RESIDENTS say recent development proposals show the Scarborough planning framework is irrelevant.
The Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority is considering applications for a seven-storey retirement complex at 10 Nautilus Crescent and a six-storey apartment building opposite at 2 Filburn Street.
The sites are at the edge of the Scarborough Redevelopment Area’s Groves Precinct, which allows for four-storey developments, or a bonus height of six storeys if developers achieve design excellence and meet additional criteria.
Mel Roberts said the Filburn apartments would be three-and-a-half times as tall as her existing two-storey home.
She said the authority’s decision to approve the 3 Oceans towers development, at 43 and 33-storeys, gave her little faith height limits would be adhered to.
“I believe it sets the tone for how they’re going to treat other developments,” Ms Roberts said.
“The planning framework is about enhancing the Scarborough community.
“They have a duty to look after the statutory planning of the area.”
Neighbour Ian Hughes said the apartments did not comply with many design requirements, with boundary setback and parking variations proposed.
“(It) does not comply with what the people sought in the Scarborough Master Plan and will have a massive negative impact on the neighbourhood,” he said.
Both were satisfied with four-storey developments but believed anything above this was inconsistent with the surrounding area.
Sandra Blandford has lived on Pearl Parade, behind the planned retirement complex, for nearly 15 years and was worried about it overlooking her two-storey unit block and building disruption.
“I’ve witnessed so many old places go down and new places go up,” she said.
Chantall and Peter de Bruin are part-owners of a recently built two-storey eight-unit complex on Nautilus, separated from the retirement development by public open space, where they planned to move to in retirement.
The development proposes to encroach on the park and relocate the existing pathway, which Mrs de Bruin said would affect their units’ privacy and make the park unsuitable for many activities.
“If we had been told (about the proposal) we would not have built here,” she said.
Mr de Bruin said they were disturbed by proposed changes to the public space and believed it could set a precedent for other City of Stirling parks.