from: ross stevens [mailto:[email protected]] sent ...€¦ · from: ross stevens...

From: Ross Stevens [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, 14 January 2014 1:27 AM

To: ESDD, Customer Services <[email protected]>

Cc: Ross Stevens <[email protected]>

Subject: DA 201324434 - Block 2 Section 85 Nicholls (Gold creek country club)- objection

Dear Sir / Madam,

Re: DA 201324434

Block 2 Section 85 NICHOLLS (Gold Creek Country Club)

I wish to register my objection to the proposed Lease Variation for the land comprising the Gold Creek Country

Club that is proposed to subdivide the Crown Lease into two parcels.

The land is within Crown Lease Volume 1776 Folio 69 which comprises Block 2 Section 85; Block 1 Section 163;

Block 1 Section 165; Block 11 Section 86; Block 14 Section 86; Block 11 Section 88; Block 2 Section 157; Block 5

Section 156; Block 21 Section 89; Block 22 Section 89; Block 24 Section 89; and Block 1 Section 164 all within

the Division of Nicholls.

It is understood the Development Application (DA) is to separate Block 11 Section 86 from the other

Blocks. The effect of this subdivision, if approved, would be to divide the Gold Creek Country Club into two

entities being:

(1) the club house with restaurant and function areas, golf pro-shop, gymnasium, in-door

swimming pool, child care centre, play centre, tennis courts and car park, and

(2) 18 golf fairways with practice fairways and maintenance facilities only.

The Crown Lease for the property is for the land to be predominantly used as an outdoor recreation facility

(golf course). The golf course is the only purpose under the Crown Lease that MUST occur with the other uses

being discretionary.

The subdivision would separate the buildings and amenities (club house, car park, etc.) from the golf course

and allow Block 11 Section 86 to be detached and operate independently from the golf course. The golf course

would be left comprising 18 fairways and 3 practice fairways without a clubhouse, car park or other built

infrastructure.

Golf courses are marginal economic businesses and require a diversification of business operations to be,

overall, financially viable. Accordingly, the ancillary activities on the land of clubhouse, gymnasium,

restaurant, golf pro-shop, etc. are necessary components of the Gold Creek Country Club in adjunct to the golf

course.

The approval of the Lease Variation to sub divide into two parcels would make the golf course, being the

land without Block 11 Section 86, a non-economically viable Crown Lease.

If the golf course became un-sustainable, the predominant use for which the land has been developed and a

primary basis upon which the Nicholls suburb was created (by the ACT government) would be jeopardised.

It is considered that ACTPLA / ACT-EDD would be deficient in their responsibilities if they allowed a Lease

Variation that resulted in a Crown Lease that was not viable.

The land (golf course) without Block 11 Section 86 may require the Crown Lessee to build a new clubhouse

with car park given that there would be no requirement for the buildings on Block 11 Section to be used in

association with the golf course land. It is unlikely a Lessee would expend significant capital funds to develop a

clubhouse (effectively duplicating existing facilities) given the limited financial returns likely to be earned from

the golf course only without the other facilities, presently existing on Block 11 Section 86. Alternatively, any

new clubhouse to service the golf course may be of a low standard (and cost) not in keeping with the character

of the area.

Whilst it is understood that rights to “pass” and “re-pass” is proposed to be given over Block 11, this would not

give rights for parties to “stop” on the land (i.e. use the car park).

I would be prepared to reconsider my objection of an amendment was made to the proposed Lease variation

whereby only part of Block 11 Section 86 was subdivided into a separate block and the clubhouse, pro-shop

and parts of the car park remained with the golf course land.

In addition the DA proposes:

(a) The addition of ‘Child care centre’ and ‘Club’ as stand-alone uses on Block 11; (b) The deletion of ‘Commercial accommodation use’ from the permitted uses on Block 11 Section

86 Nicholls; and (c) The addition of ‘Hotel’, ‘Motel’ and ‘Guest house’ as permitted uses for Block 14 Section 86

Nicholls;

In relation to (a) I also object to the Club being a stand-alone use on Block 11 and consider it must remain

connected with the other land being used for the predominant purpose under the Crown Lease of an outdoor

recreational facility of 18 hole golf course. Separation of the club from the golf course land would jeopardise

the financial viability and predominant purpose of the land as a golf course.

I do not object to the deletion of Commercial accommodation as a use to Block 11 Section 86. The land is

presently extensively developed and is unlikely to be able to accommodate such a land use.

I do not object to the addition of Hotel, Motel and Guest House as a permitted use for Block 14 Section

86. Although I do note that land at Block 5 Section 39 Nicholls, adjoining Block 14, has existing approval for a

Hotel / Motel.

Finally, I note that the Crown Lessee is undertaking ad hoc development applications (e.g. indoor cricket

centre, relocation of maintenance facility, subdivision, etc.). I am of the view that a master plan should be

developed for the property to communicate the long term plans of the Crown Lessee for the property, to

ensure the ongoing viability of the property and to enable to Crown Lessee to maximise the potential of the

property with community support.

Your favourable consideration of my objection is sought.

Regards

Ross Stevens

5 Hoad Place

Nicholls ACT 2913

Phone: 0417 464 424

Email: [email protected]

From: McCoy, Linda

Sent: Tuesday, 14 January 2014 11:02 AM

To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>

Subject: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATION

Dear Sir/Madam,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATION

BLOCK 22 SECTION 89 SUBURB NICHOLLS

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NUMBER: 201324434

Thank you for your representation made 10/01/2014 regarding development

application number : 201324434.

The Notication period for this development has been extended to the 31st

January 2014.

The issues raised in your submission will be taken into consideration during the

assessment of the development application and you will be notified in writing

once a decision has been made.

Please Note - A copy of your representation will be forwarded to the

development application applicant and placed on the public register.

If you require any further information please contact Customer Services on

(02) 6207 1923.

Kind Regards

Customer Services p 6207 1923| e actpla customer [email protected] | web www.actpla.act.gov.au

From: McCoy, Linda Sent: Wednesday, 15 January 2014 11:24 AM To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Subject: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATION Dear Sir/Madam, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATION BLOCK 22 SECTION 89 SUBURB NICHOLLS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NUMBER: 201324434 Thank you for your representation made 14/01/2014 regarding development application number : 201324434 The issues raised in your submission will be taken into consideration during the assessment of the development application and you will be notified in writing once a decision has been made. The notification period of this development has been extended to 31/01/2014 Please Note - A copy of your representation will be forwarded to the development application applicant and placed on the public register. If you require any further information please contact Customer Services on (02) 6207 1923. Kind Regards Customer Services p 6207 1923| e [email protected] | web www.actpla.act.gov.au

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 14 January 2014 11:32 AM To: CORBELL <[email protected]>; ESDD, Customer Services <[email protected]> Cc: PORTER <[email protected]>; BOURKE <[email protected]>; COE <[email protected]>; Dawes, David <[email protected]>; BARR <[email protected]> Subject: REPRESENTATION AGAINST DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 201324434 Dear Minister and Customer Service Centre, Please see the attached Representation against Development Application 201324434. Yours faithfully Alec Campbell

Alec Campbell 23 Dobbin Circuit Nicholls ACT 2913 02 6241 8424

[email protected]

Simon Corbell MLA Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development ACT Legislative Assembly [email protected] & Customer Service Centre [email protected] Dear Minister, REPRESENTATION AGAINST DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 201324434 Please accept this letter as my formal representation against Development Application 201324434, which seeks to have lease variations across a variety of Blocks within Section 165 of the Nicholls Golf Course at 50 Curran Drive.

My objection is principally due to the lack of sufficient detail within the Development Application that would, if approved, enable significant development without reasonable recourse for representation from Nicholls residents. The residents have already been sideswiped by the lack of consultation that allowed what is often referred to as the neon monstrosity, ‘Let’s Play’, to be constructed within the confines of the Golf Club, and do not want further undesirable outcomes that would likely come about as a result of the Development Application being approved.

The lack of detail brings the owner’s short, medium and longer term intent into question, and how that would affect residents’ amenity, property value, access and egress, as well as noise and light pollution.

I was at the 8th of January Public Meeting that was attended by MLAs, Mary Porter, Chris Bourke and Alistair Coe, and I can assure you that the vast majority of residents had similar concerns about use, amenity, etc. Additionally, there was a common view that the Development Application had been promulgated at a time of year where people may not be available or have the time to consider if representation was necessary.

I would contend that the Merit Track Development Application is a one-sided view of life that takes no account of the residents’ views. If Merit Track had solicited and considered residents’ views, it, in consultation with the owners and potential developers, could reasonably have addressed them and given realistic reassurances rather than constrained speculative short paragraph answers to a standard series of questions; it solely addresses the environmental impacts of sub-division without consideration of the subsequent developments.

Whilst it is acknowledged that development is consistent with the Territory Plan, it must reasonably be sympathetic to the needs and address the concerns of the local community; as presented, the Development Application fails to achieve either.

Please know that I certainly support development that benefits community and business alike. However, I cannot see the benefit for the community in documents that purely address undisclosed business benefit. I am sure that others have written to you similarly about the Development Application and would ask you to intervene now and request sufficient detail and consulted substance regarding the short, medium and longer term intent and impacts of developing 50 Curran Drive. I would also be grateful for additional time to enable residents to make any necessary representations based upon an informed understanding.

Yours faithfully,

Alec Campbell

From: McCoy, Linda

Sent: Wednesday, 15 January 2014 12:02 PM

To: 'Joan Harmer' <[email protected]>

Subject: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATION

Dear Sir/Madam, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATION BLOCK 22 SECTION 89 SUBURB NICHOLLS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NUMBER: 201324434 Thank you for your representation made 14/01/2014 regarding development application number : 201324434 The issues raised in your submission will be taken into consideration during the assessment of the development application and you will be notified in writing once a decision has been made. The notification period of this development has been extended to 31/01/2014 Please Note - A copy of your representation will be forwarded to the development application applicant and placed on the public register. If you require any further information please contact Customer Services on (02) 6207 1923. Kind Regards Customer Services p 6207 1923| e actpla customer [email protected] | web www.actpla.act.gov.au

From: Joan Harmer [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, 14 January 2014 3:15 PM

To: ESDD, Customer Services <[email protected]>

Subject: Representation re: Development Application 201324434

Attention:

Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate

As residents of 5 Hendry Close Nicholls we have concerns about the DA for a Lease Variation in Nicholls:

DA 201324434

We would like further clarification about the following:

1. 1. The timing of the correspondence regarding the DA (i.e. the week prior to Christmas 2013-annual holiday

time/numerous public holidays) with a closing date for representations 14 Jan 2014 gave little time for a full

understanding of the implications of the proposal

2. 2. There is no visible signage regarding the DA in the vicinity of the proposed DA (e.g. Curran Drive). This

would surely be in contravention of the consultation process of the DA?

3. 3.The Proposal does not make clear the implications of the DA on the future of the land designated as “Golf

Course”. It is fair to speculate that this is the first step in the possible “rezoning” of the golf course for

something other than “outdoor recreation facility or “indoor recreation facility”.

This would have a devastating impact on the land values and amenity of present residents and future

residents. Overall, there is an urgent need to extend the consultation period for the DA in order to clarify some

of these issues for residents of the area.

Yours sincerely

Joan and Jeffrey Harmer

[email protected]

From: McCoy, Linda Sent: Wednesday, 15 January 2014 12:05 PM To: 'Hayley Thomas' <[email protected]> Subject: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATION

Dear Sir/Madam, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATION BLOCK 22 SECTION 89 SUBURB NICHOLLS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NUMBER: 201324434 Thank you for your representation made 14/01/2014 regarding development application number : 201324434 The issues raised in your submission will be taken into consideration during the assessment of the development application and you will be notified in writing once a decision has been made. The notification period of this development has been extended to 31/01/2014 Please Note - A copy of your representation will be forwarded to the development application applicant and placed on the public register. If you require any further information please contact Customer Services on (02) 6207 1923. Kind Regards Customer Services p 6207 1923| e actpla customer [email protected] | web www.actpla.act.gov.au

From: Hayley Thomas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 14 January 2014 4:43 PM To: ESDD, Customer Services <[email protected]> Subject: Representation re: Development Application 201324434

Attention: Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate

As residents of 77 Sue Geh Circuit Nicholls, we would like to raise the following concerns regarding the DA for a Lease Variation in Nicholls:

DA 201324434

We would like further clarification about the following:

1. The timing of the correspondence regarding the DA (i.e. the week prior to Christmas 2013 annual holiday time/numerous public holidays) with a closing date for representations 14 Jan 2014 gave little time for a full understanding of the implications of the proposal.

2. There is no visible signage regarding the DA in the vicinity of the proposed DA (e.g. Curran Drive). Is this in contravention of the consultation process of the DA?

3. The Proposal does not make clear the implications of the DA on the future of the land designated as “Golf Course”. It is fair to speculate that this is the first step in the possible “rezoning” of the golf course for something other than “outdoor recreation facility or “indoor recreation facility”.

This would have a devastating impact on the land values and amenity of present residents and future residents.

We believe there is an urgent need to extend the consultation period for the DA in order to clarify some of these issues for residents of the area.

Yours sincerely

Paula and Chris Thomas

[email protected]

"Important: This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error please notify the author immediat

From: ESDD, Customer Services Sent: Thursday, 2 January 2014 4:11 PM To: Peter Longmuir <[email protected]> Subject: RE: DA 201324434 Dear Peter, Thank you for your email. I have received your enquiry and forwarded to the leasing section for advice.

Kind Regards

Fred Arugay | Assistant Manager | Customer Services Phone 02 6207 1797 | Fax 02 6207 1925 | Regulation and Services Division | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government

16 Challis Street Dickson ACT 2602 | GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 | www.actpla.act.gov.au

From: Peter Longmuir [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, 30 December 2013 9:42 PM To: ESDD, Customer Services

Subject: DA 201324434

Prior to submitting my comments in relation to the above DA, in particular the proposed lease variation, would it be possible to electronically view the original lease agreement following the lease of land contained in Volume 1776 Folio 69 (50 Curren Drive) on 31/5/06 (registered 7/7/06) by the ACT Government to Gungahlin Golf Investments Pty Ltd (Konstantinou Group). Yours Sincerely Peter Longmuir 19 Ayers Fowler Street, Nicholls.

From: ESDD, Customer Services Sent: Friday, 3 January 2014 11:42 AM To: Peter Longmuir <[email protected]> Subject: RE: DA 201324434 Dear Peter Longmuir, I have been advised by our leasing department that to obtain a copy of the Crown lease, you can contact the Office of Regulatory Services in Fyshwick and purchase a copy. The office can be contacted on 6207 0491. I have attached an application form for your reference.

Kind Regards

Fred Arugay | Assistant Manager | Customer Services Phone 02 6207 1797 | Fax 02 6207 1925 | Regulation and Services Division | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government

16 Challis Street Dickson ACT 2602 | GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 | www.actpla.act.gov.au

From: Peter Longmuir [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, 30 December 2013 9:42 PM To: ESDD, Customer Services

Subject: DA 201324434

Prior to submitting my comments in relation to the above DA, in particular the proposed lease variation, would it be possible to electronically view the original lease agreement following the lease of land contained in Volume 1776 Folio 69 (50 Curren Drive) on 31/5/06 (registered 7/7/06) by the ACT Government to Gungahlin Golf Investments Pty Ltd (Konstantinou Group). Yours Sincerely Peter Longmuir 19 Ayers Fowler Street, Nicholls.

From: Pankhurst, Owen Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2014 12:22 PM To: 'John Smeeth' <[email protected]> Cc: ESDD, Customer Services <[email protected]>; ACTPLA DA Leasing <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Development Application 201324434 - Lease Variation Dear Mr Smeeth The application is currently under assessment and a decision has not been reached. As a representor you will receive notice of the decision via email from ESDD Customer Services once the Decision is made. Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected] From: John Smeeth [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2014 9:45 AM

To: Pankhurst, Owen Subject: FW: Development Application 201324434 - Lease Variation

Hello Owen As per email trail below could you please advise that current position in relation to the above DA … As the Notification Period lapsed some 10 weeks ago would appreciate an update. Regards John E Smeeth Owner Manager City Walk, Canberra BOQCity Walk, Shop CG07 The Canberra Centre, Canberra ACT 2601 PO Box 431, Civic Square, ACT 2608 t: 02 6209 1840 0427 011 533 f: 02 6209 1850 e: [email protected] www.boq.com.au

From: ESDD, Customer Services [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2014 9:21 AM To: John Smeeth

Subject: RE: Development Application 201324434 - Lease Variation

Good morning John,

The Development Approval is still under assessment with Owen Pankhurst (assessing officer) a decision has not been made as yet. If you would like to contact Owen please call the customer services number on 6207 1923 and we can put you through to Owen, alternatively you can email Owen on [email protected]. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact ESDD. Kind Regards, Samantha | Team Leader | Customer Services Officer Phone - 02 6207 1923 Customer Services Branch | ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, Challis Street Dickson | GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 | www.actpla.act.gov.au I [email protected] From: John Smeeth [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2014 8:02 AM

To: ESDD, Customer Services Subject: FW: Development Application 201324434 - Lease Variation

Dear Sir/Madam Referring to my below submission submitted to you on the 10/1/14 and duly acknowledged as received. Could you please update on the current position in relation to the DA … the silence has been deafening ! Regards John E Smeeth Owner Manager City Walk, Canberra BOQCity Walk, Shop CG07 The Canberra Centre, Canberra ACT 2601 PO Box 431, Civic Square, ACT 2608 t: 02 6209 1840 0427 011 533 f: 02 6209 1850 e: [email protected] www.boq.com.au

From: John Smeeth

Sent: Friday, 10 January 2014 10:05 AM To: '[email protected]'

Subject: Development Application 201324434 - Lease Variation

Dear Sir/Madam Please find attached my response to the above DA for your consideration. Thank you for the opportunity.

Regards John E Smeeth Owner Manager City Walk, Canberra BOQCity Walk, Shop CG07 The Canberra Centre, Canberra ACT 2601 PO Box 431, Civic Square, ACT 2608 t: 02 6209 1840 0427 011 533 f: 02 6209 1850 e: [email protected] www.boq.com.au

NOTICE

(You must not remove this notice from this email)

This email and any attachments are confidential and may contain the Bank's confidential information. This email may also contain legally privileged information or confidential information of other parties. Receipt of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient is not intended to, and does not, waive legal professional privilege. This email is for authorised recipients only. You should not transmit or distribute this email unless you are authorised to do so.

If you are not an authorised recipient, you should contact the Bank of Queensland immediately by return e-mail. You should not use, send, store or print this email or any attachments to it. You should immediately delete the email and any attachments to it from your database and destroy all copies of it. You should not rely on the contents of this email or any attachments to it. No warranty is made that this email or any attachment is free from viruses or other defect or error.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. -----------------------------------------------------------------------

GPO Box 1908, Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au

Jeremy C.M Stokoe 18/23 Temperley Street NICHOLLS, ACT, 2913 Dear Jeremy C.M Stokoe

Acknowledgement of Receipt of Submission BLOCK 2 SECTION 85 NICHOLLS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 201324434 Thank you for your submission postmarked 10/01/2014 regarding above DA. Your submission has been recorded as a representation to the above mentioned development application. The issues raised in your submission will be taken into consideration during the assessment of the application and you will be notified in writing once a decision has been made. If you require any further information please contact the Customer Services on (02) 6207 1923. Yours faithfully

Customer Services p 6207 1923| e actpla customer [email protected] | web www.actpla.act.gov.au

From: ESDD, Customer Services On Behalf Of ACTPLA Customer Services Sent: Monday, 20 January 2014 9:24 AM To: Dean Parham (priv) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Comment on DA 201324434 Dear Sir/Madam, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATION BLOCK 22 SECTION 89 SUBURB NICHOLLS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NUMBER: 201324434 Thank you for your representation made 19/01/2014 regarding development application number : 201324434 The issues raised in your submission will be taken into consideration during the assessment of the development application and you will be notified in writing once a decision has been made. The notification period of this development has been extended to 31/01/2014 Please Note - A copy of your representation will be forwarded to the development application applicant and placed on the public register. If you require any further information please contact Customer Services on (02) 6207 1923. Kind Regards Customer Services p 6207 1923| e actpla customer [email protected] | web www.actpla.act.gov.au -----Original Message----- From: Dean Parham (priv) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, 19 January 2014 8:50 PM To: ESDD, Customer Services Subject: Comment on DA 201324434 Dear Sir/Madam Please find attached a submission commenting on DA 201324434. Yours faithfully Dean Parham 9 Rumbelow Ct Nicholls Ph 0401 353 024 --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

From: Dean Parham (priv) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, 19 January 2014 8:50 PM To: ESDD, Customer Services <[email protected]> Subject: Comment on DA 201324434 Dear Sir/Madam Please find attached a submission commenting on DA 201324434. Yours faithfully Dean Parham 9 Rumbelow Ct Nicholls Ph 0401 353 024 --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

9 Rumbelow Ct Nicholls ACT 2913

19 January 2014

ACT Planning and Land Authority via email: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam

Development Application 201324434

I would like to comment on the above proposal which, as I understand it, is to separate a section (Block 11 Section 86) from the current Gold Creek Country Club (GCCC) site and to vary the lease purpose on the section and on the remaining GCCC site.

While I do not necessarily have objections to further development on the GCCC site, I do have objections to the current proposal. They are that the current proposal:

• provides opportunity for only a piecemeal assessment of potential development on the GCCC site; and

• leaves open the possibility of multiple ownership of assets on the site, which could lead to significant deterioration in a site that is of significant community benefit.

Piecemeal assessment

The merits of the proposal to change the lease purpose on the GCCC site depend absolutely on the way in which the proposed section and the remaining site may be subsequently developed. However, the proposal does not set out the scope of plans or intentions on the nature and positioning of future development.

Recommendation: The proponent should be required to submit a plan outlining the nature and position of future developments. There should be a period of further community consultation to consider such a plan. This would not, of course, replace the need for subsequent development applications for specific structures. However, any change in the current lease purpose should be subject to clear parameters on what can be built where.

Multiple ownership

Press reports have it that the proponent intends to sell land and/or developed assets, if the proposal is accepted. This seems, at least in part, to be a response to the claimed losses being made on the golf course proper. I have two issues with the potential for multiple ownership of assets on the GCCC site.

The normal commercial reality is that if the owner of a commercial asset is not making sufficient return, the owner may be ultimately forced to sell the asset (at a loss) to someone who can better manage the business and make an adequate return on the (lower) purchase price. To grant the

proponent in this case a subdivision and changes in lease purpose would be to gift the business an increase in asset value – unless there is a 100% betterment tax. There is no fairness case for this to happen. It also may not be the best solution to the current problem. It may be best to get a new owner/manager.

The second issue is that multiple ownership, combined with changes in lease purpose, would not lead to the best outcome for the GCCC site. The incentive would be to develop assets that maximise sale price and not necessarily to enhance the whole GCCC site in a way that balances private financial interest with community amenity.

Very importantly, multiple ownership would very likely lead to a deterioration in the maintenance standards and amenity value of the golf course. If the golf course is truly the loss-making enterprise that the proponent claims, sale of ancillary assets and ventures would remove current and potential sources of cash-flow that could be used to support the maintenance and upkeep of the golf course—the principal asset on the site. Since the golf course is so central to the amenity of the GCCC site, this has to be a prime consideration.

In short, there is no problem per se in having ancillary assets and ventures. But separate sale of individual ancillary assets and ventures would pose potentially severe problems.

Recommendation: If the proposal to change lease purpose is to be granted, it be subject to the rider that no individual parcels of land or developments can be sold to other entities. Only the entire GCCC site can be subject to sale.

Yours faithfully

Dean Parham

From: ACTPLA Customer Services Sent: Monday, 20 January 2014 2:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: DA201324434

Dear Sir/Madam,


DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: 201324432

BLOCK: 1 SECTION: 163 DIVISION: NICHOLLS




assessment of the development application and you will be notified in writing once

a decision has been made.

Please Note - A copy of your representation will be forwarded to the development

application applicant and placed on the public register.

If you require any further information please contact Customer Services on (02) 6207

1923.

Regards Customer Services

Phone 02 6207 1923 Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected] From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, 20 January 2014 10:27 AM

To: ESDD, Customer Services Subject: DA201324434

A am writing as a resident of Nicholls and a member of the Gold Creek Country Club, regarding DA201324434. I am perturbed and suspicious of this DA. Firstly, as a member of the golf club, I have received no correspondence from the golf club regarding the DA. Secondly, the timing of the DA over the Christmas period. It was originally scheduled to close for submissions in mid January (now extended to end of January).

I have no particular objections about the business proposals in the DA, as long as subsequent developments along Curran Drive fit in with the general environment of the area. My strong objection is there is no long term commitment regarding the golf course and a club house for members. It is also crucial that the course remain as an open space for all Nicholls residents. Therefore, in considering the DA, can you please ensure that long term operation of the golf course is addressed. If there is a commitment to the golf course, residents will feel much more comfortable about their future in the area. Regards Graham Boxsell Sent from Windows Mail

From: ACTPLA Customer Services Sent: Monday, 20 January 2014 2:50 PM To: John S. Kiley <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Gold Creek Country Club DA 201324434

Dear Sir/Madam,












(02) 6207 1923.

Regards Customer Services Phone 02 6207 1923 Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected] From: John S. Kiley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, 20 January 2014 1:00 PM

To: ESDD, Customer Services

Subject: Gold Creek Country Club DA 201324434

Hi

Please find attached my objection to this development. Please call or reply if you require

any further information.

Kind Regards,

John

John S. Kiley BComm DipFP

Certified Financial Planner Authorised and Credit Representative [WealthSure Pty Ltd] (02) 6243 5176 (telephone) 0417 228 142 (mobile) www.jsk.net.au (web) IN BUSINESS, THE GREATEST COMPLIMENT IS A REFERRAL John S. Kiley (ASIC Representative 255349) is an Authorised and Credit Representative and JSK Wealth Solutions Pty

Ltd (ASIC Representative Authorisation 345917) is a Corporate Authorised and Corporate Credit Representative of

WEALTHSURE PTY LTD ∫ Australian Financial Services Licensee and Australian Credit Licensee 238030.

Important: This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error please contact us and delete all copies. Before

opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss damage or consequence whether caused

by the negligence of the sender or not resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to

resupplying any affected attachments. General Advice Warning: The information contained in this email is of a general nature only. It

does not consider your specific needs or circumstances. You should look at your own personal situation and requirements before

making any financial decisions. You should also refer to the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any financial

decision. Disclaimer: The information in this e-mail is provided for your personal information only and is believed to be accurate and

reliable. No liability is accepted for any loss by any person in reliance in such information whether by reason of error omission or

negligence. The information contained in this e-mail message and any attached files may be of a confidential nature and may also

be the subject of professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use disclosure or copying of this e-mail is unauthorised.

If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this transmission

together with any attachments. As per the Privacy Act personal information will not be disclosed or used for any other purpose without

your prior consent unless required by law. Disclosure: John S. Kiley trading as JSK Wealth Solutions and/or WealthSure Pty Ltd trading

as WealthSure Financial Services may have an interest in or a financial or other interest in the acquisition or disposal of securities of the

class mentioned above.

Certified Financial Planner (CFP) are certification marks owned outside the U.S. by Financial Planning Standards Board Ltd. Financial

Planning Association of Australia Limited is the marks licensing authority for the CFP marks in Australia through agreement with FSB.

From: John S. Kiley [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, 20 January 2014 1:00 PM To: ESDD, Customer Services

Subject: Gold Creek Country Club DA 201324434

Hi

Please find attached my objection to this development. Please call or reply if you require

any further information.

Kind Regards,

John

John S. Kiley BComm DipFP

Certified Financial Planner Authorised and Credit Representative [WealthSure Pty Ltd] (02) 6243 5176 (telephone) 0417 228 142 (mobile) www.jsk.net.au (web) IN BUSINESS, THE GREATEST COMPLIMENT IS A REFERRAL John S. Kiley (ASIC Representative 255349) is an Authorised and Credit Representative and JSK Wealth Solutions Pty

Ltd (ASIC Representative Authorisation 345917) is a Corporate Authorised and Corporate Credit Representative of

WEALTHSURE PTY LTD ∫ Australian Financial Services Licensee and Australian Credit Licensee 238030.

Important: This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error please contact us and delete all copies. Before

opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss damage or consequence whether caused

by the negligence of the sender or not resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to

resupplying any affected attachments. General Advice Warning: The information contained in this email is of a general nature only. It

does not consider your specific needs or circumstances. You should look at your own personal situation and requirements before

making any financial decisions. You should also refer to the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any financial

decision. Disclaimer: The information in this e-mail is provided for your personal information only and is believed to be accurate and

reliable. No liability is accepted for any loss by any person in reliance in such information whether by reason of error omission or

negligence. The information contained in this e-mail message and any attached files may be of a confidential nature and may also

be the subject of professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use disclosure or copying of this e-mail is unauthorised.

If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this transmission

together with any attachments. As per the Privacy Act personal information will not be disclosed or used for any other purpose without

your prior consent unless required by law. Disclosure: John S. Kiley trading as JSK Wealth Solutions and/or WealthSure Pty Ltd trading

as WealthSure Financial Services may have an interest in or a financial or other interest in the acquisition or disposal of securities of the

class mentioned above.

Certified Financial Planner (CFP) are certification marks owned outside the U.S. by Financial Planning Standards Board Ltd. Financial

Planning Association of Australia Limited is the marks licensing authority for the CFP marks in Australia through agreement with FSB.

From: ACTPLA Customer Services Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014 2:08 PM To: John Hayford <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Gold Creek Golf Course Development DA 021324434

Dear Sir/Madam,












(02) 6207 1923.

Regards Customer Services Phone 02 6207 1923 Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected] From: John Hayford [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, 22 January 2014 9:36 PM To: CORBELL

Cc: COE; Dunne, Vicki; PORTER; BOURKE; ESDD, Customer Services

Subject: Gold Creek Golf Course Development DA 021324434

Dear Minister Corbell, We are writing to you as the Minister for the Environment & Sustainable Development and as a member of the standing committee for Planning & Environment with copies to all MLAs of the Ginninderra electorate and to ACTPLA to express our concern about DA 021324434.

We did not receive notification of the DA even though we own 2 properties in Ryder Place & Temperley St, both of which front onto the golf course on holes 6 & 2 respectively. We note that date for submission of comments on the DA has been extended from 14/1/14 to 31/01 14.

DA 021324434 has been cleverly crafted by CBRE to provide minimal information as to the future intentions of the owner. Block 11/86 is to be separated from the actual golf course with the existing uses of the child care center and the Clubhouse to become stand alone which would allow them to be sold, possibly to the existing tenants. As Block 11/86 is zoned CZ6: Leisure and Accommodation, it could then be subdivided and unit titled. Hotel, Motel & Guest house are being added to Block14/86 which are permitted uses under Zone PRZ2 for Block 14.

In the absence of better and more detailed information from the owner, we can only speculate on the fate of the golf course. After DA approval, it is possible that the golf course could be left without a clubhouse and pro-shop either on Block 11 or Block 14. The owner could then walk away from the ownership of the golf course which would revert to the ACT Government. The ACT Government has already demonstrated that it doesn't want to own the golf course and would likely look to subdivide the course into residential blocks. This result would be unacceptable to the many Nicholls residents like us who paid a premium to front onto the golf course. It appears to us that the owner is looking to profit handsomely from the subdivision of Block 11 and to divorce himself from the golf course and its ongoing maintenance ($500,000pa according to the Canberra Times) and this may well have been his original intention when he purchased the Gold Creek golf course from the ACT Government.

It is our view that no golf course is a viable stand-alone business without the support of a substantial existing club such as the Ainslie Football club Group or the Southern Cross Club. We also recognise that the Konstantinou Group as the present owner cannot be expected to continue to operate the golf course at a loss without offsetting this loss by the development and sale of their land & building assets. It is our view that the present owner would prefer to walk away from the financial drain of maintaining the golf course after DA approval of Block 11 if that opportunity was available to him. A possible solution which may be acceptable to all parties, ie the Konstantinou Group, the Nicholls residents, the ACT Government , ACTPLA and the Southern Cross Club as a potential future owner of the golf course could be as follows:

ACT Govt to approach the Southern Cross Club to ask if they would be interested in building new club premises on Block 14 to service the Gungahlin area which is forecast to grow to a population of 130,000. We would envisage a similar club/golf course development as the existing Gungahlin Lakes Club by the Ainslie Group. Block 14 comprising the 3 practice fairways would be large enough to accommodate new club premises including parking whereas the existing clubhouse on Block 11 was always too small to support the golf course.

Konstantinou Group to sell the 18 hole Gold Creek golf course + Block 14 to the ACT Govt for a peppercorn fee in return for approval of DA 201324434 (now limited to Block 11). Timing of DA approval to coincide with conclusion of the sale of the golf course + Block 14 to ACT Govt. Konstantinou Group to continue to maintain the golf course until settlement of sale.

ACT Govt to on-sell the 18 hole golf course + Block 14 to the ACT Southern Cross Club. Southern Cross Club to take over maintenance of the golf course from Konstantinou Group immediately after purchase from ACT Govt.

Nicholls residents lose the 3 practice fairways but gain a Gungahlin Southern Cross Club complete with championship 18 hole Gold Creek golf course.

Uncertainty over the future of the golf course is resolved. Everybody wins.

We are also signatories to the submission prepared by Denis Waters on behalf of Nicholls residents to ACTPLA and relevant members of parliament. However we believe the alternative solution outlined above also merits your serious consideration as we believe it offers greater certainty for the future of the golf course than any proposed solution that leaves ownership of the golf course with the Konstantinou Group. The golf course will always remain a financial drain on their ancilliary activities on the golf course site. Please sound out the parties to see whether the proposed alternative is possible. Submitted for your consideration.

Sincerely. John & Jenny Hayford 6 Ryder Place Nicholls ACT 2913

From: ACTPLA Customer Services Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014 2:15 PM To: Julie England <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Development Application: 201324434

Dear Sir/Madam,












(02) 6207 1923.

Regards Customer Services Phone 02 6207 1923 Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected] From: Julie England [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014 9:00 AM To: ESDD, Customer Services

Cc: [email protected]

Subject: Development Application: 201324434

ESDD Customer Service Centre (ACT Government)

Dear Sir/Madam

This submission is in response to Development Application 201324434 found on the ACTPLA website which closes on 31 January 2014 (revised dated). http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/deadline-extended-on-gold-creek-country-club-proposal-20140117-310my.html

I initially became aware of this Development Application on 21 January 2014 through a flyer created by a concerned Nicholls resident and subsequently visited the ACTLA Office on 22 January for more details. Given the lack of consultation over the notification for this proposal - being over the lead up to Christmas and the following New Year holiday period and the short time frame for my ability to check the Development Application I submit the following:

I believe that the above Development Application has a potential for impact on my own block as it backs onto the Gold Creek Golf Course (Golf Course Lease).

At this time I am opposed to the subdivision of Block 11 86 Division of Nicholls from the other properties comprising the subject property (as described in the Development Application) resulting in two parcels of land (Block 11 Section 86 Nicholls and Block 14 Section 86) – the subdivision of Section 86 which appears to have the ability to create another completely separate parcel of land (originally Block 11 Section 86) and appears to enable this new parcel of land as a possible saleable commodity along with the Child Care Centre and the ‘Club’.

I am opposed on the basis that the existing lease use of MUST is transformed in the proposed lease variation use as MAY which now leaves me with some future uncertainty in the resulting lease for the running and functioning of the golf course in the Gold Creek Harcourt Hill Development.

From details provided in the Gold Creek Golf Course Lease Variation Report prepared for the Konstantinou Group - pgs 6 and 7 describes the existing Crown Lease clauses and make mention among other matters that the lease at 3(a)(i) MUST consist of a golf course and a MINIMUM of EIGHTEEN (18) HOLES and at 3(a)(ii) either Block 11 OR Block 14 Section 86 support a swimming pool, gymnasium, spa and sauna, outdoor recreation facility with tennis courts and a CLUB to include A GOLF CLUB BUILDING, RESTAURANT and ANXILLARY FACILITIES PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT such use is ANCILLARY to the PREDOMINANT USE of Block 11 Section 86 Division of Nicholls OR Block 14 Section 86 Division Nicholls.

On Block 11 Section 86 a Club consisting of a Golf Club Building, restaurant and ancillary facilities (there is a Golf Pro Shop as listed on (http://www.goldcreekcountryclub.com.au/home/proshop.cfm) was built supporting the Golf course. In addition a swimming pool, Child care centre, tennis courts and indoor recreational facility were built on the same Block.

Block 11 Section 86 was chosen for all this development.

It is proposed as well that the ‘Child Centre Centre’ and ‘Club’ become stand alone with various amendments relating to ‘pass’ and ‘repass’ rights for these two proposed properties to reflect the possible new circumstances for the singe title property. I imagine this will bring some possible future financial autonomy for the owners of these operations separate to the Gungahlin Golf Investments Pty Ltd. I was led to believe given at my visit to ACTPLA that through the subdivision of Block 11 Section 86 and Block 14 Section 86 it would be possible for Block 11 Section 86 to be sold.

The Development Application proposed lease variation for Block 11 Section 86 creates at 3 (a) (i) a CLUB INCLUDING RESTAURANT AND ANXILLARY FACILITIES, Child Care Centre, indoor swimming pool, gymnasium, spa, sauna, and at 3(a) (iv) tennis courts and ANCILLARY SHOP RESTRICTED TO RETAIL AND HIRE OF SPORTING AND/OR LEISURE GOODS (Possible tennis hire/tennis goods retail and/or general sports goods retail?).

The proposal for the CLUB has had any reference to A GOLF CLUB BUILDING removed and creates a probable lack of support on Block 11 SECTION 86 to the rest of the Golf Course Crown Lease should a subdivision take place, since the description for the use premises for the following purpose: the lease at 3(a) (i)MUST consist of a golf course and a MINIMUM of EIGHTEEN (18) HOLES has also been removed in the suggested lease variation.

The Development Application proposed lease variation after the subdivision takes place for the future remaining Golf Course Crown Lease land transfers the outdoor recreation facility that MUST consist of a golf course and a MINIMUM of EIGHTEEN (18) HOLES to the responsibility to Block 14 Section 86 which only MAY build a CLUB (no mention of Golf Clubhouse), MAY build a Child Care Centre, MAY build a Guest House, MAY build a Hotel, MAY build a Motel, MAY build an Indoor Recreational Facility, MAY build an Outdoor Facility.

The action has changed from MUST to MAY and therefore MAY not even occur.

Therefore after subdivision of proposed blocks into two parcels of land, it could quite possibly mean that the ‘balance’ being the ‘Golf Course land’ under the Golf Course Crown Lease, which includes Block 14 Section 86, is left without a Clubhouse.

If any subdivision is to take place – I suggest that this is after at least a Golf Clubhouse etc has been built on Block 14 Section 86 - otherwise this particular proposed variation action nullifies the original intention of the initial Golf course proposal in the 1990’s.

I attempted to check the Block and Section status of other golf courses in Canberra for the club golf house and golf course land using the ACTPLA tool (http://www.actmapi.act.gov.au) and found that Yowani (Lyneham), Belconnen Magpies (Holt), Federal (Redhill), Royal Canberra (Yarralumla), Murrumbidgee (Kambah) and Canberra International (Narrabundah), on ALL sites both Clubhouse and golf course land were located on a SINGLE Block and Section number.

The Gungahlin Lakes - ‘Gungahlin Lakes Golf Club’ was on three different Block and Sections and incidentally at (http://www.gungahlinlakes.com/cms/) Gungahlin Lakes Golf Club describes itself as located in the northern suburb of Nicholls – Does that give Nicholls the honour of being the only suburb in Canberra which can claim TWO golf course businesses competing and operating in the same one suburb? The site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholls,_Australian_Capital_Territory

Describes the Lakes Golf Course as financially supported by the Ainslie Football and Social Club and “from 1989 to 2003 over $20m was spent constructing the Clubhouse, purpose built undercover corporate facilities including a private bar, toilets and locker rooms”.

Interestingly Gold Creek Golf Course makes up MANY Blocks and Sections in the Division of Nicholls according to the information on http://www.actmapi.act.gov.au

Consists of:

Block 11 Section 86

Block 14 Section 86

Block 2 Section 85

Block 2 Section 157 – maintenance, pump house and blacksmith’s shop

Block 5 Section 156 – only for access




Block 11Section 88 – only for access (?)

Block 2 Section 85 – only for access (?)

Block 22 Section 89 – only for access (?)

Block 21 Section 89 – only for Access (?)

The particular Blocks and Sections notated above with a (?) – their information is missing from the Development Application listing of Blocks and Sections on pages 7 and 10 of the Gold Creek Golf Course Lease Variation Report. I do not understand the reason for this.

Reports of operating at a loss are reported in the Canberra Times (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/deadline-extended-on-gold-creek-country-club-proposal-20140117-310my.html)

After the subdivision the ‘Club’ on Block 11 Section 86 is ‘stand alone’ and can be sold and does not have a responsibility to provide a service to the ‘Golf Course land’ under the Golf Course Crown Lease on Block 14 Section 86, and on Block 14 Section 86 a golf club house is not confirmed by the new lease arrangements (although according to (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/residents-angered-by-gold-creek-country-club-redevelopment-plans-20140107-30fqn.html) plans were approved last year to build an indoor sports centre) and one could speculate on any number of scenarios for the future when only MAY instead of MUST is inserted in relation to a facility service anything like a golf club house on Block 14 Section 86 – and I am concerned that another lease variation could possibly take place ‘down the track’ for Block 14, Section 86 and Block 2 Section 157 and Block 11 Section 88 which together cater for NINE (9) Holes golf course through a reduction in size of the present golf course to ensure the survival of the Gungahlin Golf Investments Pty Ltd owned by The Konstantinou Group with the balance golf lease land doing I do not know what.

Many Residents are potentially affected by this proposal, those who bought properties initially from the early development of ‘Harcourt Hill’ (see http://www.cicaustralia.com.au/project/completed/harcourt hill.php) with this development being a Joint Venture (see http://www.parliament.act.gov.au/in-committees/previous-assemblies/Standing-Committees-Second-Assembly/Standing-Committee-on-Planning-Development-and-Infrastructure/08-DV-Gungahlin-Harcourt-Hill-Joint-Venture-Development-Griffith-Section-84-West-Belconnen-Braddon-Section-22) offering a certain

lifestyle based around a Country Club and also those people in throughout the late 1990’s and into the early twenty-first century making later established home purchases.

http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive id=0&page id=1321489526&page url=//www.canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=local&story_id=432261&category=General%20News&m=10&y=2005&page_last_updated=2005-11-19T00:52:41&firstName=Harry&lastName=Konstantinou an archived article, mentions the Country Club opened in 1999 as part of the ‘Harcourt Hill development’ and ‘the ACT Government became a part-owner of the facility in 1997 as the original project got caught in the 1996-97 drop in the housing market’ and due to the ACT government bolstering the ‘Harcourt Development’ people bought and paid premium prices to purchase in the area.

Similarly later after 2003, prices paid by people for their homes on ‘the Island’ (see http://developments.independent.com.au/the island/location.html) reflected the position in proximity to a golf course.

The ACT Government became involved even though later the Riot Act website claims http://the-riotact.com/psstwanna-buy-a-golf-course/1355 then Planning Minister Simon Corbell “says ‘The ACT Government should not be in the business of running golf courses’ “. Later the announcement of the sale of the Country Club and Golf Course was made http://info.cmcd.act.gov.au/archived-media-releases/mediaef8c.html?v=3806&s=325 mentioning a proposed investment of $15 million.

I am only opposed to the subdivision - and only at this time - because under the proposal it appears to me that no certainty appears to exist in concrete terms for a Golf Club house to support the Golf Course Lease land once the subdivision has taken place (see http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/residents-angered-by-gold-creek-country-club-redevelopment-plans-20140107-30fqn.html)

Should a definite CLUB OR ANY OTHER AFORE MENTIONED STYLE OF BUILDING HOTEL/MOTEL/GUEST HOUSE INCLUDE A GOLF CLUB BUILDING be made mandatory in the lease for Block 14 Section 86 then I would have fewer doubts about the viability of the subdivision. I have no reservations about the other proposals in the lease variation in the Development Application and genuinely wish The Konstantinou Group company success in its development endeavours for the Eighteen Hole (18) golf course and country club, which is integral to the original Harcourt Hill Development.

Julie England

24 January 2014

(I will provide a typed copy of this email in the post to the Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate (ESDD) located at 16 Challis Street, Dickson, via Customer Services PO Box 365 Mitchell, 2911, ACT.

From: ESDD, Customer Services Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014 3:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: 01-RE-REPRESENTATION-201324434-HIGGINS, J-01

Dear Judy Higgins,












(02) 6207 1923.

Regards

Customer Services

Phone 02 6207 1923 Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected] From: Judy Higgins [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014 8:14 AM

To: ESDD, Customer Services

Subject: application 201324434 Block 2 Section 85

28 January 2014 Dear Sir / Madam Re: application 201324434 Block 2 Section 85

I would like it if you would not agree to the application to divide the block. I purchased a block of land overlooking the golf course, purely for that reason, it was overlooking the golf course. Because it backed onto a golf course we (people who have the golf course as either their front, side or back neighbour) paid a higher price than other land in Harcourt Hill – Nicholls. We also had to comply with rules as to how our house was built and what sort of fence was used and where clothes lines were put. The KG group do not comply with this rule as can be seen by the Play Room shed that built, no tin / galvanised iron sheds were allowed but this is made of tin / galvanised iron. If you agree to this application for a proposal of the addition of “Hotel, Motel or Guest House” it will impact on the selling price of houses and therefore I feel that the ACT Government should be held responsible for any losses that we (people who have the golf course as either their front, side or back neighbour) might get when we go to sell our houses. All information that was given to residents when their houses / blocks of land were built / purchased from Harcourt Hill developers and CIC stated that the Golf Course would always remain a Golf Course and would never be developed on. Once the block of land referred to in this application is separated one assumes that either one of the land blocks will be sold and there will be no stopping new developments from happening. Also their will be no access to the larger area and this will cause a problem and could result in a large sum of money being asked for by KG group if they manage to sell the Golf Course off at a later date. Therefore making this application a revenue application rather than a development application Thankyou Judy Higgins Nicholls Resident GPO Box 1026 CANBERRA 2601

From: ESDD, Customer Services Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014 4:18 PM To: [email protected] Subject: 29-RE-REPRESENTATION-201324434-FALZON, C&G-01

Dear Sir/Madam,












(02) 6207 1923.

Regards Customer Services Phone 02 6207 1923 Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected]

From: Charles and Grace Falzon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2014 11:07 AM To: ESDD, Customer Services <[email protected]> Subject: Response to Gold Creek Golf Course DA 201324434

Dear Sir/Madam, Response to Golf Course Development Application We wish to object to the development application (DA 201324434) proposed for the Gold Creek Golf Course.

The development application is not a well prepared document. It provides minimal information as to the nature of the proposed re-purposing of the blocks and gives no outline of the long term strategic plan for the area. As such, this makes it difficult to provide an informed response. We believe there was more detail on the intended plans for the golf course in an article in the 'Canberra Times' on 8/1/14 than there is in the DA.

The golf course was purchased from the ACT Government for a very reasonable $3 million and since then there has not been much consideration for the original design of the area. The 'Lets Play' centre, built next to Curran Drive, is an example of this. It is a building that is not in keeping with its surrounds and it is quite an eye sore. At a recent meeting of over 120 Nicholls residents, not one resident indicated that they had received notice from ACTPLA or from the developer about the development of the 'Lets Play' centre. It does not blend in with the existing golf course buildings and it looks out of place next to those buildings, as well as looking out of place in Nicholls. The building of this type of structure does not give us confidence that anything else that this developer decides to build on re-purposed land will be sympathetic to its surroundings.

The proposed change in use for this Section will allow for commercial activity that is of higher commercial return than is possible under the current zoning of this area. Given that the site was originally purchased at a price that reflected a lower commercial value in use (ie for a golf course) the approval of this application will put other businesses in Nicholls at a significant commercial disadvantage. In particular, the Gold Greek Tourist Resort and other businesses such as the Child Care centre, cafes and restaurants at Federation Square, Nicholls. The proposal indicates a token increase in the Government charges related to the changes however this amount provided in the application does not accurately reflect the commercial gain likely from the change nor the business impact on the nearby businesses and this impact should be more accurately accounted for in the application which is weak on intent or specific plans.

We note that in a 'Canberra Times' article on 8/1/14, Mr Konstantinou is quoted as saying, “..the site was a golf course-not an oval-and people need to understand it was not open space”. As residents of Nicholls, we are aware that the golf course is not an oval but at the same time, by its very nature, the golf course is a large open space for the purpose of hitting golf balls into small holes a great distance away. The open green space of the golf course is an

attractive feature of Nicholls and it was a major selling feature for the development of Harcourt Hill.

The re-purposing of this area will result in the loss of green space, well established trees and wildlife habitat, as well as further reducing the quality of the golf course. The ACT Government needs to ensure that this area is environmentally protected. The golf course has its own ecosystem with wildlife such as kangaroos, numerous varieties of birds, ducks, echidnas, turtles etc. This wildlife population will be significantly impacted by the re-purposing of the land.

The original intent of the Gold Greek development was for an 18 hole golf course of excellent quality with quality structures and facilities. The re-purposing will impact the size and landscape of this 18 hole golf course. This will effect the uniqueness of this golf course and could potentially affect golfer and resident safety. Re-purposing this large area will also have an impact on traffic movement, noise levels and lighting. We are concerned that increased traffic congestion will occur along with increased noise levels on Curran Drive which is not designed to cater for large commercial structures like hotels, apartment complexes or bowling and sporting facilities. The addition of these types of complexes in Nicholls will increase noise levels in what is an otherwise peaceful suburb. So too will the potential for increased lighting have a significant impact on the surrounds. The owners of the site are currently finding it difficult to manage parking areas on the nominated section at present, let alone with increased business activity.

The application lacks a strategic plan for this variation and such a lack of clarity will allow for further opportunistic commercial development without appropriate consideration.

Thank you,

Charles Falzon and Grace Falzon 1/23 Temperley Street Nicholls ACT 2913

From: ACTPLA Customer Services Sent: Wednesday, 29 January 2014 3:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATION-201324432

Dear Sir/Madam,












(02) 6207 1923.


From: ESDD, Customer Services Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014 12:21 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: 32-RE-REPRESENTATION-201324434-KEN CUSH & ASSOCIATES-01

Dear Sam Tierney (Ken Cush & Associates),












(02) 6207 1923.

Regards, Kristina Customer Services Phone 02 6207 1923 Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected]

From: Jeanette Reeve [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 30 January 2014 3:27 PM To: ESDD, Customer Services <[email protected]> Subject: Development Application No. 201324434 Dear Sirs Please find attached our letter dated 29 January 2014 in relation to the above matter. Regards Jeanie Reeve PA to Sam Tierney Ken Cush & Associates

From: ESDD, Customer Services Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014 2:28 PM To: Matthew Smith <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Submission against DA 201324434

Dear M. Smith & R. Thorne



BLOCK: 11 &14 SECTION: 86 DIVISION: Nicholls









(02) 6207 1923.


From: Matthew Smith [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, 30 January 2014 1:40 PM

To: ESDD, Customer Services Subject: Submission against DA 201324434

Our submission against DA 201324434 – Blocks 11 & 14 /86 Nicholls and Blocks 11/88, 2/85, 22/89, 21/89, 1/163 and 2/157 of Nicholls: is as follows,

1. The guarantee of a golf club house is removed from the golf course development - Block 11 loses the golf course requirement at Clause 3. (a) of the existing lease which is being transferred to the lease for block 14 and the other blocks. This breaks the bond between the actual golf course and its clubhouse which could be sold separately with no remaining requirement within the leases that the golf club be retained. This means that there is a large increase in development rights beyond what was originally envisaged when these blocks were combined into a viable golf course and golf clubhouse. Splitting off Block 11 for separate sale will not provide for the community the assurance of a club house associated with the golf course into perpetuity. In other words block 11 could be sold off to different owners and used for other purposes and the resultant lease variation change will no longer guarantee that the remaining golf course will always have a viable golf club house.

2. Future uses - The DA lacks information about how the remaining uses of block 14 can fit on the block along with the golf course considering the possibility of block 11 being sold off separately. As a standalone block it has not been demonstrated that block 14 can accommodate a new clubhouse, childcare centre, car parking, 10 pin bowling centre and the like along with the extensive golf course use. It is also worth noting that the practice holes and driving range that make up part of Block 14 are unique in Canberra and allow the community a perfect facility to learn and practice the sport of golf. This is supported by recent ACT Junior representative squads perfecting their skills here along with various Canberra based touring professionals over the years since the course originally opened.

3. Car parking – With the removal of the connection between Block 11 and Block 14 and the possible change of the golf club to something else it leaves block 14 without a car park as required by its lease. The pass and repass does not guarantee the right of car parking only a right of access. The DA is required to provide evidence that the new lease for block 14 on its own can provide an adequate car park to Territory Plan requirements. The parking for the golf course needs to be preserved within the lease of block 11 for use by patrons of the golf course (block 14 and others) into the future.

Regards, Matt Smith Temperley Street Nicholls and Ric Thorne Sue Geh Circuit Nicholls

From: ESDD, Customer Services Sent: Tuesday, 4 February 2014 9:32 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: DA 201324434 Nicholls Golf Course

Dear Sir/Madam,












(02) 6207 1923.

Regards Customer Services Phone 02 6207 1923 Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected] From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, 30 January 2014 9:01 PM To: ESDD, Customer Services

Subject: DA 201324434 Nicholls Golf Course

Attached is a submission against the subject DA. Regards, Steve Jones

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 30 January 2014 9:01 PM To: ESDD, Customer Services <[email protected]> Subject: DA 201324434 Nicholls Golf Course

Attached is a submission against the subject DA. Regards, Steve Jones

From: ESDD, Customer Services Sent: Tuesday, 4 February 2014 9:41 AM To: Glenn A. Larsen <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Development Application 201324434

Dear Sir/Madam,












(02) 6207 1923.

Regards Customer Services Phone 02 6207 1923 Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected] From: Glenn A. Larsen [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, 30 January 2014 9:18 PM

To: ESDD, Customer Services Subject: Development Application 201324434

Dear Sir/Ma’am, Please find my letter outlining objections to the subject development attached. Please acknowledge receipt of this email. I look forward to receiving your response to my concerns in due course. Thank you, Glenn Larsen

2 Eve Place Nicholls 2913 ACT

From: Glenn A. Larsen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 30 January 2014 9:18 PM To: ESDD, Customer Services <[email protected]> Subject: Development Application 201324434

Dear Sir/Ma’am, Please find my letter outlining objections to the subject development attached. Please acknowledge receipt of this email. I look forward to receiving your response to my concerns in due course. Thank you, Glenn Larsen

2 Eve Place Nicholls 2913 ACT

Glenn Larsen 2 Eve Place Nicholls ACT 2913

20 January 2014

ACT Planning and Land Authority (via email: [email protected] )

Dear Sir/Madam,

Development Application 201324434

I would like to comment on the above proposal. I understand that the intention of the application is to separate a section (Block 11 Section 86) from the current Gold Creek Country Club (GCCC) site and to vary the lease purpose on the section and on the remaining GCCC site.

I do not object to further development on the GCCC site, however, I do object to this proposal for the following reasons. The proposal:

• presents the possibility of multiple ownership of assets on the site, which may lead to significant deterioration of community benefit, and

• does not clearly articulate the applicant’s plans regarding characteristics and position of future development.

Multiple ownership

Multiple ownership and changes in lease purpose would not lead to the best outcome for the GCCC site as businesses’ financial incentive would be to develop assets that maximise sale price with little regard for enhancing the community amenity of the GCCC site.

Further, as I understand it, multiple ownership would very likely lead to a deterioration in the maintenance standards hence amenity value of the golf course itself. That is, sale of associated assets and going concerns on the site would remove revenue sources that support the upkeep of the golf course—the key asset on the site, hence, must be the primary consideration.

I am also concerned with the potential for the applicant to receive a ‘free-kick’ in terms of asset value to the detriment of the community.

Desired outcome: If the proposal to change lease purpose is to be granted, it must be subject to the constraint that no individual parcels of land or developments can be sold to other entities. Specifically, the GCCC site must only be sold in its entirety.

Insufficient detail

Any proposed change in the current lease purpose should clearly articulate what modification is intended and what will be built where. The proposal does not set out the scope of plans or the applicant’s intention regarding the characteristics and positioning of future development, hence, it is not possible to assess the merits of a proposal to change the lease purpose on the GCCC site. As the proposal is obviously deficient one can only assume that this is a deliberate oversight.

Desired outcome: The applicant should be required to submit a plan outlining the nature and position of future developments. And, there should be an ensuing period of community consultation to consider the submission.

Sincerely,

Glenn Larsen

From: ESDD, Customer Services Sent: Tuesday, 4 February 2014 9:43 AM To: Denis Waters <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Joint Comment on DA 201324434 from 232 Residents and Golfers

Dear Sir/Madam,












(02) 6207 1923.

Regards Customer Services Phone 02 6207 1923 Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Denis Waters [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014 9:04 AM To: ESDD, Customer Services Cc: Gary & Elizabeth Samuels Subject: Joint Comment on DA 201324434 from 232 Residents and Golfers Dear Sir, Please find attached a Submission from 232 Residents of Harcourt Hill and Golfers of the Gold Creek Country Club who have a number of objections to the DA 201324434. I am providing it on behalf of these residents and golfers as I have had a coordinating and facilitating role since the convening of a Public

Meeting on the issue on 8 January 2014. The submission has been developed by Mr Gary Samuels and myself with the input from experts in town planning and lease conditions. The process has been to communicate via email to all those attending the meeting and the subsequent contacts that have emerged. I hold email authorities and phone logs from each of the co-respondents. We wish to thank ACTPLA for providing extra time to accommodate the fact that a DA over the Christmas period disenfranchises a significant number of residents who have a material concern regarding the proposed subdivision and changes to lease purposes. In addition to the points raised specifically in the joint submission many respondents to me raised a number of specific concerns. A large number were directed at the lack of consultation associated with the construction of the Lets Play building and the style of construction which is completely out of keeping with the current Nicholls/Harcourt Hill street-scape. One such respondent drew on architectural qualifications and experience. You will note that the Submission urges that an Early Consultation Model be adopted to allow stakeholders to understand and contribute to the development of future development plans. In this regard a number of respondents queried why there was no Master Plan or Neighbourhood Plan for the whole golf course precinct. You will note that the Submission seeks the Owner to take this into account before any future development is contemplated. I am copying this to Mr Gary Samuels in his capacity as convenor of HHRAG which had a significant role in ensuring that the principles and planning for Harcourt Hill Estates was completed satisfactorily by the Carnell Government. We commend this submission to you and look forward to our objections and points being taken into account when DA 201324434 is being considered by ACTPLA and ESD. Denis Waters [email protected] 0418 876 926 02 6153 9023

From: ESDD, Customer Services Sent: Monday, 24 February 2014 10:03 AM To: Denis Waters <[email protected]> Subject: 36-RE-REPRESENTATION-201324434-PETITION-WATERS,D-02

Dear Sir/Madam,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION



Thank you for your additional information received 20/02/2014 related to your

representation made 31/01/2014 regarding development application

number : 201324434.







(02) 6207 1923.

Regards

Customer Services Phone 02 6207 1923 Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected]

From: Denis Waters [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 31 January 2014 9:04 AM To: ESDD, Customer Services <[email protected]> Cc: Gary & Elizabeth Samuels <[email protected]> Subject: Joint Comment on DA 201324434 from 232 Residents and Golfers Dear Sir, Please find attached a Submission from 232 Residents of Harcourt Hill and Golfers of the Gold Creek Country Club who have a number of objections to the DA 201324434. I am providing it on behalf of these residents and golfers as I have had a coordinating and facilitating role since the convening of a Public Meeting on the issue on 8 January 2014. The submission has been developed by Mr Gary Samuels and myself with the input from experts in town planning and lease conditions. The process has been to communicate via email to all those attending the meeting and the subsequent contacts that have emerged. I hold email authorities and phone logs from each of the co-respondents. We wish to thank ACTPLA for providing extra time to accommodate the fact that a DA over the Christmas period disenfranchises a significant number of residents who have a material concern regarding the proposed subdivision and changes to lease purposes. In addition to the points raised specifically in the joint submission many respondents to me raised a number of specific concerns. A large number were directed at the lack of consultation associated with the construction of the Lets Play building and the style of construction which is completely out of keeping with the current Nicholls/Harcourt Hill street-scape. One such respondent drew on architectural qualifications and experience. You will note that the Submission urges that an Early Consultation Model be adopted to allow stakeholders to understand and contribute to the development of future development plans. In this regard a number of respondents queried why there was no Master Plan or Neighbourhood Plan for the whole golf course precinct. You will note that the Submission seeks the Owner to take this into account before any future development is contemplated. I am copying this to Mr Gary Samuels in his capacity as convenor of HHRAG which had a significant role in ensuring that the principles and planning for Harcourt Hill Estates was completed satisfactorily by the Carnell Government. We commend this submission to you and look forward to our objections and points being taken into account when DA 201324434 is being considered by ACTPLA and ESD. Denis Waters [email protected] 0418 876 926 02 6153 9023

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 201324434

We, the undersigned 232 residents of Harcourt Hill Estate Nicholls and Gold Creek Golf ClubMembers, wish to register our objection, as detailed below, to the above-‐mentioned DevelopmentApplication. We understand that this DA seeks, via Lease Variations, to subdivide Block 11 Section 86Nicholls from the remaining blocks which make up the Gold Creek Golf Course.

1. BACKGROUND

The Harcourt Hill Estate community in the suburb of Nicholls has a very significant investment in theGold Creek Country Club, via large premiums paid in their land prices to finance the originaldevelopment. This investment far exceeds the $3m subsequently paid by the current Owners, theKonstantinou Group, for the Crown Leases encompassing the golf course and ancillary assets.

After the original private developer pulled out of its joint development arrangement with the ACTGovernment in the mid-‐90s, the original concept of an “integrated resort, golf course and residentialestate” – the then “jewel in the crown” of urban planning in the ACT – was left incomplete. Toprotect its investment, the community, via the Harcourt Hill Residents’ Action Group, was left withno option but to pursue a Class Action against its own government for ‘non-‐performance’. Thisaction resulted in $4.5m being committed to design and build the golf clubhouse and pool complex.

The Country Club was always conceived as encompassing the total entity of the golf course and itsancillary businesses. No golf course by itself (ie. maintenance costs/golf club members’ fees) runs ata profit, rather it is rightly cross-‐subsidised by the linked supporting businesses. For the currentOwners to berate Golf Club Members re the extent of that subsidy is a specious and disingenuousargument, as once the dollars spent by golf club members and their families (let alone the HarcourtHill community and green fee golfers) in the Clubhouse, pro-‐shop and other businesses is factoredinto the equation, it is they who are ‘subsidising’ the Owner’s overall profit. Such statements merelyinflame rather than inform golfers and residents.

2. BROAD POSITION

Our broad position is that we are not anti-‐development per se, and we acknowledge the Owner’srights to sell its assets. Moreover, we applaud the vast majority of the Konstantinou Group’s post-‐purchase investments (the exception being the Let’s Play building, which is seen by the communityas not being in-‐keeping with the surrounding environment). And, we acknowledge statements by theOwners in their recent open letter to golf club members and subsequent press statements, that theprofit from businesses currently contained within Block 11 Section 86 are used to support theprimary use of the Crown Lease as “outdoor recreation, predominantly an 18-‐hole golf course”.Further, we look forward to additional appropriate, visually appealing, developments which are‘ancillary’ to that primary use.

Accordingly, our primary concern is for the future viability of the golf course property, which, despiteits current ‘restricted recreation use’ nature, also forms part of our suburb’s regulated ‘open space’(the PRZ2 zoning for Block 14 Section 86 is overlayed by PRZ1 zoning).

3. OBJECTION AND REASONS

In light of the above background and broad position, we, the undersigned 232 residents of theHarcourt Hill Estate Nicholls and Gold Creek Golf Club Members, wish to object to DA-‐201324434,which proposes Lease Variations to the land comprising the Gold Creek Country Club, resulting insubdivision of the existing Crown Lease into two parcels.

The land is within Crown Lease Volume 1776 Folio 69 which comprises Block 2 Section 85; Block 1Section 163; Block 1 Section 165; Block 11 Section 86; Block 14 Section 86; Block 11 Section 88; Block2 Section 157; Block 5 Section 156; Block 21 Section 89; Block 22 Section 89; Block 24 Section 89; andBlock 1 Section 164 all within the Division of Nicholls.

We understand that the DA seeks to separate Block 11 Section 86 from the other Blocks. The effectof this subdivision, if approved, would be to divide the Gold Creek Country Club into two entitiesbeing:

(1) the golf clubhouse (comprising bar, kitchen, dining room, spike bar and functionareas), Divot’s Café, golf pro-‐shop, Club Lime gymnasium, indoor 20m swimming pool,child care centre, Let’s Play centre, tennis courts and car park; and

(2) 18 fairways and greens, a driving range and 3 practice fairways and greens andmaintenance facilities only.

The Crown Lease provides for the land to be predominantly used as an outdoor recreation facility,with the golf course being the only purpose under the Crown Lease that MUST occur. The otherpermitted uses are discretionary.

The subdivision would separate the buildings and their amenities (clubhouse, pro-‐shop, car park,etc.) from the golf course, thus allowing Block 11 Section 86 to be detached and operateindependently from the golf course. The golf course would be left comprising only 18 fairways andgreens, a driving range and 3 practice fairways and greens, with no associated clubhouse, car park orother built infrastructure.

As noted previously, golf courses are by themselves loss-‐making businesses and require adiversification of associated business operations to be, overall, financially viable. Accordingly, theancillary activities on the land (i.e. clubhouse, gymnasium, restaurant, golf pro-‐shop, etc.) areconsidered to be necessary components of the Gold Creek Country Club in adjunct to the golfcourse.

Approval of the Lease Variation to subdivide the land (which comprises the Gold Creek CountryClub) into two parcels would make the golf course, being the land minus Block 11 Section 86, anon-‐economically-‐viable Crown Lease. It would leave the golf course on its own, with no profitable‘ancillary’ businesses (particularly a golf clubhouse and retail pro-‐shop) with the capacity to cross-‐subsidise its operation.

We assert that if, as a result of approval of this DA, the golf course were to become unsustainable,the predominant use for which the land was developed and a primary basis upon which theHarcourt Hill Estate was created (by the ACT Government) would be jeopardised.

We firmly believe that ACTPLA / ACT-‐EDD would be deficient in their responsibilities to the ACTcommunity if they were to allow a Lease Variation which resulted in a Crown Lease that was notviable.

We are also of the belief that the DA assessment process should, in this instance, also take intoaccount the fact that Block 14 Section 86 is overlayed by PRZ1 – Open Space Zone, and theimplications thereof.

In addition, the DA proposes:

(a) The addition of ‘Child care centre’ and ‘Club’ as stand-‐alone uses on Block 11; (b) The deletion of ‘Commercial accommodation use’ from the permitted uses on Block 11Section 86 Nicholls; and (c) The addition of ‘Hotel’, ‘Motel’ and ‘Guest house’ as permitted uses for Block 14 Section 86Nicholls;

In relation to (a), in keeping with the above objection, we also object to the ‘Club’ being a ‘stand-‐alone’ use on Block 11 and consider it must remain connected with, and ‘ancillary’ to, thepredominant purpose under the Crown Lease, “an outdoor recreation facility, predominantlycomprising an 18 hole golf course”. Separation of the Club (i.e. golf clubhouse) from the golf courseland would jeopardise the financial viability and predominant purpose of the land as a golf course.

We do not object to deletion of the ‘Commercial accommodation use’ from Block 11 Section 86. Theland is presently extensively developed and would be unlikely to accommodate any further suchland use.

We also do not object to the addition of ‘Hotel, Motel and Guest House’ as permitted uses on Block14 Section 86. Although, we do note that land at Block 5 Section 39 Nicholls, which adjoins Block 14Section 86, has an existing approval for a hotel/motel.

4. CONCILIATORY APPROACH / MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT

We, the undersigned 232 residents of the Harcourt Hill Estate and Gold Creek Golf Club Members,would be prepared to give serious consideration to any subsequent Development Application which,as a very minimum, sought to redraw the boundaries of Block 11 Section 86, such that theclubhouse, pro-‐shop and parts of the car park remain with the golf course land. In regard to the carpark, whilst we understand that rights to “pass” and “re-‐pass” are proposed to be given over Block11 under the current DA, this would not give rights for parties to “stop” on the land (i.e. use the carpark).

In regard to any future DAs, we would hope that the Konstantinou Group decides to adopt an ‘earlyconsultation model’ with the community and golf club members. This would go a long way toensuring they do not (again) alienate their main clients – the expenditure of golfers and Harcourt Hillfamilies in Country Club businesses would account for the vast majority of the Owner’s overallrevenue base – plus serve to ‘take the heat out of’ any subsequent development proposals.

Finally, given the ad hoc and often controversial nature of the Crown Lessee’s DevelopmentApplications (e.g. indoor cricket centre, relocation of maintenance facility, subdivision etc.), werespectfully suggest that it would be beneficial for all if aMaster Plan were to be developed for theproperty to:(a) better communicate the long term plans of the Crown Lessee for the property;(b) ensure the ongoing viability of the property; and(c) enable to Crown Lessee to maximise the potential of the property with community support.

Your favourable consideration of our objection is sought.

Regards,

Gary Samuels28 Fleetwood-‐Smith StNicholls ACT 2913

Elizabeth Samuels28 Fleetwood-‐Smith StNicholls ACT 2913

Denis Waters11 Phillis PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Rosemary Waters11 Phillis PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Susan Kerry Smeeth23 Fitzsimmons Street,Nicholls ACT 2913

Ben Justin9/45 Dobbin CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Michele Justin9/45 Dobbin CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Greg NicholasOverall AveCasey

Greg Harn82 McClelland AveNicholls

Rose Harn82 McClelland AveNicholls

David George21 Dobbin CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Penelope George21 Dobbin CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Bruce Coe3 Whiteside CourtNicholls ACT 2913

Barbara Coe3 Whiteside CourtNicholls ACT 2913

Michael Malone4 Phillis PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Elaine Malone4 Phillis PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Bruce Hassall16/25 Temperley St,Nicholls ACT 2913

Margaret Hassall16/25 Temperley St,Nicholls ACT 2913

David Worthy79 Lexcen AvenueNicholls ACT 2913

Debbie Worthy79 Lexcen AvenueNicholls ACT 2913

Wendy Preller3 Phillis PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

John Preller3 Phillis PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

John Boundy5/81 Kelleway AveNicholls ACT 2913

Teresa Boundy5/81 Kelleway AveNicholls ACT 2913

Dr Bob Murphy15 Metcalfe Street,Nicholls ACT 2913

Jan Murphy15 Metcalfe Street,Nicholls ACT 2913

Debbie Fleischer21 McAuliffe CourtNicholls ACT 2913

Gill Vercoe4/87 Kelleway AvenueNichols. ACT 2913

Andrew Jones11 Metcalfe StreetNicholls ACT 2913

John Hayford6 Ryder PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Jennifer Hayford6 Ryder PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Kieron Hart7 Mcritchie CrtNicholls ACT 2913

Diane Hart7 Mcritchie CrtNicholls ACT 2913

Jane Farrugia11 Midwinter PlaceNicholls. ACT 2913

Steve Farrugia11 Midwinter PlaceNicholls. ACT 2913

Helen Dodds18 Whiteside CourtNicholls ACT 2913

Phillip Dodds18 Whiteside CourtNicholls ACT 2913

Robert Bryan4 Cecins placeNicholls ACT 2913

Garry Eldridge OAM23 Whiteside CourtNicholls ACT 2913

Jeff Storer94 Krantzcke CctNicholls ACT 2913

Julie Storer94 Krantzcke CctNicholls ACT 2913

Wayne Thomas,127 Temperley Street,Nicholls ACT 2913

Monica Thomas127 Temperley StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Gerald J. Slaven4 Moriarty Street,Nicholls ACT 2913

Valerie J Slaven4 Moriarty Street,Nicholls ACT 2913

Christine Barnes5 Titus PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Derek Barnes5 Titus PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Peter Dunnett7 Ayers Fowler StNicholls ACT 2913

Jan Dunnett7 Ayers Fowler StNicholls ACT 2913

Andrew Wickham159 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Charles Karlsen17/25 Temperley St,Nicholls ACT 2913 (asfrom 28 February)

Carole Hocking17/25 Temperley St,Nicholls ACT 2913 (asfrom 28 February)

Nada Bezeruk,7 Moriarty Street,Nicholls ACT 2913

Wally Bezeruk,7 Moriarty Street,Nicholls ACT 2913

Michael Gilbert8 Ayers Fowler StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Pamela Gilbert8 Ayers Fowler StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Jinghua Ji12 McClelland AvenueNicholls ACT 2913

Linxi Hu12 McClelland AvenueNicholls ACT 2913

Johan Pretorius1 Peken PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Annemie Pretorius1 Peken PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Jessica Giampaolo14/35 Edie Payne CloseNicholls ACT 2913

Angus Sinclair 13/25Temperley St NichollsACT 2913

Judith Sinclair 13/25Temperley St NichollsACT 2913

Ian Avis7 Phillis PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Catherine Avis7 Phillis PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Robert Ticehurst70 Sue Geh CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Joanne Steele17 Dobbin CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Stuart Steele17 Dobbin CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Alan Hurdle73 Lexcen Ave,Nicholls ACT 2913.

Donna Hurdle73 Lexcen AveNicholls ACT 2913.

Prad Southi35 Sue Geh CctNicholls ACT 2913

Michael Tanchevski71 Sue Geh cctNicholls ACT 2913

John McCarroll39 Sue Geh CctNicholls ACT 2913

David Neumann,5 Ryder PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Danielle Neumann,5 Ryder PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Gerard Dwyer1/21 Krantzcke CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Paul Sims15 Sue Geh StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Beverley Sims15 Sue Geh StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Norm Baker(Golf Club Member)112 Murranji StreetHawker ACT 2614

Roger Lye(Golf Club Member)20 Beanland StreetCasey ACT 2913

Margot Lye (ex-‐Harcourt Hill resident)20 Beanland StreetCasey ACT 2913

Bruce Gibbons21 Ayers Fowler StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Robyn Gibbons21 Ayers Fowler StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Peter Morton26 Viner PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Mary Morton26 Viner PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Ross Rees165 Temperley StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Dr David Hockless5 Rubin PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Marie Hockless5 Rubin PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Malcolm Hockless17 Hendry CloseNicholls ACT 2913

Ann Hockless17 Hendry CloseNicholls ACT 2913

James Wilks10 Fleetwood Smith StNicholls ACT 2913

Helen Wilks10 Fleetwood Smith St,Nicholls ACT 2913

Vanessa Baird-‐Gunning25 Dobbins CctNicholls ACT 2913

Des Chin25 Dobbins CctNicholls ACT 2913

Sonja Osborne26 Fleetwood-‐Smith StNicholls, ACT, 2913

Alan Osborne26 Fleetwood-‐Smith StNicholls, ACT, 2913

John Wojcicka10 Wendy Ey PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Tania Novoselec10 Wendy Ey PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Touheed Shahajahan50 Sue Geh CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Hasnat Jahan50 Sue Geh CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Laurie Pyne10/23 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Anna Pyne10/23 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Robert Douglass4 Peken PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Amanda Douglass4 Peken PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

James Hourigan,4/21 Temperley StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Doreen Hourigan4/21 Temperley StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Susan Anderson163 Temperley StreetNicholls ACT 2913

David Anderson163 Temperley StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Geoff D Sergeant24 Ayers Fowler Street,Nicholls, ACT, 2913

Peter Douglas Michie27/21 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Jacqueline Fay Michie27/21 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Angela Magill21/25 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Linton Smith4/25 Temperley Street,Nicholls ACT 2913

Alison Smith4/25 Temperley Street,Nicholls ACT 2913

Trevor Lord8/25 Temperley Street,Nicholls ACT 2913

Anne Gallagher:11/25 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Ray Gallagher11/25 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Annette Briggs5/25 Temperley Street,Nicholls, ACT 2913

Paul Briggs5/25 Temperley Street,Nicholls, ACT 2913

Fred McIntire6 Bolger PlNicholls

Sue McIntire6 Bolger PlNicholls ACT 2913

Richard Hibling14 Dobbin CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Simone Hibling14 Dobbin CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Graham Boxell3/25 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Graham Tanner17 Whiteside Court,Nicholls ACT 2913

Rebecca Tanner17 Whiteside Court,Nicholls ACT 2913

Rodney Bencke26 Ayers Fowler StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Teresa Bencke26 Ayers Fowler StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Charles Falzon1/23 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Grace Falzon1/23 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

John Baker8 Peken PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Caroline Baker8 Peken PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

John Lowe28 Ayers Fowler StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Deidre Gerathy23 Ayers Fowler StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Stephen Gerathy23 Ayers Fowler StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Kate Gerathy23 Ayers Fowler StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Robert Walter Ross15 Ayers Fowler St,Nicholls, ACT 2913

Delwyn Margaret Ross.15 Ayers Fowler St,Nicholls, ACT 2913

Ronald Egle6 Peken PlNicholls ACT 2913

Carol Egle6 Peken PlNicholls ACT 2913

Ian Miller57 Lexcen StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Rick Thorne3 Sue Geh CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Daryl Bell47 Ian Potter CrescentGungahlin ACT 2912

Peter Gillbanks28 Ashton Calvert StCasey ACT 2913

Yasmin McHutchison28 Ashton Calvert StCasey ACT 2613

Jan Rees166 Temperley StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Pauline Winslade,19 Dobbin Circuit,Nicholls ACT 2913

Chris Winslade,19 Dobbin Circuit,Nicholls ACT 2913

Russell Fletcher1/119 Kelleway AveNicholls ACT 2913

Catherine Fletcher1/119 Kelleway AveNicholls ACT 2913

Barbara Broad6 Ayers-‐Fowler StNicholls ACT 2913

John Broad6 Ayers-‐Fowler StNicholls ACT 2913

Ronald Hancock2/23 Temperley StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Joan Hancock2/23 Temperley StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Mrs Chiew Baria3/23 Temperley StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Wanda Stewart6/25 Temperley Street,Nicholls ACT 2913

Dr Robert Smethills12/25 Temperley St,Nicholls ACT 2913

Todd Bourne16 Whiteside CourtNicholls ACT 2913

Kathy Bourne16 Whiteside CourtNicholls ACT 2913

Tara Bourne16 Whiteside CourtNicholls ACT 2913

Tegan Bourne16 Whiteside CourtNicholls ACT 2913

Debra Jones5 Phillis PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Mark Sinclair8 Rumbelow CourtNicholls ACT 2913

Mark Pickering59 Sue Geh CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Saverio Costanzo75 Lexcen AvenueNicholls ACT 2913

Maria Costanzo75 Lexcen AvenueNicholls ACT 2913

Alois Hausknecht35 Krantzcke CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Friedrich Hausknecht35 Krantzcke CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Margaret Hausknecht35 Krantzcke CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Rita Hausknecht35 Krantzcke CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Darren Scott12 Dobbin CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Kelly Scott12 Dobbin CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Violetta Tanchevski61 Sue Geh CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

George Tanchevski61 Sue Geh CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

John Donnelly10/25 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Christine Donnelly10/25 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Peter Elford18 Deumonga Crt,Ngunnawal ACT 2913

Stephen Fitzgerald19 Whiteside CourtNicholls ACT 2913

Tracey Fitzgerald19 Whiteside CourtNicholls ACT 2913

Ken Dowrick25 Kleinig Street,Nicholls ACT 2913

David Marron8 Pellew StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Marie Marron8 Pellew StreetNicholls ACT 2913

Darrel Nolan97 Sue Geh CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Katherine Nolan97 Sue Geh CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Wendy Lightly15/35 Edie Payne CloseNicholls ACT 2913

John Lightly15/35 Edie Payne CloseNicholls ACT 2913

Rosalyn Tumsevics10/35 Edie Payne CloseNicholls ACT 2913

Bev Dowrick,25 Kleinig Street,Nicholls ACT 2913

Enzo Cardone48 Sue Geh CctNicholls ACT 2913

Sharon Cardone48 Sue Geh CctNicholls ACT 2913

David Ellis86 Krantzcke CctNicholls ACT 2913

Patricia Alvarez de Ellis86 Krantzcke CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Ian Mills15/25 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Eileen Mills15/25 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Allan Jackson6 Rowley PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Ian Bullman12 Viner PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Brent Heaver40 Sue Geh CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Emma Heaver40 Sue Geh CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Barry Dee4/27 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Gerald Karakochuk14/25 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Mark Wilkins4/5 Howitt StreetKingston ACT 2604

Richard Kibukamusoke3 Seaborn PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Leslie Clement25/23 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Hilda Clement25/23 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Leigh Hibberson73 Lexcen AveNicholls ACT 2913

Gary Hibberson73 Lexcen AveNicholls ACT 2913

Darren Condon Green4 Bolger PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Jian Rong Fu90 Krantzcke CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Zhou Liangu90 Krantzcke CircuitNicholls ACT 2913

Joan Drew23/23 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Sandy Jack22/23 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Jeremy Stokoe18/23 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Damien Obst13 Donnan StNicholls ACT 2913

David Ireland3 Berwick PlNicholls ACT 2913

Georgia Allen7/87 Kelleway AveNicholls ACT 2913

Andrew Ross7/87 Kelleway AveNicholls ACT 2913

Clare Williams6 Phillis PlNicholls ACT 2913

Julie England5 Keily CloseNicholls ACT 2913

Graeme England5 Keily CloseNicholls ACT 2913

Darrell O’Sullivan8 Phillis PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Mary-‐Ann O’Sullivan8 Phillis PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Robert Platt4 Wendy Ey PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Shirley Platt4 Wendy Ey PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Warwick Budd14/23 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

Elfriede Budd14/23 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

James Prior3 Keily ClNicholls ACT 2913

Stephen Newman21 Whiteside CourtNicholls ACT 2913

Jasmine Newman21 Whiteside CourtNicholls ACT 2913

Maureen Mumford57 Dobbin Cct,Nicholls ACT 2913

Dorothy Laidlaw5 Berwick PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Steven Laidlaw5 Berwick PlaceNicholls ACT 2913

Terry Howard140 Temperley StNicholls ACT 2913

From: Denis Waters [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 20 February 2014 3:28 PM To: ESDD, Customer Services <[email protected]> Cc: COE <[email protected]>; PORTER <[email protected]>; BOURKE <[email protected]>; BERRY <[email protected]>; CORBELL <[email protected]>; BARR <[email protected]>; Gary & Elizabeth Samuels <[email protected]> Subject: Further information on DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: 201324432

Dear Sir,, You are already in receipt of a comment on DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: 201324432 made by me on behalf of 232 residents and golfers sent on 31 January 2014. According to the DA documentation and some of the media reportage surrounding this development application the proponents have argued that it is necessary for the subdivision of Block 11 off from the rest of the golf course to enable the unit titling and sale of a number of the individual businesses located on Block 11 Section 86. It has come to the attention of a number of residents and golfers that certain buildings and businesses have already been sold to the operators as separate entities. If this is a correct understanding of what has occurred it would seem that a major argument supporting the Development Application is seriously weakened. I would ask that this be taken as an Addendum to the earlier submission of the 232 residents and golfers and that it be investigated as part of the ACTPLA/ESD consideration of DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: 201324432. In the interests of including the other recipients of the earlier Submission I am sending this to the relevant Ministers and MLAs, as well as Mr G Samuels. Yours faithfully Denis Waters [email protected] 0418 876 926 02 6153 9023

From: ESDD, Customer Services Sent: Friday, 7 February 2014 9:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: CLOSE OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION PERIOD-201324434-01 Dear Sir/Madam CLOSE OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION PERIOD BLOCK 1 SECTION 163 SUBURB NICHOLLS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NUMBER 201324434 The public consultation period for DA 201324434 has now closed. Attached for your information is a copy of all representations received by the ACT Planning and Land Authority during the public consultation period. The assessment of your application will now be finalised taking into consideration the representations that have been received. You will be advised in writing of the decision as soon as the DA has been determined. If you require any further information please contact (02) 6207 1923.

Kind Regards

Customer Services

Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected]

From: ESDD, Customer Services Sent: Tuesday, 13 May 2014 9:40 AM To: Helen Dodds <[email protected]> Subject: 01-RE-REPRESENTATION-201324434-DODDS, H & P-01

Dear Sir/Madam,


DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: 201324434-S144B





assessment of the development application and you will be notified in writing once

a decision has been made.

Please Note - A copy of your representation will be forwarded to the development

application applicant and placed on the public register.

If you require any further information please contact Customer Services on (02) 6207

1923.

Regards Customer Services

Phone 02 6207 1923 Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected] From: Helen Dodds [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 9 May 2014 12:55 PM

To: ESDD, Customer Services Subject: Fwd: Development Application 201324434

Thank you for advising me that my submission was too early.As submissions start from today 9th May I am resending it Helen Dodds Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message:

From: Helen Dodds <[email protected]> Date: 8 May 2014 5:07:51 pm AEST To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Development Application 201324434

Dear Sirs We have just received notification of proposed amendments to DA 201425183 and wish to submit this written application with objections for the following reasons: We object to allowing the Golf Club House to become separated from the Golf Course as a club house is an integral part of a successful golf course. Without a Club House we fear the golf course will collapse and and the owners will convert the course into building blocks. We have paid big money to live on this golf course and want to see that it remains as a golf course. We do not object to the building of any accommodation on the practice fairways provided any such building is in keeping with the buildings in the area and not another eyesore like the building approved for the Play Centre. Helen and Phillip Dodds 18 Whiteside Court Nicholls ACT 2913 Sent from my iPad

From: ESDD, Customer Services Sent: Wednesday, 28 May 2014 4:29 PM To: Judy Higgins <[email protected]> Subject: 02-RE-REPRESENTATION-201324434-HIGGINS, J-01

NOTIFICATION – REPRESENTATION RECEIVED

Dear Sir/Madam,












(02) 6207 1923.

Regards

Customer Services

Phone 02 6207 1923 Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected]

From: Judy Higgins [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, 27 May 2014 8:20 AM To: ESDD, Customer Services

Subject: application 201324434

27 May 2014

Re application 201324434

We are in receipt of the amendment and our objections to the original application apply as a formal objection the this amendment

Changing the wording to read shop does not change our objection.

Regards

Thankyou Judy Higgins Nicholls Resident GPO Box 1026 CANBERRA 2601

From: ESDD, Customer Services Sent: Wednesday, 4 June 2014 9:30 AM To: [email protected] Subject: CLOSE OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION PERIOD-201324434-S144B-01 Dear Sir/Madam, CLOSE OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION PERIOD

BLOCK 1 SECTION 163 SUBURB NICHOLLS

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NUMBER 201324434-S144B

The public consultation period for DA 201324434 has now closed. Attached for your information is a copy of all representations received by the ACT Planning and Land Authority during the public consultation period. The assessment of your application will now be finalised taking into consideration the representations that have been received. You will be advised in writing of the decision as soon as the DA has been determined. If you require any further information please contact (02) 6207 1923.

Kind Regards

Customer Services

Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected]

From: ESDD, Customer Services Sent: Friday, 9 May 2014 10:29 AM To: Helen Dodds <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Development Application 201324434 Dear Sir/Madam, DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: 201324434 BLOCK: 2 SECTION: 85 DIVISION: NICHOLLS Thank you for your correspondence postmarked 08/05/2014 regarding Development Application Number 201324434. Section 156(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2007 states that a representation about a development application must be made during the public consultation period for the application. The public consultation period for DA 201324434 commenced on 09/05/2014 and closes on 30/5/2014 . Unfortunately, your representation was made outside the public consultation period and therefore cannot be considered during the assessment of the application. Please resend your representation during the active motification period. If you require any further information please contact (02) 6207 1687. Regards Customer Services Phone 02 6207 1923 Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Helen Dodds [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 8 May 2014 5:08 PM To: ESDD, Customer Services Subject: Development Application 201324434 Dear Sirs We have just received notification of proposed amendments to DA 201425183 and wish to submit this written application with objections for the following reasons: We object to allowing the Golf Club House to become separated from the Golf Course as a club house is an integral part of a successful golf course. Without a Club House we fear the golf course will collapse and and the owners will convert the course into building blocks. We have paid big money to live on this golf course and want to see that it remains as a golf course. We do not object to the building of any accommodation on the practice fairways

provided any such building is in keeping with the buildings in the area and not another eyesore like the building approved for the Play Centre. Helen and Phillip Dodds 18 Whiteside Court Nicholls ACT 2913 Sent from my iPad

From: Chapman, Maggie Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014 2:02 PM To: Pankhurst, Owen <[email protected]> Cc: Messer, Sue <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Open Letter from Gold Creek's owners Owen Fyi and filing please. Maggie From: Harry Konstantinou [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 23 January 2014 7:31 PM

To: Chapman, Maggie

Subject: FW: Open Letter from Gold Creek's owners

Hi Maggie We sent this out to ALL our members tonight just in case they hadn’t visited the facilities and taken a paper copy. Fyi.

Regards

Harry Konstantinou | Managing Director | The Club Group |

Head Office: First Floor, Unit 7, 141 Flemington Road Mitchell ACT 2911 Direct Phone: 02 6163 8088 | Switchboard: 1300 11 LIME | Facsimile: 02 6163 4088 | www.clubgroup.com.au

From: Gold Creek Country Club [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 23 January 2014 7:30 PM To: Harry Konstantinou Subject: Open Letter from Gold Creek's owners

Dear Harry Please find attached an open letter from the owners of Gold Creek Country Club regarding a Development Application which is currently before ACTPLA for consideration. The open letter is self explanatory, however if you have any questions please do not hesitate to email [email protected]

Further information and the ability to subscribe to our Development Application mailing list is available here: www.goldcreekcountryclub.com.au/home/notice.cfm Yours Sincerely Gold Creek Country Club

Gold Creek Country Club (GCCC), 50 Curran Drive, Nicholls ACT 2913 Switchboard: 1300 11 GOLF | www.goldccc.com.au

From: Chapman, Maggie Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014 2:03 PM To: Pankhurst, Owen <[email protected]> Cc: Messer, Sue <[email protected]> Subject: FW: link on the gold creek home page! Owen Fyi and Objective thanks Maggie From: Harry Konstantinou [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 21 January 2014 5:50 PM

To: Chapman, Maggie

Subject: link on the gold creek home page!

Hi Maggie We’ve put a link onto the gold creek home page to a page which states there is no development occurring, plus

a) Provides a copy of the open letter; b) Provides an email address to email if they have any questions; c) Provides a subscription email list so people can get updates

http://www.goldcreekcountryclub.com.au/home/notice.cfm we are considering what else we may want to do.

Regards



Form Site Inspection Record

Revision: 1.0 Page 1 of 2 Classification: Unclassified Template Revision date: 31/08/2011 Version 3 Reference:

Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate

Section 1 – Complete prior to site inspection Case Officers name: Owen Pankhurst Date and time of site inspection: 24/1/2014 DA Number: 201324434 Block: 11&14 Section: 86 Suburb: Nicholls Briefly explain purpose of site inspection: View site subject to subdivision and lease variation Comments: In attendance: DA Leasing- Maggie Chapman, Sue Messer, Owen Pankhurst Proponent - Harry Konstantinou Section 2 – Complete after site inspection Describe outcome of site inspection:

• DA leasing officers viewed the site and the location of the existing features and commercial operations on the northern end of Blocks 11 & 14.

• The proponent was made aware of the issues pertaining to separation of waste

collection, car parking and vehicular access to Block 14, and that these were not satisfactorily detailed in the DA.

• Concerns raised in representations for the viability of the golf course once subdivided

were discussed with reference to separating the current golf club, pro-shop and car parking from the golf course.

• Access by golfers through block 11 was raised as an issue. It was noted that need for

the access paths to be identified. The proponent indicated that the current operation of the site would not change that much. It was re-iterated that whilst that may be their immediate intent, the subdivision would mean that the facilities could be alienated in future.

• The surface rain water drainage was mentioned with the water course flowing through

block 11 and 14 being noted. The proponent noted it was piped onto Block 14.

• MC encouraged the proponent to undertake further community consultation as it was clear from the outcome of the public meeting convened by local residents and the representations received in response to the DA to date that there was a clear lack of understanding in the community about details and effect of the proposal.

Form Site Inspection Record

Page 2 of 2

Describe evidence compiled (photos, documents etc.): No photos Completed by: Owen Pankhurst Accompanied by: Maggie Chapman, Sue Messer Additional comments: none Date: 11 June 2014

From: Pankhurst, Owen Sent: Tuesday, 11 March 2014 5:40 PM To: Isaks, Paul <[email protected]> Subject: Nicholls Golf Course subdivision DA No. 201324434 Dear Paul Please find attached the recent submission of information requested regarding the subdivision and other Lease Variations on the Nicholls Golf Course. The information isn’t all that we’d asked for as it does not fully identify and address the existing/proposed uses. I have not yet asked for further information to address this as I’d like your advice on any major issues with what has been provided so far. I will try to fill in the gaps in the information provided from my initial assessment. The proposal will initially split the site along the lines of Territory Plan Zoning CZ6/PRZ2, however the existing permitted uses will be partly duplicated on block 14, with the further addition of Hotel, Motel and/or Guesthouse being permitted. Please note the following:

The traffic impact statement identifies a 10 unit/room hotel/motel as the modelled use, however this limit has not been established in the proposal.

The proposal suggests a new driveway connection from Block 14 to the existing roundabout on Curran Drive.

There are two previous approvals for indoor and outdoor recreation facilities on Block 14 that have not be constructed.

The proposed new ancillary uses of ‘club’ and ‘child care centre’ for block 14 are not demonstrated and have not been mentioned in parking or traffic assessment.

There are approximately 242 car spaces on block 11 that are accessible from the existing site entrance, however the PVAGC suggests the existing/proposed uses on that block following subdivision will only require approximately 190 car spaces.

The sharing of the existing car parking on block 11 for users of block 14 is not specified.

On an initial assessment of car parking based on the PVAGC suggests the following car parking is required for Block 14 alone:

Requirement for existing approved development on block 14 if subdivided Outdoor rec – 18 hole golf course (assuming 1 car space per hole without any tournament spectators) 18 Outdoor rec – 20 space driving range (assuming 1 car space per range space) 20 Indoor rec/Fitness centre, gymnasium 1,704m2 @ 3.5 spaces/100m2 GFA 60 (traffic report proposes 30) Total 98 Provision

Car park not yet constructed subject to DA No.201222780 72 Requirement for proposed new uses on block 14 if subdivided Club 450m2@ 15 spaces/100m2 68 Child care centre 1 space/centre 1 90 spaces @ 2 spaces per 15 child care places for employee parking 12 Plus visitor parking: 4 spaces: 60-90 child care places 4 Plus 1 pick-up/set-down bay per 10 child care places 9 Total 26 Hotel/motel/guest house – assumed 50 units 25 spaces per hotel with +36 units 25 50 units @ 0.3 spaces/guest room or unit for establishments of + 36 units 15 200m2 @10 spaces/100m2 GFA of bars and function rooms 20 50 seats @ 1 space/10 restaurant seats 5 100m2 @3 spaces/100m2 of retail space 3 Total 68 Total new Car spaces required for Block

14 162

Block 14 combined total if subdivided 260

Would you perceive an adverse impact to traffic flow in the area if the required number of car spaces is increased on block 14 by 162-200 (in the case of a 200 room hotel) accessible from the other roundabout on Curran drive. We’d also like your comment on whether a limit on units/rooms based on the road network’s capacity for this use is required?

From: Aloisi, Angelina Sent: Tuesday, 11 March 2014 10:10 AM To: Pankhurst, Owen <[email protected]> Subject: SUFFICIENCY CHECK FOR DA 201324434-S141A-1/163 NICHOLLS BLOCK 1 SECTION 163 SUBURB NICHOLLS The Applicant has lodged a S141 Application on 7/3/2014. Could you please respond via email whether sufficient/not sufficient. Please update e-Development with your decision (Sufficient/Insufficient) once you have completed your check. The plans and supporting docs have been moved into the ‘plans’ and ‘supporting docs’ folders. If you require assistance, please email Customer Services with your request ([email protected]). Regards, Angelina | Customer Services Officer Phone 02 6207 1923 Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson|GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected]

From: Pankhurst, Owen Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2014 12:40 PM To: 'Harry Konstantinou' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: Messer, Sue <[email protected]>; Chapman, Maggie <[email protected]>; 'Spiros Jeff Konstantinou AM' <[email protected]>; 'John Konstantinou' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Meeting re Nicholls Golf Course application

Dear Harry/Deb Our traffic specialist has reviewed the traffic assessment prepared by Mott McDonald’s and noted that in his view that there is sufficient capacity on Curran Drive to deal with the traffic generated by the range of uses, and that a further traffic assessment does not need to be undertaken. As a consequence, at this stage we do not need you to further address any potential increase in traffic flow in the area. Please advise when you are likely to be in a position to provide the required further information. Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected]

From: Pankhurst, Owen

Sent: Thursday, 3 April 2014 2:11 PM To: 'Harry Konstantinou'; [email protected]

Cc: Messer, Sue; Chapman, Maggie; Spiros Jeff Konstantinou AM; John Konstantinou Subject: RE: Meeting re Nicholls Golf Course application

Dear Harry I apologise for the delay, I have been awaiting further advice on the traffic report from our traffic specialists. However, this is still outstanding. The written information and drawings provided in your submission of further information under Section 141 of the Act is not sufficient to demonstrate that, if subdivided, Block 14 could accommodate the proposed new uses. Also, it includes only part of the information required to demonstrate how the current and approved development on the blocks may operate separately once subdivided. The following matters appear to be outstanding at this point in time:

1. The written supporting document does not recognise that the proposal includes any proposed new uses and doesn’t address nor demonstrate the suitability of these uses in terms of the relevant codes of the Territory Plan. i.e. at a number of points it states that facilities for the uses of block 14 such as vehicular access, waste collection and car parking are not proposed for Block 14 in the future and there are no additional uses other than to create stand-alone uses where they were previously listed as ‘ancillary’. These statements do not support the need to demonstrate the subdivision and proposed uses are viable for this block under a separate Crown lease. It is recommended that these statements be clarified. This is concern is also reinforced in the following points.

2. An external services plan endorsed in writing by the relevant service providers has not been provided. However, as noted you have provided: a) ‘dial before you dig’ plans (including TAMSD and ActewAGL’s hydraulic services) for

Block 11 indicating the separate services for that block, b) For block 14, a drawing showing stormwater pipes, the location of an existing water tie

and an area where sewer connection may be located in relation to the previously approved development.

c) the general location of an ActewAGL electrical asset on block 14; d) part of an email (the response only) from Bruce Reid of ActewAGL Water Division

indicating water and sewer connections are possible for block 14. Whilst the above includes some evidence that separate servicing is possible for block 14, the ‘in principle’ support from ActewAGL Water Division is the only one provided. TAMSD and ActewAGL Electricity Networks demonstrating the possibility of future separate servicing of the subdivided blocks for the proposed uses is yet to be provided.

3. The possible future location of the new uses of club, child care centre, hotel, motel, and

guesthouse on Block 14 has not been identified as was suggested previously.

4. The traffic study does not mention the proposed new uses of club and child care centre proposed on Block 14, nor the approved development that has yet to be constructed. The traffic impact of these uses may be subject to the future advice from our transport specialist. However, the application does not demonstrate that the number of car spaces required or vehicular access for the proposed new uses can be accommodated on Block 14 in accordance with the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code.

5. In examining the justification for the current golf course and driving range on block 14 being supported by the current pro-shop arrangement on block 11, the use of ‘shop’ on Block 11 is proposed to be ancillary to the tennis courts on that block and so could not be used in conjunction with the golf course on Block 14. Furthermore, the current proposed units plan indicates the pro-shop as being in a separate unit to the tennis courts which cannot occur if it is to be an ancillary use to the tennis courts.

A revised submission under Section 141 of the Act is required to be uploaded to address these points. If you’d like to discuss any of the above points please contact me by email or the on the number below.

Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected]

From: Harry Konstantinou [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 11:18 AM To: Pankhurst, Owen; John Konstantinou; Spiros Jeff Konstantinou AM

Cc: [email protected]; Messer, Sue; Chapman, Maggie

Subject: RE: Meeting re Nicholls Golf Course application

Owen?

Regards



From: Harry Konstantinou Sent: Tuesday, 18 March 2014 9:57 AM To: 'Pankhurst, Owen'; John Konstantinou; Spiros Jeff Konstantinou AM Cc: [email protected]; Messer, Sue; Chapman, Maggie Subject: RE: Meeting re Nicholls Golf Course application Importance: High

Hi Owen (and All). I’ve just returned from the US (business trip) and following up on everything. I understand Deb and her team submitted

a) A response to your request for further information; and b) Feedback on the comments received during the public notification period

Can you please confirm that everything you are waiting for from our side has now been received and you are working through the material? Just want to make sure the process is on track moving forward again. From: Pankhurst, Owen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 21 February 2014 3:15 PM To: John Konstantinou; Harry Konstantinou; Spiros Jeff Konstantinou AM Cc: [email protected]; Messer, Sue; Chapman, Maggie Subject: RE: Meeting re Nicholls Golf Course application

Dear John I can’t provide comments on this at this stage. Please could you provide it along with the other documentation required to be formally submitted. Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected]

From: John Konstantinou [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 21 February 2014 1:27 PM

To: Harry Konstantinou; John Konstantinou; Spiros Jeff Konstantinou AM; Pankhurst, Owen Cc: [email protected]; Messer, Sue; Chapman, Maggie


Importance: High

Hi Owen Here is a draft traffic letter. Can you please review and provide any comments prior to officially lodging.

Regards

John Konstantinou Director

-----Original Message----- From: Pankhurst, Owen [[email protected]] Received: Friday, 21 Feb 2014, 12:53PM To: Harry Konstantinou [[email protected]]; John Konstantinou [[email protected]]; Spiros Jeff Konstantinou AM [[email protected]] CC: [email protected] [[email protected]]; Messer, Sue [[email protected]]; Chapman, Maggie [[email protected]] Subject: RE: Meeting re Nicholls Golf Course application

Dear Harry I understand your concern for the cost/benefit of a detailed traffic assessment when you have not yet made concrete plans for this use at this stage. However, we’re required under legislation to determine the suitability of the subdivision and the proposed uses as part of this development. In this case it includes establishing the potential impact to the road network that the proposed development may have. It is likely that, as part of any design and siting DA, you would be required to establish that the actual proposed development to be constructed would not have a detrimental impact to the road network. This is regularly the case where a lease variation is lodged separate to the design and siting for the proposed new use being determined. I will note that you have the option to amend your proposal to exclude the new uses, and then in the future when you are in a position to do so, lodge a further DA that includes both the lease variation and the detailed design and siting proposal for those uses. I will provide you with some feedback on John’s proposition once we’ve liaised with our transport planners. Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected]

From: Harry Konstantinou [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 20 February 2014 10:25 AM

To: Pankhurst, Owen; John Konstantinou; Spiros Jeff Konstantinou AM

Cc: [email protected]; Messer, Sue; Chapman, Maggie Subject: RE: Meeting re Nicholls Golf Course application

Owen Totally understand that, but we have no plans to put in a hotel/motel at this stage, so we have no scope of the size or number of rooms? At the time of a hotel/motel application a new DA would be applicable which would need to provide a full traffic study at that time anyway. (please correct me if I’m wrong) To do a full study the cost is about $15,000 for something that we can’t use in future and is of no long term use. Can we seek some further clarification as your asking us for a traffic impact on something we don’t know

a) We will ever build; b) The scale of such a development; and c) Something we will have to re-do at the time of the lodgement of a hotel/motel DA anyway

The idea of 10 rooms was to provide an indication and guide. If we request one at 50 rooms (example), I’m guessing we can’t use the report in 5 years time *if* we lodge a report. Can’t you make your decision on the grounds that a full traffic impact study will be required in future anyway for that use should it ever be applied to be used? We have no tenants, we do not want to operate it, and the hotel block that is adjacent to the golf course is for sale (because they have no tenants either). We do not want to amend our application to limit it to 10 rooms, or 50 rooms or 100 rooms because that will depend on a future hotel operator *and* a successful DA *and* traffic impact study at the time?

Regards



From: Pankhurst, Owen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 20 February 2014 10:05 AM To: John Konstantinou Cc: [email protected]; Harry Konstantinou; Messer, Sue; Chapman, Maggie

Subject: RE: Meeting re Nicholls Golf Course application Importance: High

Dear John I understand that we discussed that the traffic impact assessment required would be for the worst case scenario. This would include all the uses proposed and existing (including the approved development) and where the traffic would impact the road network in the area. If you wish us to assess the impact of a limit of 10 rooms for hotel/motel guest house, you would need to amend the application in accordance with Section 144 of the Act to express this limit. We would need to carefully consider whether the application would need to be re-notified. I will need to brief and refer this to our transport planners for further advice on the scope. I will advise when this is done. Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected]

From: John Konstantinou [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 19 February 2014 9:13 PM

To: Pankhurst, Owen Cc: [email protected]; Harry Konstantinou


Importance: High

Hi Owen Further to our meeting last week can you please confirm if we were to undertake a traffic engineer if the following scope would be sufficient.

Methodology for Assessment M1 Review the proposed use of hotel/motel Block 14 for a fixed of 10 rooms to confirm adequacy of onsite access M2 Review available traffic volume data relating to the road network in the vicinity of the Gold Creek Country Club M3 Prepare estimate of additional traffic movements expected to be generated by the proposed Hotel/Motel M4 Analyse the impact of additional traffic movements on the existing Gold Creek Country Club Intersection M5 Analyse the impact of additional traffic movements on the future proposed intersection as new entry to Block 14 M6 Make recommendations on the impact of additional traffic on intersections performance and identify any required improvements (if any) We were hoping to cover this up with a brief letter.. based on the possible 10 room hotel/motel ?

If happy, we will undertake the analysis.

Regards


Disclaimer added by CodeTwo Exchange Rules 2007 www.codetwo.com From: Pankhurst, Owen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 12 February 2014 2:52 PM To: Spiros Jeff Konstantinou AM Cc: [email protected]; Harry Konstantinou; Messer, Sue; Chapman, Maggie; John Konstantinou Subject: RE: Meeting re Nicholls Golf Course application

Thanks Spiro Please come into the Dame Pattie Menzies House south building foyer and ask for myself or dial my extension 79055 on the phone there. Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected]

From: Spiros Jeff Konstantinou AM [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, 12 February 2014 2:49 PM To: Pankhurst, Owen

Cc: [email protected]; Harry Konstantinou; Messer, Sue; Chapman, Maggie; John Konstantinou

Subject: Re: Meeting re Nicholls Golf Course application

Thanks Owen see you then!

Regards

Spiros Jeff Konstantinou AM Managing Director

On 12/02/2014, at 2:31 PM, "Pankhurst, Owen" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Deb/Harry

Sorry for the delay. We have a tentative time available for this meeting between at 2-3pm tomorrow (Thursday 13/2/2014).

Are you able to attend at this time?

Sincerely

Owen Pankhurst

Assistant Manager - DA Leasing

Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division

Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate

Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected]

From: Barnes, Deb @ Canberra [mailto: ] Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014 11:13 AM

To: Chapman, Maggie

Cc: Messer, Sue; John Konstantinou ([email protected]); [email protected]; Harry Konstantinou ()

Subject: Meeting re Nicholls Golf Course application

Hi Maggie

We have now received the results of the public notification for the subdivision of Block 11 Section 86 Nicholls from the rest of the golf course. If you could please organise a meeting for use to discuss the issues that have been raised. I am available any time Thursday and I’m sure that the lessees will also make themselves available if you can organise something for then. Thanks.

Regards

Deb

Deb Barnes| Director CBRE |Town Planning

Level 12, 14 Moore Street | Canberra City | ACT 2601

Postal Address| GPO Box 1987| Canberra | ACT 2601 T 61 2 6232 2733 | F 61 2 6232 2740 | M 0407 278 947 [email protected] | www.cbre.com.au

Connect with me on LinkedIn

Follow CBRE: Facebook | @cbreAustralia | Google+

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

<image001.jpg>

This message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential or proprietary. If you are not the intended recipient of this email or believe that you have received this correspondence in error, please contact the sender through he information provided above and permanently delete this message.

____________________________________________________________________________ This message and any attachments may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you received this message in error, please do not copy or distribute it. Instead, please destroy it and notify the sender immediately. To the extent that this email contains information provided to CBRE by other sources, CBRE does not warrant that it is accurate or complete. To the extent that there are opinions or views expressed in this email, they are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of CBRE. CBRE respects your privacy and is bound by the National Privacy Principles. If this email consists of direct marketing material and you would prefer to be removed from this mailing list, please contact our Privacy Officer via phone 61 3 8621 3497, facsimile 61 3 8621 3330 or email [email protected] A copy of our Privacy Policy can be viewed at www.cbre.com.au. Please do not delete or alter this notice.


From: Pankhurst, Owen Sent: Friday, 20 June 2014 5:15 PM To: 'Barnes, Deb @ Canberra' <[email protected]>; 'Harry Konstantinou' <[email protected]> Cc: Chapman, Maggie <[email protected]>; Messer, Sue <[email protected]> Subject: Nicholls Golf Course DA No. 201324434 Importance: High Dear Harry/Deb As advised to Harry the MPRG reviewed the proposal earlier this week. They were concerned primarily with two elements of the proposal: Car Parking First and foremost, the provision of car parking regarding the existing/approved uses on Block 14. As has been noted on a few occasions in this DA process, Block 11 must stand alone in all ways once subdivided, particularly for car parking and vehicular access. This is particularly relevant to your stated intent to subdivide the land under the Unit Titles Act

2001. If further additional car parking is required on Block 14 in the future a variation to the units plan would be required, involving the agreement of all unit holders. In your application and further information you note that car parking for the golf course will be accommodated wholly on Block 14. Currently, there is no car parking constructed on that block. The current approved car parking area on that block appears to hold in approximately 68 car spaces, most of which would need to be used for the approved indoor recreation facility. The MPRG noted that the provision of car parking in that car park as provided in the application did not appear to account for the use of the driving range on Block 14 and the peak use of the course during tournaments. It was noted that with 5 persons per hole and spectators, the golf course could attract a substantial number of vehicles in peak times that, following subdivision, could only be parked on Block 14. The MPRG has requested that further options for car parking be demonstrated for the existing/approved uses of Block 14 as evidence that the proposal to alienate Block 11 from the golf course is suitable. It should be noted that in the event that Block 11 were to be unit titled, the lease for Block 11 would first need to be varied to add the use of ‘car park’, if car parking for use by visitors to Block 14 was required by the subdivided lease for Block 11. National Capital Plan The NCA has advised that the special requirements of the NCP for Gold Creek Tourist Area and 'Harcourt Hill restrict the use of Block 14 to golf course, except where they lie within the “Urban Areas”. Please see the orange area on the General Policies of the NCP map attached. Whilst all of Block 14 is Zoned PRZ2 Restricted Access Recreation, which permits hotel, motel, and guest house as assessable development, the Territory Plan does not override the NCP to the extent of this inconsistency. Consequently, as part of any approval these uses

must only be permitted within the parts of Block 14 that are orange on the block 14 on the attached map. As discussed, a meeting may be appropriate to discuss the options for addressing the above matters. I am not available next week. However, Maggie has advised that the afternoon of Wednesday next week suits her and appears to be free for Sue. You will need to contact Maggie on (02) 6207 71885 to arrange a specific time to meet. Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected]

NCP General Policies - Nicholls/Gold CreekArea

Legend

ACT Border

Districts

Divisions

Urban Registered Blocks

Rural Registered Blocks

Stratum Registered Blocks

Urban Approved Blocks

Rural Approved Blocks

Stratum Approved Blocks

Urban Proposed Blocks

Rural Proposed Blocks

Rural Occupied Blocks

All Blocks

General Policy PlanUrban Areas

Broadacre Areas

Rural Areas

Lake Burley Griffin

Hills Ridges and Buffers

River Corridors

Mountains and Bushland

Disclaimer The map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current or otherwise reliable.

Page 2 of 2

14-Feb-2014

From: Pankhurst, Owen Sent: Monday, 30 June 2014 6:18 PM To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Harry Konstantinou' <[email protected]>; 'Barnes, Deb @ Canberra' <[email protected]> Cc: Chapman, Maggie <[email protected]>; Cilliers, George <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Amendment to Car parking for Nicholls Indoor Sports - Block 14 Section 86 -DA Approval #201222780 Dear John/Harry/Deb Subsequent to the recent discussion with you regarding this DA, Maggie, George and I briefed Jim on the outcomes to date. George asked that I respond to your email. Jim reinforced the need to ensure that the current uses can be maintained and fully viable following the subdivision. He stressed that this included providing sufficient car parking for the golf course during peak use as previously discussed. He did not believe that the temporary car parking on Block 14 shown on the drawing provided to George fully met this need and that some car spaces would be required in the existing car park on Block 11. I note that whilst this is a public golf course, the lease also provides for exclusive use for events such as tournaments and alike. Subject to the provision of a parking study prepared by a suitably qualified Traffic Consultant that demonstrates that car spaces can be provided on Block 11 for the golf course, an amendment to DA No. 201222780 for the indoor recreation facility on Block 14 is not required. The number of car spaces required for the golf course would be determined having regard to the findings of the parking study. The parking study should be submitted as further information under Section 165 of the Act and must address:

1. the number of car spaces on Block 11 that are utilised by the current use of the land, excluding those used for the golf course (only golfers and users of the driving range and practice greens);

2. the number of car spaces required by the golf course for players and spectators at peak use during a tournament;

3. the number of car spaces required for the indoor recreation facility on Block 14 approved subject to DA No. 201222780; and

4. the excess car spaces likely to be available in the car park approved in DA No. 201222780 for use in conjunction with the golf course, driving range and practice greens;

5. a suitable location on Block 14 for any overflow parking for the golf course that may be required.

Depending on the outcome of the parking study and our assessment, Lease Administration has formed the view that it may be appropriate to condition the DA approval to add the use of car park to the proposed lease for Block 11, requiring a number of car spaces for use in conjunction with the use of the golf course on Block 14. Conditioning the DA approval would avoid the need for a further amendment to the current application.

Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected] From: Cilliers, George

Sent: Monday, 30 June 2014 10:58 AM

To: Pankhurst, Owen Cc: Chapman, Maggie

Subject: FW: Amendment to Car parking for Nicholls Indoor Sports - Block 14 Section 86 -DA Approval #201222780

Importance: High

Owen, e-mail from John Konstantinou as discussed – thanks for responding to him Regards George From: John Konstantinou [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2014 1:37 PM

To: Cilliers, George Subject: Amendment to Car parking for Nicholls Indoor Sports - Block 14 Section 86 -DA Approval

#201222780 Importance: High

Hi George Further to our discussion yesterday regarding Gold Creek Country Club, are you able to advise if we were to lodge an amendment to the plan to add additional ‘treated grass’ overflow around the rear of the building for around 30 vehicles, if needed) whether this could simply be reviewed and approved without going to public notification etc. The reason for grassed area is that it is for overflow usage and having the correct foundations to protect the grass if and when the car parking is used we believe is more appropriate than creating hard standing surface that may not be used. Happy to add any screening as considered by yourself, as noted this is considered overflow, as requested by Jim in the MRPG discussions Sue and Maggie had with him. What we are doing is trying to give satisfaction to Jim to approve the subdivision (split off the crown lease of Block 11) from the remainder of the course. His concern was that there is not enough parking should there be a major competition (which these are as we told Sue and Maggie held at Royal Canberra, a closed private course and not at our Public Course.) He was also concerned that in the event of general use that if all the car parking is taken up

servicing block 14 golf course players it would leave existing tenants unable to have customers as they could not find parking. Physically nothing will be changing, these are just his ‘what if’ concerns… at the moment there is more than adequate for any major events (corporate days are our largest events and these work in conjunction with other facilities, tenancies on site anyway). What we want to do is lodge an amendment showing the capacity to satisfy his concerns so he can approve the sub division. After the sub division there will be a units title introduced (which Sue and Maggie have seen the draft for) which will enable us to sell off the Kids Indoor Place Centre, the Child Care and the Swimming Centre and Gymnasium. As we spoke to Maggie and Sue about in detail, the pro shop (which adjoins block 14 along its boundary) and also the food and beverage facilities which complement the golf facilities will continue to be operated in exactly the same way by the same operator, who runs the golf services as well. We need to do this as part of an agreement with the financial institution as part of its funding approval. If you are happy with this we can get the documents marked-up and lodged as an amendment.. Would you be able to see if the review could be conducted as a matter of priority ? We have had this subdivision in since October last year, and prior to lodging it had several meetings on what we were aiming to achieve and the documents to lodge, and its just blowing out, 9 months later.

Regards


From: Aloisi, Angelina Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014 10:20 AM To: Pankhurst, Owen <[email protected]> Subject: 20140707-SUFFICIENCY CHECK FOR DA 201324434-S141E-1/63 NICHOLLS-01 BLOCK 1 SECTION 163 - & VARIOUS OTHER SITES SUBURB NICHOLLS The Applicant has lodged a S141 Application on 3/7/2014. Could you please respond via email whether sufficient/not sufficient. Please update e-Development with your decision (Sufficient/Insufficient) once you have completed your check. The plans and supporting docs have been moved into the ‘plans’ and ‘supporting docs’ folders. If you require assistance, please email Customer Services with your request ([email protected]). Regards, Angelina | Customer Services Officer Phone 02 6207 1923 Client Services Branch | Environment and Sustainable Development | ACT Government Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson|GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT 2601 www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected]

From: Pankhurst, Owen Sent: Wednesday, 24 September 2014 2:38 PM To: 'Harry Konstantinou' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Barnes, Deb @ Canberra' <[email protected]>; Messer, Sue <[email protected]> Subject: RE: DA 201324434-1/163 Nicholls-Notice of Decision-Applicant-01 Harry I had only marked eight. The 9th is at the end of the new car parking aisle next to pro-shop, it can’t be counted as a car space. It needs to be for a turn bay as it’s a blind aisle. Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected] From: Pankhurst, Owen

Sent: Wednesday, 24 September 2014 2:31 PM

To: 'Harry Konstantinou' Cc: Messer, Sue; 'Barnes, Deb @ Canberra'

Subject: RE: DA 201324434-1/163 Nicholls-Notice of Decision-Applicant-01

Dear Harry In response to your questions:

Why do you now say it needs to be 116? There is ample car parking (as per the study provided) in the common areas to cater for any additional traffic for the pro-shop.. and realistically, nobody comes to the pro-shop to shop and not play golf, the 100 golf car spots plus the surplus in the common area are sufficient for the pro-shop also without the requirement having to be 116?

There are not enough car spaces in the central paved car park to meet the number of car spaces your traffic consultant specified as being required for the uses of Block 11. All the car spaces in the central paved car park plus 16 of the 84 car spaces currently in the gravel car park are required to meet the demand for the uses that will be on Block 11 once subdivided. The requirement of the 100 car spaces for the golf course is required in excess of the uses permitted by the lease on Block 11 and so therefore 116 car spaces are required in the car park adjoining the pro-shop. The approved lease for Block 11 does not require the pro-shop to be only used by golf course patrons. The shop use must be considered as a standalone use, as such we cannot consider that the pro-shop once subdivided will only ever be used by golf course patrons.

Also, any update/response from TAMS or on confirmation of an LVC ?

We have the information to finalise the LVC Determination. It should be finalised early next week. TAMSD are yet to respond. I’d expected to receive their comments by Friday. If I haven’t, I will follow up with them after that.

You’ve lodged a revised car park plan yesterday.

Please see the attached marked up version. The 9 car spaces in the clouded areas are required to be left open for vehicle manoeuvring paths and need to be deleted and replaced elsewhere. I trust this addresses your questions. Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected] From: Harry Konstantinou [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, 22 September 2014 2:23 PM

To: Pankhurst, Owen; Barnes, Deb @ Canberra Cc: John Konstantinou; Messer, Sue; Spiros Jeff Konstantinou AM


Hi Owen Did you receive this email from last week? Also, any update/response from TAMS or on confirmation of an LVC ? Thanks in advance!

Regards



From: Harry Konstantinou Sent: Tuesday, 16 September 2014 6:38 PM To: 'Pankhurst, Owen'; Barnes, Deb @ Canberra Cc: John Konstantinou; Messer, Sue Subject: RE: DA 201324434-1/163 Nicholls-Notice of Decision-Applicant-01 Importance: High Hi Owen We are just going through this in more detail and are confused about the 116 spots you mention below. The NOD says: (c) include a requirement for the lessee of Block 11 to provide an area on the land of an adequate size to accommodate a minimum of 100 cars for the sole use of the visitors to Block 14 And the draft Crown Lease says under the car-parking section at 3(c)(ii) An area on the land to accommodate a minimum of 100 cars to be made available for the exclusive use of visitors of Block 14 Section 86 Division of Nicholls; Why do you now say it needs to be 116? There is ample car parking (as per the study provided) in the common areas to cater for any additional traffic for the pro-shop.. and realistically, nobody comes to the pro-shop to shop and not play golf, the 100 golf car spots plus the surplus in the common area are sufficient for the pro-shop also without the requirement having to be 116? Or am I reading something incorrectly ? Thank you! From: Pankhurst, Owen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, 15 September 2014 9:31 AM To: Harry Konstantinou; Barnes, Deb @ Canberra Cc: John Konstantinou Subject: RE: DA 201324434-1/163 Nicholls-Notice of Decision-Applicant-01 Dear Harry

Its not clear which are included/excluded. I believe the outstanding easement plan drawings will clarify this. I am still concerned that there is a short-fall. During the assessment we checked the car parking on-site against your traffic consultant’s report. 116 car spaces are required within what is nominated as Unit 1 on the draft unit plan submitted with the DA (as noted, currently 84 exist there). Of those 116, 16 would need to remain available to the users of Block 11. I am also concerned that the car spaces within the “dog leg” of the access easement to block 14 are being counted where they lie within the path of vehicles entering the proposed driveway. The conditions of the approval require 100 car spaces to be provided on Block 11. To change that at this stage would require further approval of an amendment or a reconsideration. However, it is unlikely that we would consider a reciprocal car parking arrangement that bridges onto another lease because, once subdivided, compliance with any such arrangement with two lessees, one of which being a Units Plan would be difficult. Would it be feasible to provide further parking spaces along the proposed access road to Block 14? Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected] From: Harry Konstantinou [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, 12 September 2014 3:16 PM To: Pankhurst, Owen; Barnes, Deb @ Canberra

Cc: John Konstantinou


Hi Owen Just going through all this and am a little confused. Re Condition A1(b)(i), the difference between 77 and 84 are the 7 (we think there are 8) spots that are for “DIVOTS” café which we did not include for the “dedicated” car spots for Golf course (100), but they *are* on block 11.

Also, the spots that you say are on Block 14, are you referring to this below, and if so, surely having them on block 14, *for* block 14 is just as good ? there is physically no room on block 11 without destroying the vista, gardens to fit these 11 car spots, and based on the existing cart paths, that is the best place to put them?

Regards



From: Pankhurst, Owen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 12 September 2014 8:51 AM To: Barnes, Deb @ Canberra Cc: Harry Konstantinou Subject: RE: DA 201324434-1/163 Nicholls-Notice of Decision-Applicant-01

Dear Deb/Harry I have referred the drawings to TAMSD regarding the overland flow path and compliance with Condition A1(a). There are a few matters that still need to be addressed with regard to the Condition A1. Revisions to the drawings are required as follows: Condition A1(b)(i) - Some of the nominated car spaces and driveways are located outside the boundaries of Block 11, or will be lost when the driveway to Block 14 is constructed. Also the plan shows 77 car spaces where currently there are 84 as noted by your traffic consultant in the DA. Based on your traffic consultant’s calculations, of the current 84 car spaces adjacent to the pro-shop, 16 car spaces need to remain available for the current uses. A revised drawing needs to be provided showing 116 car spaces adjacent to the pro-shop rather than the 105 on the current drawing. The required 100 car spaces need to be identified as separate of those car spaces required for the current uses of Block 11. Block 11’s boundaries should be shown on this drawing. Condition A1(b)(ii) - Some of the 120 overflow/events car spaces shown conflict with the location of the approved indoor recreation facility and its car park. The overflow car parking needs to be in excess of the required car parking of the approved development on block 14. Condition A1(c)(i) - the dimensioned location of the area for the 100 car spaces required in accordance with Condition A1(b)(i) does not appear on the plan. Condition A1(c)(ii)&(iii) – I will need to confirm with TAMSD that the dimensions of the easements for vehicular access are suitable for waste collection. An additional pedestrian access easement on Block 11 is required for pedestrian access from the 100 car spaces to Block 14. The current approved roadway does not provide safe pedestrian access from those car spaces. Condition A1(c)(iv) - TAMSD will need to confirm whether any overland flow path easements are required.

You may wish to await TAMSD advice and our further examination of the easements. I expect that it may take up to 2 weeks to obtain TAMSD advice. Alternatively, you can upload the revisions addressing the matters above at your earliest convenience. However, the easement plan will need to be resubmitted if further revisions are required. To facilitate the lodgement of the further information above, please accept this email as an extension of 28 days in which to provide the further information required in accordance with Condition A1 of the Notice of Decision. You will need to provide that information by 3

October 2014.

If you would like clarification of any of the above information please contact me on the number below. Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected] From: Harry Konstantinou [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Pankhurst, Owen Subject: RE: DA 201324434-1/163 Nicholls-Notice of Decision-Applicant-01

You’re a champion! Thank you! (sorry, I’m under a lot of pressure from this end to get this finalised, which isn’t your fault, so I just need to keep on top of it and make sure its moving…..)

Regards



From: Pankhurst, Owen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2014 5:55 PM To: Harry Konstantinou Subject: RE: DA 201324434-1/163 Nicholls-Notice of Decision-Applicant-01 Harry

The submission has been processed and forwarded me just now, so it will start tomorrow. Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected] From: Harry Konstantinou [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Pankhurst, Owen Cc: Barnes, Deb @ Canberra


Thanks Owen Are you likely to start your review this week or next week?

Regards



From: Pankhurst, Owen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2014 4:56 PM To: Harry Konstantinou Cc: Barnes, Deb @ Canberra Subject: RE: DA 201324434-1/163 Nicholls-Notice of Decision-Applicant-01

Dear Harry That will be difficult until I’ve reviewed it in its entirety and referred it to relevant parties. If I can I will contact you to address any matters ASAP. Sincerely

Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected] From: Harry Konstantinou [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2014 10:14 AM

To: Pankhurst, Owen Cc: [email protected]


Hi Owen Can you provide any feedback on the additional information provided to ensure it is sufficient, and if not, then we can submit more before the due date if required. Also, has any feedback been received regarding the Lease Variation Charge, I don’t want that to hold up anything.

Regards



From: Harry Konstantinou Sent: Friday, 5 September 2014 2:15 PM To: 'Pankhurst, Owen' Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: DA 201324434-1/163 Nicholls-Notice of Decision-Applicant-01 Thanks Owen. No stress… lets just wait a few more days.

I understand the additional information has been lodged online, so if you could review that at your earliest to make sure it is satisfactory that would be helpful. Have a great weekend From: Pankhurst, Owen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 5 September 2014 2:12 PM To: Harry Konstantinou Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: DA 201324434-1/163 Nicholls-Notice of Decision-Applicant-01 Dear Harry I can only confirm our requirements, I’m not in a position to provide advice on ACAT legislation. The presumption is based on the mail being posted anywhere within Australia. I can check exactly where we sent each letter if you want, but where one was posted overseas that may extend the time further. I will assure you however, that to-date the post-approval process has not been delayed because the approval has not yet taken effect. Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected] From: Harry Konstantinou [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, 4 September 2014 5:57 PM

To: Pankhurst, Owen Cc: [email protected]; John Konstantinou; Spiros Jeff Konstantinou AM


Thanks Owen So the approval doesn't take effect (subject to the additional information being supplied) until after next Friday however the time for ACAT has expired so any applications would need to be considered for acceptance as "out of time" essentially? Is that correct? Notwithstanding that I'm not sure adding two days for "franking" plus four days for postage

is realistic these days.. Postage is next day in Canberra.. I'd assume the four days is designed to take into account the delays in postage...

Regards



-----Original Message----- From: Pankhurst, Owen [[email protected]] Received: Thursday, 04 Sep 2014, 5:25pm To: Harry Konstantinou [[email protected]] CC: [email protected] [[email protected]]; John Konstantinou [[email protected]]; Spiros Jeff Konstantinou AM [[email protected]] Subject: RE: DA 201324434-1/163 Nicholls-Notice of Decision-Applicant-01

Dear Harry To clarify my discussion with Deb:

The last correspondence to a representor was finalised 7 August 2014.

Owing to the number of written Notices being mailed to representors it is reasonable that

all mail was franked and posted by the Territory mail service 2 working days following that, or on 11 August 2014.

The Legislation Act 2001 and Evidence Act 2011 provide for a presumption that the Notice

of Decision as being served by post, which includes “sent, received and/or given” in any Act, on the fourth working day following that, or on 15 August 2014.

20 working days from that date is next Friday, the 12 September 2014.

ACAT Act provisions for when an application for review can be made do not necessarily reflect the above legislated provisions for the approval taking effect. As noted to Deb, if ACAT receives an appeal before then, you will likely find out a day or two before I do due to the formal notice having been mailed. If you don’t receive notice of a review from ACAT before close of business on the 12th you may consider the approval as being in effect on the Monday after that.

We have not received advice on the LVC assessment from ACT Valuation Office or Treasury to-date. The required further information can be considered up until when an application is received by ACAT. Once the further information is processed I’ll keep Deb updated on its progress. I trust this addresses all your questions. Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected] From: Harry Konstantinou [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, 4 September 2014 12:09 PM To: Pankhurst, Owen; Marriage, Sue; Chapman, Maggie

Cc: [email protected]; John Konstantinou; Spiros Jeff Konstantinou AM


Hi Owen I refer to your discussion with Deb Barnes earlier. I have also left a message for you (no need to return). Our reading of the NOD states in Part 4 that “… this approval takes effect 20 working days after the date this notice of decision is given to every person who made a representation”. I understand you said to Debbie, that you generally allow 6 working days after the date of decision to cover this period? Were any of the notifications to every person who made a representation sent via post, or all via email, as obviously if all sent via email, the 20 working days has now passed (based on a NOD date 6 August 2014). Notwithstanding that, we expect to lodge the further requested information today for you to review. I have also spoken to ACAT and they have advised that they allow “a time limit to make a request for a review of 28 days from the date of this Notice of Decision” (Page 17 of NOD). Those 28 days expired yesterday. They did mention in special circumstances they can accept an application out of time which I acknowledge.

So based on

The 28 days expired yesterday for ACAT applications There have been no applications to ACAT (which I’m sure you will confirm at some point) The further information you require will be lodged today; and The 20 working days has expired for the NOD to take effect, or is about to expire any day

now based on your advice of + a few days Do you have any feedback in regards to the Lease Variation Charge, as we’d like to progress as quickly as possible to finalising the new Crown Leases, CT’s, etc. If you do not have any feedback, is it possible to follow this up for us. If I’ve missed anything above, or mis-understood the decision timeframes can you please let me know. As you can appreciate, we just need to get this finalised as an extreme matter of urgency from our perspective. Thank you again for your time.

Regards



From: Pankhurst, Owen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 12 August 2014 8:59 AM To: Harry Konstantinou Subject: FW: DA 201324434-1/163 Nicholls-Notice of Decision-Applicant-01 Dear Harry I’d assumed this got sent to the Lessee as well. Sincerely Owen Pankhurst Assistant Manager - DA Leasing Lease Administration– Planning Delivery Division Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate Phone: (02) 6207 9055 - Fax: (02) 6207 1856 - Email: [email protected]

From: Breitkopf, Katherine On Behalf Of EPD, Customer Services

Sent: Friday, 8 August 2014 8:33 AM

To: [email protected] Subject: DA 201324434-1/163 Nicholls-Notice of Decision-Applicant-01

Good morning,

Please find attached the Notice of Decision and entity advice for

DA201324434.

Kind Regards

Katherine

TEAM LEADER|CUSTOMER SERVICES|P 6207 1923

Client Services Branch | Environment and Planning | ACT

Government

Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson |GPO Box

1908 Canberra ACT 2601

www.actpla.act.gov.au |[email protected]


of 2

DISCLAIMER

22-Nov-2013

The map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current or otherwise reliable.

1,700

Block 11 & 14Section 86 Nicholls

1:

LegendRoadLabels_line

ACT Border

Districts

Divisions

Registered Sections

Approved Sections

Proposed Sections

Electrical Easements

Gas Easements

Right of Way Easements

Sewer Easements

Stormwater Easements

Telecommunications Easements

Water Easements

Urban Registered Blocks

Rural Registered Blocks

Stratum Registered Blocks

Urban Approved Blocks

Rural Approved Blocks

Stratum Approved Blocks

Urban Proposed Blocks

Rural Proposed Blocks

Rural Occupied Blocks

Class B Units

Form Legislated Requirements Merit Track

Revision: 9 Page 1 of 6 Classification: Unclassified Form Revision date: 06/07/2011 Reference:

ACT Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate

ASSESSMENT REPORT ASSESSMENT OFFICER: Owen Pankhurst

APPLICATION NUMBER: 201324434

BLOCK: 1 SECTION: 163

DIVISION: NICHOLLS

The Territory Plan zones – Block 11 - CZ6 - Leisure and Accommodation Zone, The Territory Plan zones - All other Blocks -PRZ2 - Restricted Access Recreation Zone, PRZ1 - Urban Open Space, and NUZ3 - Hills Ridges and Buffers Zone. The Planning and Development Act 2007 This document provides analysis of a development proposal in the Merit Track in relation to the legislated requirements of the Planning and Development Act 2007 (the Act), specifically Section 119 and Section 120. Planning and Development Act 2007 - Section 119 In deciding a Merit Track development application, the decision maker must ensure the application meets the following four items numbered S119 (1)(a) to (c) and S119 (2). Approval of an application in the Merit Track must not be given unless the application meets the Section 119 requirements. S119 (1)(a) The relevant code NB: Refer to form Territory Plan Code Requirements Merit Track to complete this question

The relevant code(s) for the development proposal are: Precinct Code: Nicholls Precinct Map and Code Development Code: CZ6 Leisure and Accommodation

Zone Development Code General Code: Parking and Vehicular Access

General Code General Code: Community and Recreation Facilities

Location Guidelines General Code General Code: Lease Variation General Code

The proposal is consistent with the above code(s) for reasons identified in Form – Territory Plan Code Requirements – Merit Track. Note: The Non Urban Zones Development Code is not relevant to this DA as the zoned area occupies a small section of the land adjoining Gold Creek Village. NUZ3 - Hills Ridges and Buffers Zone.

Legislated Requirements – Merit Track

DA No.201324434

Page 2 of 6

S119 (1)(b) Any land management agreement for the land (for proposed development relating to land comprised in a rural lease)

The proposal is not for a proposed development relating to land comprised in a rural lease.

S119 (1)(c) the advice of the Conservator of Flora and Fauna in relation to the proposal (if the proposed development will affect a registered tree or declared site) NB: In accordance with Section 119(3)(a), the application must not be approved unless the approval is consistent with the advice of the Conservator of Flora and Fauna in relation to a proposal that will affect a registered tree or declared site.

The proposal is not for a proposed development that will affect a registered tree or declared site.

S119 (2) Consistency with advice given by an entity to which the application was referred under division 7.3.3 of the Act. NB: Under Section 119 (2) of the Act, development approval must not be given for a development proposal in the merit track if approval would be inconsistent with any advice given by an entity to which the application was referred under division 7.3.3 unless the person deciding the application is satisfied that – (a) the following have been considered:

(i) any applicable guidelines; (ii) any realistic alternative to the

proposed development, or relevant aspects of it; and

(b) the decision is consistent with the objects of the Territory Plan

The decision is not inconsistent with any advice given by an entity to which the application was referred under division 7.3.3 of the Act.

Planning and Development Act 2007 - Section 120 In deciding a Merit Track development application, a decision maker must consider the following six items numbered S120 (a) to S120 (f).


DA No.201324434

Page 3 of 6

S120 (a) Zone Objectives

The development is proposed to take place in the PRZ2 and CZ6 zones. The application meets all objectives of these zones CZ6 – Leisure And Accommodation Zone Zone Objectives a) Provide for the development of entertainment, accommodation and leisure facilities for residents of and visitors to the ACT and surrounding region The addition of hotel motel and guest house provide for further development on block 14 in line with this objective b) Protect leisure and accommodation uses from competition from higher order commercial uses, and encourage activities that enhance the region's economic diversity and employment prospects The additional uses will provide greater economic diversity and employment prospects c) Ensure leisure and accommodation facilities have convenient access to public transport The site has convenient access to public transport d) Protect the amenity of nearby residential areas, with regard to noise, traffic, parking and privacy The ne permitted uses are located away from residential use. The development for additional uses will require further assessment of any specific impacts to residential amenity e) Ensure the location of facilities, and their design and landscaping is compatible with environmental values N/A no landscaping is proposed f) Ensure that the bulk, scale, size, design and landscaping of development is compatible with the surrounding landscape N/A no works are proposed g) Encourage activity at street frontage level and provide an appropriate level of surveillance of the public realm The additional uses will adjoin the public realm.

Form Legislated Requirements Merit Track

Revision: 9 Page 4 of 6 Classification: Unclassified Form Revision date: 06/07/2011 Reference:


S120 (a) Zone Objectives (continued)

PRZ2 - Restricted Access Recreation Zone Zone Objectives a) Accommodate facilities that will meet the recreational needs and demands of the community and are appropriately located for the potential users of the facility The additional uses adjoin the golf course b) Make provision for a range of sport and recreation facilities, whether in public or private ownership that may be commercial in nature The development does not change the current uses or remove the requirement for the golf course and facilitates other recreation facilities c) Ensure the amenity of adjoining development is not unacceptably affected by the operation of sport and recreation facilities, particularly in terms of noise, traffic, parking, privacy and outside lighting at night The development does not change the current recreational uses d) Design and landscaping of development is to be compatible with the surrounding landscape N/A no landscaping is proposed NUZ3 - Hills Ridges and Buffers Zone Zone Objectives Not Relevant The Zone objectives of the NUZ3 - Hills Ridges and Buffers Zone are not relevant to this DA as that zone applies to a small section of the land adjoining Gold Creek Village unaffected by the lease variation. PRZ1 - Urban Open Space Zone Zone Objectives Not Relevant The objectives of the PRZ1 - Urban Open Space Zone are not relevant to this DA as that zone applies to small sections of the eastern side of the golf course and not Blocks 11 or 14


DA No.201324434

Page 5 of 6

S120 (b) Suitability of the Land

The proposed development seeks approval to use the land for the purpose(s) of hotel motel, guest house and subdivision. The proposed uses are listed as assessable development in the above mentioned zones development table, and is therefore determined to be permissible uses for the land. The proposed development seeks to vary the provisions of the Crown Lease. Subject to the conditions included the land is suitable for the development proposed.

S120 (c) Representations

Representations received are addressed in the Notice of Decision.

39 representations received

S120 (d) advice given by an entity in accordance with section 149 of the Act NB: Under Section 150 of the Act, if entity advice is not received within 15 working days, the entity is taken to have given advice in support of the application

Entity advice received is addressed in the Notice of Decision.

The application is not inconsistent with that advice

S120 (e) the plan of management for the land (if the proposed development relates to land that is Public Land)

The proposal is not for a proposed development relating to land that is public land.

Proposal for development on land reserved under S315 for the purpose of wilderness area, national park, nature reserve, or special purpose reserve. NB: If NO ESO has been submitted, request this as further information, or REFUSE the application. It CANNOT be a condition of the approval as the

The proposal does not occur on land that is reserved under S315 of the Act for the purpose of wilderness area, national park, nature reserve, or special purpose reserve.


DA No.201324434

Page 6 of 6

opinion may reject the findings of the applicant and the development will be IMPACT track. S120 (f) the probable impact of the proposed development, including the nature, extent and significance of probable environmental impacts.

Based on the matters to be considered by the relevant Code there are no probable environmental impacts of significance associated with the proposed development.

Site Inspection (Although not a legislative requirement as such, a site inspection may assist with the assessment of the proposal against the provisions of S120)

A site inspection was conducted on 24 January 2014 DA Leasing officers met with proponent and observed the areas to be subdivided. The current development and use of the land, the proposed subdivision boundaries, pedestrian and vehicular access and parking were observed on-site. These matters were discussed with the proponent and have been clarified as part of the further information provided and in the assessment of the proposal.

Form Territory Plan Code Requirements Merit Track

Revision: 6.0 Page 1 of 9 Classification: Unclassified Form Revision date:01.06.2011 Reference:


3244ASSESSMENT REPORT ASSESSMENT OFFICER: Owen Pankhurst

CZ6 & PRZ2 APPLICATION NUMBER: 201324434

BLOCK: 1 SECTION: 163

DIVISION: NICHOLLS

Territory Plan Code Requirements This document provides analysis of a development proposal in relation to the relevant codes contained in the Territory Plan. The proposal meets all rules of the code(s) that are relevant to the development with the exception of those either identified in the statement against relevant criteria submitted for the proposal or, listed in the tables below. The statement against relevant criteria demonstrates the proposal meets all relevant criteria that are, either:

- the applicable criterion to a relevant rule that is not met; or, - the criterion is relevant and there is no applicable rule,

with the exception of those listed in the tables below. 1. Assessment of Compliance with Commercial Zones Development Code The Commercial Zones Development Code is a Code relevant to this proposal. The comments for the criterion or rule identified in the tables below are provided where it is considered warranted to clarify why a particular criterion or rule is either met or not met. Part A Sub-Element: Rule: R2 Applicable Criterion: C2 The proposal meets the Rule because the development proposal does not reduce the range of community or recreation facilities available. The subdivision of the land and lease variation does not remove or preclude the current use of the land for a number of indoor/outdoor recreational facilities and a child care centre. Sub-Element: 5.1 Access Rule:N/A Applicable Criterion: C19 The meets the criteria because the driveways and pedestrian entrances to the site are clearly visible from the front boundary. Sub-Element: 5.2 Traffic generation Rule: N/A Applicable Criterion: C21 The proposal meets the criterion because the existing road network can accommodate the amount of traffic that is likely to be generated by the development. he subdivision of the blocks and additional uses to Block 11 will not increase the demand for vehicular access to the land. Any future development for uses on either block will be further assessed and required to meet this criteria

Territory Plan Code Requirements – Merit Track

DA No.201324434

Page 2 of 9

Sub-Element: 6.1 Potentially noisy uses Rule: R23 Applicable Criterion: N/A The proposal meets the rule because a clause has been added to the Crown lease of Block 14 to require construction to occur in accordance with a noise management plan approved by the EPA. Noisy uses are currently permitted on Block 11 – the Crown lease cannot be amended in regard to changing the current development. Sub-Element: 8.1 Subdivision Rule: R33 Applicable Criterion: N/A The proposal does meets the rule because the subdivision is part of a development application for another assessable development and the block accommodate assessable approved developments. Sub-Element: 10.1 Consideration Rule: N/A Applicable Criterion: C36 Not relevant a neighbourhood plan does not exist for this suburb.

Sub-Element: 21.2 Post occupancy waste management Rule: R64 Applicable Criterion:N/A The proposal meets the Rule because post occupancy waste management facilities are to be endorsed by TAMSD once the details of the actual development that are to be constructed on the land is known. Rule: R65 Applicable Criterion: C65 The proposal meets the criterion because the application was referred to the relevant agency in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Development Act 2007. Sub-Element: 22.1 Utilities Rule: R67 Applicable Criterion: N/A The proposal meets the Rule because a statement of compliance from each relevant utility provider has been provided. The application was referred to the relevant agencies in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Development Act 2007. Sub-Element: 23.2 Contamination Rule: R71 Applicable Criterion: N/A The proposal meets the criterion because no new uses are added to the land within the CZ6 Zone


DA No.201324434

Page 3 of 9

2. Parks and Recreation Zones Development Code The Parks and Recreation Zones Development Code is a Code relevant to this proposal. The comments for the criterion or rule identified in the tables below are provided where it is considered warranted to clarify why a particular criterion or rule is either met or not met. Part A Element 1: Restrictions on Use Sub-Element: 1.1 Club, Educational Establishment, Guest House, Hotel, Motel Rule: R7 Applicable Criterion: C7 The proposal does not meet the rule as the proposed uses of Guest House, Hotel, Motel are not specified as ancillary to the recreational purposes and the proportion/scale of these uses is not specified. The proposal meets the Criterion because the Crown lease will require that the land must be used for an 18 hole golf Course. As such the inclusion of a hotel, motel or guest house does not restrict the availability of land in the zone for recreation purposes and will not prevent future construction on the land that is of an appropriate scale and compatible with the recreational purposes of the zone. Element 2 - Building and Site Controls Not relevant as no buildings are proposed Part B Sub-Element: 1.1 Location Requirements Rule: Not Applicable Applicable Criterion: C11 The proposal meets the criterion or rule. The requirements of the Community and Recreation Facilities Location General Code as addressed below. Sub-Element: 2.1 Subdivision Rule: R14 Applicable Criterion: Not Applicable The proposal meets the rule because the subdivision is part of a development application for another assessable development – the variation of the Crown lease to permit uses, and the residual blocks currently accommodate other assessable approved developments. Sub-Element: 2.3 National Capital Plan Rule: Not Applicable Applicable Criterion: C15 The proposal meets the criteria. The development is subject to Special Requirements under the National Capital Plan. The Special requirements for Gold Creek Village apply to the land within the Hills Ridges and Buffers area policy. Only a Golf Course is permitted according to the special requirements. The new uses have been restricted to the parts of block 14 that are within the Urban Areas policy area. Sub-Element: 3.5 Location Requirements for Community and Recreation Facilities Rule: Not Applicable Applicable Criterion: C21A See under assessment against that Code. Sub-Element: 4.1 Traffic Generation Rule: Not Applicable Applicable Criterion: C22 The proposal meets the criterion because the existing road network can accommodate the amount of traffic that is likely to be generated by the development. he subdivision of the blocks and additional uses to Block 11 will not increase the demand for vehicular access to the land. Any future development for uses on


DA No.201324434

Page 4 of 9

either block will be further assessed and required to meet this criteria Sub-Element: 4.2 Vehicle Access and Parking Rule: Not Applicable Applicable Criterion: C23 The proposal meets the criterion because vehicle Access and parking complies with the requirements of the Parking and Vehicular Access General Code. A condition of approval is required to ensure that vehicular access is provided within easements. Vehicular parking for the proposed uses of Block 14 is required to be constructed in accordance with the Crown lease. A separate DA has been approved that provides car parking on Block 14. Sub-Element: 4.4 Pedestrian Movement Rule: Not Applicable Applicable Criterion: C25 The proposal meets the Criteria because safe and convenient movement of public transport passengers, pedestrians and cyclists is already provided. On the site. Sub-Element: 5.4 Neighbourhood Plan Rule: Not Applicable Applicable Criterion: C30 Not Relevant- there is no Neighbourhood plan Sub-Element: 6.1 Assessment of Environmental Effects Rule: Not Applicable Applicable Criterion: C22 The proposal meets the criterion because the development application is accompanied by an Assessment of Environmental Effects. The following matters are required to addressed. The following is comment on the application of those matters:

a) provision for tree planting and appropriate landscape treatment Not relevant for a lease variation only - The lease variation will not prevent future development providing an appropriate landscape treatment

b) impacts on the character and appearance of any building, area of architectural, historic, aesthetic or scientific interest, or otherwise of special cultural or heritage value

Not relevant to subdivision - The area permitted for the new uses is away from and will not impact on any heritage significant areas or features. The lease variation will not prevent future development addressing these matters.

c) impacts on public health and safety, including crime prevention

Not relevant to subdivision – The addition of the approved, more active uses to the frontage to Curran Drive will provide further surveillance of public land in that area. Health and safety, and crime prevention would only be able to be fully assessed as part of a development approval for construction works.

d) the amount of traffic likely to be generated and its impact on the movement of traffic on the

road system


DA No.201324434

Page 5 of 9

ESDD Transport Planning and Projects had confirmed that the approved new uses will not have an adverse impact on the road network from increased traffic flow.

e) whether public transport services are necessary and, if so, whether they are available and adequate

Access to public transport is available for the new uses on Curran Drive.

f) impacts on the likely accessibility to facilities and services for users and consumers

The current access to community and recreational facilities on the land will not be diminished, and opportunity for further facilities to be constructed there is provided by the lease variation. The prospective users and consumers of the site will have suitable access to commercial and community services in the commercial centres nearby at Gold Creek, Nicholls, and Hall.

g) any significant short or long-term effect that the relevant authority considers the use or development may have on the environment, including social and economic effects and potential cumulative effects

The subdivision and lease variation will not have a significant short or long-term effect due proposed use of this land. It was suggested in representations received that the division of the current club house from the golf course would have social and economic impact on the users of the club and golf course. These matters are not inherent to the proposed subdivision, but are a matter for the management of the Golf Course by the lessee and the members of the club as an organisation. It is noted that the club use is not prevented from continuing on Block 11 and that the approval provides opportunity in the long-term for the golf course to have a clubhouse constructed on Block 14 in the future. The investment of

h) impacts on the watercourses and drainage characteristics of the area, including water quality The subdivision does not impact on any ‘watercourses’ or affect water quality in the area. TAMSD have required that the surface drainage be examined to allow for it to be covered by easements as needed.

i) impacts on the amenity of surrounding land uses, including impacts on air quality, noise,

overshadowing, privacy, and the level of wind turbulance generated. The lease variation and subdivision will not have a direct impact on the amenity of the land surrounding the site. The new uses are limited to an area that is some distance from any residential blocks. Furthermore the design of any building for these uses would need to address this provision as part of a future DA. A the Crown lease for Block 14 will contain requirements for a Noise Management Plan requiring any future use or development to address the impacts of the noisy uses.


DA No.201324434

Page 6 of 9

Sub-Element: 7.1 Waste Management Rule: R43 Applicable Criterion: C43 The proposal meets the criterion because the application was referred to ActewAGL and TAMSD in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Development Act 2007. TAMSD did not raise and concern for post-occupancy waste management. Sub-Element: 6.6 Contamination Rule: R37 Applicable Criterion: C37 The proposal meets the criterion because the application was referred to EPA in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Development Act 2007. The EPA did not require any further assessment of contamination. Sub-Element: 7.3 Utilities Rule: R45 Applicable Criterion: C45 The proposal meets the criterion because the application was referred to the ActewAGL and TAMSD in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Development Act 2007. A condition of approval is required to address the requirements of the ActewAGL and TAMSD. Sub-Element: 7.5 Servicing and Site Management Rule: R48 Applicable Criterion: C48 The proposal meets the criterion because the application was referred to the ActewAGL and TAMSD and in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Development Act 2007 A condition of approval is required to address the requirements of the ActewAGL and TAMSD. 3. Assessment of Compliance with Nicholls Precinct Map and Code Not Relevant - The Nicholls Precinct Map and Code has no provisions for this block. 4. Assessment of Compliance with the Community and Recreation Facilities Location Guidelines General Code The Community and Recreation Facilities Location guidelines General Code is a Code relevant to this proposal. The proposal meets all provisions of this Code that are relevant to the development, with the exception of those listed below. The proposal includes the variation of the Crown lease to add ‘Child care centre’ as a primary use of Block 11 and ancillary use of Block 14, in conjunction with the current permitted uses of ‘club, ‘outdoor recreation facility’, ‘indoor recreation facility’ and ‘restaurant’.


DA No.201324434

Page 7 of 9

Detailed Location Guidelines for community and recreation facilities The relevant ‘Relationship to...’, ‘Separated from’ and ‘Other Issues’ requirements for the proposed/existing uses in the table in Part 4 of this Code are assessed below. Child Care Centre (long day care or occasional care) Relationship to: Near retail centre (for occasional care) Long day care centres on major work routes, or easy vehicle access near major work places. Only small centres in residential areas; on pedestrian path/open space system where possible – Complies -Close to Gold Creek and accessible from pedestrian paths and major roads. Separated from: Social separation from correction facilities. Buffered from sight, smell, fumes and noise of industrial uses and from roads with high traffic volumes (refer to air quality guidelines). Separated from safety hazards (eg water bodies; busy roads)- Complies - site has sufficient areas with separation from Curran Drive, noise to be addressed through NMP required for any future construction of a Club. Other issues: Child care centres must be licensed to operated by the Children’s Youth & Family Services Bureau. Requirements include minimum standards for building size and play area. The Bureau must be consulted in the process of site selection. Play areas should have north easterly orientation Cul-de-sac sites acceptable if there is street capacity to handle traffic generated by the centre; corner blocks acceptable if safe access to site provided – Complies – current child care centre is licensed, sufficient space for issues to be addressed with new development. Indoor Recreation Facility The existing permitted uses under ‘Indoor Recreation Facility’, as defined in the Territory Plan, are referred to in Detailed Location Guidelines of this Code under: Fitness Gymnasium; Squash Centre and Indoor Recreation Centre (pool, gym, indoor courts, etc) and Swimming Complex; Tennis Centre: Relationship to: At town or group retail centre/Near town or district based recreation; near major car parking areas if parking demand not met on site, Complies – adjoins golf course – car parking addressed below. Separated from: Social separation of youth facilities and liquor outlets Noise separation or adequately noise buffered from residential areas Complies – current use has sufficient social separation to the Club. There is sufficient space to provide similar social separation on Block 14 for these proposed uses. Complies – current development on-site for Club Other issues: Safe drop-of area at or near site; bus bays Close proximity to licensed club may be appropriate if other relationships (eg with schools and colleges) are not compromised Complies – current use has sufficient drop off car parking There is sufficient space to provide similar car parking on Block 14 for the proposed uses. Car parking further addressed below.


DA No.201324434

Page 8 of 9

Club – Licensed (eg, ethnic clubs, football clubs, Labor club, Leagues club, RSL clubs) Relationship to: Within group centre or town centre and near car parking Complies - Located in, and close to another, commercial accommodation zone Separated from: Noise separation from residential areas, or adequately noise buffered; social and noise separation from schools, colleges and youth facilities Complies - noise to be addressed through NMP required in the lease for any future use/construction of a Club on block 14. Outdoor Recreation Facility Not relevant - The existing permitted uses under ‘Outdoor Recreation Facility’ limited to a golf course/tennis courts, are not referred to in the Detailed Location Guidelines of this Code as it is not a local/district/town park, a district playing field, or neighbourhood/enclosed oval. 5. Assessment of Compliance with Parking and Vehicular Access General Code The Parking and Vehicular Access General Code is a Code relevant to this proposal. The proposal meets all requirements of this Code that are relevant to the development, with the exception of those listed in the tables below.

Subsection 3.4.4 Locational requirements The following are specific requirements for the location of long stay, short stay and operational parking (ie vehicles used directly as part of the operation within the development, eg fleet cars). Development Long stay parking Short stay parking Operational parking Visitor parking All development in leisure and accommodation zone On-site or within 200m On-site or within 200m On-site On-site or within 200m

The development has not proposed arrangements for the location of car parking off-site

Section 3 - Minimum Parking Provision

Proposed parcel for Block 11 (Parcel B): Requirement Club 450m2@ 15 spaces/100m2 68 Swimming pool 168m2 @ 20 spaces/100m2 of actual pool area 34 Fitness centre, gymnasium 1,000m2 @ 3.5 spaces/100m2 GFA 35 Tennis court 2 courts@ 5 spaces/court 10 Shop 350m2 @ 6 spaces/100m2 GFA 21 Total other uses 168 62 space child care centre 1 space/centre 1 plus 2 spaces per 15 child care places for employee parking 8 plus visitor parking :4 spaces: 60-90 child care places 4 Plus 1 pick-up/set-down bay per 10 child care places 7 Total child care centre 20

Block 11 combined total 188


DA No.201324434

Page 9 of 9

Provision - Block 11 Surface car parks 236 Pick up/drop off +6

The proposal complies with all relevant provisions with regards of this proposed parcel.

Requirement for existing approved development on Block 14 (Parcel A) Outdoor rec – 18 hole golf course (assuming 1 car space per hole without any tournament spectators) 18 Outdoor rec – 20 space driving range (assuming 1 car space per range space) 20 Indoor rec/Fitness centre, gymnasium 1,704m2 @ 3.5 spaces/100m2 GFA 60 Total 98 Requirement for proposed new uses on block 14 if subdivided Club 450m2@ 15 spaces/100m2 68 Child care centre 1 space/centre 1 90 spaces @ 2 spaces per 15 child care places for employee parking 12 Plus visitor parking: 4 spaces: 60-90 child care places 4 Plus 1 pick-up/set-down bay per 10 child care places 9 Total 26 Hotel/motel/guest house – assumed 50 units 25 spaces per hotel with +36 units 25 50 units @ 0.3 spaces/guest room or unit for establishments of + 36 units 15 200m2 @10 spaces/100m2 GFA of bars and function rooms 20 50 seats @ 1 space/10 restaurant seats 5 100m2 @3 spaces/100m2 of retail space 3 Total 68 Total new Car spaces required for Block 14 162 Block 14 (Parcel A) 260 Provision - Block 14 (Parcel A) Car park not yet constructed subject to DA No.201222780 72 The car parking associated with the pro-shop may be used by golfers until a further car park is constructed on Block 14.

There is sufficient space within block 14 to provide a car park and the development to meet the needs of the proposed uses. The proposal complies with all relevant provisions subject to the conditions imposed

GOLD CREEK

GOLF COURSE

LEASE

VARIATION

REPORT

PREPARED FOR

KONSTANTINOU GROUP

CBRE REFERENCE: MID 180193

Contact

Deb Barnes

Director

CBRE (V) Pty Ltd

GPO Box 1987

Canberra 2601

[email protected]

6232 2733

GOLD CREEK GOLF COURSE

Lease Variation Report

PREPARED FOR KONSTANTINOU GROUP

3

CBRE | DEB BARNES | MID 180193 |OCTOBER 2013

CONTENTS

1 PROPERTY INFORMATION ...................................................................................................... 4

2 EXISTING CROWN LEASE CLAUSES ........................................................................................ 6

3 PROPOSED LEASE VARIATION ................................................................................................ 8

4 CZ6 DEVELOPMENT TABLE ................................................................................................... 12

5 PRZ2 DEVELOPMENT TABLE ................................................................................................. 13

6 |COMMUNITY AND RECREATION FACILITIES LOCATION GUIDELINES GENERAL CODE ..... 14

7 PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS GENERAL CODE .......................................................... 15

8 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 16




4


1 PROPERTY INFORMATION

Site Identifier

Block 11 Section 86 Nicholls & Block 14 Section 86

Golf Course lease (Block 14 Section 86, Block 2 Section 85, Block 1

Section 163, Block 1 Section 165, Block 11 Section 88, Block 2

Section 157, Block 5 Section156, Block 21Section 89, Block 1

Section164, Block 22 Section 89, Block 24 Section 89)

Site Address: 50 Curran Drive

Owner/Lessee Gungahlin Golf Investments Pty Ltd

Site Area

Block 11 - 30,650m2

Golf Club lease – 845,751m2

Total area 87 hecatares 5114 square metres or thereabouts

Lease commenced 31 May 2006

Lease duration 99 years

Deposited Plan 10209, 10210, 10211, 10212

Easements Yes – Clause 3(k)

Concessional No

Variations on the CT none

Current Use Golf Course, a range of sporting facilities and amenities including

child care centre and club.

Proposal

- Subdivide Block 11 Section 86 Division of Nicholls from the

other properties comprising the subject property resulting in

two parcels of land (Block 11 Section 86 Nicholls, and the

balance being the ‘Golf Course’ land).

- The addition of ‘Child care centre’ and ‘Club’ as stand-alone

uses on Block 11 (noting that the existing Crown Lease

already allows for these uses on both Blocks 11 and 14

Section 86 Nicholls);

- The deletion of ‘Commercial accommodation use’ from the

permitted uses on Block 11 Section 86 Nicholls;

- The addition of ‘Hotel’, ‘Motel’ and ‘Guest house’ as

permitted uses for Block 14 Section 86 Nicholls;




5


- Various amendements relating to ‘pass’ and ‘repass’ rights

over the two prposed properties to reflect the existing access

circumstances for the single title property.

Land Use Policy:

CZ6- Block 11 Section 86

(For the purposes of this application only zoning CZ6 & PRZ2 will be

taken into considerations).

PRZ2 & PRZ1 Block 14 Section 86 & Block 2 Section 85, Block 11

Section 88, TSZ1, CZ6 & PRZ2 Block 1 Section 163, NUZ3 Block 2

Section 157, PRZ1 Block 5 Section 156, TSZ1 & PRZ2 Block 21 Section

89, RZ1 & PRZ2 Block 24 Section 89.

Overlays

Block 11 Section 86 – None

Block 14 Section 86, Block 2 Section 85, Block 2 Section 85, Block 5

Section 156, Block 24 Section 89 has an overlay of Pe: Urban Open

Space.

Block 2 Section 157 has an overlay of MAAR: Main Avenues and

Appraoch Routes.

Other Relevant Policies

Parking and Vehicular Access General Code

Community and Recreation Facilities Location Guidelines General

Code




13


5 PRZ2 DEVELOPMENT TABLE

The Development Table also identifies a range of activities which are prohibited in the zone. This has not

been replicated here for reasons of brevity as none of those uses which have been identified as prohibited

are proposed. The Development Table does not identify any activities which are specifically permissible

or prohibited on the subject site.

from: ross stevens [mailto:[email protected]] sent ...€¦ · from: ross stevens...

Documents