Public Submission: PA2025/0247 – Amendments to DP24/0010
Closing Midnight Friday, 12 September 2025
To: Development Assessment Services
Subject: Public Submission on PA2025/0247 – Objection due to Outdated Supporting Material
We respectfully submit this correspondence as a formal public submission regarding PA2025/0247, amending development permit DP24/0010.
1. Fragmented and Outdated Documentation
The applicant relies heavily on supplementary content from PA2022/0321 (dated 2022–2023) with only a limited set of new amended materials. This forces both the community and the DCA to navigate disparate, outdated documents rather than a clear, consolidated package. Procedural fairness requires an up-to-date, single submission that reflects current circumstances.
2. Traffic and Parking Assessment Lacks 2025 Context
The traffic report is based on 2019 data, with only a brief 2023 addendum referencing 2022 volumes. All of this predates the opening of the CDU City Campus (Danala | Education and Community Precinct) in October 2024.
The new campus brings substantial educational, cultural and community activity into the CBD. This has changed traffic patterns, increased parking demand, and altered pedestrian flow. None of these impacts are reflected in the applicant’s material. Without updated data, the DCA cannot reasonably assess how the additional dwellings, altered setbacks, and design changes will compound congestion and parking pressure.
3. Legal and Procedural Concerns
– Clause 1.10(1) of the NT Planning Scheme 2020 allows the DCA to assess only the proposed amendments. But this does not excuse the absence of relevant, timely supporting evidence.
– Under the Planning Act 1999, the DCA must consider current impacts, land capability, and infrastructure needs. Outdated traffic and parking data prevent proper evaluation.
– Relying on stale and fragmented documents risks breaching procedural fairness, undermines transparency, and could expose any approval to legal challenge.
4. Community Expectation and Procedural Fairness
Residents are entitled to assess proposals with information that is:
– Timely — reflecting current realities (e.g. CDU activity).
– Consolidated — not spread across multiple prior applications.
– Usable — enabling independent analysis and meaningful comment.
The current documentation fails all three tests. It places residents at a disadvantage and undermines the integrity of the process.
5. Flawed Justifications for Density
The 2024 documentation claimed that higher density was required to make the project feasible in an environment of “high interest rates and escalating construction costs.” With multiple interest rate cuts since then, this justification no longer stands.
If project profitability were grounds to ignore planning standards, Territorians could just as well argue to avoid stamp duty, registration, or licence fees. Costs alone cannot excuse departures from legislation.
6. Amenity, Setbacks, and Streetscape
– No setback is provided on the Smith Street frontage, despite this being public land and part of a historic boulevard viewline. The reduction from 7.5m to 0m has never been adequately justified.
– The interconnected network calls for enhanced landscape and streetscape, yet the proposed built form looms over adjoining sites and breaks the established viewline between Daly Street roundabout and the Old Hospital roundabout.
– Venting infrastructure is pushed to Packard Street and Montoro Court at 0m setback, further eroding walkability and amenity.
– The use of oversized “street trees” in perspective drawings is misleading, given the absence of space to plant them.
Overall, the design emphasises bulk and massing, disregarding the scale and character of the surrounding 4–9 storey buildings.
7. Misrepresentation of Land Use
The Act calls for limited residential, commercial, and community uses within the Tourist Commercial zone, where such uses do not compromise the primary purpose of tourism.
This proposal is 47% declared residential, while the 53% “serviced apartments” will almost certainly operate as de facto residential units, especially given Darwin’s known shortage of student accommodation. The proponent’s claim that they represent tourist use is unconvincing.
There is also internal inconsistency: the applicant describes the development as “residential” to avoid a 5m setback requirement, yet does not comply with basic planning requirements for residential units (e.g. private open space).
8. Lack of Community Engagement
There has been no meaningful attempt to engage with nearby residents or community members, despite the proposal’s scale and impacts. Procedural fairness requires genuine consultation, not token advertising.
9. Specific Requests
Given these concerns, we respectfully request that the DCA:
1. Require withdrawal and resubmission of the proposal in a consolidated form that reflects current 2025 circumstances.
2. Require a current traffic and parking impact assessment, capturing post-CDU conditions and commuter changes.
3. Re-exhibit the application with complete, updated information, enabling proper community comment.
Conclusion
Approving amendments based on outdated or incomplete information undermines both the integrity of the planning system and the community’s right to participate meaningfully. PA2025/0247 cannot be properly assessed until it is supported by current, consolidated and accurate evidence, especially regarding traffic, parking, amenity, and land use.
Last week
We asked the planning department (in part)
An example of community disadvantage is for the applicant to request a change the traffic flows while not providing an up-to-date traffic assessment. The original report was done in 2019 with a 2 page addition dated August 23 that uses data from 2022 advising there had been no increase in traffic for 4 years. Since the two-year-old assessment provided, the CDU building has become active presenting the area around this development with a significant increase in day parking.
the response in part
As the applicant has adequately demonstrated that the changes relate to the development approved under DP24/0010, we consider the material provided in the application is acceptable.
and a critique of that response:
The planner’s reply relies heavily on Clause 1.10(1) to argue that only the amendments need to be assessed, but this sidesteps the core problem: the supporting evidence is outdated and incomplete. By not addressing the traffic/parking data issue (still based on 2019–2022 reports), the response dismisses the real changes in local conditions since the CDU city campus opened in 2024.
The officer asserts the applicant has “adequately demonstrated” the changes but provides no reasoning or evidence to show why outdated material is still acceptable. This shifts the burden to the community to object, rather than ensuring the application is properly supported.
In short, the response is procedurally narrow, dismissive of substantive concerns, and fails to engage with fairness or accuracy.
Re: Amendment to DP24/0010
At: Lots 1287, 1288, 1295 and 1296 Town of Darwin (1-2 Montoro Court and 7-8 Packard Place, Larrakeyah)
2.0
Current Situation and Amendments
Following the engagement of a builder, a number of construction efficiencies have been identified, and subsequently adopted as part of a revised architectural design process. Importantly, these amendments retain the fundamental development outcomes approved through DP24/0010, including:
- 47 / 53% distribution between dwellings-multiple and serviced apartments;
- Generally retaining the same bedroom yield, with a minor increase to overall dwelling yield of one 2
bedroom dwelling-multiple (ground level of building 1); - Two towers of 10 and 11 storeys each;
- Vast majority of car parking within the basement levels;
- No vehicle access / egress to Smith Street; and
- High proportion of ground level communal open space and landscaping.
Whilst these fundamental elements are retained, the extent of a number of the proposed amendments is beyond the extent able to be approved via a variation to the existing development permit pursuant to Section 57 of the Northern Territory Planning Act. Specifically, a number of amendments alter a measurable aspect of the approved development by more than 5%. Accordingly, this application seeks a new development permit for amendments to the development approved through DP24/0010. The proposed amendments are considered in this assessment, and all other application documents submitted for the consideration of PA2022/0321 are appended hereto and continue
to be relied upon.
Application History
Here are previous posts on this site:
https://planinc.org.au/old-asti-motel-site-september-2023/
https://planinc.org.au/old-asti-motel-site/