Tim Sheens
Well-known member
@jirskyr said:
For mine a pedestrian overpasss is a must and perfect for the nearby intersection as it would assist traffic flow.
New TIGERS DA lodged
- Thread starter Kul
- Start date
For mine a pedestrian overpasss is a must and perfect for the nearby intersection as it would assist traffic flow.
@formerguest said:
if it does get approved, i think you will find the overpass - in some form - will be part of the equation as a safety issue.
With Victoria Road being what it is, it would be considered unsafe to have larger than normal numbers of people on the footpath. some of whom may have had a "few drinks"
Benjirific
New member
This is the pic that the club sent out a couple of weeks ago when it got lodged - a little more detail than those in the DA docs.
balmain boy
Well-known member
Yeah that picture looks better. I'm happy with that. A revitalised commercial district on the southern side of Victoria Rd would certainly help the area. Don't want too many more people so those sizes are about right.
The storeys are at the level which has been approved for the past 10 years. Except Council tried to shift the goal posts at the last minute by downsizing to 6-8 storeys. They need to be realistic, this development is of the size which many officials and locals had said was totally appropriate for the area for a long time.
Surely having a few thousand new apartments next to and opposite Birkenhead creates more issues for traffic than these revised plans would? The 30 storeys originally proposed was excessive, this is not.
The storeys are at the level which has been approved for the past 10 years. Except Council tried to shift the goal posts at the last minute by downsizing to 6-8 storeys. They need to be realistic, this development is of the size which many officials and locals had said was totally appropriate for the area for a long time.
Surely having a few thousand new apartments next to and opposite Birkenhead creates more issues for traffic than these revised plans would? The 30 storeys originally proposed was excessive, this is not.
hammertime
Well-known member
I think they lodged it complying with the old guidelines. Not the new. I read somewhere that there might be another 18 month delay if they need to redesign for the new guidelines.
Don't blame them with the way the council keeps shifting the goalposts.
Really doubt this one is going to get past the Greens.
Don't blame them with the way the council keeps shifting the goalposts.
Really doubt this one is going to get past the Greens.
Love_the_WestsTigers
Well-known member
@Benjirific said:
An innocent question, wheres the WESTS bit ?
Can see the Tigers only
Benjirific
New member
@hammertime said:
Yep that is correct - it is lodged (and compliant) with the guidelines they got in 2008\. The guidelines haven't actually changed yet, it's just that the Council have approved changes that now need to go to the State Govt.
Also, fortunately the Council don't actually make the decision for this one, no Greens people are on the panel. The panel that makes the decision are planning, design and architecture experts etc who are appointed by Council officers. Hopefully this is in our favour.
Love_the_WestsTigers
Well-known member
@Tony33 said:
Hahaha , right sweet
Thanks for sorting that out for this simple simon
This fool was playing pictionary
@Benjirific said:
I was on the Leichhardt Council page regarding this a little earlier. For anyone interested I would recommend it - http://www.leichhardt.nsw.gov.au/Community-Issues/Balmain-Leagues
Their FAQ for the rezoning is:
Why is Council Rezoning the Site?
Seven years have passed since Council originally rezoned the site in 2008.
In that time there has been some major changes to the local area, including:
The Victoria road busway
The Iron cove bridge duplication,
The White Bay Cruise Passenger Terminal
The Glebe Island Exhibition Centre
The CBD Metro plans
The Planning Assessment Commission had noted that the provisions in the 2000 LEP provided an appropriate framework for future redevelopment of the site.
However, the refusals by both the JRPP and PAC have raised questions regarding the level of development the site can accommodate without having an impact on traffic on Victoria Road and Darling Street.
Council must consider the reasons why the previous applications have been refused and take steps to make sure that the new controls stop this from happening again.
Council is reviewing the traffic model to determine a level of development that can be located on the site without impacting traffic flows on Victoria Road and Darling Street.
Council has also asked its Independent Design Review Panel to review the current controls to ensure that they represent the best in urban design.
hammertime
Well-known member
@mctiger said:
Thanks McTiger. Good read. They do make some valid points, there has been some dramatic changes in the area. The Bays Precinct is another one. The Power Station is slated to be converted into something in the near future too as one of the first developments there.
Westconnex is another as there is a exit point slated for the Rozelle Rail Yards which would surely flow even more cars onto Vic road.
Hopefully the developer can chop a few stories off and both parties meet in the middle.
Pawsandclaws
New member
The current height limit on the site is 12 storeys consistent with the DA.
The site is on one of Australia's busiest roads three or so kilometres from the centre of the city. I wonder if Darcy voted against the Council decision to try to downzone the site?
The site is on one of Australia's busiest roads three or so kilometres from the centre of the city. I wonder if Darcy voted against the Council decision to try to downzone the site?
radiowave82
New member
@Pawsandclaws said:
''
Nope, according to a Balmain Tigers press release critising the council process the vote was unanimous.
