Category: Current Issues

Posts on currently active issues to which CRA is contributing, either wrt news dissemination or an active involvements.

Public Meeting 18 February 2024: dementia village and election issues

Woden Uniting Church Hall     3pm Sunday 18 February

For members and the general community:
the Curtin Residents Association ran a public community meeting on Sunday 18th February
at the Woden Uniting Church hall on Gillies St.

for everyone interested in the ongoing development of Curtin and its services and infrastructure.
There were two topics:

1. The proposed village-style dementia facility to be built at the old North Curtin Primary School site on Carruthers St (where the Emergency Services Agency was based).
The Suburban Land Agency is handling the tender process for the development. The SLA was be at our meeting to present information on the development and their progress with community consultation.

2. Ideas ahead of the 2024 ACT elections: we want to hear what issues you suggest the CRA should advocate to candidates in this 2024 election year.

Copies of the presentations at Public Meeting and AGM 26 Nov 2023

Here are the slide shows that were presented at the public meeting and AGM on 26 November 2023 in PDF.

This includes

 

Public meeting and AGM Sunday 26 November 2023

The Annual General Meeting and a public meeting will be held on Sunday 26 November

The AGM starts 3pm, public meeting at 3.30. Woden Uniting Church, Gillies St, Curtin.

  • AGM agenda: reports and elections. 3pm
    • nominations for office bearers and committee members will be accepted at the meeting,
      or up until midnight Saturday 25 Nov by email or on paper:
      print a form from here: Committee nomination form 22Nov23
  • Refreshments tea, coffee, cakes from 3.15pm
  • public meeting 3.30pm
    • brief on current issues
      • ACT and NCA planning, North Curtin residential area (horse paddocks)
      • the Wesley Mission proposal for supported housing on the Block
      • areas identified for infill in the Woden District Strategy
      • nature reserve in Curtin Park (Illoura horse area)
    • a longer presentation from the Suburban Land Authority on the village-style dementia facility that is planned for the site of the North Curtin primary school.

 

Submissions and comments on the ACT Planning Review

The ACT Government planning review closed for comments on 3 March.

Here is the Curtin Residents Association Submission (with corrections).

If you would like to have your own submission published here please send as an email attachment to info@curtinresidents.asn.au

The government has published 80 written submissions from across Canberra at https://yoursayconversations.act.gov.au/act-planning-review under the heading Written Submissions, which is found about one third down the page.

All our recommended comments

these were published and put into Curtin letterboxes before submissions closed

Links to the draft plans and strategies

http://yoursayconversations.act.gov.au/act-planning-review/provide-feedback

Submissions Handout and Public meeting Saturday 25 August

Handout For Submissions – for a copy of the meeting handout How to make a submission and points to make 

handout – click here 

Public Meeting

2pm Saturday 25 August 2018

St James Uniting Church hall, Gillies Street, Curtin

The developer of the fenced-off site on Curtin Square has lodged an application to reconsider a revised development application (DA).

The proposed building is a variation on the plans rejected 18 months ago.

Come along to hear about the revised DA, show your concern, make your views known, and hear how to make a submission to ACT Planning

The facts

  • ACT Planning is reconsidering a major revision of the DA for 45 Curtin Place that was rejected 18 months ago, under rules intended for minor revisions.
  • The Curtin Master Plan has been in draft (2016), revised (May 2018) and should be finalised by the end of 2018.

We say

  • We object to the process of reconsidering an application that has changed a lot, when we do not know whether it will be evaluated against the old precinct rules, the draft Master Plan, the revised Master Plan—or the yet‑to‑be‑seen final Master Plan.
  • The proposed building is still too big. It will loom over neighbouring low buildings. Its 5-storey part encroaches onto the area that the revised Master Plan restricts to one storey to preserve sunshine in the Square and keep the ‘urban village’ character of the shopping centre.
  • The traffic and service trucks for the proposed building conflict with pedestrians and parking.
  • The ACT Government has put in a lot of effort to consult the community so far—it now has to enforce its planning rules to keep the community’s trust.
  • We are not against development, but this one is still not right for the Square.

media release 5 August: Curtin surprised by application to reconsider failed development proposal in Curtin shops

The President of the Curtin Residents Association, Chris Johnson, said “I am surprised – and staggered – by the unexpected submission of a modified proposal to redevelop the building at 44 Curtin Place. Thisnew proposal was submitted to ACTPLA as a request to reconsider the development application that was rejected by ACT Planning and Land Authority nearly 18 months ago.  Normally, any request for reconsideration must be submitted within three weeks of the decision and only involve small changes.”

The decision to accept this application for reconsideration is totally inconsistent with a trustworthy public planning and development process,”said Mr Johnson.

The new proposal is for a block of one storey on the western edge of the Curtin square, extending to 5 storeys at the corner.  It is very different from the original development application. Therefore, in keeping with its own planning processes, ACTPLA must provide a reasonable opportunity for the community to respond to this new development proposal.

The developer has submitted their new proposal just before the new Curtin Master Plan is to be finalised along with the likely introduction of new planning rules. The developers cannot know what the final Master Plan and these planning rules will be and ACTPLA should not have accepted any request for reconsideration like this.  ACTPLA should certainly not try to assess any development proposals until the latest version of the Master Plan is made public and after subsequent comments have been received and properly considered.

The first community consultations about the Curtin Group Centre were held in 2015 and in the first draft master plan was developed soon after.  In early 2017, more than 700 people rallied in Curtin Square and nearly 2,000 people from Curtin and surrounding suburbs signed a petition to the ACT Minister for Planning to ask that no development applications should be considered until the Master Plan was made final.  After the first development application was rejected the government asked all parties to participate in meetings of a community panel, which resulted in a revised master plan for Curtin.  This revision was published for public comment in May and June 2018, and the final result has not yet been made public for approval by the Legislative Assembly or the Minister. It is expected by the end of 2018.

Only last week, the ACT Government stated in its Our Canberra brochure that the “Master Plan for the Curtin Group Centre is almost finished”.  Mr Johnson stated that “Any move to reconsider a development proposal before the Plan is finalised will kill any trust in the Government’s planning process that has been built up by the long community consultation process.”

The developer’s reconsideration application allows only 3 weeks for comments [since extended, to 11 September]. “If the process of writing the new master plan had made no progress for the past two years this might be a good way to speed up development of replacement shops in Curtin.  But the Master Plan is still being developed and, although the process is slow, it is close to being finished. There is no good public reason to reconsider this application in this way. The developer should not be allowed to rush the process.”

The time for responding to the new proposal is dangerously short.  The developer’s application consists of 49 separate documents and these require careful and detailed analysis by the community.

It is not clear what rules and criteria ACTPLA will use to assess the developer’s application for reconsideration.  “Nobody can make meaningful comments when the background rules are unknown.  Is this new proposal going to be evaluated against the old precinct code (allowing 2 storeys maximum?) or the draft master plan (2 storeys in one part, and 4 storeys in another?) or the revised master plan (which allows 1 storey in part, and possibly 5 storeys, only under some conditions)?

This new proposal anticipates that the revised Master Plan will be accepted – but the directorate has not yet finished collating all of the comments and other submissions.  The application tries to cherry-pick parts of the existing Territory Plan, Precinct Code, Draft Master Plan and Revised Master Plan while ignoring the planning controls that the community expects to see and ignoring the character of Curtin as an urban village. The final height constraints in the Curtin Master Plan are still unknown and the proposed heights in both the first and revised drafts were strongly contested by the community.

 

Submission on ACT Government Housing Choices Discussion Paper

The Curtin Residents Association has made a submission on the issues and planning aspects of the discussion paper, rather than try to answer the prompt questions. You are welcome to reuse any part of this for your own submission.

Curtin Residents Association Comments on Housing Choices Discussion Paper 2017–18

  1. Open Urban Spaces

It is essential that Urban Open Space between existing suburbs should not be repurposed into housing developments.

While it may be tempting to take Urban Open Space from within suburbs for new housing, this should be a last resort, requiring community agreement and reserved for the types of housing missing in our communities: public housing, co-housing, housing cooperatives, affordable housing, and modest terrace, villa and dual-occupancy housing for people on average incomes. Any such development must have higher social merit than simply densification.

 

  1. Community facilities

It is essential that community facilities such as schools, sporting facilities and vacant spaces in target suburbs (even if they are currently under-utilised) should not be replaced by housing. As densification proceeds in nearby town centres and within suburbs (by redevelopment of existing housing stock) there is already a need for increased community facilities in these suburbs. This increase is necessary to preserve relative levels of amenity for both the existing and the future population. The existing community facility sites should be redeveloped for further community uses, by refurbishing existing buildings or creating new complexes of community facilities and specialised housing, if this can be done with acceptable plot ratios and heights to suit the character of the neighbourhood.

 

  1. Strong data is needed

The current real-life experiment provided by the Mr Fluffy project (that is, relaxing rules in RZ1 to encourage multiple unit construction) provides an opportunity to collect fresh evidence of the effectiveness of these changed constraints, and the choices made by both industry developers and new owners. Only by building a statistically strong collection of data from developments on Mr Fluffy blocks and in RZ2 zones, doing careful analysis, and holding public discussion of the results, can the government build trust in the motivation and likely effectiveness of extending any changes to RZ1 or making changes in RZ2 zone restrictions or areas. Measurement of the effects will make the public debate more informed and meaningful.

 

  1. An area approach to planning

In general the Curtin Residents Association believes that salt-and-pepper sprinkling of multi-unit developments among single residences is desirable, similar to what may be provided by the Mr Fluffy blocks. To achieve best planning outcomes in the long term, it is necessary that a ‘whole of street’, precinct, section or sub-section approach to planning permissions and outcomes must be adopted. This will be more effective than the current paradigm of hoping for good development performance to emerge from having most of the planning rules apply only at the level of individual properties. For example, the express goals for the number of redevelopments and the number of dwellings in particular areas should be stated in advance, to strengthen the notion that planning is goal-directed; and it could be achieved by incentives that change as the density approaches the goal.

A long-term policy of actively encouraging early proposals for suitable developments, with attendant publicity that later development will be restricted, will help to achieve development planning goals faster and more efficiently. This will also reduce the existing residents’ concerns that allowing any development at all will inevitably escalate from this ‘thin end of the wedge’ to over-development and destruction of amenity.

 

  1. Mandating housing diversity

The requirement to provide some smaller housing types should be made a concomitant condition – a social payback – for any large-scale development to be approved. If current development activity is providing the wrong mix of housing types as an outcome, then the government should not rely only on changing the development rules or costs to distort market conditions in its attempt to drive developers to build what they see as less profitable developments. Instead, for example, a developer proposing a development of hundreds of apartments should be required to also propose and complete a specified number of dwellings as townhouses or multi-unit housing, whether in the same precinct or in other areas of Canberra (in similar ways that the provision of social or affordable housing is social policy that should be enforced on developers in all zones). A healthy market in unit development licences may result, as developers negotiate with each other to provide suitable mixtures of dwelling types under each project umbrella. The enforced cross-subsidy will have the result of some sharing of costs to create the outcomes desired by government policy at reasonable cost.

Curtin Residents Association

Curtin Square planning petition signed by 22% of Curtin

The Association’s petition to the legislative assembly asking that the Minister stick to the building heights in the draft Master Plan, of 2 storeys in the square and 4 outside it – it’s attracted over 847 signatures from adults living in Curtin. The population of Curtin is approx 5,175 [2011 census, according to Wikipedia] of all ages. Around 25% are under 18 (ACT distribution) leaving a candidate population of 75% of 5175=3881.
This means that 22% of the Curtin population have signed on.

This is incredibly high. It shows that the Curtin community is clearly together on this.

The Curtin signatures are 62% of the total. Another 20% come from in the rest of the group centre catchment of 5 suburbs: Lyons, Hughes, Deakin, Yarralumla and Garran. This amounts to 9.3% of the adults in this wider area.

 

Curtin Place Development – on the radio and print media

Our concern about the Curtin Place development proposal was featured in the Canberra Times on Wednesday 11 January:  Curtin Call to Reduce Size of Development

and in the CT editorial on Thursday 12 January: Curtin Shops Proposal the Canary in the Coalmine (Destroying Canberra in to Save it?)

The Rally is reported in the Canberra Times 21 January: Curtin says no to high rise development

and in The Chronicle/Queanbeyan Age 24 January, p.4: Shops Saga Continues.

and there’s more recently: the Toilets Story in the Chronicle Tuesday 1 February

and the Canberra Times Thursday 2 February,  Curtin Developers Deny Hardball Tactics in Threat to Hoard Up Shops.

The EPSD is considering all the objections to the development application: in the Canberra Times, Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development director-general Dorte Ekelund set to leave  CT 2 February.

‘One of the incendiary issues around planning is public consultation on development proposals and whether it makes any difference.

Ms Ekelund is adamant it can.

“We’ve got such a well-educated and engaged community and planning is an innately political thing, because it’s about our democracy, it’s about how change occurs in the environment and there is always going to be people who are for something and people who are against something,” she said.

“The community knows a lot of stuff that our technical people might not be so close to, so consultation is really part of the planning process.

With the Curtin shops masterplan the latest planning battleground, Ms Ekelund said the proposal, including a six-storey building, was still a draft and there was still a development application to consider.

“There’s still a requirement to consider how the proposal fits into the context and how it contributes to the amenity and character of the area, so it’s still a matter we need to consider,” she said.’

—-

Radio interviews on Wednesday morning 11 January on 2CA 1206 (no link) and again later day; and
on ABC local radio Canberra (previously known as 666) Stoush over Curtin shops development heights

Several letters have also been published in the Canberra Times

  • Disaster in Curtin (Scott Humphries, letters, Jan 5) The Curtin shops proposal makes no attempt to respond to existing character, and it will overshadow and dominate the public square.
  • Six storeys are an unwelcome development for area’s amenity (Peter Graves, letters, Jan 12)
  • Adjust the height (Jeremy McGrane,  letters, Jan 13)
  • Consultation? Don’t Ask (Penny Moyes, letters Jan 16). “This is what you’re going to get unless you scream“
  • Public ignored on high-rise (Chris Emery)  and  Barr stays silent (John Mungoven) (letters Jan 17) The ABC flats redevelopment, and “a deep concern in our community about the direction, scale and frenetic pace of building development, planing issues and community consultation”.
  • The real stakeholders (untitled online) (Chris Johnson) and Disease Taking Hold , (Murray May)  (letters Jan 20)
  • On submission roundabout (David Biles) letters Jan 29
  • Development application stress could bring down the curtain (Peter Graves) letters Jan 31
  • Curtin clash (Howard Carew, Peter Graves) letters Feb 2/3