Residents of Lanyon Park in Banks expressed their anger yesterday at the spread of dual-occupancy dwellings in their suburb.
They say that in-fill and dual occupancy is wrong in a suburb 30 kilometres from the centre of town and with few facilities of its own.
Ros Thomas, of West Place, said she had bought a block in the suburb thinking it would a traditional single-residence area and she now found second houses being built in the yards of many nearby houses, degrading the area.
Dual occupancies were being built on virtually every corner block on Smeaton Circuit and on many other blocks and some were being sold off the plan by real-estate agents before approvals were granted, she said.
At least 36 dual-occupancies had been approved in the suburb.
Tim Burns of Smeaton Crescent has made a submission to the ACT Planning Authority and started a petition opposing more dual occupancy.
He and Mrs Thomas say that when they had bought their blocks it had been stated on sale documents “”one dwelling unit only is permitted for each block in the schedule” and there followed a long list of blocks, many of which were now being used for dual occupancy.
Mr Burns said, “”Based on this information many leaseholders chose to purchase in Banks as a result of forward planning undertaken in Palmerston.”
He acknowledged the need for a supply of affordable housing, but questioned the concentration of dual occupancy.
Mrs Thomas said many adjoining residents had not been notified as required by the Territory Plan, denying many a chance to object. And even if they had objected, they would have only been able to object on design and siting, and not be able to stop the dual occupancy. So the objection and appeal process under the plan was meaningless.
Residents say that the excessive dual occupancy was causing traffic and parking problems the roads were not designed to take, posed a danger with extra water run-off, reduced landscaping and trees and increasing the percentage of concrete, extra noise and overshadowing.
There were no shops in Banks and the school was full. Other facilities were absent or under-developed.
The president of the Canberra Conservation Council, which chairs the Save Our Cities Coalition, Jacqui Rees, said it was inefficient and inappropriate to have dual occupancy on the fringe. In a new area, well-designed medium density planned from scratch was fine, but to cram in extra buildings in a new suburb designed for single residences was not environmentally or socially desirable.
“”In-fill is supposed to be about making better use of infrastructure in the centre, not putting further strain in area with little or no infrastructure,” she said. “”It should be about sensitively rejuvenating the centre, not about developers making more money by cramming extra houses on smaller plots.”
A spokesperson for Minister for Planning Bill Wood said a meeting between the residents and the Chief Planner was being arranged, probably for this week.
Paul Dillon, of Smeaton Circuit, thought in-fill was for older suburbs with big blocks and under-used infrastructure.
The occupants of one dual occupancy site in his street had five cars and two trucks between them.
“”This is just developers cashing in,” he said. “”It is going to be an election issue.”
Residents said the planning laws should be changed. The concentration of dual occupancy was having an impact on their residential amenity that was inconsistent with the plan’s stated aims to “”ensure the scale and character of development is compatible with the surrounding area and does not unacceptably affect the amenity of nearby residents and to ensure that traffic and parking generated by development does not unacceptably affect the safe and efficient functioning of roads or cause unacceptable nuisance to residents”.