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to argue that only the amendments need to be assessed, but this sidesteps the core problem: the supporting evidence is outdated and incomplete.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asserts the applicant has “adequately demonstrated” the changes but provides no reasoning or evidence to show why outdated material is still acceptable.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/