Well last night the councilors voted on the res strategy to move into the review period, where we all get to help them with the details and nitty gritty – and please make sure you do….
We all did a lot of work over the last month, reviewing, suggesting changes, and so on. Thanks to all that helped, our input was well received, and some of it even written into the recommendations that were voted through.
It’s not enough though. the councilors need to hear loud and clear that we want certainty and protection.
I am appreciative, that we managed to get some change included, although it was not as much, or as clear, as I had hoped.
Lydia Wilson approached me and explained to me what had been passed, (as I had arrived late.) I told her I thought it was a good step in the right direction. Now that I have had time to review what was missed, I think it worthy of elaboration.
[ Segway : I met with with Teresa Dominic ( acting Planning Director,) and Lydia Wilson (CEO,) last Thursday to discuss our submission to the council & councilors the Tuesday Prior. At that meeting, Teresa was explaining to me how the regulations couldn’t be so descriptive / tight because last time they tried (2005), the State Gov over-ruled and removed it all. At this point Lydia instructed Teresa to be specific, remove the ambiguity, and have that fight with the State Gov, to support the residents… Hooray So lets make sure it goes that way.
The specific item we were using as the example at the time was the inclusion of a “2 storey limit” on sites under 1800 m2, rather than just a height limit of 9 meters.
( Above 1800m2 was stated as “3 storeys & 10/11 meters, so you should be able to include both storey limit and height limit on sites below 1800m2.) End of Segway]
Back to the council meeting and the Adjustments to the Draft residential Strategy…
WEAK Statements – I might be misreading their intent, but then that just proves they are ambiguous…
Several of the changes incorporated seemed to just allow the Planning dept to explain their wants, rather than accommodate residents’ views.
1 a) Section 3 Strategic Framework
At a broader level provide a clearer explanation as to the range of housing types that constitute diverse housing….
(D) Endorse the development of a communication Plan that focuses on explaining current trends ….
Wrong Focus- We are pushing for: Tell the residents what zones they are in, and the impact, and warning them about development proposals. This sounds more like explaining the reasons why Planning dept are promoting growth. We do want explanations, detailing what the regulations allow, not why we should accept them.
GOOD Inclusions In particular the following statements were good & an improvement.
1(c) Include a new section titled ‘Definitions’ to explain the different dwelling types and other planning definitions to give greater clarity to outcomes being sought
2a) Municipal Strategic Statement – Clause 21.05 Residential
Clause 21.05 is to be further reviewed to ensure that the language clearly explains the distinction between the built form outcomes sought between the different sub-precincts, especially with respect to the intent of tightening the current DDO8 controls.
2b) Schedule 8 to the Design and Development Overlay – DDO8
The use of enforcing mandatory controls to achieve certainty within sub-precinct A for maximum building height and minimum lot size and within sub-precinct B for maximum building height, with the aim of providing greater distinction between the built form outcomes sought between the different sub-precincts. In addition, review the objectives and strategies to reinforce the intent of the built form outcomes and ensure greater certainty and removing ambiguity. This is especially for situations when mandatory lot size requirements cannot be achieved.
But why hide the removal of Ambiguity in amongst all of that? It applies to the whole document.
Also this does not put any suggested boundaries on the outcome, only that it should be clarified. It could be a good outcome, but it could be too late when we find out.
For Example: We would like to see something directing that small sites in DD08 Precinct A, and all of Precinct B can only have 2 storey buildings, & 9 meters high. Not just say it should be explained.
As such, we all need to request the Planning Dept. have another, clearer, try at removing ambiguity. Such an important step should stand alone and be strong.
Another unfortunate situation was that of our three Koonung councilors, none were able to vote or present on this topic: Cr Reid – had to leave as he was sick. Cr Villareal – has asked for a leave of absence. Cr Yang – has declared a conflict of interest in this area, and cannot be involved in the DD08 & Res Strategy.
Check the full recordings and minutes at the council web site Manningham Council Meetings & minutes