A similar development was planned for the battleaxe Mr Fluffy block below our property in Macgregor. It’s a large block, around 1200m2 but almost all of it was going to be covered by buildings of multiple storeys over a high foundation (above fence height) and under-floor space that was equivalent to a third storey, and roof space almost equal to a 4th. There would have been no space for greenery, trees or bushes to screen the houses from neighbours.

The foundations of the Macgregor development would also have risen above the fence line of neighbouring properties giving zero privacy to one neighbour and no north facing light (or back yard privacy) to another.

The plot ratio calculations excluded the planned giant ‘porticos’ and massive (roof-covered) entertainment areas on the plans and balconies would have overlooked our backyard (which is upslope). This is a huge plot ratio loophole in current planning rules. Power lines also means screening options, especially on our side of the boundary, are limited.

The neighbours put in protests at the DA stage and managed to get it knocked back, thanks in large part to an article by Paul, (perhaps coupled with it being shortly before ACT election time. I guess the government doesn’t want bad press at such a time. )

Having being knocked back, the owners (former ACTPLA employees according to the DA) promptly sold to another developer. I’ve invited the new owner to contact the neighbours and consult with us but so far (a year and a half later) no contact and no DA yet either.
Interestingly, both the first developer and the most recent one were / are ‘planning to live here’. A line that seems to be designed to lull everyone into a false sense of security.

We cannot understand why developers think a block completely covered in house is appealing. To me, a large part of the appeal of a free-standing house is having a back yard. If people want no back yard to care for, buying an apartment may be more appropriate.

BAD IDEA: The current government is abolishing development rules and plans to measure against development ‘outcomes’. This is definitely not a solution and will undermine any tiny power the ACT public still has to push back on inappropriate development. We need to clarify planning rules and delete loopholes. We need a planning authority that works for Canberrans, not for developers. We need a planning authority that is held accountable. Politicians are now able to say ‘it’s not us – it’s the authority’. Canberran taxpayers pay the authority and it should be accountable to the people affected by its decisions.

The authority expects neighbours to object to inappropriate DAs. If they don’t they have no come back. This puts the onus on neighbours. It expects them to understand planning rules and be able to read plans. The planning system should not require time poor, development-planning-illiterate neighbours – (only about 3 neighbours per DA will be strongly affected) – to do this job for them. It should be the Authority’s job to independently assess DAs against rules (and outcomes!) ACTPLA staff know the rules and should be used to reading and interpreting plans. They are the experts, not us in the suburbs. It takes so long for affected households to study and understand even a fraction of the implications of a DA that has the potential to affect their lives so much. Each new foul development means another group of households will have to reinvent the wheel or face the consequences. Not very efficient for us.

SOLUTIONS – IDEAS
1/ Maybe houses in existing suburbs should only be allowed to be bought by ‘people who truly plan to live there’ because such people won’t want to start out on the wrong foot with all their neighbours and may actually build a house with a garden because they value such things. Developers are carpet baggers who don’t care about the social or environmental consequences. They should be banned from inflicting their monstrosities on existing suburbs.

2/ Neighbours should be given the right of veto, especially if all of them are in agreement. Neighbours have the right of veto in some other countries. If all neighbours want to veto it would raise a red flag meaning there must be something wrong. Veto also means it would be in the interest of people planning to build (developers or not) to properly consult with neighbours in the planning stages as they don’t want that veto to happen. Most neighbours are reasonable and don’t want to put unnecessary obstacles in the way. People have a right to build. But bigger is not better. McMansions are not sustainable. Sustainable houses have a small footprint (especially if fitting 2 on 1 block) and for there to be space for trees, greenery, porous surfaces. Ministers Vassaroti and Gentleman – please make sure that where 2 houses are built on what was once a single block, that they should genuinely be SMALL footprint houses with no loopholes to plot ratio, retaining garden space, canopy, screening from neighbours on the developer side of the fence and designs that minimise privacy problems for neighbours.