“VCAT is wrong”, says Save Bright
Save Bright's brilliant leaders slam VCAT decision
Our Hicksville Hillbillies know better, of course!
They take their time at Save Bright. Maybe they’re putting their slow-town Cittaslow principles in place already? Or maybe it’s taken them this long to actually find a fault, of sorts, with VCAT’s decision?
Anyway, we’ve finally got a response from this we-know-best group of backwards thinking hillbillies. And oh, what a (yawn) response it is. Try to stay awake as you read it – my comments are at the foot:
Design not optimal says VCAT, but still approves development.
After a long wait VCAT has effectively rubber stamped the Coles Supermarket proposal with minimal changes to the Developers Application. Despite the approval VCAT have acknowledged in the 43 page report that the design is by no means optimal for the site.
Community concerns in relation to the scale, aesthetic, and function of the proposal were barely considered in the report and ultimately given no weight in the outcome.
The revised conditions that the Alpine Shire negotiated with the Developers during the VCAT process were a mirror of the final outcome. None of these revised plans have yet been released to the public, which means we don’t know what we would end up with if the development were to be built.
Despite not releasing any information during the process, the Alpine Shire has been quick to supply press releases to media outlets before many objectors had even received official notification of the decision.
Key Points:
1. -Amenity: The majority of retail frontage will not face the street. Despite referring to the Bright Futures document regularly in the report which clearly recommends “active street frontages,” VCAT chose to ignore the amenity issue in Star Rd altogether. The largest interface is on Star Rd, which will feature the loading bay and rubbish collection facilities. VCAT has taken the developers word that the walls “vary” from 5m high. According to the plans submitted they are closer to 9m.
2. -Gaming: The building will be joined to and share a carpark with a gaming venue. There are specific clauses in the planning scheme preventing gaming venues from being located in strip shopping. The same clause was used (and upheld at VCAT) recently by the Alpine Shire when trying to prevent the gaming operator from obtaining more machines.
3. -Economics: VCAT accepted the Developers evidence that the proposal would have little impact on the local economy as it would capture escape spending. Despite needing over $16 million/pa to break even and no actual evidence being available, VCAT accepted the Developers projections. VCAT also stated that the development could even provide a reason for tourists to visit.
4. -Traffic: The report has imposed rules on delivery times for both the Hotel and the Supermarket but is light on detail as to who will police this. Trucks delivering outside these times will have to queue. It is unclear where. It also unclear as to how it will be guaranteed that delivery vehicles will adhere to the 35 tonne load limit applied to Star Road bridge.
Local Engineer Nick Malkin believes that if we had a more robust set of development guidelines – as the community has been calling for – we may well have achieved an outcome that would have pleased all sections of the community.
“It’s disappointing and unexpected. VCAT acknowledged in their decision that the proposed design isn’t optimal for the site. So for a site that possesses such strategic value, unfortunately we are going to end up with a second or third best planning solution.”
“The proposal fails to positively activate the Star Road frontage – active retail frontages are a requirement of the Bright Future policy framework. VCAT have not adequately explained how situating the back of house loading bay and waste collection facilities along Star Rd constitutes an appropriate design response in this context.”
No Councilors attended the hearing on any day, despite this being the biggest development proposal Bright has seen. It is unclear which capital works have been signed off on and how much the bill to ratepayers will be should construction proceed.
Comment:
Oh gee, I don’t think I’ll waste too much time on this. Briefly though, isn’t it rather odd that Save Bright are now trying to make out it’s all about the design, when in reality they went to VCAT trying to have the development ruled out, full stop?
Now they say they’re concerned with the design changes? What a cheek, this is the group that forced the council to put the changes in place more than 12 months ago - and then they still complained.
Anyway, I note that the Tribunal has ordered a ‘contemporary design’ in favour of a design that tries to replicate other traditional elements. In other words they’re saying that the existing buildings in the Bright CBD are a mish-mash of design and there is no particular style or theme that predominates. In those circumstances a contemporary (architect) design is usually the best way.
I have no problem with that and I trust the Alpine council administration to ensure it looks good. No, we won’t be consulted on it any further and why should we? Save Bright have had their say (and a lot of it) so now it’s time they butted out – please!
Let’s just get it moving. Look, it’s bound to be a lot better than what’s there now! As for the so-called ‘key points’:
1. It faces Gavan Street, not Star Road. Yeah, it’s a pity that Coles will not ‘face the street’ per se but somehow I think having an off-street carpark for more than 100 vehicles is a real plus for this town. What does Save Bright want, a block fronted design like IGA with no carparking, I suppose?
2. The gaming machines are operated and located in a separate business & building. So what if the supermarket adjoins it? What does Save Bright suggest should happen here? This is a mute point.
3. VCAT is not in the business of determining whether or not the new supermarket will be viable. That’s not their role. And yes, they DID comment that it would benefit the town and other retailers by reducing escape spending and encouraging tourists to shop here too, what’s the big surprise about that?
4. Maybe Save Bright could ‘police’ the comings & goings of the trucks and loading bay activity? Nick’s office would be a good vantage point for that. It’d make them useful – for once!
And as for Star Road not having an “active retail frontage” on one side … big deal, who cares? It’s just a side street and an access road, there’s no great loss there.
Oh, and what about that call for “a more robust set of development guidelines”? How “robust” would Save Bright & Nick like our guidelines to be?
If that’s not an indication that someone is planning to run for council I’d be very surprised.
Just imagine though, what would happen if they got in! All they seem to want is - no growth and no further commercial or residential development.
Yes, they want us to ’slow-down’, turn the clock back … and disappear into oblivion, like this:
Bright 'Cittaslow' circa 2012, as per Save Bright's brilliant proposal
Wally says: I'm taking y'all to VCAT, Woolies. Go on, git! Git out of 'my town'.
Contact: alpineopinion@gmail.com
Click 
Where did you get that photo? They both look familiar…….. scary
“The revised conditions that the Alpine Shire negotiated with the Developers during the VCAT process were a mirror of the final outcome. None of these revised plans have yet been released to the public, which means we don’t know what we would end up with if the development were to be built.”
Err…if the revised plans haven’t been released to the public, how do they know what’s in them then? Don’t these two sentences contradict each other?
Heike, at Wandi !
Dawson, Save Bright are just all over the place. There’s an agenda here, for sure.
Hey ! Where’d you get that photo of me (on the right) and Mr G….. ? (you know who I mean).
He looks pissed to me – as usual.
The weekly local paper “Alpine Observer” comes out today, and the only reference from Save Bright is Lee Rosser saying, at the time of the interview, that SB are yet to meet and decide the future.
Yet, Ros Pelly, writes to “The Border Mail” last week.
I would have thought, given the great debate over this project and also the effort SB have put in to stop the development, they would have had a meeting and released some sort of offical statement.
Your right Ray, SB are all over the place – no direction, no real facts, just a load of crap.
Like I have said before – I feel so sorry for the mums and dads and people who have donated their hard earned cash for cause. They are the ones affected.
Well, on the ‘Bright’ side Andrew, I doubt that more than 100 or so people would have contributed any money to their secret and ill-conceived campaign. Bad luck – a fool and his money etc ….
Lee seems to be saying they want to introduce restrictive overlays & development controls on Bright. That’s what Nick was alluding to as well in the SB website statement.
It also ties in with this silly ‘Cittaslow’ idea. Cittaslow is all about embedding anti-progress types in a council committee that unduly influences planning policy. That’s its stated world-wide purpose. It’s about a lot more than ’slow-food’ I can assure you. It’s about changing the direction of the town and halting development. It’s a ‘leftist’ movement, an extreme one.
I think they’re building a platform of sorts for the council election. If they run it’s easy to see what the main election issue will be – those FOR development, growth & prosperity (like you & me) and those who want to “slow” us down and stunt the town’s economy. More about that later.
As for the Bright Observer, they’ve done a very poor job of covering this big issue. I’ll be putting a post up about that too.
Hi Ray,
Are you having a good day?
I am. A really good one.
Yes Wal, I’m having a good day. Thanks for your interest.
Excellent, I’m pleased to hear that.
I’ll let you get on with it then.
Why don’t you just stop foxing around, Wal? If you have something to say, just say it.
It sounds like Wal’s got some news but doesn’t want to share it.
He’s probably just ecstatic about the world’s financial crisis and the implications it might have for Bright – i.e. a slow down in tourists. Wal doesn’t like the place to be busy, he wants it to be a sleepy hollow.
Ray
there is a rumour going around that Coles is pulling out. Mind you, that rumour’s being going around since before the project was approved, so I have no idea whether it’s any closer to the truth now than it was then.
People don’t understand that voting for a project (or, in your case, supporting it) means that you’re going to be personally devastated if it doesn’t go ahead. Planning decisions are (or should be) made on planning grounds. They should be objective. No emotion should be involved (if it is, you probably shouldn’t be making the decision).
So, personally, if Coles doesn’t go ahead I won’t be feeling as if I was wrong to vote the way I did. I won’t be sobbing on my pillow, asking why? why? why?
It was a planning application to build a shop in a shopping zone. End of story.
Well, I sort of figured that’s what ‘Wal’ was getting at, Zuvele. It’s no great surprise if Coles has been deferred for a while, given the current economic climate.
I’m not “devastated” by it, but if ‘Wal’ thinks it’s ‘good news’ he ought to consider it in the wider context – i.e. that the recent world financial events are going to hurt Bright all over the place, in the short term at least, as people decide to stay home.
It’s not good news no matter how opposed to Coles anyone might be. We are all going to have to tighten our belts and that special rate is really going to hurt business operators this time.