Archive for the News Category

Click Here to fill out the survey

Gungahlin Smoke Signals is for the Gungahlin community and continues to evolve. It started in 1995 with Roma Hoskins as the first editor. Roma produced 100 editions until early 2007. The first issues were one double-sided A4 page that became two double-sided pages. By edition 100, it was 20 pages and a distribution of 8000 delivered by Auspost to every household in Gungahlin. Advertising covered the cost of printing and distribution until Auspost increased its charges. At the same time, social media took over the newsletter role, and advertising dollars went to Google and Facebook.

Since edition 100, there has been another 50, along with a substantial change in the purpose and format. Gungahlin Smoke Signals is now an occasional magazine that records issues and developments in Gungahlin. It is no longer a newsletter or a way for businesses and community organisations to advertise.

The magazine needs your help. It needs ideas on its role. It needs writers, editors, and the community to assist with distribution. It needs to know what articles you find interesting.

If anyone has some of the early editions, please let us know, and we will arrange for them to be digitised.

Click Here to fill out the survey

The Environment and Planning Forum (EPF) “provides strategic comment on planning and development policy to the ACT Government and the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate” (EPSDD). The Minister for Planning attended the meeting on 28 June, 2021 and asked for questions to be provided ahead of the meeting. The GCC was encouraged to raise our concerns as detailed in the Call to Suspend Land Sales  in this forum.

The questions the GCC provided, and the written responses received are included below. Please note that the GCC would not normlly raise matters specific to a district in the EPF (which is an ACT-wide forum), but was explicitly asked to do so. These questions are extracted from this attachment to the EPF meeting minutes.

The responses from the Minister feel well short of acknowledging there is any problem, or articulating any actions to address the issues.

For reference, the GCC’s position regarding DV364 based on feedback from residents is detailed in DV364 Inquiry – GCC Submission and Hearings (from the summary):

The Gungahlin Community Council (GCC) believes that Draft Variation 364 (DV364) should be abandoned. It includes changes to the Gungahlin town centre precinct code that are strongly opposed by most Gungahlin residents that will adversely impact the viability of the town centre and the Gungahlin district. The changes to building height, although welcomed, are mute as most blocks of concern to the community already have developments approved that exceed the proposed height limits.

The Refresh experience further undermined the already low level of trust that Gungahlin residents have with the planning system and processes. The Refresh took too long, the feedback from the community was selectively picked at, feedback was ignored, and the final conclusions and proposed actions were at odds with what the community had expressed. Moreover, the late introduction of new proposals (reducing the amount of commercial space, more mixed-use, new mechanisms for handling community space, etc.) which were not exposed to the community for discussion, came as a complete shock and appear not to be evidence based.

Questions Tabled in EPF

QUESTION 1

Two motions have been passed by the ACT assembly, and the ACT Assembly will receive a petition signed by over 650 residents next week, regarding the development of the Gungahlin Town Centre. This is strong evidence that the current planning processes are failing to deliver a viable town centre for Gungahlin. You have committed to respond to Suzanne Orr MLA’s motion (passed on 10 February 2021) by the last sitting day in 2021 (2 December). Andrew Braddock MLA’s motion (passed on 3 June 2021) calls for a response by October 2021.

What specific actions is the ACT government taking to inform and develop a response to the call to “support the further development of the Gungahlin region and town centre, ensuring that there are additional employment opportunities in Gungahlin” ? How will the Gungahlin community be engaged in the process of developing a response ?

ANSWER

• The two motions, now resolutions of the Assembly, are being considered. Responses to the Assembly resolutions will be provided by the stated timelines.
• There has been ongoing planning for Gungahlin and it continues to be updated to address changes in market, global impacts and ongoing changes in best practice and communities (including planning for the future Gungahlin community). Through various forms of consultation and engagement the Gungahlin community has and continues to provide input and feedback on planning and development in Gungahlin.
• It is not only planning that is responsible for the viability of centres – noting it is considered that the planning has provided strong foundations for a liveable and viable Gungahlin town centre. There has been considerable investment in Gungahlin as the town centre and district grows and changes.
• Draft Variation to the Territory Plan 364 (DV364) incorporates the recommendations of the Gungahlin Town Centre Planning Refresh into the Territory Plan to provide guidance on the desired built form and character of the centre as it develops. An inquiry into DV364 is being held by the Standing Committee on Planning, Transport and City Services. The Government will in due course respond to the Standing Committee inquiry.

QUESTION 2

Many of the planning (poor development), transport (traffic congestion/parking), and lack of facilities (community, sport, recreation) issues in Gungahlin are the result of disconnected incremental investments and projects without a clear and enforced overall strategy.

Will the ACT Government commit, as a matter of urgency, to establishing a cross-directorate place-based approach to completing Gungahlin with all the services residents would expect of a Canberra district? This approach would require active participation from (at least) EPSDD, TCCS, CMTEDD, CSD, SLA, and JCSD, with occasional input/involvement from Education and Health. 

ANSWER

The Government’s approach to planning is an integrated approach which includes collaboration across Government agencies and Directorates. At both the strategic level and the statutory level there is ongoing sharing of information and input. The district planning work being undertaken is an example of how at a spatial scale, the government is taking an integrated approach to strategic planning.

QUESTION 3

What processes (policies, initiatives, incentives, metrics) does the ACT government have in place to encourage the equitable distribution of sustainable economic development, facilities and services across all of Canberra’s districts?

ANSWER

In terms of policies, a clear hierarchy of centres applies in Canberra and this influences the spatial structure and distribution of activity throughout the city. The centres distributed across Canberra include: the city centre, four district town centres, 19 group centres and 93 local centres. This hierarchy is recognised in the ACT Planning Strategy, the National Capital Plan and the Territory Plan.  Beneath this, the Territory Plan provides a system of zoning that is implemented in all centres across all districts to provide for and support economic development, facilities and services to be located at accessible locations. While planning can facilitate and respond to change it is not solely responsible for development and activities that occur throughout the districts. Market forces and industry play a role eg, locational decisions of the private sector to take up the opportunities presented under the land use zoning for centres and in districts. Employment areas and activity areas might also occur in other areas and provide further differentiation of services and competition of economic development opportunities.

The government plans for a range of uses and facilities based on population projections, comparative analysis, engagement, monitoring of changes over time (locally and in other jurisdictions). As Canberra has grown not every centre is the same or serving the same type of population and the needs, opportunities and challenges change.

The ACT Planning Strategy outlines the Government’s clear vision of planning for a compact, efficient, diverse, resilient and accessible city and outlines a number of actions toward achieving this. Further the Strategy identifies an opportunity to undertake a district planning approach to develop a better understanding of district attributes and needs and proposed planning directions for districts (page 93) including (see action section 1.1.4, page 43): https://www.planning.act.gov.au/act-planning-strategy/strategic-directions/compact-and-efficient-city

The ACT Planning System Review and Reform project is currently investigating the opportunities for a district planning approach (https://www.planning.act.gov.au/planning-our-city/act-planning-system-review-and-reform)

The development of the suburb of Kenny was briefly covered in Gungahlin Land Releases 2020-21 but due to the development of the Kenny High School, Gungahlin residents have recently shown renewed interest in what’s happening with Kenny. In response to questions from the GCC at the Environment and Planning Forum, EPSDD have provided this summary.

KENNY – FUTURE URBAN AREA (FUA)

• The identified future urban area of Kenny comprises a total area of approximately 170ha.
• In May 2020, the Government approved a site of 7.2ha in the western portion of this area for an education precinct, allowing a high school to be planned, designed and constructed to open at the start of the 2023 calendar year.
  • A development application has been lodged for the high school project
  • The site servicing and associated works at Well Station Drive are subject to concurrent development approvals.
• The 7.2ha site is intended to accommodate the future high school as well as a separate primary school that would open at a later date determined by Government.
• The remaining area of the Kenny future urban area (FUA) (once the education precinct is discounted) is about 163ha and is shown on the Kenny Basic Layout plan.
  

  Kenny Basic Layout plan

• Under the Gungahlin Strategic Assessment (2013), the Government is required to establish the Kenny Nature Reserve prior to any urban development in the area commencing. This requirement was met through Territory Plan Variation 379, which established the Kenny Nature Reserve. The Reserve bounds Kenny to the south and west, reducing the remaining future developable area of Kenny. This includes the loss of a group centre and some residential development.  Despite this, it is expected that around 1,200 to 1,500 dwellings across a range of dwelling types, can still be delivered.
• Road access to Kenny will be from Horse Park Drive with two intersections, and Well Station Drive with a further two intersections, aligning with existing intersections adjacent to Harrison.
• Kenny, while smaller in comparison to other Gungahlin suburbs, will accommodate residential, commercial (local centre), limited community facilities and public open space.
• Prior to any land releases in Kenny, all statutory planning process and required technical studies will need to be completed.
  • The conclusion of the required statutory process may result in a Territory Plan variation and possibly an amendment to the National Capital Plan.  This would contemplate the requirement for the Territory Plan and the National Capital Plan to reflect the outcomes of the Gungahlin Strategic Assessment (2013).
• The first release of land in Kenny was forecast to occur in 2020-21 with subsequent releases in the following years.
  • The 2021-22 to 2025-26 Indicative Land Release Program is currently before Government for consideration prior to publication with the 2021-22 ACT Budget.
• For reference, this is the existing Territory Plan for the suburb of Kenny:
  

The Development Application (DA) for a “mixed use” development of 152 units adjacent to the Gungahlin Club (Blocks 2&3 Section 227) has been partially approved (see below). This development is being marketed and sold as Sierra Gungahlin.

The GCC’s representation against this DA noted that:

• the development is described as a mixed-use, but the quantity and size of non-residential spaces is extremely small, ie. it’s not very mixed
• The “lifestyle podium” is only likely to be activated and be a net contribution to the vibrancy of the town centre if there are sufficient commercial/retail tenancies (cafes, restaurants, etc.) to attract residents up onto the podium
• varying the lease to allow mixed-use seems unnecessary given how many other sites with the town centre are (or will be as a result of DV364) zoned CZ5 (mixed-use)
• the proposed lease variation removes the obligation for a portion of car spaces on the site to be made public, reducing the overall pool of public car spaces in the town centre
• many of the recommendations of the Design Review Panel were not actioned

The Notice of Decision indicates the DA is partially approved, because the application to remove the public car parking provisions in the lease was refused. Additional comments included the following:

The key issues with the proposal identified during the assessment included concerns that the development did not provide sufficient active frontage to Efkarpidis and Kate Crace Streets, that the development lacked a suitable address to The Valley Avenue and concerns with the extent of off-form concrete. It is noted that the lessee had previously tried to secure a tenant for a commercial office development on this site but was not successful.

Following a further information request, the applicant lodged an amendment application (S144C and S144E) which reduced the extent of off-form concrete, increased the commercial tenancies fronting onto Efkarpidis Street and improved the presentation to The Valley Avenue. These changes were considered acceptable.

The site constraints, including the level variation, the viability of commercial space at this location and Territory Plan requirements influenced the design outcome, including live/work units opening off public courtyard spaces at the first-floor level. This form of commercial space is not widely offered in the Gungahlin Town Centre and will add to the diversity of commercial space in the area, while providing flexibility of use and satisfying Territory Plan requirements.

The reference to S144C and S144E above is important, as these sections of the Planning Act allow changes to be made by the proponent to the DA as part of the DA’s evaluation which are not publicly notified. The original DA only included two (2) commercial tenancies by the DA as approved now includes six (6) small tenancies (one of 150m2, the rest less then 100m2, ) as indicated in the plans below. Light Blue indicates a commercial tenancy, and the red markings indicate the amendments – click on the images to get a higher resolution PDF.

Block 3 Section 227 – Floorplan Level 1

Block 3 Section 227 – Floorplan Ground

Block 3 Section 227 – Elevation

The reconsidered Development Application (DA) for the high-rise residential project known as The Establishment (formerly Air Towers) has been approved (with a long list of conditions). The GCC does not support this development and is very disappointed with this outcome.

What’s Going on With all the Work Being Done at The Establishment site ? provides a summary of the history of this development.

The Notice of Decision and the 60 page detailed attachment for the Reconsidered DA includes the following comments – key points underlined:

The original decision is amended as above because the revised proposal as provided by the applicant for reconsideration demonstrated that subject to the conditions of approval imposed in Attachment A, the proposal is not inconsistent with the Territory Plan.
The decision has been revised as a result of an application for reconsideration in accordance with Section 191 of the Planning and Development Act 2007 (Act).

Key issues identified in the assessment of the Reconsideration proposal are whether the proposed amendments results in a development that is substantially the same as the approved development as required by S198(6) of the Act, building appearance, amenity of future residents with increased yield, interface with adjoining childcare centre, ease of conversion of adaptable units, landscaping, resident access to on-site communal spaces, bicycle parking, noise mitigation measures, leasing and compliance with relevant entity requirements. The planning and land authority sought further information from the applicant to address these issues.

Consequently, the applicant submitted further information to address the above issues which revised the proposal generally as per the approved development. It is considered that after the amendment, the development approved will be substantially the same as the development for which approval was originally given.

In other words – Because the proposal is roughly the same as the DA approved in 2018 (which was a very poor decision with an associated very poor Notice of Decision), and it was consistent with the current Territory Plan (which is known and acknowledged to be broken), the proposal has been approved.

As noted above, the GCC is very disappointed with this outcome.