HOME
SUBMISSIONS

Submissions

Parks / trees -maintenance | Heritage - Guardian House | AAT 1 - Guardian House | AAT 2 - Guardian House

Woden Valley Community Council Inc

Applicant in ATO2/124

Re: Royal Australian Institute of Architects

Applicant in ATO2/126

And Commissioner for Land and Planning

Respondent

And Maria Enterprises Pty Ltd, Gadkka Pty

Ltd, JPK Pty Ltd t/as MGK Properties

Joinder

Statement of Facts and Contentions
In the AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
LAND and PLANNING DIVISION

No. AT 02/124 & 126

Re: Woden Valley Community Council Inc Applicant in ATO2/124

Re: Royal Australian Institute of Architects

Applicant in ATO2/126

And Commissioner for Land and Planning

Respondent  

And Maria Enterprises Pty Ltd, Gadkka Pty

Ltd, JPK Pty Ltd t/as MGK Properties Joinder

APPLICANT’S

Statement of Facts & and Contentions  

1 . Facts

a) The proposal

  • The Development Application proposes the erection of a six storey office building of n area of 12,000 sq.m. gfa GFA on a consolidated lease incorporating B blocks 56, 56, 57 , 60, and 61 of S section 8 Division Phillip plus a portion of Bowes Place (north).
  • The erection of the building will would entail the demolition of Guardian House which the ACT Heritage Council has recognised as having heritage significance; it has been entered onto the Interim Heritage Places Register.
  • A proportion of the proposed building will would take up an area ( B block 56 and 57) which has been used as a public park for several decades.
  • The building would be sited along the eastern boundary of North Walk; other office buildings in the North Walk precinct are set back from the pedestrian areas in park-like settings.
  • The building also is would be constructed over an existing public walkway/cycleway.

b) History

  • Blocks 57 and 61 were purchased by Maria Enterprises Pty Ltd, JPK Pty Ltd and Gadkka Pty Ltd from the Commonwealth Department of Finance and Administration in June 2000.
  • These blocks, which were previously National Land, were degazetted and are now Territory Land. The National Capital Authority (NCA) prepared a development control plan (DCP) for the sites prior to their sale to satisfy the Special Requirements of the National Capital Plan.
  • The DA was lodged on 11 March 2002 and was later replaced by a PA which was subsequently withdrawn and replaced by a new PA in May 2002.

c) The Consultation Process

  • The NDH PA states that at Appendix B, part 3 that ‘the project will be discussed at public stakeholder meetings being organized by PALM for the WTC Masterplan in February 2002.
  • The p ublic meetings were held on 12 and 14 February 2002. N either the WVCC or the other public participants at the meetings were informed at any stage about the proposed development and its implications . This was in spite of the fact that a representative of the project ’s proponent was in attendance for the workshop proceedings .
  • There was no consultation by the proponents with the staff of Juliana House, which would be connected and overshadowed by the proposed building. Similarly, there was no consultation with the staff of the Alexander and Albermale Buildings who would also be affected by the development owing to their proximity.
  • WVCC was first informed of the proposal on 27 February 2002 when Messrs Menzel and Reddy, Chair and Deputy Chair of the WVCC met with the proponent’s responsible officer, Mr R. Purdon of Purdon and Associates.
  • On behalf of NDH, Purdon and Associates met with two members of the Woden Valley Community Council on 27 February 2002. (see p. 383)
  • (see supporting letter from Jean Casburn). A large number of Juliana House staff raised objections to the DA in June 2002 based on concerns including loss of amenity and parking and traffic difficulties.
  • PALM yellow notices advising passers-by of the development were erected in the vicinity of B blocks 60 and 61 but not on 56 nor on 57.

Contentions

1. The process of consultation for this proposed development was fundamentally flawed. r :I t did not invite the views of key stakeholders such as local residents and users of the WTC and the broader community as well as the staff of Juliana House and of the Albermarle and Alexander buildings.

2. Specifically, despite assurances in the proponent’s PA, the consultation processes failed , to take the opportunities offered by the PALM WTC Master Plan Review public workshops to inform the community and invite public comment - notwithstanding the fact that the proposal would have a major impact on the form and character of WTC’s central office precincts and the proximity of the timing of these workshops to the lodgement date of the initial PA.

3. The Government has a high level commitment to community consultation in planning processes consistent with the spirit of the Territory Plan. The Forward to the Territory Plan indicates that

“ Canberra is a special place, quite unlike other cities. Its sense of structure, its landscape qualities…………….give Canberra residents an enviable lifestyle. This lifestyle has been achieved by the consistent application of well thought out planning policies………..We have been successful to date and as an actively involved community we all share the credit for work well done.

On this occasion, regrettably those community involvement processes failed.

4. In these circumstances, for the ACT Government and its agencies to approve the proposal would represent a significant breach of trust between government and citizens. It would represent a betrayal of the Government’s ‘shared vision’ approach to planning Woden and our city. It would diminish the huge amount of community effort and commitment which has gone into the Government's WTC Master Planning processes since mid-2001.

5. The Government’s community partnership approach was highlighted in May 2002 when PALM circulated a Woden Town Centre Design Options Report to Woden residents to provide “stakeholders and the community with information necessary to begin to understand the design opportunities which exist and provide further comments to inform the process so that a ‘shared vision’ for Woden is developed”

6. A major development of the scale proposed would also compromise in a major way future design options for the core elements of Woden Town Centre. It is not part of any overall plan for WTC; as such, the proposal violates widely accepted urban design principles such as those addressed at the June 2001 ‘Urban Design Forum’.

7. Among these principles, WVCC draws attention to the importance of the need for development planning approval processes to recognise that :-

    • Cities are for and about people. All decisions must be evaluated in terms of what they will mean to people and how their lives will or might be affected.
    • The city is a market place. The city is the place and setting of an almost infinite number of exchanges – economic, social, cultural and political as well as personal.
    • The city is a public place. The city is a unique and highly complex system held together and structured around public spaces, amenities and institutions.
    • The good city maximises choices and opportunities. To fully realise the potential and value of exchange, there must be the maximum possible range of choices and opportunities.
    • The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. If the city is a collective then we must judge the whole rather than the individual parts. Even though small parts are important, their value can only be judged in how they contribute to making the whole better.
    • Permanent residents come first. In making our decisions which affect the setting in which people conduct their lives, priority must be given to those for whom it is their permanent or long term residence or place of work.
    • Landowners’ rights and responsibilities. A freehold landowner is entitled to certain rights of the land. However, in return for those rights, one must also accept and exercise responsibilities.

8. WVCC considers that application of these principles would help ensure that new developments would foster the creation of ‘ good urban spaces’ which address the long term. In making any decision which affects the form or function of the city, the possible or likely longer term consequences of that decision must be carefully considered.

9. In contrast, the proposal represents pressure for ad hoc development. Its longer term impacts cannot be assessed as there is no current urban design framework or Master Plan against which it can be assessed because the Woden Town Centre Master Plan review has not been finalised.

10. WVCC contends because the proposal has no status within a broader WTC Master Plan, many of the qualities of good urban places are either compromised or absent.

11. It diminishes the urban amenity for workers and pedestrians in the precinct in that:

  • It would overshadow the main pedestrian spine in the precinct for the majority of its length for extended periods, particularly during the winter months when overshadowing would persist until at least noon. This would transform an area which is currently a pleasant, sunny outdoor setting during the winter months into a much colder and unattractive one.
  • It will create a wind tunnel effect. We contend that the wind tunnel effect that would be created by south-westerly winds channelling through the opening between the Commonwealth Bank and the Content Soul tavern were not taken into account when this development application was considered.
  • The Woden Town Square which is set aside for the enjoyment of workers and shoppers is already seriously affected by a wind shear effect from the Lovett Tower. Many lunching workers retreat to the areas north of Woden Square on windy days, the very areas which would be eliminated under the proposal. The development would create another area that workers will have to avoid on windy days.

11. It fails in the ‘good urban design’ requirement for connectivity – specifically in regard to east-west pedestrian and cycle movements which would be funnelled through a gated entry on the ground floor of the building. As a result, east-west pedestrian movement options for pedestrians would be significant reduced. At present, the pedestrian/cycleway between Block 57 and Block 61 is used to move freely between the eastern and western sides of the precinct. The path and steps on the edge of Block 56 are used for movement between the office buildings in Bowes Place and Bowes Street and Woden Plaza. The proposed development would eliminate the path on Block 56. It will also inhibit movement on the pedestrian/cycleway by the placement of doors at each end of it.

12. The creation of a 24 hour ground floor ‘alley’ through the building seems at variance with modern planning approaches which seek to eliminate potentially unsafe night-time pedestrian corridors.

13. The proposal also fails in meeting the ‘good urban design’ requirement for ‘comprehendability’. Its dominant form would crowd out one side of the north-south walkway due to the absence of any set-back . It would look decidedly ad hoc and ‘grafted-on’. Its large footprint relative to adjoining office buildings would mean that it would bear little relativity to its neighbours. It would create an unbalanced, hard-edged built vista along North Walk and so destroy the potential of what is arguably one of WTC’s highest quality urban landscape features.

14. The proposal does not satisfy the need for human scale and richness. ‘A good urban place affirms the centrality of human beings – the highly complex systems of intellect, emotion, senses and spirit that we are’. In contrast, the proposal compromises the amenity of the its surrounds and so significantly detracts from the precinct’s human appeal and richness.

15. As such, it breaks the rules of good urban design. Specifically, the building’s footprint would take up too great a proportion of the site. Other buildings in the area such as the Alexander, Albermarle and Sirius buildings allow a significant proportion of their sites for the passive and active recreation of their occupants and other WTC users.

16. The footprint of the proposed building is around 90 per cent of the block. In addition, portions of it would extend over a public walkway and would also require resumption of part of a public road. Should this development proceed, it would be logical to allow the owners of other buildings in the precinct to build over the areas of land that they currently set aside as grassed or paved areas. The end result would be very remote from good design ideals.

17. The proposed office building would not be a ‘good neighbour’ as it would be too close to the adjoining Juliana House. At present the buildings in the precinct are set back from one another. This allows the occupants the opportunity to appreciate and respond to the attractive bush-clad hills and ridges of the Woden Valley and the distant Brindabella Ranges by retaining views on all sides.

18. The development would deprive most of the occupants on the west side of Juliana House of their existing views. As such, it violates the good urban design principle of environmental sensitivity. ‘A good urban place will be sensitive to the environment and the setting, be it natural or made by humans. This sensitivity will be at the local as well as global scale’. In addition, around 40 per cent of the occupants on the eastern side of the proposed building would look directly at the walls and windows of Juliana House and would have no distant views of the surrounding countryside.

19. People respond to defined spaces. A good place will have well contained and interesting spaces in which people feel comfortable. The proposed offices partly occupy an area that has been used as a popular public park for several decades and infringes many interesting, attractive spaces around North Walk. It removes many of its long established trees and ‘garden nooks’ and replaces them with hard-surfaced, uninteresting and pedestrian unfriendly environs far removed from the original design ideals of the precinct’s creators.

20. It entails the removal of a significant number of mature trees. Mature trees on Block 57 would be removed while the chinese elms on the western side of block 57 would be severely lopped and be placed at risk. This would represent a significant loss in a precinct which has very few significant trees. It would destroy a highly valued urban ‘greenscape’ unique to WTC. WVCC supports the good urban design principle that ‘the ‘greenscape’ of the city is an integral part of the urban fabric and a continuous medium rather than local or site related ‘plantscape’ enhancement’.

21. Blocks 56 and 57 are currently a grassed and paved park with seating and shady trees. It is located in a fashion which allows sunlight for most of the day and protects users from southerly and westerly winds. The development would result in the loss of this community asset. The removal of this park would pre-empt the opportunity for any urban design which would combine the existing green areas in the precinct.

22. These losses would be accentuated by the proposed demolition of Guardian House, a fondly regarded and professionally revered architectural feature of the precinct. WVCC endorses and supports the statements and positions taken by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects in regard to the architectural and historical significance of Guardian House and supports tis retention and preservation.

23. The good urban design principle of ‘community enhancement’ recognises that ‘a good urban place is one which enhances the sense of community, social interaction and strengthens the self image and identity of the people who use it. While acknowledging differences, it will focus on the shared and the common’. In contrast, the proposal robs the community of significant components of those spaces and features which foster a sense of community in the WTC office precinct in favour of narrow, private commercial interests.

24. Qualities of edges is a central good urban design objective. How well a public space works will be largely determined by the arrangement of, and around, its edges. A dynamic, vibrant and interesting space is likely to have active edges. ‘Passive’ edges are likely to produce a space which is lacking in life as well as a sense of safety. Variety is an essential ingredient of good places. The proposal offer little in the way of ‘active’ ground floor frontages; the proposed small (100 sq. metre) café would be open at best, for just one third of the day. The proposal lacks sufficient ground level activity.

25. We also question whether such a passive frontage would be appropriate in this setting in view of the prospect of residential developments being advanced in adjoining precincts of WTC. The site in contention offers an opportunity to provide long-hour ground level activity such as commercial premises which remain open outside business hours. The current development proposal represents a lost opportunity for invigorating an area which is currently only live during office hours on week-days and fails to respond to the more diversified uses envisaged for the precinct in coming years.

26. David to add to this bit A final note on sustainability. Very often sustainability is thought of largely only in terms of energy and greenhouse gasses. Urban sustainability encompasses not only energy use but also economic, social, cultural and ecological concerns.

We also contend that the quality design indicators and the proponent check list for high quality sustainable development (HQSD) have not been adhered to.

27. The consequences of the proposal for traffic congestion in Bowes Place is a concern. Traffic is estimated to more than double; with, what we consider, a conservative estimate of 225 vehicles per hour in the morning peak. Bowes Place is a very wind-protected area and this level of traffic emission can only be injurious to pedestrian health. Having large volumes of traffic, including trucks, enter and exit right opposite the busy loading bays of 1 Bowes Place would also create a significant accident risk factor for vehicles and pedestrians.
28. The WVCC notes that the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment contains varying assessments; from February 2002; from April 2002 and from May 2002. We also note that a total office occupancy of 480 staff has been assumed. This is at variance to the 600 figure used in briefings to us. We further note that the proposed refurbishment and reoccupation of Scarborough House with some 1,200 staff does not appear to have been taken into account. We therefore object to any piecemeal approach which pre-empts the WTC Master Plan Review and an integrated Woden Parking Plan.

Territory Plan 2002; Forward – A Vision for Canberra; Pages i and ii

Page one: Woden Town Centre Master Plan; February Workshops Design Options Report; May 2002; PALM