I wanted to provide some additional comments around my Co-Councillor’s article in the previous community news, which focussed on the correspondence between himself and a resident regarding increasing residential densities, tree retention and the Growth Precinct Development Plan Amendment (GPDPA) passed by Council back in 2019, something which I had a strong opinion on as a community member at the time.
The State Planning and Design Code (the Code), implemented just over two years ago, saw councils largely lose the power to control development across their city. Changes back in 2011 saw the substantial undermining of tree protections as well, especially in the hills area. These factors combined put Mitcham in a difficult position to balance the retention of suburb character and the demands of the State Government. To a large extent, Mitcham has done well so far with the limited tools it has, with recent praise from the State Government’s Planning Minister for “proactively planning for where and when that growth and change should occur.”
The Code is a one-size-fits-all policy for the entire state and it removed the nuance of Council’s original development plan. One objective of the GPDPA was to allow elderly people to downsize and remain in the area, something that is important. However, getting this outcome in the Code is very difficult, as you can’t specify this level of intention. Take for example, Station Avenue or Albert Place in Blackwood. A range of units or group dwellings offer a higher residential density, with the potential for elderly people to downsize or catering for first-home buyers. Most of these group dwellings were constructed a while ago but retained at least some of the mature trees. Seventeen Station Avenue is a prime example of this.
Encouraging this sort of development under the GPDPA is nearly impossible in my opinion. A minimum block size of 350sqm encourages two-storey detached dwellings and leaves little flexibility for retaining trees. This sort of development does not support elderly residents downsizing and will see the creation of urban heat islands through loss of tree canopy.
Tree loss was the second most raised issue during my doorknocking and changes to our inadequate tree protections is something that I have been campaigning heavily on for nearly five years. The vast majority of submissions to a recent State Planning Review raised concerns over tree removal and action to prevent the unnecessary loss of trees is expected by the community.
Back in March, the Planning Minister highlighted that the Code “empowered councils to lead local development through proposed zoning changes to ensure growth reflects community expectations”. I do not entirely agree with this statement and many would argue it has done exactly the opposite. Regardless, I believe we should take up the Minister on his offer, pushing for well-designed infill development in areas that are appropriate, championing a push for better tree protections and supporting Council’s planning department to do everything in their power to get better development outcomes.
Comments