Submissions

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

AAT Directions Hearing – Information about the case

Mr President, the WVCC’s fundamental reason for seeking a review of this decision is because there was no public consultation, and hence no awareness of this major development, during the formative stages of the DA. Hence there was no opportunity to discuss any concerns that the community might have had, if they had been aware of it.

Mr President, with your permission, I would like to detail the events and circumstances leading up to the lodgement of this DA; as I believe it is crucial to our seeking this review

Mr President, representatives of WVCC were not briefed in any way about this proposal until 27 Feb 2002; and at this briefing we were told the broad details of the DA. The DA was then lodged 11 March (eleven days later) without any consultation having taken place. ( The statement in the PA (p.409 of T doc ) that “It has also been the subject of briefings with representatives of the WVCC….during the pre-application planning process” is not accurate. Mr President, there was only ONE briefing, eleven days before lodgement; and the “pre-application planning process” had certainly been going on for much longer than the eleven days before DA lodgement when we were “briefed”.

On the same day, Mr President, as two representatives of WVCC were briefed, I sent the following e-mail to Mr Purdon: (See p. 383)

Mr President, we were not aware that the DA would be lodged eleven days later, and that we would not be given any chance to comment.

For the PA then to claim: “none of the representatives contacted have raised serious concerns about the project”, is, we believe Mr President, a half-truth, as opportunities to do so were not provided.

In addition, Mr President, opportunities to put this proposal before public meetings about the WTC Draft Master Plan were not taken. However, the PA states: (p. 410) “The NDH team gave a presentation to the WTC Master Plan team on 12 February and attended two public workshops organised by PALM on 12 and 14 February 2002.” What the PA does not say, is that the NDH team did NOT say a word about this proposal at either of those public workshops!!

Mr President, the submission of NDH’s Final Design Response Report in MARCH 2002, still makes the claim (p513) that “the project will be discussed at public stakeholder meetings being organised by PALM for the WTC Masterplan in FEBRUARY 2002. (Mr President, the months of February and March did not run in reverse in 2002; and these discussions did not, in any event, take place.)

Mr President, the very confusing situation where the DA was initially lodged in March 2002, and then replaced by a PA which was subsequently withdrawn and replaced by a new PA in May 2002 has also left the community very confused about exactly which document we should be responding to. The community is still unsure which is the complete final DA. Mr President, we don’t know whether it is this one dated 5 March which I was given about then; or whether it is the one now contained in the T Documents, which appears at a glance to be a bit different. Mr President you will know that we received the T documents only a couple weeks ago; and hope you will understand that as a non-expert voluntary body we have not yet had opportunity to study this matter.

Mr President, the WVCC will also need to take advice as to why we have, in the T documents a draft “deemed refusal” of the proposal by the Commissioner for Land and Planning, dated 9 September 2002; and also the approval, subject to conditions, by the Delegate for the Commissioner, dated 11 September 2002.

Mr President we need to take advice as to what occurred in two days to apparently change this decision.

In addition, Mr President, I have here a very late notification from PALM about the decision on this DA. I received it on 11 Nov 2002. It would appear that this late notice, which I know others have also received, curtails if not dismisses any right of appeal to the AAT. I wrote to PALM seeking clarification, but as yet have not had a response.

Mr President, this lack of community consultation combined with very considerable confusion about documents has meant that the community has not been included in any aspects of this proposal. The community has not been afforded any opportunity to comment on any matters at all relating to this proposal prior to the DA being lodged.

Mr President, the community would have liked to comment on many matters prior to DA lodgement, but no opportunity was afforded us.

The WVCC was formally established in June 2001 with considerable media coverage in the CT and the Southside Chronicle. In June 2001 Purdon and Associates were already discussing ways in which WVCC might assist them with surveys relating to the WTC. Mr President, Purdon and Associates were also responsible at this same time it seems for the development of the PA’s and DA relating to this proposal. We were not, however, briefed until some nine months later in Feb 2002.

Mr President, it has been suggested to us that NDH and their consultants – Purdon Associates – were not really aware of WVCC until 2002. We do not accept this inference.

Mr President, I have taken up a considerable amount of your time in recording the background to our lodging an appeal to the AAT

We believe it is very unfortunate that we have to use the AAT process and AAT time to raise community objections to this proposal; and to request a review.

Mr President, in summary, the community, via WVCC, is applying to the AAT for a review of the decision for reasons including the following:

• The community was not consulted
• the decision does not seem to have regard to the WTC Masterplan Review currently in progress; nor does it reflect any comprehensive planning strategy for the office precinct
• the loss of 1500 sq metres of a treed Park is significant
• the over-shadowing for some 90 metres of the main pedestrian spine is significant
• the loss of considerable amenity for a large number of office workers in Juliana House (which is owned by the same lessee) is significant
• the adverse impact on the current urban and architectural design of this whole office precinct is very significant.
• The amenity of office workers and the community is very significantly adversly impacted by over-shadowing, increased wind and wind-tunnelling, significantly increased car parking requirements in the area; significantly increased traffic congestion.
• The loss of Guardian House would represent a very significant loss to WTC’s heritage.

Mr President, it seems to us that the community were excluded from the consultation process for a very significant period.

In view of the fact that we are now more or less starting from scratch, we are asking that you might see fit to grant us a reasonable time to examine all documents in detail.

You will be well aware, Mr President, that the Xmas holiday period is also imminent.

Mr president, the WVCC has already began seeking expert advice on some of the issues that we are seeking a review on. We know that it is difficult to get free expert advice; and Mr President, you will know that we receive barely sufficient funds to pay postage and other administrative costs. Philanthropic experts in Canberra, it seems, are either working for the ACT Government or hoping to; and are not always eager to jeopardise their prospects. We believe that academic institutions are our best bet, and we have begun enquiries.

Mr President, most academic institutions are now about to have a Xmas break until about March next year. We believe we could gather sufficient expert material, for you to consider, within about three months from when they return from this break.

Mr President we are asking that you might see fit to schedule the first hearing in May or so 2003.

Mr President, we would appreciate your advice about having parties joined to this appeal; and also in relation to the number of community representatives we would be permitted to have at this table.

David Menzel

9 Dec 2002