Any other comments about this Asset Management Plan?

<p>Do you have any other comments about this Plan?<br></p>

Add Comment

Adding new posts is disabled for this conversation.

Remove this comment? Replies to it will not be removed.
Remove this attachment?
2 Comments
Level 1
Livability decreases as population increases. If the Council allows more high rise unit development, it must work with State Governments to insist that more open space and activity areas within each large complex is provided by the developer.
Level 1
I'm sending comments to James Wilkins but basically I think this is a great effort to bring together all sorts of stuff from across Council to guide others in the future. It surely needs seriously considered "buy-in" from third-tier staff to make it work. Also the Maloney model provides a great discipline for thinking about built assets that can be assessed by engineers such as road surfaces, drains, buildings.... but to me it needs a lot more articulation to make it suitable for assessing amenity (such as streetscapes) or natural heritage assets such as biodiversity and natural heritage. And how about our globally important fossil site? We either maintain it or lose it. So I recommend there should be some sort of task force, perhaps at the MAV level, to formulate how management of natural heritage assets should fit into Council financial and other planning systems.