Seven-Storey Simon has his wings clipped

Or the third way, which I advocate, which is a reasonable balance. Certainly, heritage areas need to be protected and retained for the future; at the same time, people are living in them and appropriate and sensitive upgrading to modern standards should be permitted where a good case is made out.

On the other side, existing residents should have continuing rights ensuring that their neighbourhood’s characteristics will likewise be retained without undue density, bulk and removal of local icons.

Not an easy balance, but one that we should be striving to achieve.

And I am annoyed by the government hypocracy about development.
Private citizens are really restricted by this government. Especially in heritage areas like Ainslie. A normal homeowner is not allowed to cut down a tree (even if they planted it, and they and all their neighbours want it gone). But the government can cut down as many as they like to make room for development.
Similarly, a normal homeowner can’t build a garage unless it is of heritage appearance, can’t install a watertank that can be seen from the street, can’t have an attic etc etc etc. All to retain heritage vistas. Yet the govt can approve seven storey developments in tiny little streets, no matter what the current residents want. It should be one or the other – either residents can build what ever they like and so can the government, or else neither should be able to.

Bonfire and Big Al, you have mis-interpreted and mis-stated the position of many contributors. This particular thread does not lay out the whole story, but it goes something like this. Canberra was established, and under the NCDC the pattern was continued, whereby there were clear zones of low, medium and higher density housing.

As time has gone on, there has been growing pressure for greater intensity of housing. The debate, which will probably last forever, is about how that is best achieved.

The problem facing Canberra at the moment is that there is a very predatory development industry, aided by Corbell and ACTPLA, which is invading the low density areas. One of the reason they are doing this is that this is where profits are highest; those residents adversely affected believe that these profits are gained as a result of legal “theft” – theft of stretscape, views, sunlight, community character, heritage and the like. Another reason for lack of redevelopment of medium density housing is that in many cases, units are separately owned, and each owner has different views on when, how or even if redevelopment should occur. It therefore all becomes too difficult.

Therefore, some areas of Canberra that are well and truly due for redevelopment such as medium-density housing lies untouched, and developers either go for the green-fields or brown-fields sites (think Kingston and ‘bundah caravan park), or else they bulldoze houses in established low-density areas to turn them into medium density.

Even Corbell, before he was elected, referred to the adverse changes caused by this sort of ad hoc opportunistic development.

The solutions are many and varied, but primarily involve ensuring that residents have some influence about what happens, and where, within their communities.

Bonfire and Big Al, do you not expect some influence in your workplace, in the clubs you belong to, within your family, amongst your acquaintances? I would suggest from your demeanour in some of the exchanges in this forum that you would be leaders in making sure that your views and interests were known and taken into account.

So with planning – people are entitled to express opinions on what they think is best for their neighbourhoods – remember that developers are blow-ins, who bulldoze and destroy before building the greatest profit-making ugliness they can think of, take their money and then move on to the next set of victims.

Big Al – you refer to sensible housing options – you’re dead right. Let’s concentrate on that, not the short-term profits and destruction that is inherent in current “redevelopment” in the ACT.

Wise words bonfire – this whinging bitch carry on about sensible housing options is another example of the BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) mentality. There’s too many shit-bags who think that when they buy a property they buy rights to the suburb.

what small unimaginative minds you peopel have.

on the one hand you whine about green sustainability, then when low density is rplaced with medium and high density you whine about that.

medium desity is the way forward for the act. we cant keep using paddocks up and then moving on to namadgi.

if this means a 5 storey apartment block nestled in a suburb, so be it. it also increases population, which leads to more services and probably more schools.

That rings a bell seepi – is that the one near the Goodwin village?

This storey-limit thing is one of the big furphies (there are several others) in ACT planning laws.

“Underground” basements are allowed in most developments, but less than half of the basement depth must be underground – the rest must be above ground.

Another furphy is that of attics – attics are allowed in addition to the number of prescribed floors.

And of course there is a kodern trend to high ceilings.

Effectvely, then, what developers and planners call “2-storey” can be the equivalent of up to four floors in actual height.

Didn’t he also approve a seven storey development in the heritage area of ainslie, where private residents aren’t even allowed to have attics or high pitched rooves on their garages?

Crusader, sorry about the delay in replying – the dreaded lurgy got me.

The Embassy Motel in Deakin was purchased by a developer a while ago, and he has lodged a DA with the NCA, which controls the land. He proposes to demolish the existing motel (as he says it is not viable) and turn it into a 7-storey residential precinct.

The NCA is now considering a Development Control Plan that covers the Embassy site, as well as the neighbouring Solander Gallery site in Deakin, and the area between the Sri Lankan and Japanese embassies in Yarralumla.

I won’t go into the issues relating to such a redevelopment, as that’s not part of this story so to speak).

When the NCA considers DAs in areas of national significance, it is required to consult with the ACT government.

In this case, Corbell and ACTPLA indicated that they were quite happy with intense 7-storey development, and hence the opposition (I think it might have been Stefaniak) then dubbed him “seven-storey Simon”, and the name has sort of stuck.

Cheers,

Chris

Why is he called seven story Corbell?

Yes – cutting the staff of a struggling agency is useful – not.
But taking some of the planning responsibilities away from Simon might be a sign that Jon S is starting to see the light!!