Author:  Mary Rimington

Date:  4 March 1998

Submission to The Victorian Urban Villages Project – Encouraging Sustainable Urban Form

 

 

ATT:  The Hon Robert Maclellan,

Minister for Planning & Local Government,

Nauru House, Collins Street,

Melbourne VIC 3000.

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

RE:  URBAN CONSOLIDATION.

 

PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

 

The quality of life or 'liveability' of towns and cities, and the prosperity and well- being of their communities, depend on the environment.  However, the effects of development on the environment are not always understood, and sometimes become apparent only in the long term.  The imperative for economic development in Victoria and the actions it entails may not always be in the long term interests of the environment - if they are not sustainable, liveability, well-being and prosperity will be affected and possibly reduced.

 

Whilst accepting that there is a need to curtail Melbourne's urban sprawl by using urban consolidation initiatives, such as 'in-filling' of the suburbs, we believe that this initiative needs to be carried out in a much more sensitive manner than has been apparent so far, hence the formation of groups such as Save our Suburbs.

 

Just as some people welcome the opportunity to live in Central Melbourne in high-rise apartments, there are many others who choose to live in the green and leafy suburbs of Beaumaris, Hawthorn and Eltham.  Many Melbournians have chosen to live in the Bayside suburbs where they relish the views and huge sky-scapes.  None of these suburbanites wish to see their environment threatened by unsympathetic over-development caused by over-shadowing, and loss of trees, gardens and open space.

 

 

STRIP SHOPPING CENTRES

 

There are many opportunities for 'in-filling' in Bayside suburbs which would not destroy the ambience of these well established suburbs.  For example, some of the strip shopping centres in the narrow coastal strip in Kingston, between the Nepean Hwy and the foreshore, are struggling to survive. However, by introducing some of the Urban Village concepts, the commercial sector may revive.

 

The proposals contained in the Urban Village document suggest that the upper storey of the commercial buildings be converted to residential and/or restaurant premises that are close to transport, shops, recreation, schools and possibly employment.

 

 

MEDIUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENT

 

Proposals for increased density in the Bayside suburbs must be confined to the previously mentioned shopping strips rather than increase pressure on the foreshore in this narrow, fragile coastal strip.

 

The views from the upper storeys of these buildings are generally more expansive than from the actual foreshore.  Furthermore, and most importantly, single and two storey dwellings along the foreshore would not be over-shadowed or be subjected to severe wind tunnelling which is disastrous for indigenous vegetation that provides essential erosion control and a buffer between the sand dunes and residential developments.

 

 

UTILISATION OF INDUSTRIAL LAND

 

We note that both the Urban Village study and the Urban Consolidation study suggest that industrial sites no longer required be converted to residential development (provided that the sites are de-contaminated).  An example of successful urban consolidation is the Lynch’s Bridge stockyard housing development in Kensington.  Large redundant factory areas in Huntingdale, Clayton and Spotswood, close to rail lines, provide an opportunity for eager developers to earn money by creating attractive housing in an urban village setting.  The use of existing under utilised land would reduce the necessity to demolish attractive residential properties in order to build town-houses.

 

 

AMENITY IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS

 

Parks act as a community's back yard.  Because current residential development has resulted in the loss of trees, gardens and recreation space, it is essential that planning regulations require the provision of parks to compensate for this loss.  Land must be set aside or purchased to create new open space within easy walking distance from the residential development.

 

Further improvements in the amenity of the area can be achieved by planting more and larger trees, calming traffic in local streets, improving local parks, protecting the green wedge from residential development, and implementing heritage controls for some suburban areas.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

We respectfully request that there be full community consultation before any new developments, as outlined in the Victorian Coastal Strategy, are approved for the Activity Nodes around the bay, and that proposals for medium density residential development in the bayside coastal strip be subject to architect designed guidelines which include restricting height limits, the removal of trees, and loss of open space.

 

 

Mary Rimington

 

 

Back to the MBCL Resource Page