Visual amenity

From YCAT: East West Link Comprehensive Impact Statement Submission
Jump to: navigation, search

3. Visual amenity - Department of Planning and Community Development The Minister for Planning has issued Terms of Reference, under which the Assessment Committee will assess the CIS and submissions in response.

Extract: (7) Terms of Reference: Conduct a Public Hearing, in accordance with Division 2 of Part 8 of the Act, to hear properly made submissions confined to the following matters.

(7) (c) Whether the proposed Urban Design Framework in the CIS will appropriately manage visual impacts of the project on the surrounding area, including public open spaces.


[edit] EWL CIS documents for reference

All CIS documents

[edit] Extract

The East West Link - Eastern Section is located in an urban landscape environment with a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and open space land uses all contributing to the existing landscape character of the area. The eastern end of the project is also characterised by the existing Eastern Freeway, while the existing CityLink structures follow the Moonee Ponds Creek corridor at the western extent of the project. An Urban Design Framework was prepared by ERM in September 2013. A full copy of the report is provided in Technical Appendix C. An urban landscape and visual impact assessment was prepared by GHD in October 2013. A full copy of the report is provided in Technical Appendix H.

[edit] Visual amenity draft submission notes

Yarra CIS forum: Summary of table comments from info session – 7 Nov 2013 (pdf)

  • Undesirable visual impact from vent, flyovers and ramps
  • Loss of centre median strip east of Hoddle to Merri Creek precluding future construction of Doncaster Rail
  • Temporary relocation of Alexandra Parade on adjacent remaining properties (buffer zone)
  • Loss of trees in median strip
  • Flyover on Hoddle Street creates negative visual impacts as well as overshadowing and overlooking (ventilation stack to also create negative visual impacts)
  • Construction process will impact negatively on community schools (noise, dust, pollution, air quality, light spill and traffic impacts especially at Wellington Street)
  • Buffer zones needed during construction
  • Flyover amenity impacts – should be Yarra input into design (not solely reliant on contractor or LMA)
  • Air vent location – height, visual impact, air quality
  • Redevelopment of acquired land – impact on neighbouring properties, type of development

[edit] Hoddle Street Flyover

View of Flyover from Darling Gardens

The cheap flyover to be inflicted on Clifton Hill will be visible from all over Clifton Hill Collingwood and Abbotsford, reminding people where the noise and pollution is coming from.

The cheap Hoddle St flyover is a cost saving measure snuck in to allow the business case to look less lame than it is by increasing the local impacts on the community.The white sloping finger and fake suspension cables are purely decorative, and not structural.

The road builders wanted their own monument to compete with the beautiful red and yellow brick Shot Tower – the tallest in Australia.Even without this decoration the flyover will be visible in Darling Gardens and particularly east Clifton Hill. Its main purpose is be to allow Hoddle Street north of Alexandra Parade to be expanded into another freeway.

The view from the train and from Hoddle Street, of St Johns Cathedral and spire atop Clifton Hill as well as the view of shot tower, will be blocked by the proposed flyover.

[edit] Gold Street Vent Stack

Imposition of a high rise vent stack in a predominately low rise residential heritage zone. It is so incongruous and ugly that the Linking Melbourne Authority animations and images try to hide it form view. How can the panel consider the visual impacts when the location is not even confirmed? The authority cannot even confirm whether or not an third intermediate vent stack will be required!

[edit] Residents Against the Tunnel - Visual and Social Amenity

Here are some suggestions for the sort of things you might like to include about Visual Impacts in your submissions to the CIS Assessment Panel due 12 December 2013:“The urban design principles describe the urban design outcomes that are desired by Linking Melbourne Authority and the Victorian Government.” (p4). The urban design principles do not give any consideration to the outcomes desired by those that live and work in the areas and communities that will be most impacted. The social impact statement is too generic

[edit] Landscape & recreational facilities

  • No commitment or detail provided on maturity of vegetation reinstatement and augmentation required to achieve a substantial net increase in tree canopy and contribution to the urban landscape across the corridor
  • No audit of existing canopy
  • Removal and destruction of mature trees planted along the median strips of Alexandra parade, Hoddle street and the Eastern freeway is significant

[edit] Visual connectivity

  • No certainty at all about connectivity between the EWL (LMA driven), the extension of the Eastern Freeway (VicRoads) and inter-related projects which will be required to maximise local visual and social amenity in the wake of the project

[edit] Reshape the urban environment

  • Demolition of single dwellings of historic value adjacent to Alexandra parade and in Wellington Street for the purpose of traffic diversion during construction.
  • Land will then be released to developers without specific restriction other than “greenfield” planning regulations resulting in significant changes to the streetscapes of Gold street, Wellington street and Hilton street in Clifton Hill.*‘urban renewal’ opportunities (Chapter 8, p11) for Precinct 1 inadequately address continuity of heritage overlay between areas south and north of Alexandra Parade. Such development would drive a wedge between two areas currently historically and visually connected and create a visual and dominating barrier.
  • The impact of this on the communities on either side of Alexandra Parade has not been adequately considered, and should be required before the project proceeds.

[edit] New urban landmarks

  • no commitment to residential engagement in design*focus on motorists’ experience through dramatic and identifiable Gateways rather than visual impacts on residents and surrounding communities

[edit] Construction of elevated structures

  • No evidence that alternative methods of construction have been explored in any depth to minimise the impacts of elevated structures on nearby residents, in particular the impact of above-ground flyovers for a number of properties in Collingwood, Clifton Hill and Parkville through a combination of size and proximity, causing overshadowing, obstructed views and the potential for traffic to infringe on private space, as well as heightened traffic noise and light pollution at night.

[edit] Construction phase

  • Lighting during construction (5-7 years across a rigorous daily and weekly schedule) will severely impact nearby residents in Precincts 1 and 3.
  • Lack of detail on how light spill would be strategized, managed and mediated

[edit] Ongoing maintenance of construction

  • Graffiti management strategy is required for the life of the project only
  • Ongoing maintenance associated with graffiti removal would be effectively be borne long-term by the residents via local council.