News - Planning & development

If you live on Anthony Rolfe Drive and like the overall design of that key Gungahlin entry, then our apologies - you're not going to like some of the following. But the simple fact is that many Gungahlin - nah, many Canberra residents - cringe whenever they drive down Anthony Rolfe. They see the unbroken tunnel of unattractive townhouses as a blight on Gungahlin, and a 'shining example' of some of the woeful planning outcomes with which Gungahlin has been saddled.

ACTPLA planners asked to come to our November meeting to present their master plan for the key stretch of Flemington Road - probably the major entry into Gungahlin. When what they showed us was another bl@#*y townhouse tunnel, you can bet we were crystal clear about our thoughts...

So when the approved version of the Flemington Road Concept Plan was posted to us recently - showing our concerns had been totally ignored - guess you could say we were not too happy.

We've attempted to resolve this direct with ACTPLA, as you'll read below, but we don't seem to be getting anywhere, so it's time to take this problem public...

ACTPLA now has the Flemington Road concept plan posted on their website, although their site design means we can't direct-link to the page without taking you straight into the individual PDF files. Some of those files are large, which isn't good for the 25% of us in Gungahlin stuck with dial-up. Go to the Territory Plan page then select Guidelines Register on the left menu. (or click here to jump directly to the Guidelines Register area) The key files to look at are the plan itself, and Sheet 1 gives the overview as shown here.

GCC was very clear with the ACTPLA planners about the plans presented to us in November. We said the transport corridor - complete with corridor for public transport up to and including light rail - was fine. Clustering of larger scale residential and commercial development up to six stories around the key intersections along that public transport route was understandable.

But...the proposed lot arrangement for everything in between was not acceptable, and would inevitably lead to a replication of Anthony Rolfe Drive. Instead we discussed larger blocks that would allow quality apartment complexes, the like of what we see being built in places like Kingston now - Viridian for instance. Larger developments would allow for the same or even more density, but with breaks in the urban façade, much like we see going along Northbourne Avenue. And this was in keeping with the planners stated intent of trying to emulate Northbourne (at a lower height) along Flemington Road.

Our Minutes of the November meeting reflect this discussion. But the concept plan report, in its Methodology section, doesn't even mention that they requested to come and consult with us, let alone the outcomes of that discussion. In fact, the report describes the supposed value of using townhouses to get an 'improved' outcome:

Groups of attached town houses provide a continuous and strong built form to Flemington Road. This, together with landscaping, will reduce the apparent road corridor width and strengthen its 'urban boulevard' character.

We have been developing a strong working relationship with ACTPLA over the last couple of years, and there's a rule of thumb that faced with alternatives of conspiracy or stuff-up, odds are it's stuff-up. So I went to see ACTPLA boss Neil Savery to discuss our concerns and Neil undertook to investigate. Neil's feedback (with unrelated material clipped out) follows:

From: Savery, Neil
To: president

Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Subject: GCC - consultants brief for the Gungahlin Town Centre Study (and other matters)

Dear Alan, after the recent PDF meeting you raised with me a couple of concerns with the consultants brief for the Gungahlin Town Centre Study. You suggested that the brief specifically state that the consultants will consult with the GCC and that the final report will identify how the consultants have responded/considered any community input.

These matters arise in part out of what you saw as ACTPLA's failure to respond adequately to the GCC's comments on the Flemington Road Concept Plan, in particular the desire to have apartments fronting Flemington Road as opposed to terraces and town houses as appears on the plan. You also thought that the methodology of the Concept Plans should allow for ACTPLA's response to public input to be recorded.  I have passed these observations to the relevant officer in ACTPLA.
[snip]

Consultation on Flemington Road Concept Plan
The typical concept planning process involves the preparation of a report on agency and public consultation. While this report is included in the background report and is made available on request it is not included in the (summary) concept plan on the ACTPLA website.  In relation to Flemington Road, ACTPLA discussed a range of issues at a meeting with GCC meeting. I am advised that at the end of the evening, GCC was happy with the Concept Plan and there were no unresolved issues; no formal submission was made by GCC following ACTPLA's presentation. Approval of the Concept Plan was delayed for a number of weeks after the GCC briefing in case any issues were subsequently raised.

I am advised that the specific issue that you raised separately with me (apartment v terraces in the 2-3 storey areas) was discussed at the GCC meeting. Due to the prolonged history of the Flemington Road Concept Plan and the tight timeframes ACTPLA had for its completion and adoption, it was not a typical concept plan process. In the future under the new Territory Plan, new concept planning / precinct planning are required to undergo a Territory Plan variation process. Statutory and non-statutory consultation will continue to be an important aspect of concept planning / precinct planning. ACTPLA will continue to include a consultation report in the background report. In addition, the consultation report will be provided on the TP variation.

Regards.
Neil Savery
Chief Planning Executive


We have concerns about a number of these statements, as explained in my reply:


From: Alan Kerlin - GCC President
to: Savery, Neil
date: Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 7:38 PM
subject: Re: FW: GCC - consultants brief for the Gungahlin Town Centre Study (and other matters)

Thanks for this feedback Neil.
 
[snip]
   
Flemington Rd

I believe that for the ACTPLA team on this concept plan to say all issues were resolved and we were happy with the plan is quite inaccurate. While this may have been accurate for our thoughts on the road corridor design, we clearly expressed concerns that if the subsequent subdivision plan were constructed in accordance with the plans presented to us, the outcome would perpetuate the Anthony Rolfe Drive effect right down Flemington Road, an outcome we have been very clear about being far from desirable.
 
We suggested that rather than the continuous building facade that would result from long stretches of unbroken townhouses, a more appealing and attractive solution would come from larger blocks featuring apartment complexes - a residential style virtually non-existent in Gungahlin. For an example, see www.grandmercurebatemansbay.com.au
 
At no stage were we given any indication that our feedback would require a written submission in order to be recognised. We believe that when ACTPLA staff ask to attend one of our meetings that it is for listening as well as telling. The process by necessity involves a significant degree of trust that verbal feedback will be recorded. Otherwise we'd be better off just getting a written report and spending our meeting time preparing a written submission wouldn't we? Therefore I'd be interested in seeing a copy of the background report you mention to determine to what degree our feedback at the meeting was considered.
 
We are uncertain as to where this gets us now. Is it the intention of ACTPLA to approve development along Flemington Road in the format shown in the concept plan? Or is there - as with other concept plans - another stage for subdivision planning? It would not seem so, as there are statements through the concept plan that presuppose the former, and would then determine that the subdivision achieves something very much "Anthony Rolfe Drive". This is not something I believe the executive would be prepared to accept. This is the major gateway into Gungahlin and it must feature outstanding architecture - not more of the same sort of poor outcomes that have made Gungahlin something of a laughing stock in Canberra.
--
Regards,
Alan Kerlin
President
Gungahlin Community Council
PO Box 260 Gungahlin ACT 2912
m 0408 771633


Neil replied (at 10pm Sunday!) that he'd get back to us, but that was two and a half weeks ago, with nothing else forthcoming.

On Wednesday 12 March, we'll go into one of the bi-monthly Planning and Development Forum meetings at ACTPLA, this one with Planning Minister Andrew Barr to be attending. We'll be looking for some progress, or this subject has the makings of a major campaign about it. We'll be driving down the middle of the results of this little bit of planning for decades to come. That makes a better outcome worth fighting for.
 

< Prev		Next >