PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT
BLOCK 12 SECTION 3 DEAKIN
6 CANTERBURY CRESCENT
DESIGN OUTCOME STATEMENT
Figure 1: Existing 6 Canterbury Crescent residence
1. DESIGN
The proposed knock-down rebuild at 6 Canterbury Crescent, Deakin complies with the land use
policies set out in the National Capital Authorities (NCA) regulations as set out in Appendix H,
Conditions, and Appendix M, Residential, sections. The proposed residence will enrich the
streetscape, provide amenity for the new residents, and establish a new environmental quality
within the neighborhood.
Amenity has been improved by siting the building at an angle to gain best use of the northern sun,
and work around the existing trees, while also enabling privacy and quietness to the new residents.
This arrangement will limit the adverse effects of the Canberra climate and maximize its
advantages. This 605sqm residence, which is a plot ratio of 0.35, will provide a very suitable home
for the Ambassador and his family.
Careful attention has been given to the setbacks of the building, with Canberra norms adhered too.
A minimum 6m setback from the front has been achieved, however, the majority of the residence is
set even further back than that, with the two storey section in excess of 12m from the front
boundary. The side setbacks of the ground floor are 3m to the western side and 6m to the eastern
side allowing for the driveway and turning in and out of the garage. The upper floor setbacks are in
excess of 5m and 8m respectively. The rear setbacks also comply with the minimum 4m and 7.5m
for single and double storey. The maximum relative level height for the residence is 593.160 at the
portico, which is approximately 9.1m high.
With regards to the landscaping of the block, the large trees at the rear of the block are to be
retained, and the couple of large trees on neighboring properties should also be unaffected. One
tree will need to be removed to allow for the new driveway; Tree #6 in the arborists report. A the
new single entry turning circle driveway will replace the existing dual driveway, which will also
mean a reinstatement of the existing front hedge to disguise the security fence. The security fence,
a 1.8m high metal picket and brick pier fence, is a must for this development as it will be the
Ambassador’s residence, and thus security is a paramount issue. However, it will be erected behind
the existing hedging, and will be well hidden from the street. The intension for the remaining
fencing was to be installed to match the rear metal fence, however, after the neighborhood
consultation process VRD carried out, a rethink on the colour of the fence would be appropriate
(refer to #2 Neighborhood Consultation below). With some new planting in the front and rear
gardens, the ‘Garden City’ character of Canberra will be achieved.
Figure 2: Architects impression of the rear Trees to be retained.
Figure 3: Architects impression of the reinstated hedge, security fence and new driveway.
As and Ambassador’s residence, there are two flag poles proposed in the turning circle of the
residence, to fly the flags of Mynamar (Burma) and Australia. It is also possible that the Embassy
wishes to place their crest on the gate, however, that has yet to be confirmed. These are symbols of
their nation, the position held by the Ambassador, and its relationship to this country and are
therefore very important to the proposal.
Figure 4: Architects impression of the South East elevation, including the flag poles.
As this is to be an Ambassador’s residence, appearance is very important. Thus materials have
been selected carefully as to produce a quality finish. The material palette is a mix of stone, brick,
rendered and painted foam, lightweight cladding and metal cladding. The colours of all are of
earthy or neutral tones (refer to the colour sample board). The roof will also follow along the same
lines, and while it will be a metal sheet roof, it will not be reflective.
Figure 5: Architects impression of the North West elevation.
2. NEIGHBOURHOOD CONSULTATION
VRD Design (VRD) has conducted a preliminary consultation process. This involved a letter drop
to all the neighboring properties, informing them that a development approval has not yet been
submitted, but that the process was heading in that direction, and that a more formal consultation
process would be made by NCA. The letter outlined that the residences could contact VRD to
review the plans. The addresses canvassed were numbers 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11 Canterbury Crescent,
number 29 State Circle, and unit site at 35 and 37 State Circle. To date, VRD has only been
contacted by residents at number 8 and number 9 Canterbury Crescent, and number 33 State Circle.
The letter handed out will be attached to the submission.
The residents at number 8 Canterbury Crescent thought the design was “very smart”. They liked
the materials, and its modern appearance. They want to maintain the common hedge on the
northern side boundary. They hate the rear cream/ beige Colourbond fence. They are happy for the
fence to be Colorbond, however, they would prefer dark green. They even said that they would pay
to repaint the Ambassador’s side of the rear fence if need be. They would also like the trees in the
northern corner to remain. They would also like ACTEWAGL to put all service cables
underground (it is understood that this is outside NCA’s control). Please also refer their letter,
which is attached.
VRD has informed the residents at number 8 that they are happy for the fence to be a different
colour, and have told the builder and client that their preference is for green. VRD has also made
them aware that the trees will remain in the northern corner.
The residents at number 9 Canterbury Crescent mentioned that her view to Parliament house will be
partially diminished, that she was concerned with the asbestos in the existing building and that it is
handled correctly during demolition, and how many people would be residing there.
VRD has made the resident at number 9 aware that the demolition will be done by a specialist
demolition company and that asbestos will be handled appropriately. The residents have been made
aware that it is an ambassador’s residence and that a family of 3 or 4 is likely, however they will
have regular visitors.
The residents at number 33 State Circle, like 8 Canterbury Crescent, was concerned about the
cream/ beige Colourbond fence, that as many trees as possible be retained, and the possibility of
overlooking into backyards.
Like the residents at number 8 Canterbury, the residents at number 33 have been told that their
request for a different colour fence has been passed on to the builder and clients, and that the
majority of the trees will remain. VRD has also made them aware that the setbacks of the building
are compliant with the rules, and in fact that they are in excess of those rules.
3. MORAL RIGHTS
The Embassy could not find any documents or plans for the existing residence. VRD did a file
search to get whatever the government had on the building file. There were only a few documents
on file, a previous design for the block that obviously did not go ahead, the original existing design,
a drainage plan, an identification survey, and the certificate of occupancy. While the previous,
unused design had a legible title block identifying the architect, the plans that were actually built do
not, with a site plan stuck over it. The only legible name on the existing plans was the surveyor on
the identification survey. As such, VRD did not have enough information to even attempt to track
down the original designer.
Figure 6: Superseded Preliminary working drawings 13 January 1959
Figure 7: Existing Design May 1959
4. HERITAGE
A report has been written by Heritage Architect, Eric Martin, to cover the heritage significance
within the street and area, and the proposed designs effect on such items. The conclusion of that
report reads:
“The existing house has insufficient heritage values to support listing on any
heritage register as it is a typical late 1960s design with unremarkable features by
an unknown designer for a person who has no known importance/local
significance.
The proposed design is not inconsistent with the diverse character of the area and
has no impact on the two heritage nominated/listed places in the area.
The proposed demolition of the existing house and replacement with a new
ambassador's residence will have no adverse impact on the heritage values of the
place and area.”
The assessment concludes that there are no issues with the proposal for Heritage.
5. UTILITIES AND SERVICES
VRD has contacted ACTEWAGL and TAMS in relation to this proposal, and they have responded
with the following:
5.1. ACTEWAGL
5.1.1.
Water and Sewer - Conditional Approval
5.1.2.
Stormwater & Communications – Advice was sort via email on the 7th
of November 2014, and no response was ever received.
5.1.3.
Electricity - Conditional Approval
5.1.4.
Gas – Conditional Compliance
5.2. TAMS
Advice was sort via email on the 7th of November 2014, and no response was ever
received.
6. DEMOLITION
All due diligence will be taking in regards to demolishing the existing, with experienced demolition
experts to take out the work. There is a high likelihood of asbestos products used in the existing
residence, if this proves correct, it will be removed by a licensed asbestos remover.
Robert Valk
VRD Design