Make a submission
You can make a submission by emailing das.ntg@nt.gov.au
You must sign your uploaded submission to ensure that it is valid under the Planning Act. A valid signed submission includes a hand-signed document that is scanned and/or photographed; a name typed at the bottom of an email or uploaded document; or a JPG (or similar) of a signature placed at the bottom of the email or uploaded document.
Contact your Local Member, the three City of Darwin Alderman and the Planning Minister. Should community be involved in planning decisions?/
Exhibition Period: Friday, 9 September 2022 – Midnight Friday, 7 October 2022
Address:
Lot 01287 Town of Darwin 1 MONTORO CT LARRAKEYAH
Lot 01288 Town of Darwin 2 MONTORO CT LARRAKEYAH
Lot 01295 Town of Darwin 8 PACKARD PL LARRAKEYAH
Lot 01296 Town of Darwin 7 PACKARD PL LARRAKEYAH
Current Zones: TC (Tourist Commercial)
Proposed Development:
44 dwellings-multiple and 47 serviced apartments in two 10-storey buildings plus ground level food premises-cafe/takeaway with alfresco dining area and three basement levels of car parking.
Requested Variations: Setbacks
Read this first: Report.pdf
Attachment_A_-_Architectural_Plans.pdf
Attachment_B_-_DP15-0400_NOC.pdf
Attachment_B_-_DP15-0400_ED.pdf
Attachment_C_-_DP14-0362_ED.pdf
Attachment_C_-_DP14-0362_NOC.pdf
Attachment_D_-_Title_-_1296.pdf
Attachment_D_-_Titles_-_1287__1288_and_1295.pdf
Scroll down for our comments.
- Generally, some of the surrounding buildings are 8 story, these proposed buildings are not cohesive with existing buildings.
- The owners of this site have carried out remedial works with almost no consultation with community, including works commencing with no builder identified.
- Multiple complaints have been placed with work safe due to gates being left open and the site not being kept secure. For many years there has been water in the pit.
- Works are carried out with no safety signage.
- The site was originally low height. Community has an expectation of existing views being retained.
- This project is impact assessable.
- The location is close to MD and SD
- The applicant refers to planning history then recognizes that planning history cannot be used in this application
- All traffic will be directed through Montoro Court and Packard Place with no consultation with the community
- There is a large void in the project and the proponent has a track record of trying to maximise the footprint
- The proponent claims to minimize impact on the local area. P13
- The applicant describes the building heights as compatible with adjacent locations yet on at least two sides the towers will dominate.
- The applicant claims Smith street will not be affected while introducing hundreds of cars through the considerably congested Smith Street intersections. P17 the claim is here of high amenity to the public realm. What is the basis of this statement?
- The café claims to service tourism.
- Many serviced apartments in Darwin have been returned to the residential pool.
- P18 the claim is here that the development minimizes unreasonable impacts to the amenity of surrounding premises. What proof is given.
- P18 the applicant refers to multiple 9 story buildings adjacent, clearly not true? P18
- The claim that the building will be a positive character addition to the area is opinion only. P19
- The disadvantage of having our homes overlooked by these units is not addressed.
- The applicant claims to minimize any unreasonable amenity impacts, on what basis? Has community been consulted? P19
- The claim that previous traffic studies and that traffic has not changed since 2015 does not bear scrutiny. There appears to be only the applicant’s assertion that all is ok on traffic.
- There is no garden to Montoro Court.
- Three bedroom serviced apartments only require one car park. This is a planning error, see Tipperary.
- P 23 mention of vehicle sites lines not being an issue, where is the traffic study?
- No tree planting on Montoro Court
- What guarantees are provided that landscaping will be maintained for the life of the building. Refer to very poor condition of the location for many years.
- Smith Street setback is non compliant and the applicant again refers to a previous approval which is irrelevant. This will lead to massing over Smith Street. The purpose of the Smith Street setback was to provide continuous views and recent planning approvals are degrading this feature, diminishing the amenity of the area. P32
- Set backs are dealt with as if two buildings yet the buildings are connected.
- Set back to Montoro Court does not comply
- Set backs to the rear of the building do not comply.
- Again many setbacks do not comply at all. Why have a planning scheme?
- The proponent then brings in NTCAT. The community has an expectation that planning legislation will protect the community from opportunism.
- Again, reliance on previous approvals which are irrelevant.
- The application takes advantage of being two buildings in one argument (set backs) then as one building from the point of view of distance between the building, this value is not discussed. P40
- 18 units have a reduce verandah size. The applicant proposes there is no need to following planning regulations here as not many people will be in the one bedroom units.
- P 45 no addressing the requirement to minimize unreasonable impacts on the privacy and amenity of surrounding residents.