To Mitcham Council:
Neighbourhood Petition For the “Mitcham Plains Area” (Hawthorn, Westbourne Park, Cumberland Park, Torrens Park and Lower Mitcham)
Preamble
The City of Mitcham is seeking comments on a development plan amendment (DPA), which proposes, amongst other things, to establish a Special Residential Character Area for Hawthorn, Cumberland Park and Westbourne Park (“the SRCA”). As proposed, this would not include Torrens Park and Lower Mitcham, which also include many character and heritage homes and gardens.
Petition:
We, the undersigned, Residents of the Mitcham Plains Area (the “Residents”) are very concerned by recent development approved in the Area which undermines the character and heritage value of the Area, and fails to adequately preserve the existing tree canopy and green space. The Residents support the establishment of the SRCA, which at least creates some guiding principles for new development in parts of the Area, however, we consider that the proposals do not go far enough.
The Area, including the proposed SRCA, have large portions of original housing stock which represent a strong legacy of good quality, double-brick, heritage homes from pre-1940s, including significant numbers of homes with historic and heritage value. The Area also features significant public and private green space, which is highly valued by the Residents and will become increasingly important as summer temperatures rise due to climate change. To these ends, the “Mitcham Plains Residents Action Group” has been formed, to call for better protections, and more meaningful consultation, on future development and proposed amendments to planning regulations, as it affects the Area.
In particular, we support:
Preservation of Green Space and Tree Canopy
Taking steps to preserve and enhance the tree canopy and green canopy, including street trees, public parks and private green space; and,
Limiting the footprint of new development to be commensurate with the footprint of original housing stock (eg. 40% of block size);
Preserving existing set-backs, garden space at rear, and spacings between buildings;
Limiting sub-division to maintain the tree canopy and character of the Area.
Preserving of Original Housing Stock
Preservation of existing streetscapes and original good quality housing stock with heritage, character and cultural value, including villas, bungalows, other pre-1940s housing and other housing of architectural and cultural merit.
Stronger and More Consistently Applied Planning Controls
Limiting sub-divisions in character and heritage residential areas;
Limiting the footprint of new builds to 40% of block sizes to safeguard green space and prevent encroachment on neighbouring properties;
Ensuring protections for Residents affected by recent changes to allow increased height of development along arterial roads, including Belair and Goodwood Rds, to prevent over-shadowing and loss of amenity;
Restrictions on development above single story to prevent overshadowing neighbours;
Ensuring adequate building quality, commensurate with the high quality of the original housing stock;
Ensuring more meaningful consultation with Residents on future proposals to amendment of the planning regulations and development proposals, and longer lead times.
Better Traffic Planning
Ensuring better planning to cater for increased traffic flow in more densely populated areas.
Members of the Residents Action Group for the Mitcham Plains Area would welcome an opportunity to meet with the Mayor of the City of Mitcham, Council officials, and State government planning authorities to discuss how these aims can be achieved.
Submission on the SA Planning and Design Code:
16 December 2020
The Hon. Vickie Chapman MP
Minister for Planning
Parliament House
ADELAIDE SA 5000
Dear Minister
PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE PLANNING AND DESIGN CODE
I write to you on behalf of the members of the Mitcham Plains Action Group. At present our group comprises predominantly of residents from the suburbs of Westbourne Park, Hawthorn and Cumberland Park. Our lived and visual amenity is directly affected by the proposed new Planning and Design Code and we wish to provide feedback on both the community access and engagement process and certain policies within the Code that affect our suburbs.
Community Engagement Charter:
Community access to provide feedback on the Code laid out in the State Planning Commission’s Community Engagement Charter have not been met sufficiently. As members of an active community group we have not had adequate access to engage with those responsible for designing or implementing the new Code in any meaningful way.
The Principles of the Charter state a number of performance outcomes for genuine engagement with the community that would provide “faith and confidence in the engagement process”. To date there have been no open public forums in the Mitcham residential area by the authors of the new Code that would have given residents an opportunity to ask questions and voice their feedback in an open communal setting. Planning question and information opportunities such as those recently held by SA Planning (after numerous delays) are not “open” to the community, rather they are limited to small groups and individuals.
Engagement has not been “inclusive and respectful” as there has been no opportunity for “different knowledge and perspectives to be heard” within our community due to the online and written feedback format chosen by the Planning Commission. Community members desire true public forums and engaging open debate that is accessible by all. The fact that the instruction pamphlet for online feedback is 20 pages long demonstrates that the public engagement process is not “fit for purpose” to all members of the community and may even be a deterrent in lodging feedback. This engagement method is not inclusive of all “regardless of background or status” and is tilted towards those with the skills and knowledge to navigate a complex process. On the whole community trust will be eroded in the planning system if those in power continue to ignore in person public forums and debate.
Open Space Fund:
As the residents who have to live with the effects of tree loss and urban infill in our suburbs we object to the Planning Department taking money from the “Open Space Fund” (levied on developers for distribution to Councils for projects designed to mitigate the adverse effects of their developments) and using it to prop up the finances of the Planning Department for the new Code and E-Planning system. Last year $13million was siphoned-off for this purpose. This is money that should rightfully be used the restore what is lost of our tree canopy and open green spaces to development, and ameliorate our loss of visual amenity and property value.
Trees:
As a community we reject the ‘offset’ scheme included in the new Code that will enable developers to bypass the requirement to include trees in their infill developments by allowing them to pay a fee instead of planting or retaining a tree. A $300 fee per razed block is an insult to the residents of our beautiful leafy suburbs and will all but ensure the continued total destruction of all greenery on blocks by developers and encourage zero efforts at replacement plantings.
The Government’s own “Urban Tree Canopy Options Cost Benefits Analysis” report states that trees can reduce air temperatures by 4 degrees and increase house values by over 5%. However, developers have no interest in the long term environmental or economic benefits within our suburbs, preferring instead to focus on the short term minimal investment/maximum profit model that uses the “borrowed value” of the established canopies of neighbouring properties.
In determining a monetary value of trees, Dr. Gregory Moore at the University of Melbourne argues “a conservative estimate of 5% of the total value” of a property is reasonable and that real estate agents “have recognised the value of a good tree in a front garden at about $5,000 for a suburban property” and it is estimated that a tree-lined nature strip can add 30% to properties. We ask the Planning Commission: how was the $300 offset fee decided upon?
In addition esteemed South Australian Urban Ecologist Dr. Chris Daniels recently profiled Hawthorn in the Adelaide Advertiser as a “template for how Adelaide can become a greener city” and argued that as a society we need to start appreciating the value provided by trees”. We live in these suburbs and we appreciate our cool, tree lined streets and bird filled backyards everyday, what we need is the government to adjust their policy to reflect the importance of our green infrastructure as on par with built. A $300 offset fee will do nothing to preserve Hawthorn from developers.
It is the State Planning Commission’s responsibility on behalf of residents to hold those who wish to develop our suburbs to account by forcing them to adhere to a comprehensive tree retention and replacement strategy. Allowing a $300 fee to negate all the benefits of the urban tree canopy is irresponsible and offensive both environmentally and economically to all residents. We implore you to replace this scheme with one that is aligned with the value and importance attributed to our green environment by residents.
Regulated and significant see policy wording and precedent should be retained.
Mitcham listed significant trees should be incorporated into the Overlay mapping.
Special Character Residential Zone (Westbourne Park, Hawthorn, Cumberland Park):
As residents of the Mitcham Plains we support Mitcham Council’s proposed Special Character Zone Development Plan Amendment and welcome the inclusion of a Character Overlay within the designated Established Residential Zone for our suburbs, Specifically we encourage:
Preservation of Green Space and Tree Canopy
Taking steps to preserve and enhance the tree canopy and green canopy, including street trees, public parks and private green space; and,
Limiting the footprint of new development to be commensurate with the footprint of original housing stock (eg. 40% of block size);
Preserving existing set-backs, garden space at rear, and spacings between buildings;
Limiting sub-division to maintain the tree canopy and character of the Area.
Preserving Existing Housing Stock
Preservation of existing streetscapes and original good quality housing stock with heritage, character and cultural value, including villas, bungalows, other pre-1940s housing and other housing of architectural and cultural merit.
Stronger and More Consistently Applied Planning Controls
Limiting sub-divisions in character and heritage residential areas;
Limiting the footprint of new builds to 40% of block sizes to safeguard green space and prevent encroachment on neighbouring properties;
Ensuring protections for Residents affected by recent changes to allow increased height of development along arterial roads, including Belair and Goodwood Rds, to prevent over-shadowing and loss of amenity;
We have concerns regarding building heights along Urban Transit Corridor sections of Belair and Goodwood Roads at Hawthorn and Westbourne Park and encourage restrictions on development above single story to prevent overshadowing of neighbours; 4 stories is excessive in a residential area.
Ensuring adequate building quality, commensurate with the high quality of the original housing stock;
Ensuring more meaningful consultation with Residents on future proposals to amendment of the planning regulations and development proposals, and longer lead times.
Better Traffic Planning
Ensuring better planning to cater for increased traffic flow in more densely populated areas.
Links:
https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/property/2019/09/11/how-much-value-trees-add-to-property/
Professor Chris Daniels’ plan to make Adelaide green again, Adelaide Advertiser. Nov 14, 2020