You are here

Alan Fletcher Research Station Update

Submitted by Heather Knyn on Wed, 23/10/2013 - 7:05am

The Black and White sign outlining the development application for the Alan Fletcher Research Station is now up. More Information will be posted on the WTSAG site for your information shortly...watch this space...

StoryType:

Comments

I would like to bring to your attention that Unison Projects, the developer of the former Alan Fletcher Research Station site has submitted a revised plan. They have somewhat adequately responded to the comments made by the council's planning body earlier this year.

HOWEVER ...

1. A area of public parkland has been dedicated for (I guess, yet to be seen) "conservation purposes along the river". Albeit it is not of 40 m width along the entire river frontage. GOOD. Unison draws from Montrose Access as a precedent study for the area.

The plan released states that 100% of this land is accessible to the public.
MOSTLY WRONG. There is NO potential for public access to the supposedly public park! (from the development or from Ferry Street due to pre-existing site conditions and placement of Lots).
Therefore 0% = 0% when compared to Montrose. IF SO HOW?

2. Percentage fronting river 100% vs. 0%. WRONG. The Montrose site does happen to border the river, as does Alan Fletcher, so really 100% and 100% (same). In terms of useable land it's a different story.

3. Percentage of site that is public parkland. MOSTLY WRONG (16% vs. 6%). Actually, the riverfront parkland at Montrose is technically just that - PARKLAND! Therefore 5585 SQM vs 13135 SQM, equating to 6% vs. 35% of site area. However, as far as statistics go they are comparing apples and oranges. However the area of Alan Fletcher's park also goes from 5585 SQM TO JUST 3840 SQM? 4237 SQM of that "usable"? Just does not add up.

4. Tree wise, a few more have gone since the last revision (20/78 are to be retained). However, this is does make sense economically and design in terms of design. GOOD. I would still like to see more trees along Magazine Street retained.

5. There are 29 LOTS compared to 26 last time. This I find not such a big problem. Only when it PROHIBITS access to the PUBLIC PARK (from South), which it does unless otherwise proven. This park makes sense as land reserved for conservation purposes.

6. Still no dedication to the site's former use.

7. Some of the Lots near the river are under 9.5 m in elevation. This concerns me a little. High tide / low tide marks not shown in plan, therefore is the size of the park correct?

Scheme also now is considered to be Generally Appropriate...
These are some of my questions I would to be like answered. The plan can be view on PDOnline by searching for the application number (AA003652705). Still yet to be approved.