TUNSTALL SQUARE FOUR STOREY PLAN OVERDONE

“FOR THE MINDLESS PURPOSE OF PROVIDING EVEN MORE APARTMENTS” 

Tunstall Square Draft Structure Plan

     Click to Enlarge

Only seven of the fifty three submissions council received from residents, regarding shop-top residential development, were totally in favor of the concept. The majority of submitters did not support  increasing building heights to four storeys because the large increase in the number of apartments, up to three levels above each shop, would detract from the village atmosphere resulting in increased traffic, noise, overcrowding, additional parking issues and rubbish etc.

Tracy D. would like Tunstall Square to remain pretty much as it is, she wrote; “Tunstall Square will struggle to cater for the high density DDO8 three storey strategy that surrounds it without building more apartments on top of shops. Maybe a limit of two storeys where the

 trader/owner could live or store merchandise on the upper floor could be okay. Any higher than that, just for the mindless purpose of providing even more apartments, would ruin the shopping centre, besides, given the problems they have created on Doncaster Hill,  Manningham council should, instead, concentrate on providing employment, adequate infrastructure and transport.

It will be interesting to see how Manningham councillors vote on this proposal at the next ordinary meeting given they have already rejected a recommendation from their own planning department that prescribed a uniform a height of 13.5 metres across the Jackson Court activity centre. They had endorsed apartments above only one development but only on the condition the proponent would set aside an area for the operation of a supermarket.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 Responses to “TUNSTALL SQUARE FOUR STOREY PLAN OVERDONE”

  1. David. W says:

    There are three councillors who are likely to vote for this proposal, one is a loud mouth who will approve anything as long it is outside that councillor’s ward, another who has a political agenda and the third is using council to further a career at the expense of residents. This should not be confused with Dot Haynes who will receive our vote should she stand for re-election.

  2. Talford says:

    The survey sent to residents was really a sham to meet procedural requirements because the bureaucrats had already finalised the plan. It was cleverly worded in such a way it would limit objections so as when you answered the feedback questions you were virtually giving support to the their structure plan.
    The feedback form was narrowed to just three questions:
    a) ‘What specific actions of the draft Structure Plan do you support?
    b) Do you have any concerns regarding specific actions of the draft Structure Plan?
    c) Is there anything that you think needs to be added to the draft Structure Plan?’

  3. F D says:

    Manningham council were happy to delete the multi-deck car park (approx 180 car spaces) from the draft plan even though the survey results showed it was more popular and more important than having the four storey buildings. I would have thought the opportunity to increase the total current parking space availability of approximately 550 (including 170 shop front spaces) to 730 car spaces, would have been essential to the successful operation of expanding the centre. Mind you this is not surprising given that Manningham have a history of shirking the work load of finding an operator and the funding for multi-deck car parks
    Providing onsite basement parking for top shop residential development may be easier said and than done given that most shop fronts are only seven metres wide and as a result there would be need for large scale consolidation and the centre losing most of its shops.

  4. John says:

    How will the parking requirements for these upper levels apartments be delivered? Whether its by at grade or parking or in a basement configuration you would expect there would need to be much larger sites than what is available. This would mean the likely emergence of large retailers such as Big W, Target or K Mart etc who would have the resources available to purchase a number of small shops, to provide enough room for proper parking and to organize the building of apartments similar to what will happen with the Bunnings project on Doncaster Hill
    There is no mention of this likely consequence in the council report.

  5. Radelco says:

    Consolidation might not be that simple with having to negotiate with all the shop owners, many with long term leases. Just in the western strip of shops there are approximately 32 businesses that would need to be negotiated.

Leave a Response