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.





  1. Bill Rennie says:

    A great result for the ‘Curlew Objectors’!

  2. Warren Welsh says:

    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

  3. Iola Chan says:

    Great News!Thanks for the update! (and thanks for the all the behind-the-scene work!)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *