Yarra is yet again is faced with another inappropriate development, with a planning application before council for a 10+ story development on Bridge rd between Lennox st and Church street (on the North Side).
The council is having an information meeting on Tuesday 11th December, 6pm at the Richmond Town Hall.
For more information, and discussion, got to www.yarra.org (my Yarra community web site).
From the Council planning application (PL07/0876 ) – 243-247 Bridge Rd Richmond VIC 3121, Demolition of existing building and associated structures and construction of a ten-storey mixed- use development (plus three basement levels) comprising 4,255sqm of retail floor space, 117 dwellings and an ancillary gymnasium including a reduction in the car parking.
We simply do not want, or need, these sized developments in our strip shopping centers!
Expect to hear more about this development, as many residents have contacted me already – and bridge road is my local shopping strip!
Ian Quick
Re: Application No: PL07/0876
Location: 243-249A Bridge Road, Richmond VIC 3121
(including 34 Hull Street, Richmond VIC 3121)
Dear Ms. Osman,
I write to place on record my deep disquiet and strongest objections to the above-proposed development.
Timing of Application and Review:
I cannot but believe that the timing of this proposal and its review by Council is quite deliberate – at probably the busiest period of the year when most people are either so engaged on their personal and family activities or away from their residences on holiday. It gives every appearance of having been arranged thus in order to slip under the radar of many who would otherwise want to raise objections. Such a large and controversial project should be assessed during the normal business year.
Parking issues:
1. It is not sufficient to require some parking facility for residents. It is only common sense to acknowledge that, for every dwelling there might not only be two cars, but also that guests and visitors to each dwelling will swell and strain the already over-stretched parking in the precinct to absolute breaking-point. With the outrageous proposition of one hundred and seventeen dwellings, this is a recipe for chaos.
2. Add to this the (as yet unkown) effect on parking of 4,255 SqM of retail floor, and what is termed an ancillary gymnasium, and the problem blows out of all proportion.
3. To then announce the proposal that there be a reduction in the car and bicycle parking and loading bay requirements sounds like nothing short of mindless folly. A cynical person (not, of course, myself) might be forgiven for suspecting that such a ‘deal’ with developers might have been procured by inducements less than honourable. If anything, such parking requirements should have been increased.
Traffic issues:
Most, if not all, of the subsequent traffic flow increase to this huge development will occur in the narrow streets behind the project, namely, Hull Street, Bank Street, Bosisto Street and Cameron Street. Already, these streets cater for one of the busiest commercial precincts in Melbourne (the popular Bridge Road) as well as local domestic shopping at Coles supermarket. Bosisto Street is also used constantly by both private and commercial traffic as a short-cut through to Hyatt Street. The addition of the huge amount of traffic that will flow from this development is unthinkable.
Height issues:
At present, the highest buildings in Hull Street are some three and four storey apartments. The erection in this small street of a ten-storey development verges on the obscene. In this old inner suburb it is also visual vandalism. It may not be quite so apparent from Bridge Road (though even that lovely old shopping strip will be visually scarred) but the effect from the streets below will be catastrophic.
Disruption issues:
Over the past several years there has been a number of smaller developments in the area. The disruption these have caused to the lifestyle of residents – blocking of streets for days at a time, high-decibel noise for hours on end, clouds of dust in what is recognised as a local wind-trap (Hull Street is notorious for wind-blown refuse), the digging up (yet again) of footpaths for utilities, the damage to both pavements and buildings from gigantic trucks and cranes and the shuddering impact of the constant flow of huge vehicles – and all this lasting for months on end without any respite is injurious not only to lifestyle but to mental, and in some cases physical, health. The number of invalids, elderly people, babies and small children in the area is not insignificant.
Yarra Council may have a difficult task juggling the various needs of ratepayers, residential and commercial, who should be as cooperative with Council as we possibly can, bearing in mind the inner-city nature of Richmond. In many ways Council does an excellent job in service to ratepayers, as I was happy to record in my responses to a recent survey Council asked me to complete. But Richmond is also (a) a suburb of great and historic character, which needs to be guarded with vigilance and (b) home to a large number of people, many of them, like myself, ratepayers. Only a Council which allowed economic rationalist concerns to take priority over (a) and (b) would give assent to such a development.
I wonder if any of the Councillors live in Hull, Bank, Bosisto or Cameron Streets?
Thank you for attending to my letter. I intend to be present at the meeting on the 11th December.