Review cul de sacs and side streets within sub-precinct A of DDO8 – Council Agenda 28 May 2013

Not letting of the pressure, this letter has been sent to Manningham Council’s Mayor, Jennifer Yang, seeking the status of the outstanding issues from the C96 amendment that was recently passed.

Dear Jennifer,
 I would appreciate if you could advise me on where we stand with respect to:
Action 2.3: Review cul de sacs and side streets within sub-precinct A of DDO8 – Council Agenda 28 May 2013 which was identified as Attachment 4 of the Amendment C96 process and requires further action as it failed to be addressed within the Amendment C96 process.
 It is, of course, welcomed news as reported in this week’s Manningham Leader that Manningham’s semi-rural properties are no longer in danger of being carved up and that Mr. Guy had agreed to council’s request to maintain the status quo.
Jennifer, as a courtesy to you, my email and your response will be provided to RAIDID members, the media at large and this issue concerns me enough to include my local M.P. Mary Wooldridge.
 Could you please advise:
  1. what action have you taken to date to implement this review?
  2. can you provide assurance that the review process and implementation of additional planning controls is augmented within the 12 month timeframe given by the Minister for Planning – otherwise failure to ensure this timeframe is met will mean that the zoning will default to Mr. Guy’s intent rather than Council providing what had been its intent of providing clarity, certainty and a layer of protection to its residents from inappropriate developments springing up in these streets?
At this stage Amendment C96 still contains flaws/loopholes.  But failing to provide any safety net to small dead-end streets and side streets has failed this community.  This review needs to address this flaw.
We have always recognised development will occur but the issue has always been about the inappropriateness of multi-unit apartment complexes being allowed in streets which cannot safely absorb a level of such density.  Our streetscapes, our amenity and our liveability are too valuable, as Mr. Guy says, to ignore.  Even within the designated ‘Residential Growth Zone’ surely Mr. Guy’s statement  that “the view that greater density can happen anywhere is not one that I subscribe to.  We want to get away from days where people living in little courts, or quiet streets, wake up and find 50 apartments are going to be built where one house was”  is a statement that resonates loudly with every resident no matter which ‘zone’ has been thrust upon them.  Surely even within a Residential Growth Zone the streetscape, amenity and liveability factor of such streets should not become unliveable and out of all proportion to its original character.
It is obvious what types of development can occur in these small streets –  but for Manningham Planning Officers to dictate they cannot differentiate between these streets ‘because it would not facilitate the housing diversity’ – and not even challenged by Manningham Councillors – begs the question: who is representing the Koonung Ward residents in the DD08 zones?
Importantly, Mr. Guy makes it very clear that “the new zones will be at the discretion of local council and it will predominately be the view of the local community that informs which zone should be applied where” we trust our view is not to be negated. 
It is clear that Mr. Guy respects Council as the Responsible Authority to determine where, and where not, appropriate planning can occur.  It would not appear to be within small dead-end courts/cul-de-sacs and narrow side streets. 
 I look forward to your reply, but more importantly look forward to seeing some welcomed news on how far you have progressed on this issue.  
Thank you Jennifer,
Susie Howard

Leave a Response

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.