This thorough article came in from Maurice Wilkinson. Maurice has spent the time sifting through the councils publications, attended the first council info night, and offered up some home truths for the Council to digest. He sent this through to the council and allowed us to publish it here as well. Thankyou.

Maurice has some suggestions at the end of this of how we all can make a difference, I have included them here for quick reference. Please read the full article below “Ratepayer support is a myth”

….Here are some initiatives that residents can take to persuade Council and the Victorian Government to meet the wishes of the people they purport to represent:

1. Contact RAIDID – Residents Against Inappropriate Development In Doncaster www.coherence.com.au. The writer has no links with this group but acknowledges and supports their aims and efforts.
2. Attend information sessions (e.g. Wednesday 9^thNovember 7.30-9pm at Manningham Municipal Office, Doncaster Road.)
   1. Put in a submission to the Draft Residential Strategy (go to http://www.manningham.vic.gov.au/action/NOTEMPLATE?s=0,pURL=consultation_draftresidentialstrategy for details. Even a very brief submission gets you on the Council’s mailing list for updates on strategy development and implementation. But hurry,submissions are due by 5.00 pm Friday 25 November 2011 and can be made via email to eepadmin@manningham.vic.gov.au, or in writing to: Manager, Economic and Environmental Planning Unit, Manningham City Council, PO Box 1, Doncaster, Vic 3108
   2. Contact your local Councillor, the Mayor and the CEO – make your views known –phone, letter, email
   3. Attend Council meetings and submit written questions on the forms provided
   4. At elections for Councillors, ask about their views on residential strategy

The State Government also will need to be persuaded that Manningham has already contributed more than its share to the 2030 strategy for growth, and whatever strategy may succeed it. With the local member, Mary Wooldridge in the ministry, residents can hope to have some influence.

There is currently a petition being prepared for the Legislative Assembly to change the DD08 status of courts and side streets – check with RAIDID www.coherence.com.au

Residents may need to organise “Occupy Manningham” events.

Concerned residents certainly need to lodge objections when inappropriate developments are proposed – by lodging an objection they ensure that Council has to consider the proposed development, the Council management cannot just approve it without reference to Council as might otherwise happen. RAIDID www.coherence.com.au state that they have already had some success with Council rejecting such a proposal.

It will not be easy to preserve the qualities of life in Manningham, but it is possible if residents take the time to make their views known to Council.

 

Ratepayer support is a myth

“Most (93%) of respondents reported that their home suited their current housing need”. (Macroplan Report prepared for Manningham City Council 2010).

In other words, “It ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

This resounding vote of confidence in the status quo, however, has not deterred the Council and its consultants, Macroplan, from developing strategies for ever greater housing density.(See current Draft Residential Strategy on the Manningham Council website).

At a community information session on the Manningham City Council Draft Residential Strategy last Wednesday night, Council management and its consultant, Macroplan, came face-to face with a meeting full of the “already satisfied” 93%.They were furious, and were resolved that Council should listen to them, rather than they should again have to listen to Council stating how they were going to get what they didn’t want.

How could the Council have got it so wrong?

While Council clearly has a role in looking into the future, why is it designing a future so at odds with the wishes of current residents? How can we turn the strategy around?

At the Wednesday night session, it became clear why the Council is pressing ahead with ever-greater residential density in the teeth of ratepayer opposition and fury. A presentation by Robert Hall of Macroplan, the Council’s planning consultants,purported to show from a survey of residents’ views that a mismatch existed between what residents want in housing stock, and what currently exists. The claim was that 59% of residents preferred low-density, while the actual percentage of low density property was 84%. This was construed as showing resident support for, and therefore justification for, the shift to higher density housing that the Council has been relentlessly pursuing over recent years. This “mismatch” is stated in the Draft Residential Strategy document currently under consideration, and open to submissions till Friday 25 November 2011.

The flaw in this logic is that the resident response data included only the 30% of residents who had declared a likelihood of moving home. It excluded the 70% of residents who had stated that they would not be moving home.

Would the 70% have expressed different preferences to those who intended to move? Very probably. The 70%of residents intending no move demonstrates a high degree of stability, and satisfaction, given that in general, house owners move home approximately every 5 years.“Housing satisfaction levels are very high with 94% of respondents reporting a positive satisfaction level” (Macroplan Report 2010). If 84% of this 70% was living in low-density housing, then the implied preference for low-density housing in this 70% of residents is 58.8% of the total population of respondents. Add to this the 59% of the 30% of “movers” who preferred low-density housing, (17.7% of total population) and we have 76.5% preferring low-density.

The assumption that 84% of the “non-movers” were living in low-density housing is made because it is reasonable to assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that 70% of residents were spread evenly across the available housing stock, 84% of which was low-density. Indeed, the comment by Mr Hall that these 70% are likely to move more than they are expecting to, because of ageing, illness, family break-up etc. seems to imply that he believes the group are indeed living in low-density housing, which will become inappropriate for his stated reasons. Thus the 76.5% overall preference for low-density housing is probably an understatement, and the real figure is probably close to the actual 85% low-density housing shown by the survey to be existing at the time.

Elsewhere in the report (page 144), it is stated that “In terms of future dwellings types, 59% of respondents who intended to move stated they would prefer to move into a detached house. This share is significantly lower than the existing share of detached dwelling stock (93%) in the City of Manningham.” The 93% appears to be taken from the 1996 ABS survey, and conflicts with the 84% stated elsewhere. Thus a probable 76.5% to 84% “mismatch” is variously exaggerated to 59% to 84% and 59% to 93%.

What does this show (in the absence of evidence to the contrary)?

1. Council has no demonstrated mandate from its resident constituency for its higher density strategy, but is being advised by its consultants, no doubt unwittingly, to misread its own data to suggest it has a mandate.
2. The most logical interpretation of the data presented is that Council had a clear direction from its resident constituency NOT to proceed with higher density housing.

The only genuine and serious mismatch here is between what residents want and what Council is hell-bent on providing. This misinterpretation of the data was raised with Mr Hall of Macroplan in a question during the meeting, and afterwards in a one-to one discussion. He accepted the point and agreed that the relevant material in his presentation misrepresented the data from the survey and maybe needed to be changed.However, he stated that there was other data suggesting a general move to higher density is desirable, and repeated that the 70% are likely to move more than they are expecting to, because of ageing, illness, family break-up etc. This qualification was not relevant; the presentation was purporting to report what residents want, not what they ought to want.Mr Hall’s comment is an extraordinary admission, which appears to indicate that it does not matter that the views of the majority, those not planning to move, are excluded from an analysis of residents’ views because the consultant and Council know better.

The “consultation” process appears to have proceeded on the basis of this misconception, inviting residents to participate in HOW, not IF higher density should proceed. A genuine consultation process would have recognised the large majority opposition to higher density. It would have attempted to change opinions by explaining why higher density is desirable and engaging in a genuine discussion, rather than lecturing residents on these reasons but with no discussion allowed and no questions until the end of the session, as occurred on Wednesday night. Success in convincing residents in this and other forums of the reasons for higher density would have resulted in genuine resident support for the strategy; failure to convince should have resulted in the abandonment of the strategy. The Council and its officers are accountable to the ratepayers, not to developers and consultants.

The Council may view such a consultation as a dialogue between an enlightened, forward-thinking Council, backed by professional planners, taking into account the interests of future as well as current residents, and a group of Neanderthal NIMBYS attempting to protect their property values against all comers. Given such a view, the “Claytons” consultation process we are having may have seemed more attractive than genuine consultation.

This would be a mistaken view.

There are many valid and potent reasons for opposition to increased density, but the following should at least establish that there is a case against increased density to be answered.

Preserving what we have – why we came here

My family, like many others, moved to Doncaster twenty-five years ago. Why? If Victoria was once the “Garden State”, surely Manningham was the “Garden Suburb”. Residents are generous with the outcome of their labours in the garden; few properties have high walls or fences, the majority have no fences at all, and often no gates. On our way from the Eastern Golf Course to Ruffey Lake Park we stroll along attractive streets, sharing a smile and a word with residents who are enjoying their gardens and proud of what they have achieved. Increasingly, this pleasure is now allayed by the ominous presence of concrete monstrosities, glowering over the streets from the sites they have devoured, sometimes with a token show of greenery, more often starkly bare.

Psychologists tell us that exposure in our daily lives to the natural world, which gardens replicate, is good for us, and good for society. This is self-evident from the euphoria generated by a pleasant walk in leafy suburbs, contrasted with the grim foreboding occasioned by a walk through windy concrete jungles. Do we really wish to exchange our open, welcoming garden suburb for the depressing high-rise of areas of London and similar cities, riots and all? High-minded concepts of friendly “urban villages” and the like that are much favoured by councils and their advisers, most often in reality result in concrete jungles in the hands of the developers.

There is a place for medium and even high density; that place is not our pleasant and relaxed streets and gardens. For places like Doncaster, high density is a cancer introduced for profit by developers; Council’s role should be to protect us not, to encourage the spread of the disease. Every unsuitable development is a trigger for neighbours to leave and Council to claim justification for additional monstrosities. The process will be complete when no gardens remain, and everyone shelters behind high walls. Friends in apartments in Melbourne, while content with their security behind the locked facade, tell us they would not venture out at night into the violent mayhem that swirls around the streets. Is this what we want in Manningham?

Why should our municipality attempt to be all things to all people? Where is the clamour for high-density, high rise in Toorak, or mansions in Footscray. Different neighbourhoods have different charms; a deadening sameness pleases no-one.

“Regarding location aspects, for example environment and prestige, the most important factor relevant to respondents’ housing choices was the peace and quiet associated with the Manningham area (reported by 85% of respondents as either ‘important’ or ‘very important’). Furthermore, 70% of respondents described the natural environment as either ‘important’ or ‘very important’ in their decision to live in Manningham”(Macroplan Report 2010).

What are the alternatives?

The baby bringing the world’s population to 7 billion was born this week. Can Australia reasonably resist population growth? I would suggest we can maintain our low-density standards and accommodate growth. Victoria is already the most densely populated State in Australia. In Victoria and throughout Australia, the National Broadband Network is a game changer. Progressively, over the time frame that the Manningham Residential Strategy is aiming to direct, people and businesses will be increasingly able to work from home, connected to the world, while enjoying the benefits of rural and regional lifestyles. This will result in major demographic changes that Manningham Strategy should recognise. As an example, Albury/Wodonga will at last be able to realise the massive potential envisaged for it in the Whitlam years.

What can we do?

The land immediately adjoining the major roads, such as Doncaster Road, Manningham Road and Tram Road is clearly a lost cause. We can only sympathise with residents living adjacent to Sovereign Point and the other massive concrete slabs already erected and due to be erected, who have lost their privacy and are dominated by shadow instead of blue skies. (The Council might wish however to constrain the hubris of the vacant site now claiming it will “Tower over all others”, as though this were a matter for pride and satisfaction.)

The Eastern Golf Course is also doomed. Given that the area was rezoned residential some time ago (in a process that may have been valid but was certainly exceedingly quiet), the State government would not allow Council to rezone it back to recreational, as it should be.

However, we can still fight against the most ludicrous excesses of the residential strategy. For example, it is absurd that Rathmullen Quadrant and its environs should be zoned DD08,”Substantial Change Areas(2 & 3 Story developments including ‘apartment’ style development on larger lots”. This area, between Sovereign Point and the Eastern Golf Course is a fine example of the gardened suburban areas that are the reason why most residents chose to live in Manningham. Walk a hundred people around Rathmullen Quadrant, ask “urban or residential?” and ninety-nine will say “residential” (the hundredth will have read, or written, the Macroplan report, which calls this “urban”). It is simply not acceptable that buildings in excess of two storeys be not only permitted but encouraged by Council.

Surely enough is enough. The massive increase in population which will result from the Doncaster Hill tower blocks already built and the housing estate which will be built on the Eastern Golf Course is a sufficient contribution to growth in the Manningham community, and a sufficient strain on Manningham infrastructure. All DD08 zoned areas not yet desecrated should be returned to normal residential zoning.

It is time to call a halt to the increased density strategy, and concentrate on minimising the damage already done. With such a strategy, Council would once more be in tune with the wishes of the community it purports to serve.

 

How can this be achieved?

Here are some initiatives that residents can take to persuade Council and the Victorian Government to meet the wishes of the people they purport to represent:

1. Contact RAIDID – Residents Against Inappropriate Development In Doncaster www.coherence.com.au. The writer has no links with this group but acknowledges and supports their aims and efforts.
2. Attend information sessions (e.g. Wednesday 9^thNovember 7.30-9pm at Manningham Municipal Office, Doncaster Road.)
   1. Put in a submission to the Draft Residential Strategy (go to http://www.manningham.vic.gov.au/action/NOTEMPLATE?s=0,pURL=consultation_draftresidentialstrategy for details. Even a very brief submission gets you on the Council’s mailing list for updates on strategy development and implementation. But hurry,submissions are due by 5.00 pm Friday 25 November 2011 and can be made via email to eepadmin@manningham.vic.gov.au, or in writing to: Manager, Economic and Environmental Planning Unit, Manningham City Council, PO Box 1, Doncaster, Vic 3108
   2. Contact your local Councillor, the Mayor and the CEO – make your views known –phone, letter, email
   3. Attend Council meetings and submit written questions on the forms provided
   4. At elections for Councillors, ask about their views on residential strategy

The State Government also will need to be persuaded that Manningham has already contributed more than its share to the 2030 strategy for growth, and whatever strategy may succeed it. With the local member, Mary Wooldridge in the ministry, residents can hope to have some influence.

There is currently a petition being prepared for the Legislative Assembly to change the DD08 status of courts and side streets – check with RAIDID www.coherence.com.au

Residents may need to organise “Occupy Manningham” events.

Concerned residents certainly need to lodge objections when inappropriate developments are proposed – by lodging an objection they ensure that Council has to consider the proposed development, the Council management cannot just approve it without reference to Council as might otherwise happen. RAIDID www.coherence.com.au state that they have already had some success with Council rejecting such a proposal.

It will not be easy to preserve the qualities of life in Manningham, but it is possible if residents take the time to make their views known to Council.