Page 948 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The final approved variation allows for a maximum of four storeys. However, it also allows for basement parking and attics. With exposed basements and attics, this means that buildings of effectively five or six storeys could be built on the site. This is not a reasonable outcome for this sort of development adjacent to a local centre with inadequate public transport. It is not appropriate for the area to have five or six-storey buildings. The government has made a small concession when it comes to building heights, but in doing so it has proved just how out of touch it is with community concerns and, indeed, with good planning. It is yet another case of the government doing too little too late and patting itself on the back for seemingly being generous to the community.
The community is also very concerned about the increased density this variation will allow. The government has not made it clear how many dwellings are likely to be built on the site, so residents are understandably concerned about the potential huge increase in density of the area. A significant increase in the number of dwellings will also have a marked impact on traffic and other services in the area.
The community is understandably very concerned that this impact has not been properly considered by the government when making the decision to approve the variation. In fact, it seems that the government has chosen to ignore the advice about traffic when advised that certain surrounding streets would be over capacity if the development went ahead. Any significant increase in the number of residents in a suburb should be very carefully considered. An increase in density always has an impact on the surrounding infrastructure and services, especially infrastructure and services as old as that in the inner south. The government has not demonstrated that it has properly consulted about or considered the impact of this development or even that it has determined what the impact would actually be. It is a clear example of poor planning.
Draft variation 334 is yet another example of this government’s sham consultation. The government claims that consultation on this variation is beyond the required amount. However, a larger number of people who would have expected to have been consulted about this variation have informed the opposition that they did not hear anything from the government; the first they heard was from the Red Hill Residents Group. Other people have informed the opposition that they were advised about the consultation period weeks after it had started. Residents are understandably frustrated that despite the clear desire from the community to have a maximum of around three storeys for buildings, the government simply has not listened. Instead it has made a change which is clearly not in line with community views and expects the community to be thankful that they got a small concession.
The residents of Red Hill and surrounding suburbs are concerned about draft variation 334. They have tried to engage with the government to achieve a good result for the community. Last year Mr Doszpot tabled a petition that called for the variation to be redrafted. However, the minister’s response to the petition did not address residents’ concerns. The minister also had the opportunity to refer the variation to the planning committee for an inquiry. This would have ensured that the community had an opportunity to share its views in a public sense. As a result of an inquiry, a better variation would probably have been developed. However, the minister chose not to refer the variation to the committee and instead approved the variation in a hurry.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video