Have Your Say Comments

Please feel free to copy and paste parts you agree with for Q. 8 of the Feedback Form.

​

Planning and Zoning

​

The Ocean Village site is, according to the Town of Cambridge Local Planning Scheme No. 1 a Local Centre. The Town of Cambridge lodged Local Planning Scheme No. 2 for advertising approval. Approval would shift the designation from a Local Centre to a Neighbourhood Centre. Community consultation in line with State Planning Policies is essential before making changes to R-codes, but has not occurred.

​

The Town of Cambridge has not contemplated development beyond R-Code controls applicable to a Neighbourhood Centre in its local planning, as evidenced by Local Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Local Planning Scheme No. 2 application. The proposed development is not consistent with either a Local or Neighbourhood Centre in terms of typical urban form, density, or preferred residential dwelling types, referred to in State Planning Policy 4.2.

​

Consultation

​

With respect to Blackburne's proposal, specifically, there has been a total lack of engagement appropriate to the scale of the development with residents and local businesses, contrary to IAP2 principles. For example, there was no early and continuous engagement, nor were there any information days, workshops, focus groups, community reference groups, surveys, or use of other methods as outlined in State Planning Policy 7.2, section 2.4.3.

​

I have not had a genuine opportunity to contribute to the planning process as required by State Planning Policy 7.2 2. My input was limited to selecting from pre-defined options in a survey, and now I am faced with a fully-formed proposal into which I had no input of any kind.

​

Context and Character

​

The overall bulk and scale of development is not remotely appropriate for the existing or planned character of the area, as required in accordance with R-Codes V2, O 2.5.1. This development would be akin to placing a section of the inner city in the middle of a neighbourhood with low density and low-rise buildings.

​

The scale and height of this development completely disregard the existing context of the surrounding neighbourhood, including that of adjoining buildings, the topography and elevation of site, the general pattern of heights in the area, and views, all contrary to State Planning Policy 7 Design Principle 1.

​

Privacy

​

The height, orientation and design of the buildings mean that windows and balconies will directly overlook habitable rooms and private outdoor living areas within the site and of neighbouring properties as verifiable on Google Earth. Consequently, the proposed development is contrary to State Planning Policy 7.3 R-Codes V2, O3.5.1.

​

Indeed, many storeys of the proposed development would overlook adjacent and nearby properties in an invasive way. It would loom over the surrounding area.

​

[Adjacent Properties] The proposed development will overlook my property in an incredibly invasive fashion, with visibility into either my windows, private outdoor living areas or both, contrary to State Planning Policy 7.3 R-Codes V2, O3.5.1

 

Traffic

​

The area has limited public transport options, meaning that the proposed development could significantly increase local traffic. The need for waste removal and access by commercial vehicles could exacerbate this situation. I am unaware of any planning for traffic increases associated with the planned development, in accordance with State Planning Policy 1. I have therefore not been consulted on any such impact on our lives in keeping with State Planning Policy 7.2 2.

​

Noise

​

[Adjacent Properties] As a nearby resident, I am very concerned about the additional mechanical and other noise that this development will bring to our community long-term, which will disrupt the quiet and peaceful environment we have come to expect. I have not been informed of or consulted about this potential impact on my life in keeping with State Planning Policy 7.2 2.