PlanningAlerts

2 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. The parking and traffic conditions in Joy Street and Hazel Street must be taken into consideration when adding yet more dwellings into what is a small street with limited space across from a railway station.

   In particular it is impossible for more than one car at at time get down Joy Street at any one time. Joy Street is the only access into Hazel street as Hazel street access is blocked off at Daws Road. Cars needing to go up or down Joy street at present, either need to pull into driveways to give way or reverse back down the street. We also have trucks dropping off deliveries to the business on Daw's Road. The trucks often take up the entire street when unloading.

   The parking in both streets is at capacity with staff and customers from the businesses on Daw's road parking in Joy Street and Hazel all day and in the case of customers at Video Ezy up until 12pm at night. Customers of the train service are also parking in both streets. Also many residents in Joy street and Hazel Street only have the facility to park one car in their allocated parking spaces and park their second cars in both streets. Reversing out of ones driveway has become dangerous as you can not see any on coming vehicles. Residents are fed up angry at the parking and driving conditions and do not want to add to the congestion.

   In terms of the urban development in Joy street and Hazel street it appears to be at full capacity. There are only a handful of original houses that are left in both these streets. It is becoming very overcrowded and a lot of residents are unhappy with their living and parking arrangements. Older building subdivision approvals allowed town house windows to face into neighbours backyards invading basic privacy. Those with windows facing into backyards should be asked to obscure them even now.

   There needs to be a limit on the amount on subdivision development. It can be perfectly suitable within reason. Reason is not being applied in these two streets it is becoming incredibly overcrowd and the council has not done anything about the street parking despite complaints from residents. The living conditions in the streets has become stressful to the current residents and a quality of life needs to be taken into consideration.

2. In accordance with the requirements of City of Marion Medium Density Policy Area 12 the proposal will provide all the mandated car parking both under the main roof in garages and for visitors that is required for a application of this type.

   In consideration of the comments; the writer has identified the main issues in the vicinity ,being congestion and limited on street car parking but as they point out this is as a consequence of commuters using the train , adjoining businesses their staff and their customers and restricted access off Daws Road therefore this is a council policy issue concerning the locality not issues specifically related to the redevelopment of this site.

   The redevelopment of this site when approved with be in accordance with the City of Marion development plan medium Density Policy Area 12 requirements , there will be no overlooking or privacy issues associated with this site as the development is single storey only .

   I also make reference to the observations of Judge Bowering in the ERD Court in the matter of Gray v City of Holdfast Bay which concerned the Liberty Towers proposal on Colley Terrace, Glenelg. His Honour Judge Bowering who presided in that matter said on that occasion :

   Realisation of the full development potential envisaged by the Development Plan … would, of necessity, bring such development conflict with certain provisions of the Development Plan.

   The Court then referenced certain DP provisions relating to the protection of amenity and the like. The Court then continued :

   Notwithstanding that conflict, we are of the view that questions of internal inconsistency in the Development Plan should be resolved in favour of the more detailed policy measures involved.

   In the case of the subject land, there is conflict between the twelve storey development envisaged by the Plan and other built form policies which are intended to have application over a considerably wider area. To circumscribe the development potential ascribed to Policy Area 4 in order to achieve conformity with the Development Plan provisions referred to above would be to make a nonsense of the 12 storey height when applied to that Policy Area.

   Put another way, when the Development Plan envisages a higher density form of development - and that is clearly the case in respect of the Zoning and the Policy Area that applies to the land - that there will necessarily be impacts on nearby land. However, issues of bulk, scale, mass, height, overlooking, overshadowing etc are all part and parcel of a higher density sought by the specific zone provisions, a concept clearly understood and recognised by Judge Bowering in the Gray case.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to City of Marion. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment