Council voted to approve this development, but the plans they voted to approve seem to be different to those that the residents were given access to during the notice and review period….stay tuned for more on this topic.

This article has been submitted by Peter wu, thanks for sharing it with us.

In relation to The Herald Sun article dated 26^th October 2011 titled “Tension rises as developers move in” http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/sunday-heraldsun/tension-rises-as-developers-move-in/story-e6frf92f-1226177644099 , the Manningham Council had on 25^th  October 2011 voted in favour 6 to 3 to grant permit to a developer to proceed with yet another contentious apartment development.

Picture of Hepburn Road

Picture of Short Street. The entrance of the Development will be located on the left hand side of the Street.

This proposed development attracted 73 objection letters, excluding another 24 objections which were submitted via a joint objection letter but not taken into account. The main points of objections were related to neighbourhood character, visual bulk of building, overshadowing, traffic and parking impacts, disruption to neighbourhood amenity, etc. Despite the strong objections, the council proceeded to vote in favour of it. Main reasons given were that the proposed development is within the permissible height limit, and in accordance to the Manningham Planning Scheme. (Item 8.2 of the minutes of the meeting dated 25 October 2011 http://www.manningham.vic.gov.au/council/council_meetings/agendas_and_minutes.html?s=1724098559)

The residents are very surprised by this outcome, and have suddenly to bear the burden of bringing the case to VCAT. In general, the Residents feel this proposal will result in an over-development that will cause traffic chaos in that particular area.

• This proposed building, which will be located on a back street, will be taller than any other buildings located even on the main Doncaster Road. The massive bulk and height of this proposal is not proportionate to the adjoining low scale residential area and will intrude massively on the privacy of the nearby residents. This development has a density ratio of 1 dwelling to a land area of 16m2 i.e. (188 apartments on land 3,114m2). This ratio is almost double that of The Pinnacle, a high rise apartment development recently built in Doncaster Road, with a ratio of 1 dwelling in 32m2 (158 apartments on land over 5000m2)
• This proposal’s use of 201 car stackers towards meeting its parking requirement tally requirement, in lieu of an additional basement to provide stand alone spaces, is further evidence of gross overdevelopment. The use of car stackers in suburban housing is unnecessary and will set a very bad precedent. The use of car stackers, as opposed to having stand-alone car parks, will present a traffic nightmare for the surrounding areas due to noice polution of the machine, illegal on-street parking due to reluctance of its residents to use the car stacker, blocking of access road due to long queues during busy periods, etc.
• Presently, children within this neighbourhood walk to Doncaster Primary School across Doncaster Road on a daily basis. With substantial traffic increase in Walker St, Short St and Hepburn Road, coupled with the absence of footpath along these roads, the risk of accidents involving pedestrians, especially children, will be compounded. The Council has ignored these concerns.

Other concerns are:-

• The traffic report that were used by the council to based their decision on derived from traffic conditions in 2007, before the expansion of Westfield Shoppingtown, and is highly inaccurate for the purposes of evaluating the traffic impact of all the current proposed development.
• During the advertising period to invite objections, the Council has conveniently left out the height of the building, which constitutes a very pertinent factor. The original height was supposed to be 14 storey building as stipulated in the original plans (http://manningham-leader.whereilive.com.au/property/story/doncaster-hill-proposal-to-set-local-height-record/ ) but was subsequently changed to 15 storeys without any notifications to the residents.
• The advertised plans mentioned one basement level with 250 car spaces in total. Subsequently, the plans were amended with one extra basement added and car spaces increased to 286. Council did not notify residents of the substantial changes and did not readvertise.
• Residents received letters from Council advising of the decision to grant the approval for the permit based on plans submitted with the application as received by the Council on 24 May 2011. But clearly the plans have been altered materially from the first application in May to the date of granting the permit.
• The whole process is flawed but yet the Council chose to proceed ahead. It is very peculiar why the Council seems to grant special favour to this particular development/developer. Other less contentious development has been outright rejected.
• The conduct of the Council over the High Density DD08 Zoning has raised anger amongst residents. This includes suppression of information, not getting proper feedback from residents, total disregard from residents objections, etc. (https://coherence.com.au/curlew/?cat=8)

Even though development is necessary to cater to a growing population, over development or inappropriate development will be a disaster to the community and such mistakes could not be undone. The Manningham Council seems to be overzealous in pursing development, and abdicating their responsibility of ensuring proper and balance planning. This begs the question, what is the primary objective of the Council? Who will supervise the proper and ethical conduct of Council officials? In this particular case, the Council has decided to proceed ahead, despite so many objections from residents, and also to overlook flaws in the process. Their actions do not bode well for earning the trust of the community.

An area such as Doncaster, which has been earmarked for major future development, will be at the mercy of greedy developers who will take every opportunity to pursue their selfish interest. The Council should exercise unbiased authority to check reckless development, and they must also appear to uphold proper conduct, that which is required of a government agency. Unfortunately, the Manningham Council has failed miserably in this aspect. The standard answer from this Council seems to be “If you don’t like it, leave Doncaster Hill” (http://manningham-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/council-says-if-you-dont-like-it-go/ ).

We appeal to you to give this matter some attention as we feel it is warranted to safeguard the reputation of the Council and also the community of Doncaster.

Concerned Residents of Doncaster