I have always supported good and appropriate development, it is necessary for urban renewal and growth. Our planning department had great foresight to introduce Amendment C53, one of the first councils to act to control high-rise developments in quiet suburban streets. However, I reject the views of my fellow Councillors Mayne, Ellis, Gough and La Vella, who supported the development and variously stated during the night that "this development ticks all the boxes" and should be allowed, accused residents of being NIMBYs, insulted the good Councillors of neighbouring Boroondara* and accused councillors like myself of "pandering to residents".
Well, I don't just tick boxes. Nor do I prejudge planning applications. At the submitters meeeting the night before, I listened to the developer. I listened to the residents. I saw that there are multi-villa developments just two blocks away and that this is a designated activity centre, and as such, designated for higher density development. Crucially though, I saw that a walk-up appartment block was inappropriate for our ageing demographics and the neighbourhood character. Multi-villa units would have achieved the same density target, whilst retaining more character and being more flexible for the future.
Cr "Tricky" Gough has served on council longer than any of us and certainly knows all the tricks (as evidenced by his clever use of deferments to closed committees he chairs), so I would never dare suggest he has lost sight of our role in being the compassionate adjudicators between strict rules and natural justice. All I know is that whilst I support our planning rules, I also listen to those who elected me. I listen to my judgement when it tells me, something that "ticks all the boxes" can still be an overdevelopment for a given neighbourhood.
"We cannot give up on our residents just because some think we might lose at VCAT!", has been my rallying cry. I said the same whilst opposing the gross overdevelopment on King Street (proposed nursing home). Sadly, Crs Mayne and Gough in particular, frequently argue that we should just follow our planning officers' recommendations because otherwise we'll just "waste money at VCAT". Rich, given that between them they advocate the sale of community assets (like family parks) and champion 6.5% rate rises!
Cr Mayne has previously accused me of "flip-flopping" on planning matters. What he clearly cannot see, is that I judge each application on its merits, which is vastly different from his uniform, conforming approach of following officers' recommendations. I listen to all arguments, then make my own decision.
Happily, as the minutes will record, Crs Chuah, Downie, McMillan, Pick and Reid sent a clear message that higher-density can be good, but only if it is done is a manner sensitive to the neighbourhood character.
*Gough, actually on another debate that night, family parks; presumably a reference to their Kew Cottages fight on residents' behalf.
No comments:
Post a Comment