Newsletter 66 – Rates
- Posted by IanMuttonAdmin
- On December 16, 2024
Ladies and Gentlemen, Real Independents, Labor and Greens join forces on a Special Rate Variation (SRV) Our new Council tells us it is in a weak financial position. If so, what to do? Contain costs so that they are covered by current revenue (rates, charges and the sale of assets) or, As Council is suggesting, […]
Read More
 was defeated when six Councillors voted not to go ahead with the Plaza and to re-open Young Street both to through traffic and kerbside parking.</p>
<p class='western'>That was a loss for pedestrians and open green space.</p>
<p class='western'>Council considered proposals with respect to:</p>
<ul>
<li>land bounded by Waters Lane, Grosvenor Street and Waters Road,</li>
<li>Monford Place and</li>
<li>Coles and Council’s Grosvenor Lane car park</li>
</ul>
<h2 class='western'>Waters Lane, Grosvenor Street and Waters Road – 12-14 Waters Road</h2>
<p class='western'>The proposer offered to:</p>
<ul>
<li>pay Council $1.9m and</li>
<li>give Council (by way of a setback) land to widen the footpath along Waters Lane by 1.5 meters “to provide an improved pedestrian environment”</li>
</ul>
<p class='western'>in return for consent to build to a height of 24 meters with street access from Waters Lane (with the Lane now included in the Coles proposal).</p>
<p class='western'>It would have been a win for pedestrians and Council’s coffers.</p>
<h2 class='western'>Monford Place</h2>
<p class='western'>Monford Place sits on the edge of the Neutral Bay “Village”. It’s a “dead-end” road being completely surrounded by the Redlands Campus. Council was asked to consider the sale of the Place to Redlands. The arguments against sale and closure would result in the loss of kerbside parking and Council assets should not be sold.</p>
<p class='western'>It would have been a win for Council’s coffers.</p>
<p class='western'>Coles, back to that gleam in a developer’s eye.</p>
<p class='western'>Coles requested Council, in its capacity as owner, to consent to the inclusion of:</p>
<ul>
<li>Coopers Lane</li>
<li>Waters Lane and</li>
<li>Grosvenor Lane car park</li>
</ul>
<p class='western'>in a Development Application to be lodged – it foreshadowed an increase in parking beyond the needs of a residential complex to be built above the retail facility (almost as high as the one proposed and rejected for Waters Lane, Grosvenor Street and Waters Road.</p>
<p class='western'>Coles’ request was granted by Council.</p>
<p class='western'>Council’s grant made without condition. Why so fast?</p>
<p class='western'>Coles is dictating the timetable.</p>
<p class='western'>Not surprisingly many of the business owners that make the Neutral Bay “village” viable and delightful are scared by what Coles and now Council may have in store for them both during the construction phase and after completion.</p>
<p class='western'>As for the community, one speaker who recently spoke to Council in public session in support of Coles authorised a pamphlet published at time of the last Council election in which it was noted:</p>
<p class='western'>Locals Lose Out. Loss of the convenient Council carpark that provides access to all local shops, with parking to be relocated multiple levels underground – for the developer’s commercial benefit.</p>
<p class='western'>The same six Councillors voted for returning cars to the Young Street Plaza, retaining Monford Place, rejecting the Waters Road development and for Council to join with Coles.</p>
<p class='western'>When it comes to Coles, I think Council should have waited for the completion of the Neutral Bay Town Planning Study given that we are constantly talking about the importance of community consultation.</p>
<p class='western'>Tell me your thoughts on how improve Neutral Bay’s “village” – write to me at <a href=){kind=link}