West Melbourne has been jolted into the reality of planning politics in the twenty-first century with official support for the ten storey development on the Zagame site in King Street by both the State Government and the Melbourne City Council.  If approved, this project establishes a precedent for wholesale high rise redevelopment of West Melbourne and North Melbourne, at heights and shapes that were not possible under previous planning regimes.  It introduces all that is ugly, intrusive and inefficient in building form and will do little to raise overall standards of amenity for inner city residents.  Look at Docklands and Southbank as the models.

Around thirty local residents of this Roden Street vicinity attended a briefing meeting in the Zagame showroom on Monday, 26 July at 6.00pm.  The meeting, hosted by the Zagame Family and their advisors, outlined the details of their application for the residential development of their very large 5000m site – Remember;  large sites equal extra large developments. The application has been made to the State Department of Planning as the project is over 25000m2 in size.

The project features 259 units             -           119 one bedroom

                                                                        118 two bedroom

                                                                        8 three bedroom

                                                                        Plus a number of multi-storey units facing the streets.

The boundary units are the only part of the development which conforms with the current Design and Development Overlay(DDO) over this area in that they are not over 14 m(4 Stories) in height.  Unfortunately, the main body of units are part of a ten storey ‘boomerang’ spine that stretches from close to the Roden King Streets corner to the middle of the site on the south west boundary ( allowing for a 5m setback) and then parallel with that boundary toward Stanley Street.  It is this ten storey development that is of most concern to the residents.  It is completely out of kilter with the heights that have been traditionally part of this area.  We do not need this sort of Docklands style development in West Melbourne.

Other concerns that come immediately to mind.

1                    If we believe the developers, and we do not have much reason not to, they were strongly encouraged, by both the Council and the State Department of Planning to develop this site to this level of density and height, and possibly even more.  This is our State Government and our Council, so democratic in their image,  that are so clearly working against us as residents.  The up-coming State election in November provides us with the opportunity to test the responsiveness of all candidates, and especially the incumbent ALP, on these matters.  As for the Council, we have been dudded by both the Kennett and Bracks/Brumby Governments who ensured that the Council does not represent us as resident ratepayers.

2                    The developers seem to believe that resident objections are only based on their loss of lines of sight toward the City.  Our concerns are broader than that.  Privacy and overlooking are certainly part of this, but this was trivialised by the developers at the meeting.  We are also concerned that we do not need the shadows cast by these towers denying broad areas to the south access to the sun.  The designers thrive in a planning environment that stipulates all shadow diagrams should be done at the equinox and ignore the rights of others who are overshadowed badly through the winter months around the June solstice.  This project shows commendable commitment to using solar energy on its rooves.  However,

• How many other sites are they disadvantaging through the shadows that they create, unless they go higher and higher. 
• How many lines of sight will also be lost by this wasteful competition?
• And what about aesthetics?  What ugliness and bulk do we have to look at on a daily basis! 
• What congestion do we have to tolerate on the streets and in the shops?  There are not enough car parks on site for one for each unit.

3                    When placed under some resistance to their plan, the developers threatened to ignore the residents and plough ahead with the support of the Department of Planning and the Council.  They claimed they did not have to brief us.  They did not concede that this proposal would have benefitted, had they consulted with residents before the plans were prepared.  When questioned, they stated that they would not compromise on height.

•  When will the locals have some constructive say in the future development of the ‘community’ in which they live?

4    The orientation of the high rise does not utilise the northerly aspect in an efficient way.

Where to Now?

The developers agreed to inform all participants who provided their email and postal addresses of where they could access a copy of the plans.

Future Action

1        We have a list of email addresses to form the basis of future communication

2        We need to clarify the right to object and the process we must follow with the Department of Planning.

3        We need to maximise the number of objections and letters to the press and appropriate authorities.

4        We need to work on the Minister’s process for making a decision and try to make it transparent, in terms of how and where the decision is made and the criteria on which it might be based.

5        Do we want to appeal the Department of Planning decision to VCAT, should it go against us, as it may well do?  We will not have the Council’s back to ride on as we did with 87-101 Roden Street.

6        Our activities do need to have as much support as we can generate. Every one must be prepared to pull their weight and provide funds, if necessary.

7        Do we need to exert political pressure especially on Bronwyn Pike as our local member and a senior Minister in the Government that allowed these projects to be taken out of the hands of the Council?

8        Do we wish to organise some public protest meeting/s to let the politicians know what we think of their planning scheme?

9         We also need to consider the future impact on our area of the Council’s new Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) It has the potential to make the planning of this area between Roden Street and Dudley Street much worse in terms of allowing height limits to increase and towers to proliferate.  The developers made indirect reference to these proposed changes in justifying the project.

10    Dare I suggest a meeting to consider these issues?

The City of Melbourne is holding a consultation on the MSS at the Melbourne Town Hall. 

This is a matter of great importance to the planning regime that will exist in the future for North asnd West Melbourne and for the whole municipality. See the City of Melbourne Website  www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/BuildingandPlanning/Planning/planningschemeamendments/Pages/C162.aspx

Information sessions

Information sessions will be held at the Yarra Room, Level 2, Melbourne Town Hall, 120 Swanston Street, Melbourne, on the following dates:

Residents

Wednesday 21 July

6pm to 7.30pm

RSVP by Friday 16 July to mss@melbourne.vic.gov.au

Planning professionals and all businesses

Wednesday 28 July

8.30am to 10am

RSVP by Friday 23 July to mss@melbourne.vic.gov.au

In line with the recent announcement of major transport plans, an NWMA member (and

presumably others in Railway Place) received in the letterbox on

Monday 13 July a further update about the Regional Rail Link. Items of

interest include:

• the two new tracks between Southern Cross Station and Sunshine will

be built at surface level largely within the existing rail corridor

and through the Footscray area

• a new rail bridge will be built over the Maribyrnong River

• there will be new dedicated rail tracks from West Footscray to Sunshine

• existing V-Line track will be used between Sunshine and Deer Park

• some privately held land will need to be acquired for the rail

link’s construction

• major works are expected to begin in 2010

Information sessions are being held at several locations between 15

and 20 July.

Our local one is at North Melbourne Town Hall next

Friday, 16 July, between 3.30 and 7.30pm. Regional Rail Link team members will be in attendance.

The community is encouraged to attend and to provide feedback on the project at the information sessions. There will be feedback forms there. We can also make written submissions by

Thursday 19 August 2010, addressed to:

Mr Corey Hannett, Executive Director

Regional Rail Link

Department of Transport

PO Box 2797

Melbourne Vic 3001

More info from:

W: www.transport.vic.gov.au/rrl

E: rrl@transport.vic.gov.au

P: 1800 107 925

Please disseminate this information to everyone you think should know

about it.

Department of Transport Website www.transport.vic.gov.au

Last Tuesday, 8 June 2010, the Coalition of Residents and Business 
Associations – Melbourne (CORBA) met with the Federal Member for 
Melbourne, Lindsay Tanner at his Melbourne electorate office. The 
North and West Melbourne Association (NWMA) was represented by Kevin Chamberlin, Vice Chair and Bill  Cook, Treasurer.

CORBA had meet with Lindsay previously on the issue of Melbourne City 
Council (MCC) reform. He was very supportive of the need for reform 
and offered strong views on some aspects of the problem. The CORBA 
position paper on MCC reform, supported by the NWMA , is on the 
website of CoRBA ( www.corba-melbourne.com )and this may be reached through the link on the NWMA website.  www.nwma.org.au

Lindsay pointed out that he had raised the matter with Richard Wynne, 
the Minister for Local Government, who advised that the Government was 
satisfied with the current  MCC structure and electoral system and no 
review would take place. The NWMA understands from a number of sources within the 
ALP that Richard Wynne actually wants the MCC reformed, but our Local 
Member Bronwyn Pike and the Premier John Brumby do not. Hence, the 
Cabinet position of no reform prevails.

Lindsay undertook to discuss the matter further with Richard Wynne after he had met with CoRBA and to write to him again requesting a comprehensive review of the MCC.
For example, the election  system and structure of the MCC is so unjust, as it is never required to be reviewed.  Every other municipality in Victoria is  required by the Local Government Act to be reviewed every two terms.  A  number of other aspects of the MCC election system and structure are  also of concern as they are designed to reduce the influence of small  business and residential groups and hence undermine the democracy and good governance in our Council.

Please refer to the CORBA position paper for a comprehensive 
presentation of all the reasons for reform of the MCC. You will be 
very surprised at how undemocratic the system is and how the Labor 
State Government actually made the system worse than the one left 
behind by the former Liberal/National Government.

Several other matters affecting individual CoRBA members were raised generally supporting the CoRBA dissatisfaction with the Council structure, voting system and consequent performance. These included:

• Latrobe Close and the use of Federal stimulus money to provide social housing in a way that excluded community input, ignored the planning scheme and would be to the long term detriment of the intended occupants;  
• the housing scheme on the Carlton Public Housing Estate creating an exclusive gated community;
• the thwarting of the purchase of a suitable facility for a community centre in Carlton;
• the decision on the Swanston Street upgrade, involving a process that failed to take into account the needs of  affected business interests, especially small business;
• the process for the purchase of the JH Boyd site in Southbank, by the City of Melbourne, which has failed to provide much-needed open space for this intensely developed area by selling off a major part of the site for further intense development and has failed to consult properly with local residents; and
• totally inadequate consultation with the community by the Council.  

We also draw your attention to an article in the Melbourne Leader indicating that the status of the East-West tunnel link between the eastern freeway and Footscray is not dead as the Government had led us to believe, but is the Stage 2 follow-on for the currently being planned Westlink project proposed to link West Footscray under the Maribyrnong River to the Port ( somewhere between Dynon and Footscray Roads). We encourage members to express their opinion on the Leader’s blog, which can be done at the end of the article.

Melbourne Leader: funding plea puts east-west tunnel back on agenda/

The City of Melbourne Planning Committee met on 1st Dec 2009,  the LaTrobe Close Re Development was one of the items on the agenda.

The NWMA supports the provision of social housing in North and West Melbourne, though we insist that government adopts its own policy of social housing integrated with private housing, that quality be maintained, that there be adequate provision of open space and that government keeps adequate statistics of the quantity of social housing and subsidised housing in each residential area.

Constancy of communication is so important – in hind-sight we all should have been copying some of our early correspondence to Shiran Wickramasinghe, Manager Planning and Building

Shiran.Wickramasinghe@melbourne.vic.gov.au

He is relatively new to this Council (2008) and from his report he seemed NOT to be aware of

the history of the particular Open Space and the VCAT hearing rejecting its use as a car park,

of the clamour for Open Space in “North West 2010 Local Plan” and its mention of Latrobe Close in particular,

of the neighbourhood character in North and West Melbourne especially  building facades, fences and

he did not mention that the Wholesale Meat Market and St Mary’s Church were Heritage Victoria listed.

He had recommended approval of the plan with quite a few minor conditions.

Fortunately a flow of correspondence had been maintained to Councillors as new ideas/information became available – it is so important that we give them information well before a Committee meeting so that they have time to mull over and discuss the issues amongst themselves.

We are indebted to:

Cr Shanahan for referring this proposal to the Planning Committee;

Peter Clarke, Chairmen of the Committee for his usual knowledge of the issues and his usual efficiency – he had a formal motion covering the major issues of Open Space and Height and Density already prepared;

Lord Mayor for his blunt, concise statement that if this was a private development it would have been thrown out immediately, and that government cannot expect a different set of height limits to private enterprise;

Cr Oke for adding the amendment re rubbish collection;

and to the Committee as a whole for their unanimous support.

Ray Cowling did not need to speak on the reasoning for maintaining the Open Space, but spoke on our appreciation, and the need for better communication with the Council Planning Dept re Ministerial applications,  rubbish collection and need for further support from the Council.

Cr Peter Clarke in response made it abundantly clear that the future of the proposal depended on our ability to lobby the two inner city members most involved in the proposal, Minister’s  Pike and Wynne (Minister responsible for public housing), especially as both are in Cabinet.

Relevant email addresses are:

Lindsay.Tanner.MP@aph.gov.au; responsible for providing the funds for the project,

richard.wynne@parliament.vic.gov.au; responsible for Public Housing

justin.madden@parliament.vic.gov.au; responsible for Planning decisions,

and our local MLA, bronwyn.pike@parliament.vic.gov.au;

Angela Williams spoke on the Heritage and design concerns with a clear power point presentation showing a thorough understanding of the detailed impact of the development, a presentation that cries out to be presented to the architects. Doone Clifton spoke on local community needs which could have been satisfied on this site such as elderly citizens housing.

The following recommendations were passed unanimously by the Planning Committee:
* The buildings should not exceed a height at any point greater than 14m.
* The existing publicly accessible open space area adjoining Chetwynd
Street be retained or an equivalent area in the development area
be retained as publicly accessible open space.
* There is a reduction of 30% in the number of units.
* Redesign of waste management to allow on-site collection.

Members are invited to attend the PPL AGM on Saturday 5th December at 2.00 pm at the North Melbourne Library.  Further details as follows:

Dear PPL VIC members and friends

Here is the reminder notice of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. AGM 2009. I am sending this out to members and contacts.

Dr Paul Mees is the guest speaker. He has been a great supporter during campaigns opposing the East West Link which would have devastated inner city Melbourne and Royal and JJ Holland Park. Our joint community action helped ensure that the East West Link – the extension of the Eastern Freeway – with its super size road tunnels was deleted (albeit temporarily) from the Victorian Transport Plan. We hope groups can show support for PPL VIC by attending. We would be pleased if you can advertise the meeting amongst your members.

Here are the details of our meeting:

Time: 1:45 pm for a 2 pm start

Date: Saturday 5 December 2009

Venue: Meeting Room 1 Upstairs North Melbourne Library 66 Errol Street North Melbourne. It is one building along from the Town Hall and Post Office on the south east corner of Errol and Queensberry Streets. Tram up Elizabeth Street from Flinders Street Station to Errol Street. Parking in surrounding streets. Disabled parking in front of Library.

Guest Speaker: Dr Paul Mees, senior lecturer in transport planning at RMIT, will speak on “The Cars that Ate Melbourne” – Public Transport Solutions for the State.” Stay for afternoon tea and make contact with other groups, including transport action groups.

Background Note: See below link to Dr Mees’ Age article of 22 November 2009 “We can keep our leafy suburbs and still save the planet”. This was presented on 18 November as a paper at a “State of Australian Cities” Conference in Perth. His book “Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age” will be released in December.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/we-can-keep-our-leafy-suburbs-and-still-save-the-planet-20091122-isqz.html

Contact: Julianne Bell Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. jbell5@bigpond.com Mobile 0408022408

Regards

Julianne Bell

Secretary

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

26 November 2009