A real plan that is sensible, solid, relevant and lasting – sustainable

This great submission was wriiten by Ming from East Doncaster and sent in to RAIDID – I hope you got your submission in, and the council takes our views seriously..

I would like to share with you my submission….

To: The Manager, Economic and Environmental Planning Unit
Manningham City Council

Dated: 25th November 2011
REF: Submission against elements of the Draft Residential Strategy

1. Failed to consult with local communities on the exact extents of the greater impact on residents social and living norms with the elements of “Residential Strategy” leading to irresponsible development;

2. Failed to articulate why local communities must embrace such a rapid change of environment with the imaginary rapid population growth here when population growth is generally taking its nature causes and across the entire country, states and all councils across an overall urbane planning scheme. Where else today is having the sort of irresponsible development like Doncaster and surroundings with the similar social, transport infrastructure and employment opportunities?

3. High density housing which this “Residential Strategy” is all about is developed based on some significant false assumptions and lack of clear understandings of the consequential effects to wider society.

3.1 Diversity – the plan aims: a range of housing types suited to the community’s varied needs.
Reality: Who are the “community”? There is no balance and control on the needs of local residents and the needs of developers who’s only aim is to make quick money out of INDIVIDUAL project. That is why we have found (a) apartments development everywhere (b) built deep into residential streets rather than just the main streets without any responsibility of improving local roads, parking provisions, traffic flows, safety of local residents, etc. from both Council and the developers. (c) Tall buildings becoming taller by the day as clearly the developers found a lot of big holes in this “Residential Strategy”. The need for tall buildings is definitely not the community’s need. This is just about the developer can make even more money from each project. All provisions in this plan allow these happening must be changed. The Plan must stop taller and denser developments in the Doncaster Hill area, let alone these side streets and courts. Developers must be also responsible for changes to local infrastructure due to their development, not just funded by us, the rate payers.

3.2 Neighbourhood character – the plan aims: retention of Manningham’s ‘balance of city and country’ and varied lifestyle options.
Reality is the plan fails to articulate what about these in between city and country? What are exact these varied lifestyle options? These “ideas” expose even a much big hole on the planning by failing to recognise our planning here is relevant to the entire Manningham area, as part of the growth corridors, etc. Rely on the assumption of quick population growth around the Shopping Centre to get a railway station reflects on the lack of understating how a railway line is planning, funded and built. Even the shopping centre has a limit of occupancy by fire safety design. Without these basic considerations, the implementation of such a Plan can only lead to irresponsible development, damage local characters in such a short span of time without achieving any objectives. If you ask any expert in railway line planning, they will tell you that a railway line through Doncaster is the way, not terminated at Doncaster. Connectivity is one key element of future sustainable living. You can never imagine a train stops at Doncaster yet expect people live here to use it because in the future, job growth is almost all in the regional hubs, rather than in CBD. When you think how a railway line will be extended, then these “country” area within the Manningham is the area for potential development, rather than the other way around. One key reason is that the land out there is still relatively cheaper to build railway line, new community hubs and social support network. All provisions in this Plan that can affect Neighbourhood character with irresponsible development must be removed.

3.3 Connectedness – The plan aims: integration of housing, public transport and employment opportunities to create vitality and a distinct ‘sense of place’.
Reality is the only thing we see is all these apartment blocks and tall residential buildings. What are the basis and evidence of “integration” of housing when a tall building can be built few meters from a single story house? A 15 story building can be approved deep into the mostly single house area? Where are the provisions for sufficient spacing between buildings? Where are the provisions for open public areas between the buildings when there is a high density of people living in these apartments? What are the provisions for the nature flow of traffic deep inside these residential areas through the bottlenecks to the main roads when no changes or re-alignments to the existing streets allow for the sudden change of traffic flow? What are the expected mix of the new community moving into these apartments? What are their needs and these of exiting community, how they align? Where are the areas of identified employment opportunities, are they in line with the targeted new community, how do they do their daily routine base on the infrastructure we have today? How this can affect others in the area, how much more environment issues we need to deal with before we can use the term of “sustainable” living? Apart from the apartments, where is the plan for industrial and business development that are connected with all these rapid residential development and in line with the residents profile expected in these apartments? Connectedness is a big word and is one of the factor for future, but it is not be understood fully in the Plan. Transport mode in fact include walk, cycling, etc. While the Plan gives developers key to make money by promoting a walking distance to the shopping centre, what about the majority of the community why is not within the walking distance, they have to drive through a much congested areas around the shopping centre, hence more pollution, or they just go elsewhere to shop, there is no “sense of place” for the majority of the community who are forced to do their daily routine against their preference and their living habit. Australians don’t have a habit to shop daily, so even for these living in the apartment, they won’t be able not to drive. Then, others like schools, hospitals, emergency services, community support, are all key considerations when we talk “connectedness”. In Australia, well over 50% of kids go to school on a car today compare to only 17% in the 1970’s. How relevant of these apartment development can address this issue and where the new schools may be to support such a sudden change of local community character? This is just an example and one don’t need to go far to see it can apply to all things in life. So the plan must go much deeper in this aspect.

3.4 Sustainability – the plan aims: in terms of built form, public transport patronage and infrastructure provision.
Reality is when you plan as part of a “growth corridor”, there can be orderly and responsible development over a period of time. We can never live ahead of time. Westall station has only 1800 people compare to 10,030 in BoxHill station on an average weekday, do you think Westall area deserves a station more than Doncaster in term of the infrastructure and population numbers with or without these irresponsible development here? The answer is no. But even in Boxhill, you can find a lot new townhouses near the station, but nothing like what the Plan allows for here. They also have TAFE, government agencies like Centre Link and verities of SME companies that provide employments. The word “sustainability” cannot be used with the Plan in its current form. Electricity is the single most issue we are dealing with in term of sustainability, why then the Plan encourage high rise buildings, high dense apartments that consume significantly more energy with little chance of implementing renewable energy once built? Why building waste water treatment plant in the heart of the existing community that benefit only these who choose to live in these irresponsible new development? Water is an issue for the whole Australia, not just Doncaster. So any plan on water conservative measures must be in line with what happening for the entire community and the new technology as they become available. If such an ac hoc approach with the Plan, you will find very quickly we need a waste depot in our community, we need to build another random waste water treatment plant here and there that are totally disconnected with the majority of the existing residential blocks while we bear the negative impact on our normal living standard for others gain. The plan should focus on the real environmental issues (in the order of priority). The true sustainability for building is these measures applied to the building without affecting other buildings or surroundings. So if a tall building needs a waste water treatment as one measure, this must be installed and dealt with as part of the building, just like installing solar power. Any gain from these measures by the residents is balanced with additional investments from the developers. The developers must pay for these money-spinning “features”, not the rate payers in term of money and public park space. The Plan must be clearly articulate the minimum “sustainability” measures a new development must comply as part of the plan, including an impact statement with committed fund from the developers when their development is affecting the “sustainability” of local community as a whole. So the plan should be very specific about what do we mean by “sustainability” and how new development must comply so moving into the future, the entire community, new or old, can be truly sustainable.

3.5 Affordability – The plan aims: providing affordable living opportunities.
Reality is when irresponsible high rise and high density development is encouraged, affordability is the last one can expect. By pushing for taller building, developers can put in few more penthouses apartments on the top for more money. Economy tells us that few million dollar penthouse apartments in one building can bring up overall price of each apartment in the same building. Affordability is also about ongoing rates and expenses. People looking for true affordable housing can be discouraged if they realise the true cost of living in the long run with routine check and maintenance on things like fire safety and left, overhauls over the life of the buildings, high cost of implementing any future new sustainable technology, etc. etc. When the Plan use the term Affordability without specific meanings, developers can use it to drive down cost of design, general built but not necessary on the selling price. Do you really think these buildings standing today are good architecturally designed? These buildings look nothing like ones expected in year 2030. If the Plan is about 2030, the building design must reflect on that to go the distance. The Plan must take into account the design building life (particularly these tall buildings) and approve based on if the design can last the distance and how the building life aligns with planned transport infrastructure, general community facility development and expansion, etc. If these are not aligned, the development doesn’t fit in. The point is that you don’t need to build so many apartments in such a short space of time with so many uncertainties and untested assumptions a vision (or illusion) can be a reality. If the railway station won’t be built and in operation in 20 years, how all these people go about their live in the meantime? Public housing is not something the Plan should be encouraging, let alone financially supporting by the council without due consultation with the local community. In general, people choose to live in public housing have their special needs as well. Unless we have a well planned (and committed by all stakeholders) structure to support these residents locally, it is not about just feeling good in a social sense. “Like to live in Manningham” is not a reason why such affordable housing is provided. The plan must articulate what is affordability and how to achieve this in isolation of a wider housing market in Melbourne with affecting the nature growth of the majority existing housing market in the area, who are the expected residents in these affordable housings and what we have in place to meet their needs, etc.

4. If a plan allows a 15 story building with stack-up car park mechanism in this area, the plan fails everyone in the community badly. Even you go to China and Hong Kong, how many of residential buildings have these? You can find the idea in tall office buildings in Hong Kong, Tokyo and New York, but is Doncaster anywhere close to these places in term of business activities in a global scale, population and available land? The plan must go back to the drawing board to seriously look at measures that are relevant to the living environment here. If the development can’t fit in with strict parameters defined in the Plan, it doesn’t fit in, full stop. Instead of making 10mn from the development, the developer may make 7mn instead, so what? It is not council role to maximise developers financial interests, intentional or not. In contrast, the only interest the council must protect and maximise is the local community short and long term interests. After all, rate payers are the ones are the most important stakeholder in the entire planning process.

5. The plan must also be very specific about building height limits taking into account (a) the gradual changes (e.g. ) in height leading to the existing normal housing areas with very specific minimum building spacing and set-back measurements. The taller the building, the wider the spacing must be provided. Public space must be provided to each “tall” buildings and these are only allowed on the main roads within the existing Doncaster Hill area. Anywhere else must have a two storey limit with minimum average “unit” land block size, clear onsite car park space limitation and restricted on-street parking allowed on all the secondary streets within the existing residential areas leading to and close to the main roads.

6. Stop the idea of putting up waste treatment plant in the middle of the existing community. Address the issue where it belongs to achieve a true building sustainability to THESE affected buildings.

7. A proper traffic impact analysis must be done on each development that affects local traffic pattern, on-street parking, flow, additional signage, etc. in regard safety, convenience and “zero” emission impact overall.

As you will appreciate, as a resident, we can’t afford going through each point of the plan and be specific about everything. It is your job in the first place to do the right thing from us.

I sincerely hope all these irresponsible development are stopped immediately. We can have a real plan that is sensible, solid, relevant and lasting sustainable to the local community today and tomorrow.

Best regards,

Ming
Rate Payer, Doncaster
VIC 3108

4 Comments

  1. Jimmy says:

    just an example – VicUrban’s Cairnlea development has added over 3200 new households to that area and the Cairnlea Park primary school is bursting at the seams with over 800 students. Where is the room for Doncaster Primary to grow? Oh wait a minute, there won’t be as many kids; only empty nesters will wheelchair’ing round these hills in the future.

  2. Peter says:

    Ming, brilliant! Wide ranging, emotional, moving and oh so timely. How about running for council in October next year? The only way Manningham is to be saved from the developers is if caring and erudite residents like yourself replace the current bunch which are simply being led by their noses.

  3. Peter says:

    Ming, my objection follows. It does not compare with your stunning piece but I am curious about your thoughts on creating an independent panel, recommended in the latter part of the objection, that puts up alternatives to the current DRS.

    OBJECTION TO DRAFT RESIDENTIAL STRATEGY

    The DRS as proposed, if implemented, will encourage gross overdevelopment adversely affecting the overall unique and attractive character of the City of Manningham and the amenity of its residents.

    To overcome these profound problems it is proposed that Schedule 8 To The Design And Development Overlay be immediately amended as follows:

    1. In 1.0 Design objectives delete “To increase residential densities and provide a range of housing types around activity centres and along main roads.”
    2. In 1.0 Design objectives replace “To encourage three storey, including ‘apartment style’, developments on larger lots” with “To ensure developments comply with the provisions outlined in clauses 2 and 3 (as amended below) and that proposed developments retain the character of the surrounding area”
    3. In 1.0 Design objectives replace the words “is minimised” in “To ensure overlooking into adjoining properties is minimised” with the words “does not occur”
    4. In Building Height & Setbacks, Table 1 to Schedule 8, Street Setback in Sub-Precincts A and B that the minimum front street setback for two or more dwellings on a lot or a residential building if one or more of those buildings is more than one storey high is to be a minimum of 8 metres to the body of the house. Balconies, terraces and verandahs must not encroach on this setback. A setback minimum of 6 metres applies to a single level portico if a portico forms part of the design.
    5. In Building Height & Setbacks, Table 1 to Schedule 8, Maximum Building Height in Sub-Precinct A to be two storey and not exceeding 8 metres in height above natural ground level and in Sub-Precinct B one storey and not exceeding 5.5 metres in height above natural ground level with roof styles in each Precinct to be compatible with those surrounding the proposed development.

    Notwithstanding the above there is a more fundamental problem with the DRS.

    There has been a reprehensible lack of ensuring the involvement of residents at large in the initiation and subsequent development of the Strategy.

    The depth, breadth, regularity and means of communication with, and to, residents is, at best, questionable.

    Not even one alternate option to the Strategy has been presented to the residents of Manningham for their consideration.

    The Draft Residential Strategy has been put up virtually as a fait accompli.

    This is not democracy, this is autocracy.

    It is proposed
    • that at least one alternate residential strategy be developed by an independent panel
    • that the membership of the panel be determined by the vote of the residents of Manningham
    • that the funding of the panel be at least of the same order as that which has been expended on the current DRS
    • that further expenditure on the development of the current DRS cease with further expenditure to be considered when the panel presents its findings
    • that council staff engaged on the current DRS be placed at the disposal of the panel
    • that the panel consider, inter alia, the re-alignment of ward boundaries to more closely match residents’ aspirations
    • that communications with residents be in a language of the resident’s choice.
    • that the alternate strategy or strategies be forwarded to each resident in a form that enables the full understanding of the implications of each strategy on them uniquely, on their ward and on Manningham as a whole
    • that comments and objections be encouraged and respected
    • that residents be kept regularly, fully and faithfully informed of the progress of the relevant processes
    • that a referendum be held in each ward to determine if any of the strategies should be implemented or even if at all

    Council is the servant of the residents, not the master

    Peter

    1. Ming says:

      Thank you very much Peter. As a resident, I would like to contribute to our local community. I am very sure there are a lot local residents like yourself who are willing and capable of supporting RAIDD to fight against these inappropriate planning policies. We must get rid of these councillors who show disregard to the long term wellbeing of this community. I for one will contribute my resource to support anyone who is willing to run on this agenda, imagine if we have someone to run in each wards under the RAIDD banner. I think the independent panel is a great idea. We have a lot capable residents here from all walks of life, with great deal of local, national and international knowledge on planning matters. A progressive council with a real vision shall embrace this idea. After all, if we are talking about things towards 2030 and beyond, there is no room for any mistakes, let alone big stuff-ups.

      Ming

Leave a Reply

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

*

*

*