page loader

MEDIA RELEASE - COURT REFUSES CASTLECRAG DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL"TOO BIG FOR THE SITE" 21 October 2010

Released by the Walter Burley Griffin Society Inc. and the Castlecrag Progress Association Inc.

The Land and Environment Court this week delivered a strong judgement rejecting a development application for a large new residence in the Griffin Conservation Area in Castlecrag.

The President of the Castlecrag Progress Association James Fitzpatrick and the President of the Walter Burley Griffin Society Professor James Weirick today said that the large community membership of both organisations would be very pleased with this outcome.

The case against the refusal by Willoughby Council, followed several amendments to the applicant’s development application for the site over the past two years.
In her judgement refusing the appeal concerning 95 The Bulwark Castlecrag, Commissioner Sue Morris said “The planning principles for the Griffin Conservation Area must be upheld to ensure that the importance of this area is not lost to large scale, non-sympathetic forms of development that do not respect the natural environment and landscape setting.”

Professor Weirick said, “The point of Willoughby Council’s planning and development controls is to preserve the principle that buildings should be subordinate landscape in the unique garden suburb of Castlecrag designed in by Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin on the shores of Middle Harbour in the 1920s and maintained through community support to the present.”

The main issues in the matter were the size, bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling, whether compliance with the height control was unreasonable and unnecessary and the impact of the development on the Griffin Conservation Area.

At the Land and Environment Court site inspection, submissions were made to the Commissioner by Professor James Weirick, for the Walter Burley Griffin Society, Peter Moffitt for the Castlecrag Progress Association, and several local residents. In the Court, expert witnesses included heritage experts, arborists, and planners.

The Commissioner also found: “The Griffin Conservation Area is an area of high heritage significance and contains a number of individual heritage items. It is clear from the extensive planning controls that apply to the site and the clearly articulated statement of desired future character for the area that the community expectation is that development of the area will remain subservient to the landscape setting.” . . . “A merit assessment of the application has also shown that the application is not appropriate for the site in its context and that there are other design alternatives for the site which would meet the planning controls. . .”

The Commissioner found that the proposed development “fails the principle of being subordinate to the landscape setting” and “The dwelling is too big for the site”.

James Fitzpatrick said, “We commend Willoughby City Council on defending their judgement to refuse this application in the first instance. This judgement is thorough and recognises the unique values of the Griffin Conservation Area in Castlecrag. The Progress Association hopes that this will provide a strong indication of the importance of the Griffin legacy, and the need for future developments throughout the suburb to observe the planning controls which protect those values. I believe that the majority of the Castlecrag community would be very supportive of the court’s decision. We congratulate Willoughby City Council on defending this case.

The whole Judgement can be read on the Land and Environment Court website.

Plans for proposed Immigration Bridge abandoned

As reported in The Canberra Times on 30 March 2010 “The controversial Canberra Immigration Bridge proposal is dead. Its proponents … have abandoned their plans to commemorate the contribution of migrants to Australia by building a 400m footbridge across Lake Burley Griffin.

Instead, the group will push for a land-based monument within the Parliamentary Triangle.
… The announcement is expected to be hailed by the yachting and rowing fraternities which lobbied hard against the bridge because it created an obstruction to lake users, as well as heritage groups which thought the bridge was contrary to the vision of Walter Burley Griffin because it cluttered the lake.”

Last year the Walter Burley Griffin Society was involved in the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee of the National Capital and External Territories into the Immigration Bridge Proposal. The Society made four written submissions and gave verbal evidence to the parliamentary committee. Professor James Weirick’s 43 page submission provided an historical and analytical case study of the structural collapse of the current administration of the National Capital Plan.

This news of the proposal being abandoned is very welcome, as the proposal if constructed would have impeded the main central area vistas, altered the shape of West Basin and Griffin’s lake symmetry, detracted from the Water Axis, obscured the diagrammatic separateness of the Parliamentary Triangle and potentially transformed West Basin into an uneven shaped pond to embrace intense development from the expanding CBD.

The Canberra Times reported that the NCA’s chief executive Gary Rake had said that while the National Capital Plan did make provision for a pedestrian bridge in the general location spanning from Acton Peninsula to near Lennox Gardens, any bridge there would ultimately have a negative impact on the heritage values as outlined in the heritage management plan for the area.

The Society’s president Professor James Weirick has said: ‘The Walter Burley Griffin Society supports the creation of an Immigration Gallery and Meeting Hall at the National Museum of Australia as a living celebration of the immigration story in Australia’.

The Way Forward? Can Canberra's planners learn from Washington?

Brett Odgers and Bruce Kent pose this question one year after the Rudd Government promised to fix the National Capital’s planning system. An edited version of their article below was published in The Canberra Times in early January 2010.

The National Capital Authority’s Public Forum at Parliament House on 26 November 2009 showed that the Canberra community takes a keen interest in the planning of the National Capital. It also demonstrated the deep and ongoing problems in planning the city.

The manifest problems in Canberra’s planning system (the subject of Professor Jenny Stewart’s article, The Canberra Times, 7.12.09 p.9) are due in large degree to the settlement over self-government in 1988 but have intensified over the past few years.

The opportunity to review the division of governmental responsibilities for Canberra was not taken last year on the 20 years anniversary of ACT self-government. However, the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories report The Way Forward (July 2008) recommended some reforms in NCA governance, consultation, coordination with the Territory government and compatible plans.

The Commonwealth Government’s response on 12 December 2008, accepted 13 recommended reforms in full or in principle and noted another five. However, they were referred to a task force, to report within three months on NCA functions and governance reforms, and an intergovernmental committee was to report within 12 months on the alignment or coordination of the Territory and federal planning bodies and statutory plans. Both committees have been working behind closed doors.

The issue of most concern to the JSC and at the recent NCA Public Forum was the inadequate provision for meaningful consultation between the NCA and community stakeholders. The Canberra community is, as one would expect, highly sensitised to the bureaucratic ‘pipeline effect’ – the tendency of plans and developments to become virtually unstoppable in the minds of their authors once they have been approved in principle or even at the concept stage. It was in order to counter the ‘pipeline effect’ that the National Capital Development Commission (NCDC), which shaped Canberra before the advent of self-government in 1988, was advised by a National Capital Planning Committee (NCPC).

This body consisted of the NCDC Commissioner, together with two architects, two engineers, two town planners, and two other persons ‘with special knowledge and experience in artistic and cultural matters’, appointed by the Minister from lists provided by professional bodies. Throughout the life of the NCDC the NCPC regularly reviewed all the major matters of planning and development under reference from the Commission before they entered ‘the pipeline’.

The current impasse between planners and citizenry in Canberra would be allayed if a similar body were established, along the lines of the National Capital Consultative Council recommended by the JSC. It would include representatives from the two governments, the community and business and be co-chaired by the federal Minister and the Chief Minister. It is to be hoped that this Council, agreed in principle by the federal Government a year ago, will be confirmed by Minister Brendan O’Connor, not only to defuse counter-productive disputation within Canberra but also to strengthen the arm of the beleaguered NCA against pressure from government departments and developers.

Washington DC is guided by such a National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). It also has democratic processes for the development of monuments and memorials in the National Capital. The land bank of suitable locations is precisely monitored and identified. Canberra has no such care and scrutiny.

A related matter which vitally affects the development of the National Capital is the location of responsibility for ACT planning and development within the appropriate Commonwealth portfolio. The issue was broached in Recommendation 8 of the JSC Report that there should be consultation about the Canberra Airport Master Plan between the NCA and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. In view of the inability of recent incumbents of the Home Affairs portfolio to pay sufficient attention to National Capital planning and development matters, there is a strong case for relocating responsibility for the ACT to the infrastructure, urban and regional planning portfolio.

The JSC recommendations on ‘the dual planning framework’ between the Commonwealth and ACT governments and ‘vision for future planning’ were decidedly weak and regressive. The Government’s response was even more ominous, being cast in terms of ‘simplification and removing duplication.’ They were an invitation for the Commonwealth to eliminate ‘areas of special national requirements’ and hand over (‘uplift’) to the Territory government portions of the ‘designated areas.’ It presupposed delegation and cooperation; and envisaged combining the Territory and National Capital Plans into one accessible document.

Canberra needs an integrated, unified and capable planning organisation geared to the idea and the ideal of the National Capital, strategic planning, deep sustainability, a real land use and transport strategy and specific controls over, say, location of federal offices and the National Capital Open Space System. The Territory Plan, the Spatial Plan and the National Capital Plan are all long overdue for substantive review and for sustainability integration into a metropolitan strategy.

Twelve months ago, however, all that the Commonwealth Minister could foreshadow was ‘The Commonwealth will consult with the ACT Government on matters relevant to the holistic development of Canberra as the National Capital.’ How confident can we be about the awaited decisions on The Way Forward by the Rudd Government?

Brett Odgers and Dr Bruce Kent

MEDIA RELEASE High rise proposal blight for Canberra 15.1.2010

A proposal for a 17 storey building not far from the foreshores of Lake Burley Griffin is unacceptably unsympathetic to the National Capital Plan but is currently on public notification by the National Capital Authority (NCA). The proposed development is at the end of Edinburgh Avenue south of the heritage Hotel Acton, overlooking Parkes Way.

The height and scale of the proposal called ‘Nishi’ on this location is at odds with the geometry, landscape design and symbolism of the Griffin Plan. Perusal of the planning report, design report and architectural drawings submitted by the proponent in support of the works application make no reference to the Griffin Legacy or the National Capital Plan.

Walter Burley Griffin rejected towers. He emphasised that buildings in Canberra should be horizontal, not vertical “… the necessity of making these large units stand end on end, as in the congested American cities, can be avoided in a Capital City, securing a horizontal distribution of the large masses for more and better air, sunlight, verdure and beauty.”
Professor James Weirick has pointed out that the principle of horizontal building masses in the design of Canberra is particularly important.

The National Capital Plan ‘Policies and Standards for Urban Design’ inscribe the principle that “Buildings in Central Canberra should be of a height generally not greater than the height of the mature tree canopy (typically 3 to 4 stories).” The principle is fundamental to the character of the city created since the 1920s.

Brett Odgers from the Canberra Chapter of the Walter Burley Griffin Society states that “This proposal would impair important Central National Area vistas, and it foreshadows the proposed commercialisation and privatisation of West Basin, a vital formal component of the symbolic, Griffin Plan core of the National Capital. Such appropriation of public land in Washington, the American national capital, would be unthinkable and should be here too.”

The height and scale of this works proposal is insensitive and ill conceived. It needs to be rejected to ensure that the symbolic national area of Canberra is not adversely impacted. Similarly Amendment 61 for West Basin needs to be reviewed so that Canberra’s heritage and major assets of foreshores and the vistas across the Water, or Nature Axis to Acton Ridge and Black Mountain are retained and not adversely affected.

Intrusive plans for new ASIO headquarters

An overview of Walter Burley Griffin’s Plan for the National Capital would include the land and water axes, the National Triangle, Capital Hill, its radiating avenues, democratic symbolism, constitutional diagram, landscape settings and vistas. Seeing Marion Mahony Griffin’s competition drawings and looking today from Parliament House or Mount Ainslie over central Canberra, these features are still wonderful to behold.

However distinctive features of the National Capital Plan are currently under major threat from a series of Plan amendments, construction projects, approved developments and planning consultancies.
Deviations from Griffin’s Plan are not unprecedented but this time they are being conducted misleadingly in the name of Griffin himself.
In order of magnitude of impact, one of the worst would be the massive ASIO headquarters which will sit directly across the lake from the High Court and the Parliamentary Triangle, between Constitution Avenue and Parkes Way and just a stone’s throw from Anzac Parade.

The planned ASIO Headquarters is the largest building project in Canberra after the new Parliament House, and would be a highly visible intrusion in the symbolic centre of Canberra. The site is half a kilometre in length and seven hectares in area. The monolithic building will be a prominent intrusive element from across the Lake at Commonwealth Place, Peace Park and so many other vantage points in the Central National Area and on the hills around.

The large assertive building complex with perimeter security fences and devices would dissipate any attempt to create vibrant streets and active urban spaces. If built the mass and bulk of the project would intrude on the landscape of the most visually sensitive location of Central Canberra.

The project makes a mockery of Griffin’s design for the municipal axis of the great national triangle, intended to be a grand terrace of diverse civic and urban activity. The whole eastern half of Constitution Avenue and fronting Parkes Way will be locked into security and defence offices.

The planned ASIO Headquarters will destroy the balanced symmetrical urban pattern proposed in the Griffin Plan, and detract from the balance and symbolic strength of the Canberra land axis. These impacts will degrade the symmetry, landscape design and symbolism of Walter Burley Griffin’s vision.

The project was developed under wraps without parliamentary or public scrutiny. When the project was referred to the Environment Minister for environmental and heritage impact assessment on 25 March 2009, his delegate approved it on 23 April and the construction site office materialised the next day. Site clearance and construction commenced on 23 May. Yet it still requires formal works approval from the National Capital Authority.

It is the responsibility of NCA to safeguard the design integrity of the National Capital’s areas of national significance.

Commonwealth Government response to the parliamentary inquiry into the National Capital Authority

The report and recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on the ACT issued its report on the role of the NCA in July 2008. The Hon. Bob Debus MP, Minister for Home Affairs, indicated that the Government would respond by December 2008. He and the acting Chair of the NCA, Professor Don Aitkin, together with Senator Lundy who chaired the Committee, have all recently expressed in public strong positive sentiments about “all Australians share a high regard for Canberra” (Debus), “the vision splendid for the National Capital” (Lundy) and “the unfinished business of Canberra” (Aitkin) and “the special quality of human beings, their buildings, the site and the environment existing in a special harmony” (Aitkin).

The report of the parliamentary Committee stated as the first objective “to ensure the Commonwealth protects the unique design of Canberra because it represents the intrinsic character of the National Capital.” At paragraph 1.17 this unique design is described as “Griffin’s plan.”

This was the third major inquiry in four years by the Committee into the performance of the NCA. They established the case for reforming the NCA to be more accountable and responsive. The 2007 report called upon the NCA to review and revise its so-called “Griffin Legacy” Amendments to the National Capital Plan. By 2008 the public disquiet and deep-seated problems associated with the NCA merged with concerns about the dual planning system instituted upon ACT self government in 1989 and growing public perceptions of falling standards in Canberra’s metropolitan planning, infrastructure, public architecture and sustainability.

Issues addressed in the Committee’s report include the NCA’s role and governance, consultation with the community, protection of Canberra’s heritage, Canberra Airport, location of Commonwealth government offices, the transport system, the dual planning system and strategic planning for National Capital and sustainability.
The report gives an even-handed representation of all the wide interests conveyed by written submissions (136) and witnesses (50 over seven public hearing days). The general tenor of the report could be characterised as pragmatic, conservative, moderate, balanced. It is strongly evidence-based and conveys a strong, comprehensive and determined dynamic towards a much improved National Capital planning system. The direction and scope are commendable.

The principle recommendations are more orthodox NCA governance, increased NCA accountability through the Parliamentary Committee on the ACT and much enhanced responsibility of the NCA through the creation of a National Capital Consultative Council (NCCC). The NCA Board should consist of a Chairperson and seven members, with a minimum “two members from the ACT region.” One Commonwealth appointee at least must have relevant expertise.

The NCCC “would have representatives from the Commonwealth Government and the ACT Government, the community and business. The Council would be co-chaired by the responsible Minister and the ACT Chief Minister.”

There is a recommendation that the Commonwealth establish the position of Commonwealth Architect within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
These recommendations presuppose a new Commonwealth Government commitment to the National Capital and to closer collaboration with the ACT government. The complementary recommendations on the dual planning system, statutory amendments and memoranda of understanding, are however about weak rather than strong integration.
Moreover, there is a confusing and complex recommended set of new and revised “Land Use Plan, Integrated Plan, NCA Plan, single integrated overarching document, Implementation Strategy and policy plans” rather than an emphasis on a new Metropolitan Strategy Plan and one integrated planning organisation. The perpetuation of the problematic dual planning system is compounded by a recommendation for a “geographic re-alignment of land administration with planning responsibility.”

The recommendations for control over Canberra Airport, location of Commonwealth government offices and formulation of a transport plan are similarly incremental and questionable. Sustainability is to be achieved through a “principle imbedded” in legislation, the new and revised Plans and Strategies, transport plan and an MOU on administrative collaboration. The Committee avoided the issue of security-related developments such as the ASIO/ONA complex and federal Parliamentarians have recently reaffirmed their exemption.

The NCA’s record on public consultation is abysmal but the Committee’s recommendations do not advance the cause, other than community representation on the NCCC.
The Committee refrained from making recommendations on general funding and professional planning resources, other than “NCA be resourced to participate in working parties and reviews as required” and the ACT Planning and Land Authority to be resourced for planning under delegations in National Capital “Designated Areas.”

It is hoped that many of these issues will be debated in due course. Already ACT Senator Gary Humphries (a member of the Committee) has organised a public forum for 17 November 2008 to discuss the recommendations. The Inquiry and the directions recommended in the Report are constructive and dynamic. The Government’s response is keenly awaited.

Brett Odgers 11.11.08

Winter House listed on the State Heritage Register, 9 January 2009

The Winter House, designed by Walter Burley Griffin has been listed on the State Heritage Register. Also known as Redstone, the Winter House was built in 1935 at Telopea in Sydney’s west. The listing was announced by the Planning Minister, Kristina Keneally at a media event at the house on 9 January 2009.

The Winter House has exceptional intactness and integrity, and is the last Griffin house still remaining in the ownership of the family who commissioned it.

The house is an example of Griffin’s development of Prairie School principles that had their origin in the landscape-inspired houses of the early modern movement in Chicago.
The house is sited at the top of a rise within the Parramatta Valley with long views towards the Blue Mountains. It responds to the broad, open site of the undulating Cumberland Plain at Dundas. It is well set back on the intact original block, retaining its intended setting and layout.

Minister’s Media release_Redstone.pdf

Winter House listed on the State Heritage Register, 9 January 2009 |  1

The Minister for Planning the Hon. Kristina Keneally MP presents Winter House owner Mrs Kerry Lee with the Certificate of State Heritage Register Listing. Mr Tim Smith, Deputy Director, Heritage Branch, Department of Planning, and to the right Professor James Weirick, President of the Walter Burley Griffin Society look on.

Winter House listed on the State Heritage Register, 9 January 2009 |  2

The Winter House 2008. Photographer Eric Sierins

Winter House listed on the State Heritage Register, 9 January 2009 |  3

The Winter House 2008. Photographer Eric Sierins

Proposed planning 'reforms' threaten NSW heritage

The proposed reforms to the New South Wales planning system involve measures that, if implemented, pose significant threats to our built heritage.

The NSW state government revealed its sweeping proposals in November 2007 in a discussion paper titled ‘Improving the NSW Planning System’. In its submission in February 2008, the Walter Burley Griffin Society outlined issues that would be damaging to heritage generally and the Griffin Conservation Area at Castlecrag in particular. The Society’s full submission can be viewed below as a pdf.
In its submission (to briefly summarise) the Society stated that:

– the proposed standardisation of development consent conditions has the potential to irreversibly damage the highly sensitive and unique heritage of the Griffin Conservation Area;
– the proposed mandatory default code to define exempt and complying development which would allow for non-compliance, if introduced as a single statewide code, would be a counterproductive and backward step;
– existing council DCP standards that have been developed with extensive community input to address the special circumstances of environmentally sensitive and heritage areas (such as the Griffin Conservation Area) should be accredited as the complying code; and
– that proposals ‘to extend the ambit of exempt development’ should not be applied to heritage areas, particularly not the Griffin Conservation Area.

The state government received 538 submissions in response to the discussion paper. Since then on 3 April the government released its Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008.

The media release from the Minister of Planning Frank Sartor that accompanied it states the draft bill is “the first legislative step towards reinvigorating the NSW planning system. … Mr Sartor said many of the key reforms outlined in the discussion paper were reflected in the exposure bill”.

The bill has ignored the arguments put forward in the submissions and continues to seek a significant dumbing-down of standards both in urban design and architecture. The proposed blanket approach, if enacted, would inevitably lead to poor-quality outcomes.

The situation is summed up well in Moir’s cartoon in the Sydney Morning Herald of 7 April where Sartor, in the guise of Napoleon, sits at his desk with a sign behind him proclaiming “NSW Government … for the people in property development”

Public comment on the Bill closes on 24 April 2008.

Further information

WBGS letter-Planning reforms.pdf (140KB)