sgc171127_-_agenda_recommendations_1a_revised.pdf
File Size: 1209 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
mra_public_hearing__2017-11-20.pdf
File Size: 142 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
dpa_forum_wrap_final_2017-11-04rev1.pdf
File Size: 177 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
geoff_alexanders_presentation_short.pdf
File Size: 90 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
housing_diversity_dpa_marino_residents.pdf
File Size: 419 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
Revised DPA signed off and sent to the Minister End of December
Council updated the DPA based on the feedback and submitted it to a Special Full Council Meeting on Monday  27 Nov 6.30 pm  It was endorsed unanimously and the final DPA was signed off by the mayor and CEO and issued to the State Planning Minister by the end of  December! In Jan 2018 we have no news on its progress, and given the election it is unlikely to be resolved any time soon.

This was based on the revised recommendations tabled on the night

Minutes of the meeting and the full DPA will be available shortly. Go to Website for more details.

It was a surprising result given the concerns about the process and some of the details. However the minister will now need to decide if the DPA is to go ahead?

So in a nutshell:
  • The revised DPA...finalised in less than a week has been approved
  • Mayor and CEO have permission to sign off on the final document and get it to the minister by end of December!!
  • No detailed report on the consultation outcomes was available
  • No further consultation based on legal advice that they don't need to!
  • No further modelling
  • No firm commitment to infrastructure assessment other than mention it to the minister!
  • Decision based on no updated yield analysis, so they don't know if it will give them what they want!?
  • Some contentious elevated areas of Marino etc will stay the same whilst some will get the new DPA?

It all seems like the Council  made up their minds after intense debate in several late night forums, to not take the advice of their Planners and push it through based on the fact that they believe that the revisions reflect the majority of the feedback and an overriding fear that the State Government will not tolerate any further delay or an extended process, and could probably impose their own DPA on the City of Marion. The changes to the Draft DPA seem to centre around exclusion of certain areas rather than material changes to the policy aspects.

Some residents will be happy others not so happy

It is likely that this will be the DPA we have to work with. Those that are not happy with the outcome will have to take those concerns to the minister.

Those unresolved issues will need to be addressed in another way:
  • Amenity protection
  • Infrastructure impacts
  • Impact of the proposed Statewide Housing " Design Code"
  • Development approval process and consultation
Please let us know if you would like to discuss this further. We would recommend speaking with our local Member David Speirs on this matter as well if you are unhappy with the outcome and wish to approach the State Government.

Thanks to all those who participated and presented on this issue, as a community we can be proud of our efforts and it remains to be seen if we made a difference to the outcome.....we believe we did.




5049 CC (MRA) Public Forum Wednesday November 1 - outcomes

Thank you to all of those 50+ people who attended our DPA forum. It was a highly successful, engaging and informative event.

We had three representatives from Marion Council Planning team, including their new manager, presenting the principles about the changes to the DPA as it applies to Marino. Councillor Tim Guard was in attendance and listening very intently.

Two local consultant building professionals presented their perspectives on the changes; They were Angela Davison -Principal of Town Planning HQ and Geoff Alexander, Principal of Alex Star Building Design and Certification. 
All were highly experienced, qualified and expert planners with a combined 90 years in the profession.

Ric Bierbaum our facilitator for the evening (MRA Committee memeber) used all his skills to support the community members to have their say and pose some questions to the expert panel.

The key issues highlighted in the presentations:
  • There was generally in principle support for the idea behind increased housing diversity, with many reservations;
  • Marion Council acknowledged that they were more than willing to adjust the DPA based on the community submissions and acknowledged the tight time frame which was outside of their control?
  • Marion Council noted that the likely yield in the Southern area would be in the order of an additional 450 houses. They were not able to supply specific yield information for Marino.
  • Angela emphasised the need for adjustment to the minimum block width from 20m to 17m to allow subdivision to better reflect the current pattern of development in Marino and to ensure consistency of streetscape.  This adjustment would allow for up to 50% of blocks to have the potential for subdivision.
  • Angela also make it very clear that the proposed DPA rules did not really reflect or respond to the true characteristics of Marino, in terms of amenity and what makes Marino special.  She was advocating for higher quality design, with materials and construction techniques that better reflect the beachside character of Marino.  ( Geoff also favoured this approach)
  • Geoff was concerned that the changes did not offer protection for the residents and felt that it was “pro developer” with potential adverse effect on Marino.
  • Geoff also spoke well about the need for “amenity” to be enshrined in the DPA similar to Holdfast Bay Council and others; this would allow Marion council to have more control over the all important impacts of development on views, open space and privacy.
 
The key outcomes from the Q&A
  • General lack of clarity as to what it means for Marino, not enough examples and modelling
  • Grave concerns about the extremely short time frame for the community to consider the DPA  and provide meaningful input.  Let alone Council to process the feedback and get it approved within the time allowed.
  • Concerns about the impact of the increase in density on infrastructure such a parking, community facilities and open space?
  • Several examples of current approved and built houses that appear to have got away with flouting the rules. There was no sense that the amendments would help Council have better control?
Conclusion
David Bagshaw brought the session to a close with a summation of what he had heard and his professional view as a resident and an architect. In essence, he noted how big and complex the task was and how hard it was to truly imagine the impact of the changes, as the information provided was very generic.  As thorough as the presenters were, more case studies or live examples are needed to help people understand the impact in Marino. He noted that there needed to be more modelling of the impact beyond “statistical yield”. He reiterated that the DPA has little emphasis on “amenity” and “essential character” of Marino.  He suggested that Marino needed to be treated as a “Special  Area” and its essence protected and enhanced through the DPA; it needs more guidelines not only for individual development but zones to ensure the character of streets and neighbourhoods are consistent rather than haphazard, with little regard to neighbourhood character. Overall it is seen as a good idea but “it is too little too late”, and too early to be decisive about whether it is good or bad in its current or slightly amended form?
It was an informative, civil and engaging forum with lively, considered and passionate inputs from all. A full transcript of the proceedings along with a copy of the presentations will be available on the website in the next few days.