Save Our Suburbs (Vic)

Smith Street development approved!

See what SOS Ian Quick had to say about it in the Australian Financial Review (16/2/2006) and the Herald Sun letters (17/2/2006).

In a stunning sign of contempt for the community, Planning Minister Rob Hulls has approved a massive over development on Smith St in Collingwood (our original story). This will add a massive three tower complex, rising up to 7 stories high and will completely dominate Smith St.

This has wide spread implications for Melbourne, as it shows yet again that the Victorian state government will approve developments with absolutely no concern for the surrounding communities.

In the Age article, local lower house member Richard Wynne (ALP) was quoted as saying "I would have hoped for a reduction of another level" which was an extremely weak response to the announcement. Local ALP councillor Annabel Barbara was a little bit better saying "... not take into account the impact on the heritage nature of iconic shopping strips".

What both of them should be doing is resigning from the ALP! Of course, Richard Wynne may have part of that decision made for him, as over the last few years that he has been the local Member, the seat of Richmond has changed from a safe ALP seat to one it could lose in this Novembers election.

SOS did NOT appose appropriate development on this Smith St site - it does need to be redeveloped. It was the scale and impact of this particular plan that everyone objected to, and the process residents had to endure to try and stop something that just should have been dismissed quite easily.

In addition, Planning Minister Rob Hulls has knocked back Yarra Councils amendment C76, which would have provided some protection for Smith St.

The reasons for this were (As stated by the Minister) -

1. Better reflect the diversity of built form in Smith Street, including the Safeway site
   
2. Any built form controls should be discretionary
   
3. There should be greater clarity, less repetition and clearer linkages between the design objectives, the building and works controls and the decision guidelines.

Interpreted by SOS, this means -

1. It should allow really big buildings to overshadow the smaller ones.
   
2. It should only have optional controls, otherwise it would be too restrictive on developers.
   
3. It should only contain vague objectives, nothing that could effect a major development.

These two decisions highlight THE major problem with Melbourne 2030 - on the one hand it can be summed up as "Anything higher density is good", on the other hand local structure plans are supposed to control where and how this happens.

But since many of the structure plans for Melbourne have NOT been completed, and even when they eventually are we now find they have to be "optional" for developers, we are currently only one (small) step better than having no planning system at all..

This decision significantly (and negatively) impacts ALL of Melbourne.