Blackburne slams Cambridge refusal of high-rise Ocean Village viewing tower as ‘waste of ratepayer money’

The developers behind a controversial City Beach high-rise apartment complex say a local council’s second refusal of a viewing platform at the former Ocean Village Shopping Centre site is not just disappointing, but will ultimately prove a “poor use of ratepayer money”. Leading property developer Blackburne issued a strong rebuke after Cambridge council this week rejected plans for a temporary seven-storey tower to market ocean views from high above the site where approval has already been granted for a 23-storey complex. “We are disappointed that yet again the Town of Cambridge has refused the viewing platform given the town’s expert and independent planning department’s recommendation for approval, and the mayor’s imploration for council to reconsider the application given the pre-existing approval for the development that will happen,” Blackburne said in a statement yesterday. “The viewing platform is less than one third of the approved permanent building height and it was acknowledged at the meeting that the revised location of the platform exceeds the minimum privacy setback requirements by more than eight times the required setback.” It was the second time the council has rejected a viewing platform after a higher version was refused in May, which led Blackburne to suggest changes including a lower height and increased setback from the nearest neighbouring property. But despite the modifications, Cambridge council voted 4-2 on Tuesday to again refuse the tower over its height still not meeting requirements of the town’s local planning strategy. Blackburne has confirmed the matter will continue to go back through the State Administrative Tribunal — an outcome it says will incur substantial costs and is a “poor use of ratepayer money.” Cambridge mayor Gary Mack had forewarned of potential costs when he spoke at Tuesday’s meeting. “The SAT possibly will approve it anyway and the downside in that is that it’ll cost the town money in terms of getting a lawyer or a town planner to represent us at a final hearing,” he said. “And there’s also always a risk that costs will be brought against us ... we may have to pay some of Blackburne’s costs and that’ll be double slap in the face for the community in my view.” Blackburne also refuted safety concerns for “vulnerable” members of the community, which Cr Susan Kennerly raised as an issue. “The main point is that the location is an isolated area. It attracts youth who are involved in misbehaviour,” Cr Kennerly said. “They are daring chaps who get up to mischief on their bikes. If there’s a tower there, they’ll climb it.” According to Blackburne, the tower would have a locked 2.4m high fence, a second fence around the site perimeter and 24/7 CCTV including a siren and lighting system. The tower would be open only by appointment and visits led by a Blackburne staff member. Mr Mack, who voted in support of the tower, reminded the council that refusing it would not change the fact that a much taller high-rise complex has already been approved for the site. “We’ve got a 23-storey tower there which I think that no one supports,” he said. “But having said all that, they’ve got a lawful decision that we can’t reverse or can’t change and the actual viewing tower platform makes no difference to the outcome.” Cr Kennerly suggested the tower’s purpose could be accomplished with drone technology instead. But Blackburne disagreed, saying they had a waitlist of more than 100 people keen to experience the views in person. ”The platform enables buyers to better appreciate not only the spectacular views on offer, but also how the future development interfaces with the adjoining parkland and tree canopy,” it said. “The matter will now need to go back through the State Administrative Tribunal and will incur substantial costs and is a poor use of ratepayer money.”