Old Asti Motel Site – September 2023 – PLan – the Planning Action Network Inc

The Old Asti Motel site is again before the Development Consent Authority

We need your support in our campaign for a decent community outcome with this contentious development.

On this web page you can make a donation, sign up for our newsletter, read the submission and find our what is happening in the campaign.

Donations

Public Meeting

ASTI Motel Site

Public Meeting

30th September 5pm

1 Montoro Court Larrakeyah, Darwin NT 0820

Newsletter

Contact

For more information:

Nick Kirlew

Convener PLan: the Planning Action Network Inc

0447 499 794

Email: nick@planinc.org.au

Web: https://www.planinc.org.au

Contact your Local Member, the three City of Darwin Alderman and the Planning Minister. Should community be involved in planning decisions?

Below we have comments on the proposal, scroll down or click here.

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.

Exhibition Period: Friday, 8 September 2023 – Midnight Friday, 13 October 2023

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: Readvertised with changes: 56 dwellings-multiple and 63 serviced apartments in 1×10 and 1×11 storey buildings plus three levels of basement car parking.

NOTE: there have been changes to the documents exhibited during the exhibition period. At this time PLan believe this is the correct list. More information as it comes to hand.

This is the set released on 23/9/2023

Re: PA2022/0321 Amended Proposal – CRTPC20-22_Letter_2.pdf

Statement of Effect – 21/08/2023 Version 2.1 Amended_statement_of_effect_PA2022-0321.pdf

Amended development plans Amended_development_plans_PA2022-0321.pdf

Attachment E – Traffic Review dated 15/8/2023, review done in 2019 with a no change seen clause amemnded Attachment_E_-_Traffic_Review.pdf

Attachment F – Title – 1296 – Attachment_F_-_Title_-_1296.pdf

Attachment F – Titles – 1287_ 1288 and 1295 – Attachment_F_-_Titles_-_1287__1288_and_1295.pdf

Below here the documents are all 8 years old and should have no bearing on the current proposal. These documents are included in the proposal by the proponent.

Attachment B – DP15-0400 ED – these drawings are dated 27/04/2015 – Attachment_B_-_DP15-0400_ED.pdf

Attachment B – DP15-0400 NOC – this document is from 2015 and refers to an aged development permit – Attachment_B_-_DP15-0400_NOC.pdf

Attachment B – DP15-0400 – Development permit DP15/0400 dated 14/7/2015, permits lapse in 2 years – Attachment_B_-_DP15-0400.pdf

Attachment C – DP14-0362 ED – These drawings from 2015 – Attachment_C_-_DP14-0362_ED.pdf

Attachment C – DP14-0362 NOC – Notice of Determination PA2014/0218 this is dated 2014 – Attachment_C_-_DP14-0362_NOC.pdf

Attachment C – DP14-0362 – Development permit DP14/0362 dated 3/7/2014, permits lapse in two years Attachment_C_-_DP14-0362.pdf

Attachment D – DP13-0895 – Development permit DP13/0895 dated 23/2/2013, permits lapse in two years

Comments on the proposal:

The requested variations to the planning Scheme are not summarised making review of these documents by community very difficult.

There has been no attempt by the proponent to engage with community members to understand their concerns and gauge input to what is a contentious proposal.

The traffic review was carried out in 2019 and advises there has been no change in traffic conditions since that time. The time frame was during Covid, also there was no City Deal CDU campus or any Neuron scooters.

Development permits and drawings from 2013, 2014 and 2015 are attached, is it possible to have multiple development permits open for nine years? These drawings show buildings that will never be built.

All traffic will be directed through Montoro Court and Packard Place with no consultation with the residents of those streets.

There is no setback from the Smith Street facing building, the land is public land, and the development should adhere to good planning. The interconnected network calls for an enhanced streetscape and landscape yet the building will be out of character with the other buildings facing Smith Street by adjoining the street reserve.

The proponent shows buildings on the other side of Smith Street as having no setback. This side of Smith Street has managed to preserve the road reserve and building setback from the road reserve throughout the development of the street. This would be a poor precedent and affect the site lines. To claim the reduced setback would be in character with Smith Street as it stands today is disingenuous. The claim that by allowing a reduced setback has generated an increased setback on other boundaries (above legal requirements) is irrelevant. It is assumed that planning regulations provide for appropriate building envelopes.

The tallest building nearby is 9 storeys, most of the buildings surrounding are 4 storey or less. Buildings of a height of 11 storeys are a significant outlier.
Serviced apartments have a lesser floor space requirement allowing for higher density, these apartments have been sold into the investment and residential stock across Darwin over the years.

The act calls for Limited residential, commercial and community uses, such as dwellings-multiple, childcare centre and community centre, where the nature of the activity does not compromise the primary use of the locality for tourist commercial activities. This development is 47% declared residential and it can be expected the 53% Serviced Apartments will certainly mimic the residential uses of the site. The claim that the serviced apartments will be tourist use does not take into account the known student accommodation short fall in Darwin.

Planning Scheme – Tourist Commercial (in part, see nt-planning-scheme-part-4-zones-and-assessment-tables.pdf). https://nt.gov.au/property/land-planning-and-development/our-planning-system/nt-planning-scheme
Zone Purpose
Facilitate commercial and residential development that caters for the needs of visitors, supports tourism activities, and is of a scale and character compatible with surrounding development.
The design, operation and layout of development:
(a) makes a positive contribution to the locality by incorporating a high quality of built form and landscape design;
(b) minimises unreasonable impacts to the amenity of surrounding premises;
(c) mitigates the potential for land use conflict with existing and intended surrounding development;
(d) avoids adverse impacts on the local road network;

This development is only residential, there is no retail/commercial/community facilities/urban open space.

The proponent claims to contribute to the amenity of the public realm with buildings that are clearly out of touch with the existing built form of the area.

The proponent claims to accommodate a range of demographic groups but offers no explanation of how this will be achieved.

The proponent claims a quality of landscaping without out any documentation as to the method of defining the quality. The drawings show street trees which do not exist and there has been no effort by any entity to promote the greening of the area. The proponent has shown no interest in the look and care of the site in the decades we have waited for an appropriate outcome.

Further the fact that the apartments will have sea views is purported to contribute to:
Amenity, in relation to a locality or building, means any quality, condition or factor that makes or contributes to making the locality or building harmonious, pleasant or enjoyable.

In fact, the buildings will decrease the amenity of those existing buildings with views as well as drastically change the nature of the two cul-de-sac streets.

The proponent claims that that the development is reasonably predictable. This ignores that the community had a two-story motel with restaurant on the site for many years. The expectation of a like for like development would be reasonable.

There is no mention of tree planting to the Montoro Court to ensure an attractive site presentation.

The proponent calls for reduced balcony size on the one-bedroom apartments. This should not be permitted as it will create precedent. It is reasonable to expect that two people will live in the one-bedroom apartments and thus the legal requirement for private space should not be reduced.

Building articulation is not used on the internal facing walls. These walls will be visible from adjoining properties and street traffic.

Please send your comments to PLan on the email address above.