Planning for Growth – Achieved Without High Density Apartments ?

There is a big push in Manningham to be ready for the growth that the state Government has pushed upon us in the 2030 plan. But really, how much growth is needed ?

Could it be achieved without High Density apartments ?    HELL YEAH !

Well Manningham Council has shown us what is needed, but you have to do some sums to see the truth. Now there are a few key targets that have been identified as the basis of the 2030 plan:

  1. Population growth of 0.8% each year.
  2. Growth is to be focused in the DD08 Activity areas.
  3. There will be a high portion of lone person households.

Well to achieve this 0.8% compounding population Growth Manningham needs to add 4,755 homes.

And if all that growth was built solely in DD08 zones, then by 2030, Manningham would need to increase density inside DD08 zones by 75%  – LESS THAN DOUBLE  ( 175% times current ) Continue reading Planning for Growth – Achieved Without High Density Apartments ? →

First of the planned 10 storeys apartments to be built and occupied on the Doncaster Hill activity centre.

Affordable Housing 95-97 Tram Road Doncaster : 98 apartments and 130 car spaces ( As seen on ABC News)

The 10-storey development includes 48 one-bedroom apartments, 30 two-bedroom apartments and 20 three-bedroom apartments.

This will be the first of the planned 10 storeys apartments to be built and occupied on the Doncaster Hill activity centre.

The state government were concerned at the slow progress of high-rise apartment towers on Doncaster Hill and determined they would provide funding to stimulate further high-rise development, while providing access to cheaper housing.

We were surprised a government funded development of this density would be built so far outside of the city, it is not an ideal location since it is car driven, it has poor infrastructure, lack of a railway and limited opportunities for employment. Many residents will be forced into car ownership to access amenities and services and to provide transport to and from work.

We are not against supported housing, there definitely needs to be help for the community, and you shouldn’t stereo type who will live there, even nice families need help. You could even say the building looks nice, as far as multistory developments go.

              But why put it in that location?          See below for Traffic, Parking, & Birthdays. Continue reading First of the planned 10 storeys apartments to be built and occupied on the Doncaster Hill activity centre. →

State Planning MP lowers height limit

“reasonable residential development in residential areas that adjoin activity centres”.

Council and community heard on Boronia planning.

Well here’s some encouraging news, you may have seen the Boronia Community fight on Channel 7 news a week ago, or heard them before that.

They are tackling the same issues we are, and are a step or two ahead of us. The great part of this is that they have now set the precedent for allowing consideration, ( not just Zone rule limits,) when council and VCAT review development proposals.

Read on below for the release from Mathew Guy’s Office ( State Planning Minister.)

This is the Group in Boronia that have done very well – have a look at their efforts.   http://adbg.weebly.com/index.html

APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT FOR BORONIA GROUP

APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT FOR BORONIA GROUP

Knox City Council will be able to consider whatever height limits it chooses in the Boronia activities centre, after constructive discussions with Planning Minister Matthew Guy.

The Council sought authorisation from the Minister to implement discretionary height controls of 7.5 metres in residential areas of the Boronia activities centre, as part of the Boronia Structure Plan by the Council.

The previous Labor Government bullied the Council and refused this request, stating it would not accept any height limit under 9 metres.

Mr Guy said he had heard the Council and the community’s concerns on the height issue, and wants the Knox City Council to be able to consider 7.5 metre discretionary height limits.

“I have listened to the community and recognise there needs to be some guidance on what is considered reasonable residential development in residential areas that adjoin activity centres. Planning should never be a ‘one size fits all’ approach,” Mr Guy said.

“It is important we support appropriate development in key defined areas while still providing protection for neighbouring residential amenity.

“I have written to Knox City Council advising I want the Council to provide me with its recommendation, not one dictated to it by the previous Labor Planning Minister. If the Council feels 7.5 metre discretionary height limits in this area can be justified, they can make that determination.

Member for Ferntree Gully Nick Wakeling and Member for Bayswater Heidi Victoria said they supported Mr Guy’s decision to give the Council its say on height limits, and that community concerns could be heard through the council process.

Link to Media release    Release from Nick Wakeling MP for FTG

 

MP Marry Wooldridge now knows Curlew Court and DD08 zoning a little better.

Doncaster Member of Parliament Mary Wooldridge came good on her offer to see Curlew Court first hand today.

Hopefully Mary can assist in our fight to keep most of Curlews’ existing character. After all Mary is part of the state government, and DD08 zone regulations belong to the State Government. Curlew is of course, just one example of the DD08 zoned streets which were “TARGETED for Drastic Change” when Manningham council nominated these streets for DD08 high density. We thank Mary and Linda from her team, for their guidance and involvement today.

Remember there is an upcoming opportunity to recommend changes to the current state planning rules see our prior article on MP Mathew Guys’ offer.

2011-07-29 Mary Wooldridge MP Curlew Court

Mary Wooldridge MP at Curlew Court

Protected or TARGETED ? DD08 Spin

As LJ pointed out in her comment today

“I was at the last two meetings and I thought Paul Molan’s actual comment on DDO8 and Curlew Court was that these areas have been “Targeted for Drastic Change.” I find it strange that the vast majority of residents in the DDO8 zones were totally unaware that their neighborhoods had been ‘targeted.’”

Well I heard that from Paul Molans mouth too. And as I previously said, Mayor Gough also described Curlew Court is an Area MARKED for Major Change… (Read as All DD08)

So that brings us back to the Spin on things. Manningham Planning Dept have stood up many times now, and at length, explained how the DD08 rules are there to Protect us, and how the Community was thoroughly advised, and involved.

I see a problem right there:  Being Advised is not the same as achieving understanding ! The C50 Letter to Affected Parties is where 30,000 of us were advised in 2005 .

EXCERPT : …In these areas, three-storey developments are encouraged on sites with a minimum area of 2,000m2, which generally equates to three residential lots. If a minimum area of 2,000 m2 cannot be achieved, Council would consider an application for a multi-unit development with a maximum of two storeys…..

 Now 5-7 Curlew court is two house blocks totalling 1,632  m2   But as we all know Council now thinks that’s OK for three storeys… I have also spoken to residents who attended the public meetings after the C50 letter, and they are adamant that this current reality was never mentioned or eluded to.

see also  C50 Frequently Asked Questions    Then help us change these rules to something more appropriate and aligned to respect the Doncaster area Character.

I thought this was also a pertinent find from Warren Welsh today:

Inviting citizens’ opinions, like informing them, can be a legitimate step toward their full participation. But if consulting them is not combined with other modes of participation, this rung of the ladder is still a sham since it offers no assurance that citizen concerns and ideas will be taken into account. The most frequent methods used for consulting people are attitude surveys, neighborhood meetings, and public hearings.

When powerholders restrict the input of citizens’ ideas solely to this level, participation remains just a window-dressing ritual. People are primarily perceived as statistical abstractions, and participation is measured by how many come to meetings, take brochures home, or answer a questionnaire. What citizens achieve in all this activity is that they have “participated in participation.” And what powerholders achieve is the evidence that they have gone through the required motions of involving “those people.” From..SHERRY ARNSTEIN’S LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

 

Curlew court Rejection – Classic Councillor Comments

As I said late last night in the previous Post, there was a lot of hot debating, and some unsavoury nasty characters using personal attacks – very dis-appointing behaviour. I am glad the Councilors that Voted our way Kept their decorum throughout the night.

I tried to get the exact words down – these are the best from my notes.

Classic Councillor Comments, and a few other experts opinions…

Great description of the Curlew 5-7 building plan by Cr Meg Downie : Great Big Whopping Pimple in Curlew court !

Meg also said: I don’t believe one car park for households in Doncaster is Realistic.

Cr Yang quite rightly pointed out that :

If the only things that matter are the Yes or No of zoning rules, then why offer community the opportunity to OBJECT, why send it to council to vote ?

She is right of course, all you would need is a big rubber stamp.     Who would be given that ?

Cr Reid – Don’t stuff all of these high density issues into Koonung Ward.

And the zoning rules need “Refinement”    I like the way he got the message across.

 

Mayor Gough : Curlew Court is an Area MARKED for Major Change.  ( What happened to DD08 protecting us.)

 

Paul Molan ( Director Town Planning.)

A street like Curlew Court can handle 2000 to 3000 cars movements per day.

At the meeting the night before PMolan also advised  the councillors that they use the rule of 5-7 times the homes = Car movements. therefore working back wards : 2500 movements capacity, divided by 6 movements per house = 416 houses in Curlew court before Traffic hit capacity.  ( there are currently 24, & this plan would see EVERY original house block developed to 28 apartments – even the newer town houses replaced.)

I sure hope I misunderstood this, because Paul Molan also said at that time that : Traffic would be the likely limiting factor to stop further development in Curlew Court.

Cr Mayne:  (He did Vote in Favour of the Development,) & said that VCAT wins are hard to get. He did also say no-one would deny the Councilors their democratic right to pursue VCAT. Which I understood meant he would not stand in the way of a VCAT challenge if needed.

Cr Mayne also said: to Reject the development would send a disappointing message to Developers and and council staff (that had worked hard on this.)

Well, to Approve it, would send a very disappointing message to the loyal residents already living here!

 

 

Brian Tee – Visits Curlew Court

Thanks to Brian Tee ( Shadow Minister for Planning,) for Visiting Curlew Court personally and spending an hour talking through the difficulties we have, dealing with developments, planning departments, and council.

His input today was both valuable, and down to earth, we thank him for his time, standing on the rain, and afterwards.

We discussed planning and development as a longer term need, and not each development in isolation, the compounding impact of traffic, and particular the differences in the Doncaster area.

Brian Tee shadow mnister of Planning at Curlew Court

Brian Tee shadow mnister of Planning at Curlew Court

brian.tee@parliament.vic.gov.au

Another Chance for Frank and Les to have their Photo taken, Thanks to Lisa for being there too, and hiding behind the Camera…

Curlew WINs One – Development rejected by Council.

Well after some heated debate, we won this round, the Manningham Council rejected the 30 unit development inside our Court.

It was noted that this is the first development of this density in a Court, and that deserved special consideration.

The following long debate was mostly along these lines:
FOR : Meets the rules, show absolute faith in our Planning Dept, and don’t confuse the developers about the rules being everything. Look after those wanting to move in to the area.
AGAINST: The Planning Dept has not stuck to the Rules, the design has several questionable aspects, and beyond that the DD08 regulations need to be considerate that a court is not the same. The zoning needs refinement, and must be more considerate to existing amenity, and traffic etc. Over development, setting precedent – the first one does not have to be the maximum. there was great argument – too much for me to keep up notes with.

 

After several throws back and forth the Vote went down

Against this Development : Cr Jennifer Yang, Cr Ivan Reid, Cr Jessica Villarreal, Cr Grace La Vella, Cr Meg Downie

Cr Graeme MacMillan – originally voted For the development than Voted Against, after hearing all of the Arguments.

For Development : Cr Stephen Mayne, Cr David Ellis, Mayor Geoff Gough ( all very strong for and Vocal,)

If you’ve ever heard the Planning dept refer to these DD08 Zonings, you’ll know the regulations are to “Protect us from unlimited development”, however the Developers and Planning dept. use DD08 MAXIMUMS as the preferred size. And as Paul Molan ( Planning Dept director, ) responded when it was pointed out the lift wells exceeded the maximum site height  “Those things normally go a bit higher than the building.”

As you would expect, every time Paul Molen spoke there was no question in his mind that the design had no flaws, and there was no planning rule reason to reject it.

It was also mentioned again many times that every resident was notified,  and therefore should know, that they were “specifically targeted for MASSIVE change”. ( Paul Molan.)  Now did that letter tell us we were being protected or TARGETED ? maybe that topic is for tomorrow.

I think we need to clarify the difference between given notice, and achieving understanding.

Anyway lots more work to do – thanks for the team that got us this far, and especially for those that listened.

 

 

 

140 attend RAIDID DD08 Info Night.

Well it was a great turn out for a cold night, which just goes to show how many people are seriously worried about where these developments and zoning is going.

The Manningham council planning dept did thier best to explain how these zones were protecting us, and although it got a bit heated at times, I think a several of the key messages got through:

  1. The zones are NOT protecting us enough, and we want them changed.
  2. The council reviews of the developers plans and traffic reports are not thorough, nor objective enough, and in some cases are just plain wrong.
  3. Residents are frustrated with how the council wants to REPLACE our neighborhood with something less “Suburban.”
  4. Residents Do think these developments are overbearing.
  5. We are not happy that these failings have to be pointed out by us, at our expense!
RAIDID DD08 Event - Les Presenting

RAIDID DD08 Event - Les Presenting

Download the full presentation here: DD08 Info Night 2011-07-21 with explainations

Continue reading 140 attend RAIDID DD08 Info Night. →

Manningham Planning Dept recommend to approve Curlew 5-7, because it suits the neighborhood character.

The report from Maningham Planning Dept talks about how well it meets the planning rules, then explains how it doesn’t but that’s OK because it suits the neighborhood character.        NO it does Not !

EVEN AFTER  Ian Wood gave them lots of non-compliance issues !

Early in the piece they explain how they want the neighborhood character to be less “Suburban” and more high density. Therefore, anything that agreed with High Density MATCHES the neighborhood Character.

Looks like we still have some work to do…

 The council meeting Agenda is now released and on the Manningham website.

 …. The report concludes that the proposal generally complies with the Manningham

Planning Scheme, including the requirements of the Design and Development

Overlay – Schedule 8 (Residential Areas adjacent to Activity Centres and along

Main Roads) and Clause 55. The proposed building is attractive in appearance and

scales appropriately to surrounding dwellings. Council’s Traffic Engineers have

considered the impacts of the development on the local road network and raised no

objections. On this basis it is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site

and therefore recommended for approval.

  Full report is at:

 http://www.manningham.vic.gov.au/maccwr/_assets/main/lib90260/council%20agenda%2026%20july%202011.pdf

 Looks like we had better make a big impact at tomorrow nights DD08 info night …