The City of Melbourne has now received permission to advertise its long awaited amendment that seeks to protect its public parks and open spaces from overshadowing. See this article from today’s Age https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/rule-revision-aims-to-keep-the-winter-gloom-out-of-melbourne-s-parks-20190909-p52plw.html
Readers should also remember that when one resident asked if Glen Eira City Council would support Melbourne City Council in its endeavour she was met with a bullshit answer about the review of the Open Space Strategy. No support was offered to Melbourne.
The reason why is clear when we compare what Melbourne is proposing and what Glen Eira is prepared to sanction at the mega development at Virginia Estate: we refuse to call this a ‘village’!!!!!!!!!!
Here is the relevant part of the Melbourne draft amendment:
- the hours (ie 5 for June 21) for the majority of parks
- 4 hours for the outer lying parks
Glen Eira in turn proposes the following in its schedule for the Comprehensive Development Scheme
Thus, Glen Eira is quite prepared to allow high rise development to overshadow open space at the winter solstice. Instead of 5 hours, the residents of Glen Eira will only be assured of 3 hours of sunlight in 75% of the park. What happens at 10am? How much of the parks are in shadow at this time? What about 3pm, 4 pm? Are we still talking 25% or is it more likely to be 80% late afternoon? and what does ‘unreasonable shadow’ really mean when there are no specific controls to define, assess, and evaluate this meaningless phrase?
We again have to ask: what on earth are our councillors doing? Who are they working for? Surely not residents when we are presented with proposals that grant everything to the developer and with very little to residents! Well done council. The tradition of pro development and sabotaging residential amenity continues!
September 10, 2019 at 3:42 PM
Typical tokenism and the prayer that it won’t be spotted by rate payers.
September 10, 2019 at 3:49 PM
I am sick to death of this council and its sycophantic mob of useless councillors. No way will any of them get my vote next year.
September 10, 2019 at 4:14 PM
The proposal doesn’t comply with the guidelines for development adjoining or nearby public public open space in Council’s own Open Space Strategy. They haven’t provided a strategic justification for rejecting their Strategy. Presumably it’s about helping a significant donor to political parties by maximizing development yield. The richer you are, the more influence you can purchase.
September 10, 2019 at 4:42 PM
The so called review of the open space strategy was started I believe over a year ago. Together I assume with an update or increase on the open space levy. Neither has been published. I seriously doubt that anything will change in the open space strategy regarding sunlight and overshadowing. What we have got here is another example of ploughing on regardless with major development before the important documents which might offer some control are available. This has happened repeatedly. The cart as some people have said always goes before the horse. Development is first and then belatedly we get some policy that supports the development. Not the other way around where development is supposed to adhere to existing policy.
I have also noticed that the comprehensive development plan doesn’t restrict the number of units. They is a neat loophole where apartments could be allowed into the commercial and mixed use areas that are supposed to be only for offices and retail. As far as I can tell, there is also nothing to stop the developer from amending his plans time and time again as the Caulfield mega village has proved. At least in that schedule the council was obligated to publish the development plans once they come in. I can’t see anything in this latest version that ensures this will happen and without objection rights, residents could be completely in the dark.
September 10, 2019 at 5:21 PM
We may not have to wait long to test this failure of a document pretending to be a Open Space Strategy, as the redeveloped of the Lewis Timber Yard next to Joyce Park on Jasper Road in Ormond may not be that far off. Any building on or near the southern boundary will overshadow the western or Jasper Road end of public park area.
September 10, 2019 at 10:07 PM
Council wont give a stuff about sunlight
September 11, 2019 at 3:26 PM
A school of up to 1100 pupils means at least 200 teachers and office staff. I can’t find anything that explains where they will park. Add on 3000 apartments, 2 supermarkets, and shops, offices, all requiring parking, then it will be mayhem. I’m not even thinking of visitors to these places or residences.
I’ve read the plans and they are so lacking in detail that you could build manhattan here and it would be okay.