York Street approved
Hey there, Erin here. It was a great Council meeting Wednesday night gone (Feb 12) that proved the Ballarat Council is forward thinking in terms of social issues. The Multicultural ambassadors were sworn in, a proposal to support the Say No to Homophobia campaign was supported unanimously. However we are also leading with over-development, when we need to be rebelling against the ‘rows of houses that are all the same’. We need to lead when it comes to protecting the unique and irreplaceable Ballarat East.
Regarding the rezoning coming into force mid year the council officers explained they are working on it, and the community will have a change to contribute in approximately April, so keep your eyes and ears peeled. I never really understood when mum told me that. Peeled eyeballs? Ewwwhheeerr
Last nights Council meeting also discussed the development at 307 York Street. It was approved, with 27 conditions, and with LESS than minimum private open space for some of the dwellings. Such a shame that less than our measly minimum was used in the name of ‘good design response’. We demand excellent design responses.
We demand better of our developers, we demand diversity, we demand good landscape plans (before approval), we demand sustainabilty and liveability, and we demand a reduction in our footprint on this poor over worked under respected environment. We want out council planners to work on saving our suburb not saving the developers costs (as mentioned at the meeting), we need to be clear we are maximizing their profits, they wont build it if it doesn’t make a profit, so let the community have their share!
I spoke to the meeting about systemic problems with our planning process, that fact that developers make huge ambit claims initially, they submit incomplete applications and expect our council officers to finish it off for them by pointing out the holes, they don’t provide for landscaping and that the whole process costs the council, and the community, enormous sums of money and time. I also congratulated the developers on considering sustainability in terms of materials and energy but that they has missed livability as a consideration.
We understand that urban consolidation is desperately needed with predicted population increases, however we need to be going up, not building out to the edges of boundaries. Councillor Vicki Coltman commented that the community doesn’t want two storey dwellings. However this was not tested in the proposal at all, which is a shame because as an enclave development, with no one to over look, it was the perfect opportunity to test multi-storeys.
What do you think about going up and halting the urban creep we are experiencing? Would going up mean that we can reclaim our backyards? Can we begin to offer the kind of diversity in housing people expect now but make accommodation for what we will need in the future?
Here are some images from my walk this morning, we love two stories… well I do and I would love to see some discussion on it. Pleas click and comment below. Be honest, be respectful and tackle the issue not the person, and we can all play happily together.
Tags:2 storey
Hey! I agree we need 2 storey spots, I’ve just been knocked back by council to buil in miners rest a 1 storey by the way, because they’re asking for a 6 Mtr fall back meaning we can only put a tiny house on the space we have… So now I’m hoping to move upwards, the council have made it hard for us every step of the way through subdivision and now building, a young couple trying to build their first hopefully family home
Last week, our neighbour took delivery of a splendid new station wagon. His house is on one half of a property which was subdivided a couple of years ago. Several of our neighbours and we objected to the subdivision, partly on the grounds that this house would have no off-street parking; which, I believe, is quite unusual (if not unique) for East Ballarat. Council insisted that our arguments were without foundation, and allowed the subdivision to proceed.
While I was admiring the new machine, the neighbour said “Just hope nobody runs into it”. Two days ago, there was a sound with which we have become quite familiar… BANG… metal to metal. I shot out to see what had happened, only to see a car taking off up the street.
Police were called, and to their credit, the elderly parents of the driver came to the scene and explained that their son had, apparently, blacked-out at the wheel due to a medical condition, and drove at 60 k.m.h. into the neighbour’s car. The car is undrivable, as the rear supension has been destroyed.
This is only one of many aspects of the deterioration of amenity in East Ballarat, due to this current Council’s obsession with having a “big” city.
Thanks,
Frank Neilsen
An interesting topic. My concern with 2 storey development would be that some developers would want it both ways – tiny blocks as well as 2 storey, then they could make even more profit. But perhaps I’m getting too cynical in my old age!
Its just so important to ensure we have a long term vision, things are changing very quickly and residents don’t feel like there is time to react. If we continue to sprawl with one story dwellings, built cheek by jowl, with not a spot for a tree nor a yard, no matter how small, we are depriving our children and the future of the very things we hold dear. We need to move to medium rise in the CBD, height not width is important to our future. We also need a long term vision to protect the buffer area to the forest, FoCC have been working hard to achieve this – check this out: http://ballarateast.net/the-canadian-forest-should-become-ballarats-regional-multi-use-forest-parklands-discuss/
HI Erin,
I agree we need a mix of one and two story buildings across the city. At the meeting when I talked about the community not wanting 2 story I had the recent developers proposal for Drummond St Nth (old bowling club) in mind. Whilst there were a number of issues with this development, many of the objectors spoke to me that they did not want a 2 story development in their back yard. These infill developments are a real challenge for both the community and Council. Whilst I supported the Drummond St Nth proposal, he majority of Councillors did not. VCAT determined the development was appropriate: (VCAT Decision: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2014/35.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=P1700%202013%20Drummond%20Developments%20Pty%20Ltd).
Cheers Vicki
I grew up in post war The Netherlands. The majority of suburban residences build after 1945 were two stories. The urban planners in 1946 were aware The Netherlands is a small country , building two or even three stories residences avoided the loss of space for gardens and recreational area’s. Besides, those post 1946 homes are not unattractive. If the need is there, vertical is better then horizontal.
Hi Erin and all, while I agree that two storey dwellings can give us back some garden space and maybe minimize that urban crawl it becomes very impractiical as populations age and parents, grandparents etc can no longer visit or stay easily. Keep up the good work
A mix of 1 2 and 3 stories in res. housing is good especially in hilly terrain and good for getting cars out of the way, creating shade, looking over ( not overlooking). Larger roof areas are good for harvesting rainfall. The mixture gives neighbourhood character and caters for different family sizes and needs. As these needs change we need to be able to swap and change. Good design principles are often shaved by developers in the name of profits, it’s a chicken and egg catch 22 world.