Three leading community groups have condemned a north Canberra redevelopment project which has attracted federal Better Cities funding so it can be a model for urban-renewal.
The Royal Institute of Architects, the National Trust and the Conservation Council of Canberra called on the Minister for Environment, Land and Planning, Bill Wood, seeking the inquiry into a joint ACT Housing Trust-private redevelopment on Section 22, Braddon.
Mr Wood said yesterday that as this was the first urban renewal under the new planning laws it was inevitable that it was attract attention.
He was prepared to demonstrate the integrity of the legislation and process. He would discuss them with the department and taking options to Government.
An inquiry was an option. He would not rule it out.
Independent MLA Michael Moore also called for an inquiry last month, citing public disquiet and planning concerns.
Mr Wood said there was nothing Mr Moore had said that convinced him there was a need for an inquiry.
The president of the National trust of Australia (ACT), Ken Taylor, said this week, “”Once again we see developer-driven planning rather than planning involving meaningful community consultation.”
He said he was concerned about a report that the owners of a house on the corner of Girrahween and Torrens Street had been forced to sell because of what they saw was unacceptable medium-density development next door.
“”The house is significant because of connections with the architect Oliphant of the Oakley and Parkes firm operating in Canberra in the 1930s,” he said.
The sale “”raises grave concerns for the future of areas of heritage value in Canberra”.
The trust recognised the need for redevelopment but it must “”properly respect existing character and sense of place. That is what the community wants, not unsympathetic development out of context with its particular urban context.”
The president of the ACT chapter of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Peter Freeman, and the chair of its environment committee, Judith Brine, said as the project was partly funded by the Better Cities program is should be “”an exemplar of desirable urban development.
“”The development as shown in the design and siting application appears not to be of that kind,” they said. “”The units are sited without consideration to their orientation not to the respond in form or detail to their urban context.”
Mr Wood should take all possible steps to ensure good-quality development, especially as a government body, the ACT Housing Trust was involved. They called on Mr Wood to set up an inquiry under Section 139 of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act.
The president of the Conservation Council, Jacqueline Rees, said the development did not accord with ACT Planning Authority guidelines and contradicted the goals of the territory plan.
There was potential for traffic chaos, poor facilities for residents, and an adverse impact of privacy and amenity for neighbours. The redevelopment did not promote energy conservation.
Mr Taylor said planning process should demand three dimensional presentations at the time of public discussions, so neighbours could understand what was being proposed.
“”Two dimensional zoning planning at the public-consultation state is inadequate because people cannot visualise what is proposed until it is too late,” he said.
Mr Wood said he would be responding in full detail and he expected to allay their fears.
The Watson Community Association has called on the ACT Government to drop its 50/50 urban renewal plan under which half or Canberra’s growth will be through urban renewal.
It said this week that the Government should consult with the community to set a more realistic target.
The Government’s aim to increase the population of North Canberra from 40,000 to 53,000 would require not only the North Watson proposal, but three more like it.
Association spokesperson, Dr Di Nash, said, “”This could mean another 1200 houses between Ainslie and the Monash Drive alignment, another 1200 behind Lyneham/O’Connor and 1500 houses elsewhere, perhaps in Campbell, Reid or Turner.”
The North Watson “”renewal” was being done on a greenfields site, and was not renewal at all. Did this mean the other developments to make up the Government’s target would be on green sites as well, she asked.
“”They haven’t told anyone what the criteria for urban renewal,” she said. The policy could be divisive as everyone tried to pass the unwanted urban renewal parcel to somewhere else.”
The association and the ACT Government have been at loggerheads in the Industry Commission over urban-renewal. The association argues that North Watson would be more expensive than an equivalent Gungahlin development and would give developers a windfall. The Government says it will save by building closer to existing infrastructure.