Stand up & be heard – Fri Nov 25th Deadline
We have been saying all along, don’t think your home and lifestyle is safe in “protected” zones, higher density is coming to all, unless we stand up. Manningham council residential strategy – YOUR submission is due by Nov 29th – you might not get another chance to say NO.
This well rounded article from Peter covers a lot of ground, and some very pertinent points. thanks Peter…. Read on.
You have to be worried when estate agents emphasise that properties have a DDO8 overlay. The following is one of many that come up when you Google “DDO8 overlay” and you note that all of the properties are in Manningham: http://www.billschlink.com.au/index.cfm?pagecall=property&propertyID=1822958
And when you go a bit wider and Google “properties for sale with DDO8 overlay” you get a host of properties all in Manningham such as: http://www.domain.com.au/Property/For-Sale/House/VIC/Doncaster/?adid=2009038094
It brings a tear to your eye when you realise that we have a caring Council which encourages such development, or is that a tear of despair?
Referring to the RAIDID Petition – the aim is to stop over-development in DDO8 areas by making the limit 2 storeys which will still easily meet planned growth 2030 targets.
This seems to be a response to
- Here are the growth projections
- Here are the building parameters that which Planning/Developers believe are needed to meet the targets, hence DDO8 with its 3-storey provision
- This produces a strong reaction with a suggested 2-storey compromise
Shouldn’t the sequence be rather
- Here is how the residents want to see Manningham in the future
- Here are the building parameters needed to fulfil that vision
- End of story
More on that later.
Our Mayor says: “what’s sacred about one street over another?” pretty well verbatim Stephen Mayne.
So DDO8 could be the thin edge of the wedge and the net progressively widened.
When I look around my neighbourhood of Doncaster East, I see the low profile, well separated housing with parks that have given Manningham that unique almost rural ‘feel’ fast disappearing. I guess you are observing the same.
You look at 88 and 88A Tunstall Road and because they are set back about 8 metres to the body of the house and 6 metres to the portico they are not overpowering.
Contrast them with 47 Greendale Road, also 2 storeys but set back 6 metres, which has a dominating presence unlike the two 2 storey houses opposite with about 8 metre setbacks.
In Cherry Tree Court, where we fought and lost to a 2×2 storey development at No 8, the buildings are under construction but you can already see that they are going to be completely out of character with the other houses in the court. Yet 5 and 5A are 2 storey but set back about 8 metres and, at least in my view, fit in pretty well.
Why should anyone, let alone those living in the DDO8 areas, have inappropriate buildings foisted upon them?
The following highlights this:
john writes:
Posted on 11 Oct 11 at 12:23pm
Its a bit rich that this refers only to “courts and cul de sacs”. Its about time Manningham residents, and the council for that matter as a whole, acted like a “community”, rather than “not in my backyard” selfish individuals, who think they are worthy of extra protection. My street is a normal street, but is subject to the DDO8 zoning, and I for one would hate to lose the current treelined picturesque state it in right now, to the grose “”ticky tacky characterless boxes” proposed for the immediate area. The current way of design/development is becoming an eyesore compared to the solidly built properties of the 1950s/60s/70s/80s, which have established trees and the like, which would be bulldozed if developers get their way…….quite frankly, I dont mind progress in the right location, but this idea of making a quick buck by flattening everything in sight, is destroying parts of this once well kept/leafy suburb. Also, those from surrounding “havens” who gloat at hoe lucky they are to not be affected, and suggest we should have known that this was planned 50 years ago, had better not take a nap, because sooner or later it will come to them….
May I suggest that the public submissions on the draft (Submissions are due by 5.00 pm Friday 25 November 2011) include this or similar:
In 1.0 Design objectives replace “To encourage three storey, including ‘apartment style’, developments on larger lots” with “To encourage developments that do not exceed the typical bulk and setbacks as the existing surrounding buildings and that will retain the character of the area”
- 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”
- 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 verandas 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.
- In Building Height & Setbacks, Table 1 to Schedule 8, Maximum Building Height in Sub-Precinct A to be two stories and in Sub-Precinct B one storey with roof styles in each Precinct to be compatible with those surrounding the proposed development.
Obviously, the only way that residents will get their say is when there is a wholesale change of councillors at the elections next November and the broad community is consulted openly and in good faith.
Do we have any starters?
Regards
Peter
2 Comments
Regarding John’s comment in this article … Residents should not just be concerned with cul de sacs and courts, and I am confident that the majority of residents concerned about inappropriate development do not have a ‘not in my backyard’ mind set. We need to keep in mind that if the type of overbearing (30 apartments on 2 blocks in Curlew Court) development is welcomed for courts, it will also rapidly permeate into Manningham’s quiet side streets.
I would like to share with you my submission.
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