WCCC has lodged a submission relating to the proposed development of aged persons units in Chapman. In essence the submission seeks to reduce the development to 27 units; move three units; expresses concern at the proximity of units to the All Souls Anglican Church, seeks a small central park area which will improve large vehicle access; and expresses disappointment with the removal of some 60% of existing trees. Supplementary submissions have been made regarding provision for on-site parking and differences in the description of units proposed for Chapman and Rivett.

www.wccc.com.au
info@wccc.com.au
PO Box 3701
Weston Creek ACT 2611
Telephone (02) 6288 8975

Comments on Development Application No 200915788

Block 70 Section 11 Streeton Drive Chapman

Supportive Housing of 32 Residences – Single Story

The Weston Creek Community Council [WCCC] would firstly like to make the following general comments on this Development Application.

Council understands the need by the ACT Government to complete this proposal by the end of 2010 in line with the requirements of the Commonwealth Government.  However, Council considers that there are too many Units proposed for the site and that Community issues may arise because of this.  Council has made suggestions that it believes will go some way to removing any conflict between the residents in the complex and the use of surrounding properties.

Council also considers that the use of the site for town house development is warranted, rather than let the site remain vacant though continues to believe that this site would have been better utilised by Government through selling the site for a similar development and placing these Units on another location in Weston Creek.  Having made these general points, the following specific points are made on this Development Application.

Number of Residences – the WCCC suggests that the number of units be reduced by five to a total of 27 Units with the deletion of Units 16 and 29 to 32 as shown in the proposal.  Four of these Units, 29 to 32, are placed at the centre of the proposal and are surrounded by the remainder of the development.  Council is of the view that these Units should be replaced by a larger open space area at the centre of the proposal.  This was proposed in the Draft Layout presented to the Community during Consultations in September and this proposal, with a central park area, is preferable.

This central park would generate, in Council’s view, both a positive feeling for Residents and a community spirit.  As well as this positive feeling for the residents, as the wider community is able to move freely through the site, a central park area could encourage nearby residents to visit and this could assist with the integration of this complex and residents into the wider local Community.

One suggestion by Council is the provision of exercise equipment such as provided in some residential areas in other cities in other countries.  This could assist in creating this community spirit.

On the proposed pocket parks, the planning outline indicates that there would be two smaller areas of common land as pocket parks of approximately 450 square metres each in the centre of the complex.  This does not seem to be the case when you look at the Tree Management Plan Drawing 2464-G4 A.  This seems to indicate a different use of the proposed northern pocket park.  Council would prefer the whole area to be park but if this were not agreed to then Council would want assurances that both areas, as proposed, would be park areas.

Council also suggests that Unit 16 be removed and Units 17 to 19 then be moved northward toward the centre of the development to allow more space between the All Souls Anglican Church and proposed Units 16 to 19.  This would seem to be a sensible action given the public activity at the Church over the 7 days of the week both during the day and in the evening.  Council would not want to see issues such as noise complaints arise from Residents adjacent to the Church given that the Church has been in situ for more than 20 years.  Currently there is no space between the fence line of the proposal at the southern end of the development and the Public Pathway.  Once developed, there will only be some 3 to 4 metres between the fence line and the Church Building.  For this reason it would be preferable for these units be moved northward.  Photos are attached showing the current proximity of the Church Building to the path with the fence line for the development proposed to be just alongside the path.

The two Visitors Car Parking spaces lost in this proposal could then be provided in the central part of the complex.

Council believes that this would be a much preferable outcome for all parties.

2 Proposed Tree Management Plan – Council is concerned and disappointed that approximately 83 trees [or over 58% of trees currently on site] will be removed from the site to allow the development.  Only 59 [or 2 in 5] will remain.  Yet in the response to issues raised by the Community it was stated that as many mature trees as possible would be retained.  Two in five does not seem to be “as many as possible”.  These trees include very mature trees that have been on site for 30 to 40 years.

No trees will remain on the southern end of the proposal and few behind Units 21 to 23.

Mature eucalypts adjacement to proposed Units 4 to 9 [as per photo] would also be removed.  Of all the trees to be removed from the site, these are the ones that Council considers should and could be maintained given their maturity and position.

3. Driveway Plan – While noting the Driveway Plans of the movement of Garbage Vehicles through the Complex, Council still has concerns that larger vehicles such as furniture removal and delivery trucks, will have some difficulty in negotiating their way through the Complex.  Again, removing the central four Units would alleviate this concern.

4. Open Space near the Weston Play Group – Council welcomes the space left near the current Weston Play Group site.  If Unit 16 is removed as proposed then this would provide a more preferable buffer between the Play Group and the development.

5. Colour Scheme – Council considers that the proposed colour scheme for units, garage doors and roofs would blend in with the current housing and shop complex adjacent to the development.

6. Access to Streeton Drive – Council is concerned with the proposed access to Streeton Drive from the development though it accepts that what is proposed is probably a “best outcome” from a difficult situation.

Council would be happy to discuss any or all of these suggestions if needed and looks forward to changes being made to the Development as suggested above.

Tom Anderson
Deputy Chairman
Weston Creek Community Council

16 November 2009

www.wccc.com.au
info@wccc.com.au
PO Box 3701
Weston Creek ACT 2611
Telephone (02) 6288 8975

Additional Comments on Development Application No 200915788

Block 70 Section 11 Streeton Drive Chapman

Supportive Housing of 32 Residences – Single Story

The Weston Creek Community Council [WCCC] would like to make the following additional comments on this Development Application, specifically in relation to the provision of parking.

In comparing the Proposal for Older Housing in Rivett with that of Chapman, Council finds a difference in the way that provision for parking has been proposed for each site.

The Chapman proposal states that the site is zoned community use, not residential or supportive housing and therefore the parking rates have been based on “parking provision rates” on page 16 of the parking vehicle code.  As a consequence the rate has been assumed to be the rate for “Retirement Complex” of 1 space per unit.

The Rivett proposal uses the parking provisions for parking in residential areas for Apartments of Units of two bedrooms under Section 3.1.5 of the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code and allows two spaces per unit.

Council believes that a consistent approach needs to be taken with the provision of parking on each site.  Consequently, given that the Department of Housing and Community Services could not guarantee that the site would be exclusively used by Older people when questioned at the Community Consultation Meeting held on 8 September 2009 – an extraction of the Department’s Notes of the meeting is below and the full Notes can be provided if required,

Is there any chance that the proposed make-up of the residents may change?
The complex is targeted at housing the elderly. DHCS is not able to guarantee this as a future government may change its position. The complex is being built for aged people and the site only allows for supportive housing. The use of the land for people other then public housing tenants will be considered at the larger sites.

Council would argue that the provisions of parking for Residential Zones are the appropriate rates to use for the Chapman Proposal.  This would require an increase in parking from one to two per Unit on the site.  Council does not believe that parking provision for a retirement complex should apply here as is it is not really designated as such and the development is designed to fit in with the current residential neighbourhood.

Council has concerns that failure to provide for two parking places per Unit would place pressure on the surrounding areas of Chapman Shops and the adjacent Gavin, Lazar and Sully Places as well as pressure on Streeton Drive and Darwinia Terrace.

Again Council would be happy to discuss any or all of these suggestions if needed and looks forward to changes being made to the Development as suggested above.

Tom Anderson
Deputy Chairman
Weston Creek Community Council

18 Novemeber 2009

PO Box 3701
Weston Creek ACT 2611
Telephone (02) 6288 8975

Further Comments on Development Application No 200915788
Block 70 Section 11 Streeton Drive Chapman
Supportive Housing of 32 Residences – Single Story

The Weston Creek Community Council [WCCC] would like to make one further comment on this Development Application, simply in relation to the description of both the Rivett and Chapman proposals.

Again in comparing the Proposals for Older Housing in Rivett and Chapman Council finds differences that may be significant for the Planning process in the way that each Development has been described in the separate applications.

Rivett is described on the ACTPLA Website as “MULTI DWELLING - 73 UNITS. Proposed construction of 73 residential units comprising of both single storey & 2 storey units”.

Chapman is described as “SUPPORTIVE HOUSING-32 RESIDENCES. Proposed construction of 32 residential single storey houses including garages, driveways, landscaping and 8 visitor parking spaces.”

Yet the developments are meant to be almost identical in the housing that they are to provide.  On the Site Plan for the Rivett Development it is described as the Rivett Supportive Housing Development, the same as Chapman yet on the ACTPLA Website Rivett is listed simply as Multi-Dwelling.

Council is unable to find a full description of the Units for Chapman but the Notes of the Public Consultation Meeting held on 8 September state in part that “the complex will be low density comprising 28 two-bedroom units and 4 three-bedroom units, where the third bedroom would be positioned in the attic.”

Council is concerned that different criteria may be utilised in considering each of these proposals, particularly as the Chapman proposal is described as single story while Rivett is clearly described as some units having two stories.  This is partly because of the different descriptions of land use for each site and the different descriptions on the applications.  Council believes that each application should be considered by the same criteria, not differently for planning purposes.

It is clear that some clarification of the consideration to be given to each proposal is required, if not by ACTPLA then by the Weston Creek Community Council and we would appreciate your advice on this matter.

Tom Anderson
Deputy Chairman
Weston Creek Community Council
18 November 2009