The Yarralumla community has always argued that reasonable and appropriately planned and designed infill is accepted as a principle, and is welcome in the suburb. Infill such as the 1980s high-quality, medium-density lakeside development off Musgrave Street was not opposed and is widely accepted as an asset to the suburb.

What the Yarralumla and other resident communities object to is bad urban planning, based on the principle of maximising land sales revenue, followed by shoddy residential design.

The proposal by the Land Development Agency to pack 1800 apartments into an unsuitable site in Yarralumla was roundly criticised by planning professionals, and thoroughly dismembered piece by piece by the Yarralumla Residents Association, mainly for contravening the government's own policies and standards.

In putting up this proposal, the LDA also appeared to sideline the ACT Planning Authority, ignore the National Capital Authority and keep Assembly members in the dark. The fallout from this arrogant example of "community engagement" has been a huge cost to all ACT ratepayers in wasted consultancy fees, a massive and unnecessary imposition on volunteers at the Yarralumla Residents Association, an ongoing loss of community trust in the planning process, and long term damage to political capital, which could rebound on the government at the next election.

It is to be hoped that ACT Assembly members will learn from this experience that the irresponsible actions of its unelected bureaucrats can seriously damage trust in the political process.

Paul Ratcliffe, Yarralumla

Like the editor in the Sunday Canberra Times last week, I was heartened by the win Yarralumla residents achieved on the brickworks site, as I am certain of the similarities between their case and the plight of Red Hill residents if Draft Variation 334 is approved.

The government has reduced the proposed density at Yarralumla from 36 dwellings per hectare to 24. The Public Housing Renewal Task Force has proposed a 550-dwelling development for the Red Hill Flats Redevelopment, a density of a whopping 110 dwellings per hectare – four times that proposed for the brickworks.

The government's taskforce however, is seemingly not content with rezoning from low density to high density, but to my relatively untrained eye would also appear to be changing the Red Hill Precinct Code so as to over-ride provisions in the Multi-Unit Housing Development Code. Changes would allow it, among other things, to build to the boundary on most sides.

DV334 also appears to ignore Planning Strategies of the Territory Plan, and be contrary to both the Red Hill Neighbourhood Plan and the Garden City Values and Principles document.

While I was inclined to attribute my disappointment in DV334 to generalised incompetence, my disappointment transformed to irritation when I discovered the government's intent.

The Partnership Agreement signed by the ACT Chief Minister attributes 100 per cent of the sale of the Red Hill Flats site to investment in the Light Rail project, along with the proceeds of sale of countless other buildings such as Dame Patty Menzies House, the Health Building in Alinga Street, ambulance stations, and other public housing sites.

This document estimates total asset sales of $39 2million. Surely the 50,000-square-metre Red Hill site could be sold for $50-75 million in its current state without rezoning.

Stuart Rogers, Red Hill

Columnist Matt Wade asks (Sunday Canberra Times, August 30, p20), "Do you ever wonder if your job might be replaced by a robot one day?"

It's hard to see a robot performing the work of Ministers of the Crown, and Ministers of Religion.

John Milne, Chapman

In linking the ACT government's kangaroo cull and road kill, Gary J.Wilson (Letters, August 29) makes a common mistake.

The cull has little to do with preventing collisioHeading 2ns between kangaroos and vehicles, and is far too small and localised to have any meaningful effect.

Road safety is not one of the reasons that the government or Ministers Corbell or Rattenbury use to justify the cull, although nor are they seen trying to counter such claims when they are made.

Since the cull is described as taking place in enclosed reserves from which the kangaroos cannot escape, it also defies logic that the kangaroos being culled are the ones which would have otherwise come into conflict with vehicles. If the reserves aren't enclosed, then culling could conceivably increase mobility, with kangaroos moving in to replace the culled population, thereby increasing the risk of conflict with vehicles.

Peter Marshall, Captains Flat

I would like readers of Gary Wilson's letter (Sunday CT, August 30), arguing that the ACT government's cull target is appropriate, to ask themselves three questions.

First, what has the NSW kangaroo injury data from Wildcare Queanbeyan got to do with the ACT reserves? Aside from some minor cross-border movement between the Queanbeyan Nature Reserve and East Jerrabomberra Reserve, these are entirely different populations.

Second, if it is true that 2000 kangaroos a year are already dying in car accidents, not to mention those dying due to culling on farms, urban expansion and climate change, why in the name of all that's sane would we want to kill even more of them? No wonder ecologists are predicting the extinction of this species within a few decades.

Thirdly, if the cull target is appropriate, why were the ACT government's shooters unable to find enough kangaroos to meet their target in 2015, even after extending their shooting time by an extra month, and even with a belated extension of their killing to places well beyond the Canberra Nature Park?

They still had to stop 800 animals short of their target, presumably due to nowhere near enough kangaroos to meet it.

And this does not even refer to the government's dodgy counting methods, and its arbitrary and science-free assertion that one kangaroo per hectare is somehow a desirable population density. Nor to the horrendous cruelty of the cull.

Frankie Seymour, Queanbeyan

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.

Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).