C96 community feeback done – but to what end ?

Well the community feedback night had a good turn out, and plenty of feedback. There were general questions from those new to the challenges of the building regulations, as well as some very specific C96  and panel report issues.

Several councilors attended, thank-you to them : Major Jennifer Yang, Cr Stephen O’Brien, Cr Paul McLiesh, Cr Dot Hayes, and Cr Jim Grivokostopoulos. It was after all their offer that made this happen. Teresa Dominik the Planning director also attended and gave some back ground on the process. I was asked to chair the meeting, which was a little challenging as I also had lots I wanted to say on the topic, and the published intent of the meeting was for councilors to hear from us,  not justify councils position. ( Planning dept had not completed their review at that time.)

There were some heated statements, and several questions about what would be achieved by the residents stating their concerns yet again… and that remains to be seen. We have now many times told our stories, stated our cases, justified our concerns, but the impact is rarely significant, this is a vast machine we are dealing with, from the developers to the Sstate Government, and the council in between. Paul McLeish was bold in reminding those assemebled at the end of the meeting that this stage was nearing the end of the process. And that significant changes would be unlikely to be incorporated to C96, effectively it is down to fine tuning. This didn’t go over well, although most who had followed the process so far were aware that was really the case.

The councilors are still following up on the items raised, and the Councils Planning department are due to release their review of the Planning Panels report tomorrow – May 17th.

I expect they will not challenge much at all, as the Planning Panel basically rubber stamped most things, and did not dwell on unpopular submissions.  I personally was disappointed when I gave a 45 minute presentation on how the extent of growth wanted should be defined, and the growth shown in the councils own publications could easily be achieved without high rises in side streets or even main roads. I also submitted the groups re-write of the regulations to remove ambiguity, and better define the distinctions between the different zones – aprrox 20 pages.  the panel member was able to consider and respond to all of this in the following statement :

Mr Clark on behalf of RAIDID provided a possible scenario for redevelopment within his neighbourhood and a similar submission was made in relation to Franklin Road.

OK, maybe I was deluded in thinking there was more to my submission, and that the summary did not do it justice, but several others thought the same poor outcome was concluded from their submissions.

We are hoping that before the C96 get voted through it will enforce a better distinction between the three DD08 Precincts as currently there is very little difference in real outcomes. ( and the three precincts as supposed to ensure smaller developments as you get closer to normal single homes outside of DD08.

For example: Consider the 10 meter high, 3 storey apartment next to me in Precinct “A.” It is an example of the peak size that can be achieved on a sub 1800m2 site.   The sad reality of the C96 as it stands is that the same design, would be considered the maximum allowed on all three proposed DD08 precincts – there is no “step down.”

 So DD08 Main road Precinct, Precinct “A”, AND Precinct “B” on a single or double block, are all defined as : Height of ten meters for a sloping site, 60% coverage, same setbacks, really, what’s the difference?

Tomorrow we should see the councils Planning Department review and statement of the Planning Panel report.



Leave a Reply

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