Cambridge Scheme Amendment 33 rezoning debate finally at end

The future of parts of Lot 8 Cambridge Street have been the subject of long-running debate.
The future of parts of Lot 8 Cambridge Street have been the subject of long-running debate.

A DEBATE labelled “Kafkaesque” and “ludicrous” over Scheme Amendment 33 has come to a close.

After again extensively debating whether to revoke the decision made by the Town of Cambridge in August last year to implement the amendment, the motion was lost.

Amendment 33, which would include the rezoning of portions of Lot 8 Cambridge Street, Wembley from Residential R20 and Public Purpose to Local Centre to allow for future development, remains in place.

Residents became concerned after it was revealed a concept for a 17-storey development on the site had been put to the council.

ALSO READ: Town of Cambridge ranks last in planning reforms

A petition with 300 signatures was submitted to the council, calling for the revocation of the amendment.

Reassurance was made by officers several times during the meeting that the idea was immediately rejected by staff.

Mayor Keri Shannon, who moved the motion to rescind the decision, said it was flawed.

“The landowner did not originally request the scheme amendment, but a party that intended to own it,” she said.

Cr Andres Timmermanis agreed with Ms Shannon, calling the situation “Kafkaesque” and “ludicrous”.

“People are literally dying in a ditch to save something that nobody wants,” he said.

“This one should be dead, the revocation should properly kill it,” he said.

Cr Sonia Grinceri, who voted for the amendment last year, reiterated that she had a change of heart.

“(Revoking the amendment) is the safest, more prudent road,” she said.

Cr Corinne MacRae, who was also on council last year, would not budge and said it could affect the council’s reputation.

“I cannot make a decision that is legally ineffective,” she said.

“(Revoking the decision) could have serious legal implications.”

Cr Louis Carr revealed an email in which Ms Shannon said she would support a new amendment.

Ms Shannon said she always had “deep concerns” and changed her mind.