Dear RAiDers friends & concerned residents, we have had a number of requests for help in formatting an objection to the latest development opposite Gardiners Reserve,this one is at 114-116 Haines Street. So below is the standard text you can copy and paste into your own words.
The site owners have worked hard to fit to the current rules which you may or may not agree with but there are a number of issues with the current plan around things such as the easement, the light, balconies, car lifts, car parking etc. Many thank to the Save Gardiners Park campaign for their in put.
Objections close 5pm this Friday 21st November.
114-116 Haines Street proposed development , needs work on a few fronts
Melbourne City Council
Attention – Ms Josephine Lee
Planning and Building Department
Level 3, Council House 2
240 Little Collins Street
Dear Ms Lee
Re: TP-2014-419, 114-116 Haines Street, North Melbourne
We recognise that development is required in inner city precincts such as North Melbourne. However we would encourage the City of Melbourne to ensure that all new develops are appropriately scaled for the area in which it is proposed and that developments are matched with social infrastructure that addresses the needs of the community. On this basis, we would like to object to the proposed development at 114-116 Haines Street, North Melbourne as we do not believe that it is sympathetic with the surrounding area, and rather than enhancing the neighbouring environment, it puts further pressures on existing infrastructure.
While we note that this proposed development may potentially adhere to the Arden-Macaulay Structure Plan, the sheared scale is completely out of context for the local area. As such we would like to objection on the following basis:
- Given height of the structure there is a risk of overshadowing onto Gardiner Reserve, and there is clearly overshadowing on the adjoining roof top gardens at 118 Haines Street. All developments are required to look at overshadowing at the Equinox on 22 September at the times of 9am, 12 noon and 3pm. The overshadowing diagrams provided in the developers report for this property fail to show overshadowing at 3pm, and it is for this reason that we believe there will be overshadowing implications on Gardiner Reserve and neighbouring properties. There also seems to be an error with the existing overshadowing drawings as the drawings do not accurately reflect the orientation of the structures or the direction of north, which is providing an inaccurate representation of overshadowing on the properties.
- Gardiner Reserve is the only playground in North Melbourne with BBQ and play equipment. This is no doubt the busiest playground in North Melbourne – enjoyed by both adults and children alike through winter and summer. Any overshadowing of this open space will have a dramatic impact on the ability for our community to enjoy this much loved open space and will also deny our right to natural sunlight.
- There are only 23 car parks to accommodate the 31 buildings. This is does not provide adequate parking for those living in the property. It will also put additional pressure on the existing on street parking. There is currently a lack of car parking in Haines Street, which is already used by people (mainly construction workers) parking all day while they work in the city or on construction sites in North Melbourne or Parkville. This pressure on existing on street parking will only be increased by this development based on the proposed car spaces and other high density properties proposed at 110-112 Haines and 1 Shiel Street and 3-5 Shiel Street, which do not have enough car spaces to service each apartment. Based on the type of accommodation proposed at 114-116 Haines Street, the residents are likely to be young professionals who are renting and could be expected to own at least one, if not two, cars per apartment. We would ask that the Council issue instructions to the developer to provide at least one car space per unit, and two car spaces for the three bedroom unit, creating a total of 32 car parks. This will ease the pressure for on street parking.
- No onsite car parking has been allocated for visitors at this development. This further strengthens the point made above re putting additional pressure on local streets for on-street parking. Provision should be made for on-site visitor parking.
- The sheer volume of vehicles associated with this development, and neighbouring developments at 1 Shiel Street, 3-5 Shiel Street and 110-112 Haines Street, will amplify the safety hazard at the roundabout at Haines / Shiel / Dryburgh Streets. Residents in the area currently risk being hit by motorists every time they attempt to use the pedestrian crossings at this intersection. Numerous accidents and near misses have occurred due to the line of sight issues created by the position of the crossing on Shiel Street and because as motorists speed up through the intersection to avoid stopping for pedestrians or simply ignore the fact it is a pedestrian crossing. Changes need to be made immediately to avoid any further accidents prior to the commencement of any construction works in the Haines / Shiel Street area, and to ensure motorists and pedestrians alike are kept safe in the long-term when all of the proposed developments have been completed.
- There are safety issues associated with the current configuration of vehicle access to the car park from the lane way. Based on the proposed configuration, vehicles would have to reverse down the lane should they encounter a vehicle coming in the other direction from the carpark. This presents a range of safety issues, both for residents at 114-116 Haines, but also those at 118 Haines and the ‘Taxi’ building. There is also lack of clarity around who owns these lane ways and if they are in fact formal lane ways. There seems to be an assumption that there is a formal lane way in 110-112 Haines Street that will be accessible to 114 – 116 Haines, but if this is not the case, there will be significant traffic issues.
- The apartments are poorly serviced in terms of natural accessible light, with many of the rooms relying on secondary light from translucent panels and voids to service rooms. The balconies are also considerably small and do not provide enough space for a small table with two chairs, a clothes horse and a conditioning unit. This also raises the question that if there was a formal public laneway, that there would be windows put in the building to services these apartments, further highlighting the above issue that there may not actually be a public laneway available to service the proposed car park and access points.
- There also seems to be an inaccurate representation in the developers report of the public transport that currently services (or doesn’t service) the area. The developer has stated that there is adequate public transport to the site with the Arden Street train station located nearby. This station does not even exist and is not likely to exist anytime soon. North Melbourne residents are currently provided poor public transport options with the 57 Tram being the closest option.
- Given the impact on Gardiner Reserve, would encourage the Melbourne City Council to consider increasing the size of the Reserve by pushing it into Dryburgh Street. The widening of the park would increase the available open space in this area as well as creating a section of park that is less likely to be overshadowed by this development and those neighbouring. Such as development could be incorporated with the reconfiguration of the Shiel /Haines / Dryburgh Street roundabout, which would have the benefit of making the area safer for the community, while also increasing the open space footprint and creating new places for the community to meet.
- INSERT ANY OTHER PERSONAL CONCERNS
Developments on major arterials, such as Curzon Street, Dryburgh Street, Arden Street, King Street and Abbotsford Street are only subjected to 4 storey developments which are more in keeping with the aesthetics of the area. Why is it that a quiet residential area that is heavily populated with young children, families and elderly people is being subjected to significant developments 10 storeys and above? We do not oppose development, but ask that it be in keeping with the local environment while also ensuring our open spaces and public infrastructure are not compromised as a result. Please consider the impacts and reject this application in its current form.
INSERT NAME AND ADDRESS