Manly's 2015 Plan
am very concerned regarding Manly Council's 2015 development proposal and when I speak with people, no-one seems to know anything about it.... I am extremely concerned with Ms Hay's proposal to demolish the Whistler street car park, library etc. and replace it with MORE units under the guise of making Manly more pedestrian friendly.
Additionally, their proposal to put an underground carpark under Manly oval seems an awful idea to me. I have reviewed their proposal but it doesn't state how cars will enter and exit. Will the cars exit and zoom up Raglan Street?
If you could please start a discussion so that more people are aware of Council's 2015 proposal and what it could potentially mean to us as residents, I would appreciate it.
David Montgomery commented
The only people who will gain from the 2015 plan are the developers who win the tender to build the units ( I wonder how transparent that process is ? )
In any event, my understanding is that once a development exceeds a value of 35 million , it becomes a "state significant development" and is taken out of the hands of council.
Toni & Guy Manly commented
As a local business I am very concered with the parking situation.Towards the end of the week we already having clients running late because of lack of central parking spaces,we need to add another one, not remove one ! As much as I like the idea of more pedestrian friendly areas, as this may bring more pedestrians past my business on central avenue, I believe the Manly locals should be thought of instead of transient tourists who may only be here for 2-3 hours.
It's my understanding that practically the entire 2015 plan is contingent upon the 800 space car park under Manly Oval. Originally, there were to be entrances/exits on Raglan Street and Sydney Road. Due to intense protest from the residents of Ivanhoe Park Precinct, the Raglan Street entrance was ruled out. I believe that the Sydney Rd entrance was also ruled out because the location would have been too steep. Belgrave St is now being considered but Manly Lawn Tennis has to agree and they currently have 18 years left on their lease.
Like many other residents, I am steadfastly opposed to this car park for reasons too numerous to mention. I also do not want the tennis club to be affected by this unnecessary development.
I'd rather see the council focus on improving what we already have.
Laurie Lawlor commented
The Manly 2015 proposal issued by Manly Council could have served a useful purpose as an introduction to a more detailed report that explained the full implications of the proposal, with indicative costings. The council went a small part of the way with its traffic impact report, but the consultants were briefed to focus only on central Manly and ignore other areas, particularly Eastern Hill, which is totally dependent on good transit through central Manly. Unfortunately even this analysis was deeply flawed, as I discussed at length in an attachment to the report to Council submitted by the Little Manly Precint.
Council has used ratepayers money to produce a proposal that is big on thought bubbles and artists impressions, but totally devoid of the detail that residents and businesses need to respond in a constructive manner. Some of the thought bubbles, such as perimeter parking, poor gateway experience, and High Street to balance the Corso, could get good marks in a school project, but are totally inappropriate for a sensible discussion where millions of dollars of ratepayers money are involved.
What will happen to the streets of Manly when the 400 parking spaces are removed. It is going to be very strange to be driving past what were parking spaces and have to park at the Manly Oval. What is Council planning to do with the 400 spaces. Ratepayers need to know if they are planning to widen footpaths and pedestrianise all of central Manly? By how much, and at what cost?
High Street is proposed to look like the pedestrian only part of the Corso. Council should be aware of what happened to the Southport Mall in Queensland that was opened to traffic in 1998 after being pedestrian- only for 10 years. Some businesses along Nerang Street lost up to 50% of their business over that period. It appears technical studies of the effects of closing Nerang Street to traffic were only done after the Mall was built and after complaints by local businesses. Manly Council would be well advised not proceed with this thought bubble until comprehensive traffic, business impact and costing studies are concluded.
Candy Bingham commented
Thanks for your comment Deborah and I share your concerns. At our Little Manly Precinct we have spent a great deal of time reviewing the plan and lodged our submission last week.
For those who haven't seen the Plan - go to www.manly2015.com and make your own judgements.
A great deal of work was done to prepare our submission regarding Manly’s 2015 Plan. Our major concern was the traffic plan and its potential to strangle the traffic to and from the Eastern Hill.
Our traffic expert, Laurie Lawlor, has found that the Traffic Report commissioned by Council is flawed and traffic counts were done on a Tuesday & Wednesday - no weekend or special events were monitored.
In addition none of the public traffic & transport authorities such as the RTA and STA, nor the Police, Taxis etc have been consulted about the proposed changes.
When we asked for a copy of the Geotech report in relation to the viability of the Oval Carpark, we were informed: "a Geotech & environmental report would be prepared as a part of the development application process". Many locals will tell you that a report was done some years ago regarding a carpark under the oval and it was found to be not feasible due to groundwater levels.
In my opinion it would seem that this 'vision' is more of a pipe dream – lots of pretty pictures but absolutely no due process to assess its feasibility. One would have to question the point of asking for community feedback on things that may not be feasible or viable.
What do you think?
I agree Deborah. The 2015 Plan seems to have a lot of question marks and the proposed exit and entry points are proving to be totally unworkable.