CRAMMED:
SUBMISSION TO SAVE OUR SUBURBS
Author: Janelle House
Date: mid-November 1999
Please note: This document has been edited, mostly in regards to
photographs, to keep the file size reasonable.
My name is Janelle House and I have been a
resident of Chelsea for 34 years. In March this year, I felt compelled to form
a residents’ action group, C.R.A.M.M.E.D. Residents’ Association (Chelsea
Residents Against More Multi-Eyesore Developments).
Unlike many suburbs where medium density
housing is a relatively new concept, the former City of Chelsea, now under the
umbrella of Kingston City Council, had been approving units since the 1970's.
In fact, a report introduced by the former City of Chelsea nominated the
southern end of the streets for units and the northern end to remain as single
detached housing.
The aim of C.R.A.M.M.E.D is to retain a
mix of housing styles and types, not just medium density housing which
currently is occurring.
I recently made a submission to the City of
Kingston Heritage Strategy nominating that the remaining single detached houses
be listed as places of potential heritage significance. I genuinely believe
that unless some form of control is implemented, future generations of Chelsea
residents will not know what a single house on a block, or a backyard, or a
fully-grown, mature tree looks like.
A tour of medium density areas/sites in
Chelsea undeniably shows the adverse impact created by an imbalance of housing
choice - dominated by multi-unit development. In light of this evidence,
however, what have the responsible planning authorities learned from these
examples of multi-unit developments? What is so different in 1999?
I have had the opportunity to take our
Development Approval Manager, Strategic Planners, Councillors, Infrastructure
Personnel, even the former Planning Minister, the Hon. Robert MacLellan on a
tour of Chelsea streets.
One would have hoped that with the
implementation of the Good Design Guide, recent planning decisions would be in
stark contrast to the bad planning of previous generations. No - in fact the
pre-Good Design Guide units (described by the former Minister as "Brotherhood
of St Laurence" dwellings) have greater setbacks, more open space and
decreased density than those currently under construction. Change, I accept,
but change for the better please!
At a recent Neighborhood Character Forum
organised by Council, the most negative aspect of neighborhood character
related to the overwhelming number of units in the area. Somehow, this negative
character of our streets has set a precedent for further proposals. At the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) I fought a 5 dwelling proposal behind my
property. The decision by the AAT to approve yet another multi-unit proposal in
Golden Avenue, Chelsea, a street which has approximately 27 single detached
houses remaining and a staggering 200 units, forced me to draw the conclusion
that in streets where homes outnumber units, approval is granted on the basis
of urban consolidation, and in streets where units outnumber homes, approval is
granted on the basis that it is in keeping with the character of the street -
regardless of whether that character is positive or negative. In Chelsea, we
are damned either way.
Ironically, one of the primary objectives of
the Good Design Guide was to facilitate and improve housing choice. Yet the
single feature which dominates Chelsea Streets is the lack of housing choice.
MIX AND LOCATION OF HOUSING TYPE
The table below shows that in three streets
in Bonbeach and eight in Chelsea there are 762 blocks of land. On these 762
blocks there are 1370 multi-unit developments and just 403 single detached
houses remaining. Almost 50% of the available land has been taken up
with multi-unit developments. In York Street, Bonbeach, there are 51 blocks of
land, but only 20 single houses left with 162 multi-unit dwellings.
|
Street/Rd/Ave |
No. of Blocks |
No. of Multi Unit Dwellings |
|
Bondi |
65 |
73 |
|
York |
51 |
162 |
|
Broadway |
100 |
264 |
|
Golden |
62 |
200 |
|
Glenola |
81 |
102 |
|
Argyle |
96 |
95 |
|
Sherwood |
75 |
149 |
|
Woodbine |
80 |
104 |
|
Embankment |
75 |
127 |
|
Station |
44 |
68 |
|
Scotch |
33 |
26 |
To keep in line with the former State
government’s policy to encourage medium density housing, Kingston Council’s interim
report stated their desire "for a mix of housing styles and types within
the city." The consequence of this planning policy in a suburb like
Chelsea is that approving additional multi-unit development is contributing to
an imbalance in favour of multi-units and a lack of diversity in housing styles
and types.
Summary of Building Approvals for
Separate Detached Houses – Local Area 6 (Chelsea area). Source: ABS.
|
Financial Year |
Total No. of Approvals |
|
1994/95 |
154 |
|
95/96 |
57 |
|
96/97 |
79 |
|
97/98 |
71 |
Medium Density Housing Approvals –
Comparisons with other Kingston Areas (June 1996 – March 1999). Local Area 6 =
the Chelsea area. Source: Kingston Planning Register.
|
Area |
Dual
Occupancy Permits Issued |
Multi Dwelling Unit Permit Issues |
Total Additional Dwellings |
|
1 |
21 |
21 |
52 |
|
2 |
78 |
56 |
420 |
|
3 |
5 |
3 |
24 |
|
4 |
111 |
62 |
466 |
|
5 |
12 |
4 |
105 |
|
6 |
101 |
79 |
500 |
The most disturbing element of the figures above,
is that us residents south of Mordialloc Creek have had more planning permits
issued in our locality than have been issued in the Primary Activity Nodes
neighbouring Cheltenham, Westfield Shopping Centre and Mordialloc Shopping
Precinct. One has to ask: is this strategic planning? Is this good planning?
No.
I fully support preserving and protecting the
‘best’ character and streetscape of Melbourne suburbs, but surely equal focus
should be directed towards enhancing all neighborhood character, especially the
bad and the ugly.
Just because the housing stock is
‘undistinguished’ to quote the former Planning Minister, is this the rationale
behind further trashing of a suburb? The present planning policy most
definitely encourages a discriminatory approach towards areas/suburbs which are
not significant.
Chelsea is an old suburb and many residents,
including myself, have lived here a lifetime. Now that many properties are
coming up "for sale" there is an opportunity to enhance Chelsea’s
physical, social and economic image for the future.
Developers could be building quality homes.
This type of housing is in demand and certainly selling where this choice of
development is still occurring. This choice of development would greatly
enhance our streets and could be the catalyst to create a suburb that will be
diverse, attractive, pleasant and livable. The emphasis should be on quality,
not quantity. The existence/threat of multi-unit developments surrounding one’s
property is the primary reason pride in ownership has eroded – residents are
reluctant to spend money and time on their homes and on their gardens.
Nowhere is it stated that the purpose of the
Good Design Guide is to eradicate the single residence, single block
characteristic of our streets. However, this is what the Good Design Guide has
facilitated in Chelsea. Nor is there any inference that the Good Design Guide’s
purpose is to support multi-unit development as a response to market demand.
Demand is being generated solely by lack of housing choice. The only new and
affordable housing choice on offer in Chelsea is a unit.
Nor should design excellence be interpreted
by developers, in order to maximise their return, to cram onto the block as
many units as THEIR interpretation of the Good Design Guide permits.
No consideration is given to the number, mix
and location of multi-unit developments in relation to:
(a) the site and
(b) the street
This has resulted consequently in many
streets in Chelsea now imbalanced in favour of multi-unit development. Our present
local and State government policies should not be contributing to this
imbalance, which is degrading the amenity and neighbourhood character of the
area. Such proposals should be interpreted as unreasonable and regarded as an
overdevelopment.
There is ample evidence in my map on page 2,
of the parasitic effect higher density units have on destroying surrounding
single detached homes, due to a loss of amenity and neighbourhood character.
Such proposals are not site responsive to the surrounding environment as
imbalanced unit developments deny existing residents their surrounding
environment of one house/one block - the original housing stock characteristic
of the street. If the purpose of the Good Design Guide is to ensure that such
proposals do not impact adversely or unreasonably on neighbours or the
surrounding environment, such proposals are in contradiction to the purpose of
"The Good Design Guide".
Chelsea allotments are large. The minimums
and maximums suggested in the Guide are just that, a guide. These figures may
be appropriately interpreted in suburbs that do not characteristically enjoy
low densities, substantial setbacks and open space.
It is unreasonable and inaccurate to expect
no loss of amenity to surrounding residents of the proposal and/or to the
surrounding precinct in mind.
Nowhere does the Good Design Guide state that
its purpose is to discourage/cease development of new homes in preference to
multi-unit development to accommodate families. Sadly for the existing
residents, this is the only interpretation being exploited. Comparatively, for
example, housing stock in Aspendale Gardens comprises of new, affordable family
homes. Consequently, it now accommodates a higher proportion of pre-school aged
children than the City of Casey, which was one of Melbourne’s designated growth
areas. State and local government policy makers surely have a responsibility to
the existing schools, services and facilities to encourage and improve a mix of
housing styles and types which does not solely favour multi-unit development in
Chelsea.
When reflecting on medium density housing,
I'm always drawn to the "Living Suburbs" document, in particular,
Direction 4 :
"To
enhance Melbourne’s environment and livability"
I acknowledge that there is very clear evidence
that an aging population will result in a decline in population and a need for
smaller housing, due to the "empty nest" syndrome. I agree that we
have to ensure that elderly people are not displaced from their communities and
social networks as they age and their housing needs change. In light of the map
on page 2, has not the need for multi-unit development been met in Chelsea?
What’s more, must we not consider all those people who don’t want to
live in a unit and ensure that they are not displaced from their communities
and social networks because the housing choice is in favour of medium density
housing?
The 25-34 year old age group contains many
people purchasing their first home and starting families, and as a result,
these people are a vital component of population growth. The 1996 census shows
a very important change in Kingston. In this age group, for the first time
ever, there is a decline. In the 97/98 financial year, the building approvals
for new detached houses totalled 71. In comparison, medium density housing
approvals totalled 500. Provided house prices are affordable, as they were
prior to the imbalance and before developers dictated the market, residences
were eagerly sought by younger people to raise a family in a suburb which is
close to schools, transport, beaches and retail outlets. The poor mix of
housing, the imbalance in favour of high density multi-units and the social
wellbeing of the community is of increasing concern.
The imbalance of multi developments is
denying young families suitable and affordable housing close to existing
schools, shops and transport in a bayside suburb. A diverse population needs
a diversity of housing styles and types. New and affordable single detached
houses catering for singles, couples, retirees, professionals, young families,
adolescents plus limited (in respect to the current poor mix) new and
affordable units should be promoted for this area.
We need to counteract the transient community
and urban sprawl by enhancing the housing choice to single detached houses to
encourage people who want to reside here and stay here, and to encourage home
ownership and pride in that ownership. Currently, with the lack of diversity in
housing choice and consequently the lack of diversity in the community, rentals
are higher in this area than the Kingston average and the number of couples
with children is low, and the number of elderly high. We must have a commitment
to ensuring the viability of the schools, facilities and commercial sectors of
the suburb by attracting a more diverse community. Furthermore, the rate of
population growth in Kingston indicates the population will begin to decrease
in the new century. If this is so, why is it necessary to encourage and promote
medium density unit development to such an extent?
Surely if everyone is really serious about
halting the population decline, it is obvious there must be affordable,
suitable single detached houses with garden and passive space to attract
families to an area, rather than approving 500 more units which will
require
- extensive drainage works
- loss of gardens and open space
- traffic congestion and parking problems
I also think it is unreasonable to expect no
change. The existing residents of Chelsea have been very reasonable, but isn't
it unreasonable for them to accept entire streetscape change in favour of multi
unit development? Isn't further promotion for multi development in this area unreasonable?
One major objective behind the former State
government planning policy in initiating, endorsing and facilitating medium
density housing was to limit urban sprawl, therefore creating a need for infill
development in the suburbs.
It could be said that the residents of
Chelsea "are the guilty party". ‘Guilty’ for not succumbing to the
parasitic effect of multi-unit development, ‘guilty’ for not wanting to be
surrounded front, side and back by units and ‘greedy’ for wanting to live in a
single detached house.
We have been told about the cost of the
‘urban sprawl’, but what about the cost - physically, socially and economically
of urban densities? Let’s have a look.
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
As recently as 1998, Chelsea was cited as an
opportunity area for medium density housing. When does a nominated area cease
to be an opportunity area because it reached saturation point…literally?
The housing stock of Chelsea streets
historically comprised approximately 60-80 dwellings per street. The total
number of dwellings in some streets has now doubled, tripled, even quadrupled.
The physical infrastructure was not built to accommodate this extent of infill.
What’s more, the drainage systems were reliant on large areas of porous
surfaces. Flooding over the crown of the road is a typical sight in Chelsea on
rainy days.
In one development in Swanwalk Rd, the
developer, as usual, aims to clear fell the site. By his own admission, a
substantial palm, in the way of one of the proposed eight boxes (units) is to
be transported to the developer’s own home. How lucky that the developer is
able to live on a property that has enough open space to accommodate the palm.
Isn't it unfair that the developer can enjoy trees where he lives, but on his
development sites, residents lose out by the sheer lack of them.
What a pity we existing residents who have to
live with the developer’s proposals can’t expect the same priorities the
developer has for his home and his surroundings paralleled in their
developments - a quality home surrounded by quality trees.
Does the developer think the amenity of the
residents of Chelsea is lower than his? Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!
IN CONCLUSION
Let's create an environment we can live in
- not move away from.
Market demand needs more analysis in terms of
urban consolidation. One or two years would be the average occupancy in this type
of development. If urban consolidation is the objective, this housing type is
not providing the solution. In Chelsea, for every new block of mirror image
units sold, there is a greater number of existing residents moving and houses
and units for sale or let. If Chelsea wasn’t being overdeveloped and residents’
amenity lost and destroyed, people would not be moving.
Our present responsible authority, Kingston
City Council, is not responsible for historic decisions pertaining to the
number, mix and location of housing in Chelsea being unbalanced in favour of
multi-unit development. However, State and local government policies could
provide the framework to implement controls on the balance, mix and quality of
housing developments.
Population forecasts are driving the
promotion for Medium Density Housing. Unfortunately, it won’t be lack of
development that kills the physical, social and economic viability of Chelsea,
it will be the amount of it.