PlanningAlerts

3 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

1. Supportive housing should be placed somewhere else. Is it the ACT Green and Labor plan to stack Monash and surrounds with those that vote for a living?
   This whole section of land should have been left for recreational purposes.
   The footbridge, the bridge, pedestruan and cycle underpasses, makes for a potential hive of activity of the wrong sort.

2. This development is one of 5 more housing developments proposed in an area with already considerable high density housing (I'm including area across the footbridge). Please could consideration be given to this land being a green space/ open parkland or a public recreational area. So important for planners to keep allocating parcels of land for this purpose when there are large amounts of land allocated to high density housing.

3. I agree, this should be green space and a buffer around the lake, like a mini Commonwealth Park (which is famous internationally).
   The recent planning approvals seem to be for worse and worse architecture - as though someone was tormenting Mr Greenway, the architect of notably beautiful buildings, in his grave!! The current development in Block 28 - so ugly we will never walk that way again - is high-priced but will devolve into slums quickly enough.
   Supportive housing includes 'for people with substance abuse issues'. Placing addicted people with unresolved problems near an underpass will lead to other, ordinary people avoiding the underpass - and risking, perhaps losing, their lives on Drakeford Drive.
   The presence of a single, notorious drug-dealer household in Oxley has damaged property values and the safety of parts of the suburb at night, including a playground area and an underpass. This proposal inevitably brings the same problems to Greenway, probably multiplied - and that in the middle of a major recreation and landscaping asset, school, library, etc. While I agree with supportive accommodation in principle, (if well managed!), Greenway is simply the wrong place to put it. Richardson or Charnwood, perhaps?