s love-child, are you?

If it’s on my property it’s my business. Not yours.

So you’d be OK with your neighbour installing floodlights on his property pointing at your house and using his backyard as a manure storage depot?

Well obviously the light or odour is not kept on their property so your extreme example is not relevant.

Martlark said :

54-11 said :

Martlark said :

You should be able to build whatever house you wan’t on your own land. Any color, any size, any shape any material. Move to the country side if the thought of other people expressing them selves annoys you.

What a pathetic, puerile and selfish view. Taking your (il) logic to its (il)logical conclusion, … rant… …rant… …rant… ..rant…
Your views are characteristic of the US far-right, who believe in nothing but the pursuit of their own selfish ends. You’re not Masquara’s love-child, are you?

If it’s on my property it’s my business. Not yours.

So you’d be OK with your neighbour installing floodlights on his property pointing at your house and using his backyard as a manure storage depot?

54-11 said :

Martlark said :

You should be able to build whatever house you wan’t on your own land. Any color, any size, any shape any material. Move to the country side if the thought of other people expressing them selves annoys you.

What a pathetic, puerile and selfish view. Taking your (il) logic to its (il)logical conclusion, … rant… …rant… …rant… ..rant…
Your views are characteristic of the US far-right, who believe in nothing but the pursuit of their own selfish ends. You’re not Masquara’s love-child, are you?

If it’s on my property it’s my business. Not yours.

NoImRight said :

54-11 said :

Martlark said :

You should be able to build whatever house you wan’t on your own land. Any color, any size, any shape any material. Move to the country side if the thought of other people expressing them selves annoys you.

What a pathetic, puerile and selfish view. Taking your (il) logic to its (il)logical conclusion, we should not have gun control, smoking restrictions, and people can leave their rubbish around charity bins whenever they want. Graffiti would be encouraged, and the internet would be a free-for-all, with every clown being allowed to express their obnoxious opinions. Sheesh. Then where would we be?

There are (at least) 3 good reasons why there must be controls on these excremental, vomitous abominations. First there is the aesthetic reason. Although this is subjective (like public art), but there are some real shockers around Canberra, and this is just the latest although not the worst. Why subject all passers-by to such an excrescence, for the next 30-50 years?

Second, it has a real financial impact on neighbours, and not just property values. With more solar panels being installed, over-shadowing has an instant and direct financial penalty.

Finally, our heritage is important. You must be a philistine if driving, walking or cycling through our older, tree-lined suburbs does not give you a lot of pleasure. These abominable structures (they cannot possibly be homes) destroy that character – not just the trees and streetscapes, but the sense of times past.

Your views are characteristic of the US far-right, who believe in nothing but the pursuit of their own selfish ends. You’re not Masquara’s love-child, are you?

Geebus……

🙂 takes all kinds hey?

These abominable structures (they cannot possibly be homes) destroy that character – not just the trees and streetscapes, but the sense of times past.

Agree with many of your points, however, these are big statements with no understanding of the home owners personal requirements, limitations, family structure, finances, lifestyle, goals and ambitions or long term plans. Take a broader view and there is a middle ground to be found.

54-11 said :

Martlark said :

You should be able to build whatever house you wan’t on your own land. Any color, any size, any shape any material. Move to the country side if the thought of other people expressing them selves annoys you.

What a pathetic, puerile and selfish view. Taking your (il) logic to its (il)logical conclusion, we should not have gun control, smoking restrictions, and people can leave their rubbish around charity bins whenever they want. Graffiti would be encouraged, and the internet would be a free-for-all, with every clown being allowed to express their obnoxious opinions. Sheesh. Then where would we be?

There are (at least) 3 good reasons why there must be controls on these excremental, vomitous abominations. First there is the aesthetic reason. Although this is subjective (like public art), but there are some real shockers around Canberra, and this is just the latest although not the worst. Why subject all passers-by to such an excrescence, for the next 30-50 years?

Second, it has a real financial impact on neighbours, and not just property values. With more solar panels being installed, over-shadowing has an instant and direct financial penalty.

Finally, our heritage is important. You must be a philistine if driving, walking or cycling through our older, tree-lined suburbs does not give you a lot of pleasure. These abominable structures (they cannot possibly be homes) destroy that character – not just the trees and streetscapes, but the sense of times past.

Your views are characteristic of the US far-right, who believe in nothing but the pursuit of their own selfish ends. You’re not Masquara’s love-child, are you?

Geebus……

Martlark said :

You should be able to build whatever house you wan’t on your own land. Any color, any size, any shape any material. Move to the country side if the thought of other people expressing them selves annoys you.

What a pathetic, puerile and selfish view. Taking your (il) logic to its (il)logical conclusion, we should not have gun control, smoking restrictions, and people can leave their rubbish around charity bins whenever they want. Graffiti would be encouraged, and the internet would be a free-for-all, with every clown being allowed to express their obnoxious opinions. Sheesh. Then where would we be?

There are (at least) 3 good reasons why there must be controls on these excremental, vomitous abominations. First there is the aesthetic reason. Although this is subjective (like public art), but there are some real shockers around Canberra, and this is just the latest although not the worst. Why subject all passers-by to such an excrescence, for the next 30-50 years?

Second, it has a real financial impact on neighbours, and not just property values. With more solar panels being installed, over-shadowing has an instant and direct financial penalty.

Finally, our heritage is important. You must be a philistine if driving, walking or cycling through our older, tree-lined suburbs does not give you a lot of pleasure. These abominable structures (they cannot possibly be homes) destroy that character – not just the trees and streetscapes, but the sense of times past.

Your views are characteristic of the US far-right, who believe in nothing but the pursuit of their own selfish ends. You’re not Masquara’s love-child, are you?

rosscoact said :

thegirl said :

rosscoact said :

thegirl said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

They wouldn’t have have had the opportunity to comment. There is no requirement for a development application for single dwellings (assuming the development complies with relevant codes which seem to be very broadly drafted)

That only applies in greenfields, they always notify in established areas

You only need to notify adjoining neighbours. I suppose those neighbours directly affected could then make comment if they wanted but I cant see how there would be any point as there’s no development approval needed in established areas. Perhaps you could object on the basis that the development doesn’t meet the suburb code but those suburb and building codes seem to be very broad.

That is simply not true. All redevelopments of this type in existing urban areas have, for at least the last 10 year, been subject to full notification and require a DA.

What you are referring to are IIRC small, class 10A (non habitual structures)

What rubbish. How about getting your facts right before correcting someone else.

Further to my previous post, it would’ve been fairer for the CT to take a picture of the Deakin house from the front – most houses look really ugly side-on!

thatsnotme said :

Martlark said :

You should be able to build whatever house you wan’t on your own land. Any color, any size, any shape any material. Move to the country side if the thought of other people expressing them selves annoys you.

No, you shouldn’t. I’d actually argue that if you want to be able to build whatever you want, then that’s the time you should move to the countryside, because your hideous decisions affect only you, and not neighbours living a stones throw away.

What about if your next door neighbour decided that they were going to build a 5 story home, that looked more like an apartment block than a house? In your world, you simply have to suck it up. Personally, I’d prefer to live in a world where at times someone has to live with being told ‘no’.

I’d love for you to come build an apartment block next to me.

The Deakin house may not be an architectural masterpiece but it complies with the residential codes. Canberran’s must understand that there will be developments that are not to their liking- get over over it. Canberran’s must also realise that they don’t own a view – approvable developments may spoil your views reagrdless of how long you’ve had them. And, if you are on the lower side of a hill a development may overlook your house.
In general, Canberra is devoid of archiutectural brillance, creativity and individualism.

Do we really want re-builds to ‘represent the character of the area’- surely people should be allowed to be creative (the Deakin house is not an example of this). Can we really say that some suburbs with their repetitive styles should be encouraged (eg thouse single brick dwellings with garage under which are plentiful around Canberra). If we really want to look at bad developments and consider their impact on streetscape etc we should start with the horrid multi unit developments.

thegirl said :

Not true. New single dwellings (and alterations and additions) do not require approval if they comply with certain codes. As per aussielyn’s post above, until recently there was not even a requirement to notify adjoining properties.

I’ll confirm that as the current regulations. Builders start at our house in February and everything in the plan has been done within the guidelines to ensure no holdups due to inner north namby’s. The builder’s send a letter to our adjoining neighbours simply as a courtesy to let them know the duration and times of building.

farq said :

Its big, almost 3 stories

ALMOST 3 stories? So, 2 stories?

Does the OP believe that any new house in the street should be early 70’s style 3 bedders with single bathrooms, just like his/hers?

I have some bad news pal. Your house is almost certainly butt-ugly too.

Whinge all you want, but people can and should build what they want, within the law. I marvel at people’s poor taste almost everyday, and I’m sure people do the same to me. Vive la difference.

Martlark said :

You should be able to build whatever house you wan’t on your own land. Any color, any size, any shape any material. Move to the country side if the thought of other people expressing them selves annoys you.

No, you shouldn’t. I’d actually argue that if you want to be able to build whatever you want, then that’s the time you should move to the countryside, because your hideous decisions affect only you, and not neighbours living a stones throw away.

What about if your next door neighbour decided that they were going to build a 5 story home, that looked more like an apartment block than a house? In your world, you simply have to suck it up. Personally, I’d prefer to live in a world where at times someone has to live with being told ‘no’.

chilli said :

For medium density developments, the relevant planning code mandates a plot ratio of 65% for two storey developments (RZ3) and 80% for three storey developments (RZ4).

Perhaps a similar code could be introduced for single houses, limiting the plot ratio of new houses depending on the height of the building, the size of the block and it’s location (greenfield or brownfield).

Surely this wouldn’t jeopardise the freedoms fought for in WW1 and 2?

People could still build a miniature Buckingham Palace on their land if they wished to, but if the maximum plot ratio is 65% in brownfield areas and 80% in greenfield, they will only offend other’s aesthetic sensibility and not their solar access and privacy, nor the overall integrity of the streetscape.

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2008-27/current/default.asp?identifier=Precinct+Maps+and+CodesSuburb+Precinct+Maps+and+CodesDeakin+Precinct+Map+and+Code

ACTPLA has a requirement of a 30% plot ratio for Deakin already as well as a 10m setback which seems very reasonable for the inner south. In my limited experience a 50% plot ratio is likely to occur in the new suburbs due to the smaller average block size.
Personally I think adding a landscaping requirement for builds of a certain size or location (such as a cnr block as this appears to be) would positive.. It would certainly help the streetscape anyway.

In my previous post I referred to the amendment to the Planning & Development Act 2008 that was introduced by Greens MLA Caroline Le Couteur. Caroline & Shane Rattenbury always attended Community Council meetings so attendees could always talk them and raise concerns. When I asked her why she did not include appeal rights, she inferred that this was asking too much. Minister Corbell subsequently introduced the Labor, watered down, amendment in April 2012. If they did nothing in an election year on this issue they could be damaged.

The link to the Greens amendment is here: http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/2012/week04/1366.htm

Developments in Code track exempt, as assessed by the private certifier, are just rubber-stamped. Self-regulation is very profitable for the developer and this has been pushed on a Federal level at COAG meetings by the DAF (Development Assessment Forum). The Property Council view consultation & notification as red tape that should be eliminated.

Martlark said :

You should be able to build whatever house you wan’t on your own land. Any color, any size, any shape any material. Move to the country side if the thought of other people expressing them selves annoys you.

Exactly what I was thinking. If you want to be a nimby, buy a property somewhere.

You should be able to build whatever house you wan’t on your own land. Any color, any size, any shape any material. Move to the country side if the thought of other people expressing them selves annoys you.

chilli said :

For medium density developments, the relevant planning code mandates a plot ratio of 65% for two storey developments (RZ3) and 80% for three storey developments (RZ4).

Perhaps a similar code could be introduced for single houses, limiting the plot ratio of new houses depending on the height of the building, the size of the block and it’s location (greenfield or brownfield).

Surely this wouldn’t jeopardise the freedoms fought for in WW1 and 2?

People could still build a miniature Buckingham Palace on their land if they wished to, but if the maximum plot ratio is 65% in brownfield areas and 80% in greenfield, they will only offend other’s aesthetic sensibility and not their solar access and privacy, nor the overall integrity of the streetscape.

Agreed.

Imagining designing a house with excellent solar access, only to have some neighbour to come along 10 years latter and ruin everything (by building a 2 story box that leaves your house in shadow).

Friends and family in sydney have had this very thing happen to them over the decades.

This is something we don’t have to just accept as inevitable. Canberra still has time to learn from the mistakes of Sydney and Melbourne (just like aircraft noise).

chewy14 said :

rosscoact said :

Don’t need the number, the Regulations will do.

For Rosco:

http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/design_build/da_assessment/exempt_work/process/single_dwellings

Hey, you’re correct. Who’da thunk it?

That makes a big difference. To the OP – suck it up or get the law changed.

rosscoact said :

Don’t need the number, the Regulations will do.

For Rosco:

http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/design_build/da_assessment/exempt_work/process/single_dwellings

schmeah said :

Or as I prefer to call them; “Thunderbird” McMansions, those around Ainslie and O’connor (close to Hackett Gardens) are simply, utterly … diabolical. Surely they impact on the value of houses in the immediate area..

Garage Mahal is one of my faves.

Or as I prefer to call them; “Thunderbird” McMansions, those around Ainslie and O’connor (close to Hackett Gardens) are simply, utterly … diabolical. Surely they impact on the value of houses in the immediate area..

buildingquoteHQ said :

rosscoact said :

thegirl said :

rosscoact said :

thegirl said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

They wouldn’t have have had the opportunity to comment. There is no requirement for a development application for single dwellings (assuming the development complies with relevant codes which seem to be very broadly drafted)

That only applies in greenfields, they always notify in established areas

You only need to notify adjoining neighbours. I suppose those neighbours directly affected could then make comment if they wanted but I cant see how there would be any point as there’s no development approval needed in established areas. Perhaps you could object on the basis that the development doesn’t meet the suburb code but those suburb and building codes seem to be very broad.

That is simply not true. All redevelopments of this type in existing urban areas have, for at least the last 10 year, been subject to full notification and require a DA.

What you are referring to are IIRC small, class 10A (non habitual structures)[/quote

Incorrect. Here is ACTPLAs number, 62071931. They will tell you that single residential developments in established suburbs do not need to be assessed by them if it is a complying application. This includes knock down rebuilds including two storey. The adjoining neighbors are required to be notified but only for information purposes and there are no objection rights if it is compliant.

Don’t need the number, the Regulations will do.

Madam Cholet said :

What I don’t think is a good idea is for existing and obviously disgruntled residents to compare their area to somewhere else, and allude to the fact that their area is better, and then add the caveat, ‘not that there’s anything wrong with (insert suburb name)’. Houses should be built with sustainability in mind in any area. And if that is done, it will minimize these complaints. For the record, I don’t live in either area.

I agree that houses in all areas should be built sustainably and consistent with block orientation etc but I’m not sure common sense can be made mandatory.

rosscoact said :

thegirl said :

rosscoact said :

thegirl said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

They wouldn’t have have had the opportunity to comment. There is no requirement for a development application for single dwellings (assuming the development complies with relevant codes which seem to be very broadly drafted)

That only applies in greenfields, they always notify in established areas

You only need to notify adjoining neighbours. I suppose those neighbours directly affected could then make comment if they wanted but I cant see how there would be any point as there’s no development approval needed in established areas. Perhaps you could object on the basis that the development doesn’t meet the suburb code but those suburb and building codes seem to be very broad.

That is simply not true. All redevelopments of this type in existing urban areas have, for at least the last 10 year, been subject to full notification and require a DA.

What you are referring to are IIRC small, class 10A (non habitual structures)[/quote

Incorrect. Here is ACTPLAs number, 62071931. They will tell you that single residential developments in established suburbs do not need to be assessed by them if it is a complying application. This includes knock down rebuilds including two storey. The adjoining neighbors are required to be notified but only for information purposes and there are no objection rights if it is compliant.

rosscoact said :

thegirl said :

rosscoact said :

thegirl said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

They wouldn’t have have had the opportunity to comment. There is no requirement for a development application for single dwellings (assuming the development complies with relevant codes which seem to be very broadly drafted)

That only applies in greenfields, they always notify in established areas

You only need to notify adjoining neighbours. I suppose those neighbours directly affected could then make comment if they wanted but I cant see how there would be any point as there’s no development approval needed in established areas. Perhaps you could object on the basis that the development doesn’t meet the suburb code but those suburb and building codes seem to be very broad.

That is simply not true. All redevelopments of this type in existing urban areas have, for at least the last 10 year, been subject to full notification and require a DA.

What you are referring to are IIRC small, class 10A (non habitual structures)

Not true. New single dwellings (and alterations and additions) do not require approval if they comply with certain codes. As per aussielyn’s post above, until recently there was not even a requirement to notify adjoining properties.

For medium density developments, the relevant planning code mandates a plot ratio of 65% for two storey developments (RZ3) and 80% for three storey developments (RZ4).

Perhaps a similar code could be introduced for single houses, limiting the plot ratio of new houses depending on the height of the building, the size of the block and it’s location (greenfield or brownfield).

Surely this wouldn’t jeopardise the freedoms fought for in WW1 and 2?

People could still build a miniature Buckingham Palace on their land if they wished to, but if the maximum plot ratio is 65% in brownfield areas and 80% in greenfield, they will only offend other’s aesthetic sensibility and not their solar access and privacy, nor the overall integrity of the streetscape.

aussielyn said :

Up until last year, next-door residents did not have to be notified about knockdown/rebuilds happening on adjacent properties. Knockdown/rebuilds are not on the ACTPLA website. A nine-bedroom house in O’Connor had outraged residents and was raised at the Planning & Development Forum. After the Greens Caroline Le Couteur proposed an amendment, Planning Minister introduced an amendment that made notification compulsory but no appeal rights. Currently a development next door can block your solar access and you have no redress. The govt response to DV 306 was due on 19 Dec 2012.
If you buy into a street you like it may be re-developed with very high plot ratio houses that will change the character. Chalk & cheese developments like this are now commonplace in established suburbs. ACT treasury benefits more from knockdown/rebuild than renovation and ACTPLA will push this, as it is an arm of revenue raising. A private certifier who is paid by the developer and licenced by ACTPLA does building inspection.
The rise of the McMansions in existing suburbs will see further de-forrestation of existing suburbs. There is no room for trees and landscaping, total dominance of the built form. It is interesting to see the solar panels but a lack of windows facing north. The architect/draftsman/owner has shown a total disregard for solar passive design.
Many RAs may dismiss DRA as NIMBIES but they just want a say in how their suburb changes and new developments that are sympathetic and complimentary to what is already there. Transplanting Gungahlin into Deakin is not good planning. Future residents have more rights than neighbours under both the Territory Plan and Planning & Development Act.

The only people who can`t see a problem losing solar access have never had it and are happy living indoors 24/7/365.25

gazket said :

farq said :

For those who don’t know what I mean by Rietveld-Schröder, check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietveld_Schr%C3%B6der_House.

the house looks nothing like what you posted. You Fail at pushing your own barrow.

You failed to read the original post.

thegirl said :

rosscoact said :

thegirl said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

They wouldn’t have have had the opportunity to comment. There is no requirement for a development application for single dwellings (assuming the development complies with relevant codes which seem to be very broadly drafted)

That only applies in greenfields, they always notify in established areas

You only need to notify adjoining neighbours. I suppose those neighbours directly affected could then make comment if they wanted but I cant see how there would be any point as there’s no development approval needed in established areas. Perhaps you could object on the basis that the development doesn’t meet the suburb code but those suburb and building codes seem to be very broad.

That is simply not true. All redevelopments of this type in existing urban areas have, for at least the last 10 year, been subject to full notification and require a DA.

What you are referring to are IIRC small, class 10A (non habitual structures)

54-11 said :

I’ll do a Masquara (ie totally irrelevant comment), and just note that Mr Kefford used to be a senior advisor to John Howard.

That’s not irrelevant at all – it puts the house in a context in which it makes perfect sense.

Can we have a Riotact photo-stream competition; “Hideous McMansions of Canberra”?

There’s one Aranda (looks like a municipal toilet on steroids,) and one in Cook (“we let our toddler choose the colours”) that deserve recognition.

farq said :

For those who don’t know what I mean by Rietveld-Schröder, check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietveld_Schr%C3%B6der_House.

the house looks nothing like what you posted. You Fail at pushing your own barrow.

That house is totally hideous, but having said that, if it complies with the relevant laws and regulations then *shrug*

I’d be thankful that the crappy neighbour on the block just has an ugly house rather than a whole host of other issues which would actually, you know, be problems. (Barking dogs? Loud cars/music? D***heads who scream abuse at eachother at all hours?)

I had a bit of sympathy until the “this isn’t Gungahlin” comment – just reeks of self-impressed snobbery. And I don’t like Gungahlin either.

Up until last year, next-door residents did not have to be notified about knockdown/rebuilds happening on adjacent properties. Knockdown/rebuilds are not on the ACTPLA website. A nine-bedroom house in O’Connor had outraged residents and was raised at the Planning & Development Forum. After the Greens Caroline Le Couteur proposed an amendment, Planning Minister introduced an amendment that made notification compulsory but no appeal rights. Currently a development next door can block your solar access and you have no redress. The govt response to DV 306 was due on 19 Dec 2012.
If you buy into a street you like it may be re-developed with very high plot ratio houses that will change the character. Chalk & cheese developments like this are now commonplace in established suburbs. ACT treasury benefits more from knockdown/rebuild than renovation and ACTPLA will push this, as it is an arm of revenue raising. A private certifier who is paid by the developer and licenced by ACTPLA does building inspection.
The rise of the McMansions in existing suburbs will see further de-forrestation of existing suburbs. There is no room for trees and landscaping, total dominance of the built form. It is interesting to see the solar panels but a lack of windows facing north. The architect/draftsman/owner has shown a total disregard for solar passive design.
Many RAs may dismiss DRA as NIMBIES but they just want a say in how their suburb changes and new developments that are sympathetic and complimentary to what is already there. Transplanting Gungahlin into Deakin is not good planning. Future residents have more rights than neighbours under both the Territory Plan and Planning & Development Act.

farq said :

I was refering to the house across the road from me in West Belco, not the house in the article.

Fair enough.

Holden Caulfield said :

Yes, I agree that would suck. But it’s ACTPLA that should feel the brunt of any objections. It’s pretty poor that the new homeowners will now also feel crap about their new home/neighborhood.

Has anyone bothered to consider the position of the new homeowners at all? I’m guessing moving in and pissing off all the neighbours and gaining media attention wasn’t on their list of hopes and expectations.

I do agree, too, that the house pictured in the CT article is pretty fugly, and I wouldn’t like it next to me, but as far as I’m aware nobody has made me judge and juror able to declare what is good and bad taste.

….and to quote from the article “broadbrush residential codes need to be more precise to protect people from themselves”.

I couldn’t agree more. It is amazing that someone could be clever enough to be a high level public servant, but dumb enough to have the inability to visualise the end result from drawings and plans. Either that, or some people are quite happy to have an arrogant and contemptuous anti social disregard for those around them.

rosscoact said :

thegirl said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

They wouldn’t have have had the opportunity to comment. There is no requirement for a development application for single dwellings (assuming the development complies with relevant codes which seem to be very broadly drafted)

That only applies in greenfields, they always notify in established areas

You only need to notify adjoining neighbours. I suppose those neighbours directly affected could then make comment if they wanted but I cant see how there would be any point as there’s no development approval needed in established areas. Perhaps you could object on the basis that the development doesn’t meet the suburb code but those suburb and building codes seem to be very broad.

Holden Caulfield said :

farq said :

For those who don’t know what I mean by Rietveld-Schröder, check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietveld_Schr%C3%B6der_House.

Yes, and it’s both a pretty big stretch and massive insult to refer to the house in the CT article as a knockoff of the Rietveld Schröder House.

I was refering to the house across the road from me in West Belco, not the house in the article.

farq said :

NoImRight said :

I think they are usually ugly and I wouldnt like one but I also like the idea that I get to choose the house I build and as long as it meets planning regs nobody can tell me what house I should live in. Id be more concerned if we all had to build the same house acording to someone elses’s idea of what looks good based on no more than the fact they happened to get there first.

I think this is a classic example of when the NIMBY reaction is justified.

If the house across the road from me was next door, my backyard would lose all privacy and most of its solar access.

If a black hole opened up next to me and sucked me into a parallel universe Id be in much the same boat. It hasnt though so I guess its irrelevant?

HiddenDragon said :

It is more than a little difficult to see how a government which justifies draconian tree protection laws on the basis, inter alia, of the need to protect the urban forest and heritage values and maintain suitable streetscapes etc. etc. can allow the building of over-sized eyesores which present a brutal face to the world and allow precious little scope for greenery.

Go look at a photo of any of Canberra’s satellite towns shortly after they were built. How many trees can you see? While I don’t disagree with your point, gardens need time to grow.

I moved into a 1950s house that had barely no garden when I moved in. Eight years later there’s an extra 20-30 trees on the block (many used as screening) that most people assume have been there all the time.

farq said :

For those who don’t know what I mean by Rietveld-Schröder, check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietveld_Schr%C3%B6der_House.

Yes, and it’s both a pretty big stretch and massive insult to refer to the house in the CT article as a knockoff of the Rietveld Schröder House.

54-11 said :

So Public Service Commissioner, Andrew Kefford, ACT Public Service Commissioner, is the person with apparently too much money and not enough taste, according to the CT.

I’ll do a Masquara (ie totally irrelevant comment), and just note that Mr Kefford used to be a senior advisor to John Howard.

The head of the residents association doing all the objecting is also a former ACTPLA staff member..

So Public Service Commissioner, Andrew Kefford, ACT Public Service Commissioner, is the person with apparently too much money and not enough taste, according to the CT.

I’ll do a Masquara (ie totally irrelevant comment), and just note that Mr Kefford used to be a senior advisor to John Howard.

It is more than a little difficult to see how a government which justifies draconian tree protection laws on the basis, inter alia, of the need to protect the urban forest and heritage values and maintain suitable streetscapes etc. etc. can allow the building of over-sized eyesores which present a brutal face to the world and allow precious little scope for greenery.

Ben_Dover said :

Totally agree. Some suburbs have their character decimated by these McMansions. Most scream “look what you can do with lots of money but absolutely no taste!!”

Well said.

I’m all for letting people build what abominations they like, but they need to be contained (preferably by high walls that block them from view) to Gungahlin, where there’s little but.

From what I can see on google maps, it seems the Huys house covers the entire block also.

I can`t see much of a backyard for them to be upset about.

Kerryhemsley said :

“Didn’t we go to war for such simple freedoms as being able to choose one’s house?”

Aaaah that’s what war is about.

Haha, an over simplification on my part I agree. The point being we live in a society that has freedom of choice.

“Didn’t we go to war for such simple freedoms as being able to choose one’s house?”

Aaaah that’s what war is about.

farq, the house you linked to could be ok on a much bigger block. Big houses on small blocks are the “in” thing now and I can’t see that changing from seeing all the houses being built in Wright for example.

I have driven past this house in Deakin a few times and it really is the most ugly house regardless of where it is situated. It is completely wrong for the block, facing the wrong way and really not appealing. When I saw it being built I thought they might put some facade or render or something to pretty it up a bit. Nope.

chewy14 said :

Two storey McMansions, covering the entirety of a block really don’t fit the character of most suburbs.

They fit in beautifully with any suburbs built in the past ten years.

farq said :

NoImRight said :

I think they are usually ugly and I wouldnt like one but I also like the idea that I get to choose the house I build and as long as it meets planning regs nobody can tell me what house I should live in. Id be more concerned if we all had to build the same house acording to someone elses’s idea of what looks good based on no more than the fact they happened to get there first.

I think this is a classic example of when the NIMBY reaction is justified.

If the house across the road from me was next door, my backyard would lose all privacy and most of its solar access.

Yes, I agree that would suck. But it’s ACTPLA that should feel the brunt of any objections. It’s pretty poor that the new homeowners will now also feel crap about their new home/neighborhood.

Has anyone bothered to consider the position of the new homeowners at all? I’m guessing moving in and pissing off all the neighbours and gaining media attention wasn’t on their list of hopes and expectations.

Although, it is interesting that the article states the development was exempt from the DA process. Why, I wonder?

I do agree, too, that the house pictured in the CT article is pretty fugly, and I wouldn’t like it next to me, but as far as I’m aware nobody has made me judge and juror able to declare what is good and bad taste.

Didn’t we go to war for such simple freedoms as being able to choose one’s house?

“Deakin couple Stuart Huys and Zoe Smith are so distressed with a neighbour’s new double-storey home in Gawler Crescent that they considered leaving town.”

Don’t let Lake George hit you on the way out.

thegirl said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

They wouldn’t have have had the opportunity to comment. There is no requirement for a development application for single dwellings (assuming the development complies with relevant codes which seem to be very broadly drafted)

That only applies in greenfields, they always notify in established areas

farq said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

No notice was ever posted, first we knew about it was when the site was being cleared and materials delelivered.

So, you’re saying that it wasn’t publicly notified as required under the Act? That is easy to prove or disprove as the case may be. If it wasn’t publicly notified as prescribed under the Act then you have a case. If you just didn’t notice it you won’t have a case.

I’d be backing ACTPLA on this one though.

You are talking about a Neighbourhood Plan though (or whatever they are called now) and it’s a strategic document. No sense at all complaining about specific developments if they comply with the requirements of the Territory Plan.

But you would know that as I assume you are the person in the paper this morning who is on the community council.

OP, Queanbeyan might be more to your liking if its an untouched established area your looking to live in.. Other than that, people have a right to build as they please, following ACTPLA approval.

NoImRight said :

I think they are usually ugly and I wouldnt like one but I also like the idea that I get to choose the house I build and as long as it meets planning regs nobody can tell me what house I should live in. Id be more concerned if we all had to build the same house acording to someone elses’s idea of what looks good based on no more than the fact they happened to get there first.

I think this is a classic example of when the NIMBY reaction is justified.

If the house across the road from me was next door, my backyard would lose all privacy and most of its solar access.

My NIMBY meter just broke. Thanks guys.

Wow. Alllll the things that happen in West Belco and you choose this to complain about?

farq said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

No notice was ever posted, first we knew about it was when the site was being cleared and materials delelivered.

My understanding is that general public notification of a development only occurs in instances where the lease use changes eg a dual occupancy or multi-storey development on a block previously occupied by a single dwelling.

If you are extending your house or doing a knock-down rebuild, then only the residents of dwellings bordering your block will be notified and given the opportunity to object/comment on how the new house or extension will impact them.

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

They wouldn’t have have had the opportunity to comment. There is no requirement for a development application for single dwellings (assuming the development complies with relevant codes which seem to be very broadly drafted)

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

According to the story in the CT, they were exempt from needing a DA.

I’m torn here between the thought of this simply being a NIMBY issue and the realisation that the house shown in the article truly is horrible.

I think there definitely needs to be a tradeoff between people being able to use their land but still keeping it within the general character of a suburb.

Two storey McMansions, covering the entirety of a block really don’t fit the character of most suburbs.

I think they are usually ugly and I wouldnt like one but I also like the idea that I get to choose the house I build and as long as it meets planning regs nobody can tell me what house I should live in. Id be more concerned if we all had to build the same house acording to someone elses’s idea of what looks good based on no more than the fact they happened to get there first.

thebrownstreak69 said :

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

No notice was ever posted, first we knew about it was when the site was being cleared and materials delelivered.

Obviously there will be differing opinion on this, and for what it’s worth I agree that new homes should try to reflect the existing character of the area if at all possible and should be built with sustainability in mind, so leaving some room on the boundaries, having decent eaves for extra sun protection, facing the direction that ensures it does not become a heat or ice box, insulation, water tanks, solar panels, trees kept on the block for shade etc etc.

What I don’t think is a good idea is for existing and obviously disgruntled residents to compare their area to somewhere else, and allude to the fact that their area is better, and then add the caveat, ‘not that there’s anything wrong with (insert suburb name)’. Houses should be built with sustainability in mind in any area. And if that is done, it will minimize these complaints. For the record, I don’t live in either area.

Totally agree. Some suburbs have their character decimated by these McMansions. Most scream “look what you can do with lots of money but absolutely no taste!!”

ACTPLA approved it – take it up with them. You would also have had a chance to comment on the application.

For those who don’t know what I mean by Rietveld-Schröder, check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietveld_Schr%C3%B6der_House.