MBCL Submission to Mordialloc
- Pride of the Bay
(Major
activity centre planning process)
INTRODUCTION:
It is hoped that Kingston rate
payers haven't paid too dearly for the latest consultant's version of a plan
for the future of Mordialloc. It bears a
striking resemblance to the Tract Consultant's plan (1987) to which residents
vigorously objected because of proposals for high rise development in the study
area.
An earlier plan, Carrum District Coast
Management Plan (1986) also proposed high density, high rise
development and was also rejected on the grounds that:
Such policies would seem
contrary to the interest of the majority of residents who have chosen to live
in this bayside community for the kind of social and cultural life it at
present provides (Former Chelsea Mayor and Councillor Jack Cuthbertston).
Tract Consultants, in the Mordialloc and
Environs Strategy Plan (1987) stated that:
Mordialloc...retains a timeless unsophisticated
quality which is perhaps one of its greatest assets
and Retention of this quality in the face of progress is one of paramount
importance.
Unfortunately the former Planning Minister, John
Thwaites, has promised to "bring high density inner city living to the
suburbs", so once again Mordialloc’s "timeless unsophisticated
quality" is under threat from four storey development. On the other hand, the same Minister promised
the City of Greater Geelong that Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove "will be
protected from excessive development under new height controls…because Council
doesn't want three to four storey development impacting adversely on the
streetscape and character of the area".
We expect the same concern to be shown for the neighbourhood character
of the 150 year old Mordialloc fishing village.
After residents roundly rejected
three storey residential development in Carrum in 2001, Kingston Council
graciously acknowledged that: “in planning for urban change it is essential
that local planning frameworks are responsive to the aspirations of the local
communities for which they are planned.
The concept of three storey development has been tested and reviewed and
it is apparent that it is not part of the broader community vision”. There has been no request for high rise in
Mordialloc. People repeatedly
demonstrated that they highly value, and want to retain, low-level coastal
village character.
We believe that proposals for
high rise development in the Mordialloc study area is developer driven and will
detract from the fishing village or urban village character which currently
exists.
Professor Miles Lewis,
in his book Suburban Backlash, states that “The market should not
be the sole or principal determinant of planning residential development”, as
is regrettably the case at present in this city. Melbourne suburbs are experiencing developer
driven planning similar to that occurring in Britain where, "Scores of
local authorities, whose task it is to represent the public interest, appear to
have been swayed instead by private imperatives. The councils’ power to decide which places
can be developed and what should be built there is the single most important
agent of our quality of life. It
determines whether or not a city or district has sufficient housing. If people
are under-housed, or if local housing serves only the wealthiest people - it is
because the planning system has failed.
The quality of an area - whether it provides enough green spaces,
attractive views, a vibrant community, safe streets, in other words, all the
factors which determine whether a place is pleasant and habitable or grim and
bleak, depends on the planning decisions made by the local authority” (2).
The planning system for the Mordialloc Study
Area may already be failing because of the expensive town house development
which has effectively priced low income and young families out of the
market. This is surely not what the
Kingston Residential Strategy was supposed to achieve. Housing diversity will decline still further
with the introduction of high rise apartments in prime locations, presently
occupied by public housing.
Residents are continually
accused of being afraid or resistant to change when developments are proposed
in the local area, however this is not necessarily mindless opposition to
something unfamiliar. "It was more
an expression of resentment at the fact that irreversible alterations were
taking place to areas, and by implication life styles, which were
cherished. The qualities which made
Melbourne the most livable city in the world were (and are) being
destroyed. This destruction was not the
result of an active decision, but was happening by default. It was happening because there were general
assumptions, never clearly articulated, that residential densities must
increase, that physical redevelopment was inevitable, that the free market was
sacrosanct and the amenity of existing residents was a minor consideration in
relation to the ineluctable forces for change” (3).
In the article Packing People,
Miles Lewis presents an analogy which applies perfectly to the proposals for
the study area of Mordialloc. Lewis
claims that there are two possible approaches to (in-fill) development. "One is to cram people in until
something bursts. The other is to
increase the population only to the extent that this can be done without
reducing standards. It is like packing
delicate glassware in a carton. You can
either put in what fits comfortably, and leave it at that or you can go on
squeezing more in until you destroy the very thing you value - in this case the
livability of the suburbs - only to find that the pressure to squeeze in more
continues unabated. Under this approach,
if you double the housing, you must double the parks" (4).
Unfortunately consultants over a thirty year
period have been unable to accept that space in the constricted study area is
finite. To cram more buildings, people
and cars into this confined space is to destroy the very thing the community
and the wider public value most about Mordialloc.
Kingston's Residential Strategy
aimed to achieve a diversity of housing catering for a range of ages, families
and income levels in the city. The
Mordialloc study area, already an ideal urban village, provides the diversity
of social, rental and home ownership considered desirable, close to transport,
schools, commercial and recreational facilities. However, the type of redevelopment now
occurring in and on the fringes of the study area continues to alter the
demographics with expensive town houses well beyond the reach of first home
buyers and young families.
Four storey tower blocks in the study area will
exacerbate this trend, with social housing and low income rental premises
opposite the pier replaced with an ‘icon building’ and the occupants of rental
housing banished to less desirable locations in fringe area. As Monbiot states, "If local housing
serves only the wealthiest people, it is because the planning system has
failed” (5).
To quote from Planning Policy Guidelines (6),
"Desirable planning objectives would acknowledge that population targets
should not be set for any area, such that the effect will be to reduce the
variety of housing stock in that area”. As
stated previously, development trends in the Mordialloc study area are already
reducing the variety of housing available.
"Population targets should not be set for any area without regard
for the densities already achieved within it”.
The study area is confined and restricted
between two major roads resulting in traffic congestion. It is naive to believe that increased
population living in the study area would forego their cars. Even though public transport is readily
available, it may not address their travel requirements.
"In existing residential areas, the
property rights of existing residents must be respected, therefore, where a
majority of owners in a specified precinct desire limits on the height of
buildings, these controls should be established and enforced by the planning
system”.
The community have constantly rejected high rise development in the
study area. Any residential development
must be responsive to local neighbourhood character, which is predominantly
single or two storey houses with space for gardens, trees and children’s play
space.
Port Phillip Conservation
Council states in its policy on height
limits for structures around Port Phillip Bay, "The Bay's natural wide
expanse of sea and sky-scapes is one of its major natural and appealing
assets. Tall structures close to the
Bay's coastline have adverse environmental effects on the coastal margins. Tall buildings create background bulk and
become the obtrusive foreground replacing the previous view of the sky and
other natural features. Tall structures
impact on the coast because of their appearance, including such effects as
reflections, colours, over-shadowing, light glare at night and wind
disturbance. Tall buildings because of
their capacity, generate extra traffic and congestion”.
This last point is particularly
relevant in the confined, constricted study area which already has major
traffic problems in the commercial and residential streets surrounding the
area. Any increase in height limits will
set a precedent for even higher buildings at a future date. There should be no increase in height
limits in Mordialloc.
Car parking is at a premium in
the Mordialloc shopping precinct, therefore car parking should be retained in
the station forecourt. Improving parking
behind existing shops is possible. The
taxis must remain at the existing location in the forecourt, being easily
accessible for public transport users and shoppers.
The station buildings are heritage listed and
must be retained in their present form. The station surrounds are well
maintained. A Canary Island palm planted
in the station forecourt would be an unnecessary impediment for delivery and
other vehicles entering the forecourt.
Utilising the rear access of shops for ‘through
trading’ is impractical. Shop top
dwelling is a possibility providing that this is restricted to two storeys
only, to retain the low density, low rise character of the shopping
centre. The two storey height limit must
be retained throughout the study area.
Interchange transport services are well catered
for at the present locations with the Moorabbin Transit service stop in Albert
Street on the east side of the rail line.
This bus line services the area from Carrum to Hampton. The Ventura bus is readily accessible in
Centreway in the main shopping precinct.
The Ventura bus travels from Mordialloc to Box Hill (Route 700).
The Island provides recreational facilities for
the local and broader community through the Sea Scouts and Motor Yacht
Clubs. Public access to the Island is
unwarranted given the number of restaurants already available in Main Street,
plus The Kingston Club, Windows, and Doyles - a total of twenty (20) food
outlets at these locations.
Respondents to the Nexus survey showed little
interest or knowledge of the Island until prompted by a leading question:
“Would you like to see better access to the Island?”. "Opportunities for
the Island to make a significant addition to the open space on the
waterfront" (p.53) would be extremely limited given the preferred Option 4
to (quite rightly) retain the existing club, buildings and uses on the Island,
but to add yet another restaurant! Increased
public access to the Island would create security and safety risks adding to
the current high rates of vandalism occurring to boats moored in the creek.
Pedestrian bridges at any point over the creek
mouth and road bridge will prevent the increasing number of yachts with masts
accessing the creek as a safe anchorage. Dredges will have difficulty operating
if pedestrian bridges are built over any section of the creek. Car parking space on the foreshore and creek reserves
is finite. Doyles car park is quite
rightly restricted to their patrons (and members of the MMYC).
The recreational facilities of the local
community must not be put at risk because of the current trend of alienating
waterfront property for commercial gain in the form of restaurants, of which
there is already an over abundant supply in the Central Precinct.
There should be no public access to the Island
unless with approval of the Clubs for a specific event.
Four storey building heights in Central
Mordialloc, or the wider study area, is not acceptable. The community has consistently opposed high
rise, high density development because of the impact on neighbourhood
character, increased traffic generation in an already congested area, and over
shadowing.
It is absurd to claim (p.58) of
the Study that "greater density of development within the core (will
strengthen) the village character nature of Mordialloc. Four storey development will destroy the very
thing the community most values. The communities
attitude to four storey development was amply demonstrated in the response to
the Nexus Research Report question 22: "How would you like Mordialloc to
look in 20 years time?”. Respondents
"would like to see Mordialloc remain as it is in 2020”.
In response to Q23, "What do you see as the
main threat to the future of Mordialloc?", interviewees saw the
"overdevelopment of land" and "increase in traffic" as the
main threats. Furthermore, "the
current image of Mordialloc is important to 72% of respondents".
It is noted on page 60 of the Report (8.6.6. Key
Stakeholders), there is no reference to residents who live in Central
Mordialloc. There is opposition to the
undemocratic process of ‘fast tracking’ development approvals without
permitting the community access to plans and the right to object to
inappropriate developments - especially any development which ignores the
community’s clearly expressed preference for Mordialloc to retain its existing
low rise village character.
The existing sales and timber yards to the east
of the railway line on Park Street should be retained as such with additional
retail/hardware or similar activities, rather than three (3) storey residential
development at a location between a road carrying heavy volumes of polluting
traffic and the noise impact of the busy Frankston rail line. An alternative use for the site would be a
car park with pedestrian access to the Creek via a board-walk built under the
rail bridge on the creek bank, rather than widening the dangerous, unattractive
culvert under the rail line. The car
park could also be used by public transport users who want to ‘park and ride’.
Community Response 8.7.4 of the Report states
that "Two thirds of the respondents rated the appearance of the railway
precinct as poor with 89% identifying that this precinct could be improved with
‘re-development’. However Question 27 was again a leading question framed to
elicit a certain response. The question
was "Do you think that this precinct could be improved by
re-development?". While 86% of the
respondents answered ‘Yes’, the kind of development that Council has in mind
was not specified.
Question 29 under "What type would these
uses (for the Maritime Village) be?", there was no reference to
"redevelopment" by the respondents.
As stated previously, the response to what was perceived as the greatest
threats to Mordialloc in the future was 'overdevelopment' - it is therefore
misleading to quote 89% approving unspecified 'redevelopment’ in a subsequent
question.
Support for ongoing operation of boat building
and related facilities for boat maintenance and moorings. Support also for the retention of the Blue
Line Boat Hire kiosk and boats at its present location, this being the most
popular activity attracting visitors and fishermen to Mordialloc. There should be no commercial services
including an ‘expanded/new food related retail precinct’ in the Maritime
Village. Restaurants and cafes have
proliferated in the study area.
Additional outlets should be located in the commercial precinct, paying
market rates rather than alienating Crown Land for commercial gain and thereby
reducing the limited open space available to the public on the foreshore and
Creek reserves.
Support for the creation of an open space link
between the existing playground on the Peter Scullin Reserve and the foreshore,
by the removal of existing car parking spaces. The car parking spaces removed
to be relocated on the former tennis court with no further increase in car parking
on the foreshore.
There must be no thinning of any foreshore
vegetation to create 'visibility' (for whom?). The vegetation performs an important function
in providing shelter and screens the playground and foreshore from traffic
noise and pollution from Beach Road. The
bluestone kiosk should not be relocated to the entrance to the pier, since this
would prevent clear sight lines along the length of the pier. There should be no buildings cluttering the
entrance to the pier and restricting the open vistas of sea and
sky-scapes. The kiosk/toilet block
should remain at its present location.
To move it would be an unnecessary expense.
Planners apparently labour under the
misapprehension that if there is a pocket of open space or grassed area
anywhere, it must have something 'built' on it otherwise it is not being
"used". The recommendation
that there should be restaurants/cafes in Attenborough Park to encourage "use"
is a perfect example of this odd attitude.
Public open space and the creek reserve should not be alienated for
commercial enterprise. These activities
should be located in the commercial precinct and pay market rates.
Attenborough Park is well 'used' by boat owners,
fishermen, artists, students going to and from school, residents going shopping
or to the station, and cyclists using the Long Beach Trail.
A pedestrian level crossing linking the beach
(and Doyles) to the creek is unwise given the speed and volume of traffic along
the Nepean Highway. A board walk under
the road bridge on the southern creek bank, leading to the steps up to the
footpath on the south-west side of the bridge would make more sense and be
safer than a pedestrian crossing from Attenborough Park across the highway to
Doyles.
Groves Reserve was named after a local councillor
and politician. The Reserve contains a
banksia woodland and significant vegetation.
The proposal to permit high density housing on the site between a busy
rail line and a highway carrying high volumes of pollution traffic daily
indicates a lack of concern for the health and well being of potential
residents by responsible authorities. It
also displays a lack of commitment to the protection of important environmental
sites, especially unfortunate given the continuing loss of open space,
parkland and mature trees in the municipality.
Amusingly, this latest re-hash of earlier
consultants reports of development proposals for Mordialloc and environs seeks
to reinforce the Creek's role as a ‘real maritime village’.(page 59). One hundred and fifty years of fishing, boat
building, sailing, hiring boats and training sea scouts are not ‘real’ coastal
activities, apparently. The consultant’s
idea of "reinforcing the creek as a ‘real maritime village’ emerge as a
series of restaurant/cafes on the waterfront and Crown land, taking precedence
over and relegating boating activities to secondary importance.
For example, under one of four options, the sea
scouts and motor yacht clubs could be pushed to one side to make way for a
restaurant. A pedestrian bridge to reach
the Island will impede access for larger marine craft and dredging operations,
while the popular boat hiring service is likely to be forced to move up-stream
to an untenable and therefore unprofitable site above the road bridge.
However, the reason for seeking
to increase the number of restaurants on public open space is revealed on page
47. High on the Council's agenda for a
"Plan for the Future of Mordialloc" is "The potential for the
largest return on investment to Council in terms of financial benefit”. To achieve this Council is prepared to fast
track development approvals thus ignoring the results of Nexus Research - in
which respondents saw the major threat to Mordialloc as overdevelopment of land
and an increase in traffic in the study area.
Seventy two percent of respondents considered the current image of
Mordialloc was important and would like to see Mordialloc remain the same as it
is in 2020.
The Victorian Coastal Strategy (2002)
warns that: "In the urban settlements around Port Phillip Bay, much of
the coast is already extensively used for recreation and other uses. Planning for these areas needs to recognize
that some areas may be nearing, or at maximum capacity. The primary issue is the relationship between
development and the impacts for public foreshores - potential over-shadowing
of beaches, congestion and capacity.
Local government is a key stakeholder in this”.
Unfortunately, in this instance, local
government is focused on "the largest return in investment to
Council" rather than accepting that the study area is a highly valued (by
the community) finite resource consisting of limited public open space.
Ensuring that the residential and environmental
amenity of this ‘charming and unique coastal village’ is preserved for the
enjoyment of future generations must take precedence over commercial
considerations in responsible and responsive local government decision making.
1. Lewis, Miles (1999) Suburban Backlash : The Battle for
the World's Most Liveable City, Bloomings Books, Melbourne, p. 275.
3. Lewis. Op, cit. p. vii.
Back to the MBCL Resource Page