In­crease in den­sity con­cerns res­i­dents

Western Suburbs Weekly - - Western Opinion - Peter Dick­son, Swan­bourne.

THE ed­i­to­rial in the Opin­ion page last week had the state­ment "... res­i­dents could have shot down po­ten­tially iconic in­fill...".

The ma­jor­ity of the op­po­nents to the pro­ject that I have spo­ken to are not op­posed to ur­ban in­fill.

How­ever, they are op­posed to the de­vel­op­ers ig­nor­ing ex­ist­ing town plan­ning schemes and wish­ing to in­crease the R Code rat­ings from R20 to R60 to make their pro­ject com­mer­cially vi­able.

The 14 units pro­posed is more than four times of greater den­sity than that designated by the re­cently adopted Town Plan­ning Scheme.

It will in­crease the den­sity rat­ing of this res­i­den­tial site to a greater den­sity than the Swan­bourne Com­mer­cial Precinct across the road.

Res­i­dents are re­sent­ful that the de­vel­op­ers have done this with­out a true con­sul­ta­tion process with the af­fected res­i­dents and ratepay­ers.

Half of the units will go to the ini­tial in­vestors, the re­main­ing half of the de­vel­op­ment will be of­fered for sale on the open mar­ket once the pro­ject has gained for­mal ap­proval.

There is grow­ing con­cern from both res­i­dents and some coun­cil mem­bers that this ap­proach by de­vel­op­ers for spot re-zon­ing will set a dan­ger­ous prece­dent. Any block could be re­zoned to suit the den­sity re­quire­ments of the de­vel­op­ers.

There are many other con­cerns over this pro­posal but I thought these need im­me­di­ate at­ten­tion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.