Let down by Clrs.

The biggest change to low rise residential density in 25 years is about to hit us.

The State Government is proposing to allow:

* 2 dwellings on blocks of 400 sq.m

* 4 dwellingss on blocks of 500 sq.m

* 10 dwellongs on blocks of 600 sqM. Most blocks in West Ward are between 400 – 900 sq.m. So this can have MAJOR IMPACT on the quality of living in standard, low-rise residential areas

And you will not have any right to object. Applications are deemed to be complyong when approved by a private certifier.

The best you get is a notification AFTER the development is approved.

Whilst the Council submission argues against many of the proposals it contains some concerning statements. For example, Council officers say that perhaps 3 -5 dwellings might be appropriate for lots of 600 sq.m. this was near the end of hundreds of pages of reports.

I suspect Councilors did not fully read their papers as no one moved for that recommendation to be removed.

On another matter, Councillors agreed to only field 1 member of a JRPP Committee if 1 of 2 Council appointed members were absent. JRPPs approve the large developments (such as 688-692 Pacific Highway).

With the threat that Councils will be disbanded, have our Councilors given up on the things we elected them to do?

 

Advertisements

One thought on “Let down by Clrs.

  1. This proposal for uncontrolled massive subdivision will raise many new issues!
    What protection will owners of properties zoned 2r or 2e have from “micro-subdivisions” in their neighbourhoods ?
    What is the status of the Council scheme to permit tower blocks In Chatswood CBD in exchange for a ban on dual occupancy ?
    Will these micro lots have separate titles, or will they extrapolate dual occupancy or secondary dwelling concepts from recent years?
    Will Councils be permitted to raise Section 94 A development application levies to 7% to 12%, to ensure that Standards are conserved at past levels for infrastructure services, childcare, open space, and on-street parking, and increased bus services ?
    What’s in this for present residents?
    Will they be able to sell their properties into the same market if it can be surrounded by micro lots, but can’t micro-subdivide themselves due to other constraints, such as heritage ?
    This ambit claim for developers has the fingerprints of the Urban Task Force all over it, coming from a Parliamentary Standing Committee, dating back to the Tripodi era.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s