Visual and Social Amenity

Here are some suggestions for the sort of things you might like to include about Visual Impacts in your submissions to the CIS Assessment Panel due 12 December 2013:

Visual and social amenity (CIS Chapter 10 & Technical Appendix H)

Whether the proposed Urban Design Framework in the CIS will appropriately manage visual impacts of the project on the surrounding area, including public open spaces.

 See: http://www.linkingmelbourne.vic.gov.au/pages/download-cis-documents.asp

  •  “The urban design principles describe the urban design outcomes that are desired by Linking Melbourne Authority and the Victorian Government.” (p4).
  • The urban design principles do not give any consideration to the outcomes desired by those that live and work in the areas and communities that will be most impacted.
  • The social impact statement is too generic

 Landscape & recreational facilities

  • No commitment or detail provided on maturity of vegetation reinstatement and augmentation required to achieve a substantial net increase in tree canopy and contribution to the urban landscape across the corridor
  • No audit of existing canopy
  • Removal and destruction of mature trees planted along the median strips of Alexandra parade, Hoddle street and the Eastern freeway is significant

 Visual connectivity

  • No certainty at all about connectivity between the EWL (LMA driven), the extension of the Eastern Freeway (VicRoads) and inter-related projects which will be required to maximise local visual and social amenity in the wake of the project

 Reshape the urban environment

  • demolition of single dwellings of historic value adjacent to Alexandra parade and in Wellington Street for the purpose of traffic diversion during construction.
  • land will then be released to developers without specific restriction other than “greenfield” planning regulations resulting in significant changes to the streetscapes of Gold street, Wellington street and Hilton street in Clifton Hill.
  • ‘urban renewal’ opportunities (Chapter 8, p11) for Precinct 1 inadequately address continuity of heritage overlay between areas south and north of Alexandra Parade.  Such development would drive a wedge between two areas currently historically and visually connected and create a visual and dominating barrier.  The impact of this on the communities on either side of Alexandra Parade has not been adequately considered, and should be required before the project proceeds.

New urban landmarks

  • no commitment to residential engagement in design
  • focus on motorists’ experience through dramatic and identifiable Gateways rather than visual impacts on residents and surrounding communities

 

Construction of elevated structures

  • no evidence that alternative methods of construction have been explored in any depth to minimise the impacts of elevated structures on nearby residents, in particular the impact of above-ground flyovers for a number of properties in Collingwood, Clifton Hill and Parkville through a combination of size and proximity, causing overshadowing, obstructed views and the potential for traffic to infringe on private space, as well as heightened traffic noise and light pollution at night.

 Construction phase

  • lighting during construction (5-7 years across a rigorous daily and weekly schedule) will severely impact nearby residents in Precincts 1 and 3.
  • Lack of detail on how light spill would be strategized, managed and mediated

Ongoing maintenance of construction

  • graffiti management strategy is required for the life of the project only
  • ongoing maintenance associated with graffiti removal would be effectively be borne long-term by the residents via local council.