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