NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary Meeting of the Devonport City Council will be held in The Council Chambers, on Monday 6 May 2013; commencing at 5.00pm and members of the public are invited to attend. A Notice of the meeting was published in The Advocate Newspaper on 3 May 2013. Council Minutes can be found on Council’s website www.devonport.tas.gov.au QUALIFIED PERSONS ADVICE ETC. I certify that with respect to all advice, information or recommendation provided to the Council in or with this agenda: i.
the advice, information or recommendation is given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendation; and
ii.
where any advice is directly given by a person who does not have the required qualifications or experience that person has obtained and taken into account in that person’s general advice the advice from an appropriately qualified or experienced person.
Ian McCallum GENERAL MANAGER
AGENDA FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF DEVONPORT CITY COUNCIL TO BE HELD ON MONDAY 6 MAY 2013 AT THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMENCING AT 5.00PM Item
1.0 2.0
Page No.
APOLOGIES LEAVE OF ABSENCE Ald Cole
3.0
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
4.0
PLANNING AUTHORITY MATTERS .................................................................. 4
4.1
AM2013/01 Rezone from General Industrial and Closed Residential to Tasman Street Commercial Zone - 117 Tasman Street & 67,69,71.73,75,77-79,83, 85 & 87 William Street (D295757) ............................................................................................................... 5
PAGE 4 Report to Special Council Meeting on 6 May 2013
4.0
PLANNING AUTHORITY MATTERS
The Mayor will now announce that Council intends to act as a Planning Authority under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 for the consideration of Agenda Item 4.1. Council is required by Regulation 8(3) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005 to deal with items as a Planning Authority under the LUPA 1993 in a sequential manner. The following item is to be dealt with at the meeting of Council in its capacity as a Planning Authority. 4.1
AM2013/01 Rezone from General Industrial and Closed Residential to Tasman Street Commercial Zone - 117 Tasman Street & 67,69,71.73,75,77-79,83, 85 & 87 William Street (D295757)
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 5 Report to Special Council Meeting on 6 May 2013
4.1
AM2013/01 REZONE FROM GENERAL INDUSTRIAL AND CLOSED RESIDENTIAL TO TASMAN STREET COMMERCIAL ZONE - 117 TASMAN STREET & 67,69,71.73,75,77-79,83, 85 & 87 WILLIAM STREET File: 28060 D295757
RELEVANT PORTFOLIO Technical and Finance
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 2.1.1
Ensure the City's Planning Scheme supports local community character and appropriate land use.
PURPOSE To fulfil Council’s statutory responsibility to forward a report to the Tasmanian Planning Commission on the representations received from the public exhibition of draft amendment AM2013/01 to the Devonport and Environs Planning Scheme 1984. This report has been prepared for Council by consultant Tom O’Connor, town planner at JMG Engineers and Planners.
BACKGROUND On 18 February, 2013, Council initiated an amendment to rezone part of 117 Tasman Street and 67, 69. 71, 73, 75, 77-79, 83, 85 & 87 William Street from ‘General Industrial’ and ‘Closed Residential’ to ‘Tasman Street Commercial Zone’ for the reasons outlined in Lester Franks Survey and Geographic’s supporting submission dated January 2013 in attachment 2.
COMMENTARY A total of twelve (12) representations were received from the following persons and organisations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
Judy Richmond; Charles and Elizabeth Jacobs; GHD Pty Ltd obo Forum Project Services; Lester Franks Pty Ltd obo New Bounty Ltd (applicant); Paul Ridley; Michael Leary; Douglas Janney; Page Seager obo Kemp & Denning Ltd; The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman; DIER; Peter Stegman; Brent Gillard.
Seven representations objected to the Draft Amendment, four were in support and one was neutral. The representations are reproduced as Attachments to this report. Each of the matters raised in the representations are discussed in this report.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 6 Report to Special Council Meeting on 6 May 2013
1.
Traffic Impacts Representations No. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 The most commonly cited objection related to the additional traffic that would be generated by future commercial uses on the site and the impact this would have on the local road network. The representations included advice from traffic consultants and DIER. The specific traffic impacts of concern were identified as:
Surrounding residential road network already accommodates relatively high volumes of traffic and is not suited to accommodate additional traffic from future developments; Decreased road safety; Decreased intersection performance.
The accuracy of the applicant’s traffic impact assessment (TIA) was questioned by numerous representors, who considered it to be deficient in the following ways:
Use of out-dated data (from 2007) does not reflect current situation; Does not provide traffic figures for 2022 without development for comparison; Does not address accident rates; The operation of a new site access to William Street has not being adequately assessed - the TIA does not demonstrate an appropriate design solution can be achieved and does not consider options; TIA suggests a future roundabout will improve the William/Tasman Street intersection but does not explain why; TIA indicates that the Don Road/Lovett Street/Sorrell Street intersection function would improve with increased traffic but does not explain why.
Response The site has frontage to William Street to the east (a Sub-Arterial Road) and Tasman Street to the north (a Minor Collector Road). The TIA submitted with the application envisages an access to both of these streets. The abovementioned issues have been discussed with Council’s engineer, who has advised that the TIA submitted with the application does not adequately quantify or address the potential traffic impacts. He advised that the surrounding road network is not suited to accommodate a commercial development of the proposed scale, which would result in significant impacts on network efficiency and would also require major upgrades of four intersections. For these reasons, his advice was that the proposal should not be supported on traffic grounds. The Draft Amendment does not currently provide scope for Council to consider traffic impacts of future bulky goods retail development. The representations warrant modification of the Draft Amendment to provide scope for Council to assess such impacts.
2.
Devonport Retail Study 2008 Representations No. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11 Numerous representations expressed concern that the Draft Amendment would result in ‘out of centre’ development, further fragmenting retail activity in Devonport and contrary to the Devonport Retail Study 2008. The representations argued that it is inappropriate to further fragment the retail market when there is existing land available within the Devonport Regional Homemaker Centre. ITEM 4.1
PAGE 7 Report to Special Council Meeting on 6 May 2013
Numerous representations refuted the applicant’s view of the site as being ‘edge of centre’, asserting that it should be considered ‘out of centre’. The representations argued that ‘out of centre’ development limits the opportunity for combined shopping trips, encourages car based travel and directs people away from the properly planned retail destinations. Representations in support of the Draft Amendment expressed the view that commercial development on the site would have flow-on benefits to the CBD. One representation, prepared by an economics consultant, provided a critique of the economic assessment prepared in support of the application. It observes that the assessment failed to acknowledge the implications of Amendment 2011/03, which increased the capacity of the Homemaker Centre by a further 18,150sqm. It was argued that the assessment fails to adequately demonstrate that there is sufficient demand in the market to justify another rezoning. Response The Devonport Retail Study 2008 recommended that Council facilitate homemaker development at appropriate locations, i.e. on land that can accommodate large format outlets, with good exposure to high traffic flows and with convenient access to regional road networks and surrounding regional catchment (p.61). It was recommended that Council should identify an appropriate location for such development rather than allowing retail uses to disperse across numerous sites (p.62). This included supporting Don Road as a preferred location (p.71). Consolidating homemaker retail within defined centres creates an identifiable destination with a wide range of retail offer, reducing escape spending to other centres and drawing a larger trading catchment. Co-locating such uses favours multiple-purpose trips and avoids the need for cross-town trips to compare the offer at competing outlets. Furthermore, a defined precinct allows for efficient infrastructure provision. Following the recommendations of the Devonport Retail Study 2008, Council supported the development of the Devonport Regional Homemaker Centre, which was intended to become the North-West Coast’s principal homemaker centre (refer to Figure 1). Council also supported the establishment of the Don Road Market Place Zone, which was intended to accommodate a discount department store, a supermarket and 10 specialty shops within the Don Road Precinct.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 8 Report to Special Council Meeting on 6 May 2013
Figure 1: Commercial Centres as per Retail Study 2008 with Homemaker Centre& Subject Site
The applicant’s economic study provides a detailed assessment of the economic stimulus a major homemaker retail development on the site would have on the local economy. It is agreed that such a development, if located appropriately, would be likely to have an overall net benefit for the local economy. The strategic argument provided in the applicant’s economic study can be summarised as follows:
The Retail Study 2008 recommended that homemaker development should be encouraged within the Steele Street/Don Road Precincts; By fronting onto William Street, the site will integrate with the existing commercial development in Steele Street; Allowing a stand-alone national-brand hardware store on the site will not undermine the function of the Devonport Regional Homemaker Centre; Whilst the proposal will increase the total retail floor area if the City above the predicted supportable retail floor area recommended in the Retail Study 2008, this is acceptable as a national-brand hardware store will draw in a larger catchment and will also partially service the trade sector; There is no available land within the Don Road Precinct; The Regional Homemaker Centre is unsuitable because it does not have direct exposure to a freeway and has limited access.
Firstly, the site is not considered to be within any existing commercial precinct - it does not adjoin any commercial zoning and is predominantly surrounded by residential zoning. It is approximately 100m from the existing Steele Street Precinct and 0.5km from the CBD. Whilst frontage to William Street may enhance the site’s integration with the Steele Street Precinct to a degree in terms of visibility and accessibility, it is important to observe what the function of that precinct is. The Precinct accommodates a range of commercial tenancies such as a car wash, take away food outlets, bowling alley, vet clinic as well as a Retravision outlet and a whitegoods sales/repair shop. It is not considered to be a major homemaker centre at present and notably, the Retail Study specifically recommended that the Don Road component of the ‘Don ITEM 4.1
PAGE 9 Report to Special Council Meeting on 6 May 2013
Road/Steele Street Precinct’ accommodate new homemaker retail (p.71) rather than the Steele Street component. It is doubtful that the Retail Study envisaged that Steele Street would become a major homemaker retail centre. The Regional Homemaker Centre has capacity to accommodate a large homemaker retail development such Bunnings, as is discussed further in greater detail further in this report (refer to Issue 11). It is acknowledged that part of the Don Road Precinct - the Don Road Marketplace Zone - has an approved development that will occupy that site if built. There is other Light Industrial land available within the Don Road Precinct that potentially may be suited for bulky goods retail, provided adequate street frontage were secured (note: may require a planning scheme amendment, if the use were interpreted as ‘Shop’ as per the Tribunal decision TASRMPAT 168, 9th July 2008). In a strategic sense, a location within an existing centre, be it in the Regional Homemaker Centre or Don Road Precinct, would be consistent with the Retail Study 2008 as well as the LUPAA Schedule 1 Objectives and the Regional Land Use Strategy. In this case however, it is difficult to justify a new zoning for a third bulky goods centre when there appears to be available land within an existing key centre, when approved retail floor space in the City already exceeds the recommended supportable retail floor space of the Retail Study and in the absence of a compelling argument as to why the existing centres are unsuitable. This is particularly the case where there is uncertainty in the proposed location with respect to traffic and amenity impacts. As observed in the representations, the city has already exceeded the supportable retail floor area recommended in the Retail Study. Council therefore ought to take a conservative approach to approving new centres or existing sites may remain underdeveloped. The representations are therefore considered to highlight the Draft Amendment’s inconsistency with LUPAA Schedule 1 Objectives. That said, they do not warrant modification to the Draft Amendment as this would not remedy this inconsistency.
3.
Residential Amenity of Area Representations No. 1, 2, 8, 11 A number of representors expressed concern about impacts on residential amenity in the area. The following specific issues associated were identified:
Increased noise from loading/unloading trucks and from increased traffic; Increased traffic; Potential for trolleys and rubbish to be left in surrounding streets; Potential for increased vandalism/graffiti in the area.
Response With respect to noise, it is agreed that future commercial uses would generate some noise from loading/unloading and vehicle movements. That said, the site is currently zoned ‘General Industrial’ and a range of potentially noisy industrial uses could be approved on the site at present, such as ‘General Industrial’, ‘Kennels’, ‘Motor Repair Garage’, ‘Scrapyard and Car Wreckers Yard’, ‘Showroom’, ‘Timber Mill’, ‘Transport Depot’ and ‘Warehouse’. Furthermore, it is not considered uncommon for outlets some commercial uses - such as supermarkets or small hardware stores - to be located in suburban areas subject to permit conditions aimed at limiting acoustic impacts (such as limitations on delivery hours). The Draft Amendment in its current
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 10 Report to Special Council Meeting on 6 May 2013
format however would not provide Council with scope to assess acoustic impacts of a large hardware store proposal. The operation of 13,500sqm of commercial floor space on the site would generate significant traffic movements. Again however, the Draft Amendment in its current format does not provide Council with scope to assess traffic impacts associated with a large hardware store proposal. With respect to potential disposal of trolleys on surrounding streets, it is expected that a future retail development on the site would accommodate customer parking onsite (notably the Draft Amendment ought to specify parking requirements). There would therefore not appear to be a need to take trolleys offsite or to leave them on the street. With regards to potential littering, it is expected that retail outlets would include facilities to contain their hard waste onsite with periodic collection. There is no evidence to indicate why any significant increase in littering would occur. The potential for anti-social behaviour to occur on the site once developed for commercial uses could be reduced through design features such as adequate illumination of outdoor areas at night and locking of vehicular access points if considered necessary. At present the site is vacant and not illuminated at night – it would not be difficult for trespassers to enter the site and even access adjoining residential properties. There is not considered to be any clear link between a future commercial use of the site and increased vandalism of property in the area. The representations highlight the need for the zone controls to provide scope to assess acoustic and traffic impacts and warrant modification of the Draft Amendment. In the current format, this could be achieved by giving ‘Bulky goods sales’ discretionary status, which would then give Council discretion to consider the amenity controls of clause 8.23.3.1(P1)(d).
4.
Impact on 81 William Street Representations No.1, 3, 8 Concern was expressed with regards to the potential impact a future development may have on a residential property at 81 William Street, which would adjoining the Tasman Street Commercial Zone on three sides. Specific issues identified included:
Impact on residential amenity, including character of the area; Devaluation of property value.
Response The rezoning would essentially isolate 81 William Street as the only residential allotment on a 175m stretch of William Street. The context of the site would change on the western side of the street from residential to commercial. The individual lot would sit between approximately 51m of commercial frontage to the north and 110m of commercial frontage to the south. The proposed zone controls and how they may affect 81 William Street are considered below. Clause Clause 8.23.3.1 – Use Standards
Implication Notably, the use of land for ‘Bulky goods sales’ would have permitted status (‘permit required’) unless it involved the sale of food or clothing and would therefore not subject to the use controls. If ‘Bulky goods sales’ were made a discretionary use, a proposal would need to demonstrate compliance with
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 11 Report to Special Council Meeting on 6 May 2013
this clause. This would provide scope for Council to consider potential sources of environmental nuisance, such as noise and traffic. It would also provide Council with scope to consider the Desired Future Character statements for the Zone, which includes the following statement: k) manage built form and development to be comparable with the context and form of other development on adjacent land through requirements on building height, site coverage and location of boundaries
Clause 8.23.4.1 – Building Height
Clause 8.23.4.2 – Relationship of external vehicle parking to frontage
It is unlikely that a future development that involved demolishing three houses to the north of 81 William Street and six houses to the south could meet the above statement - it would effectively create a residential ‘island’ within a commercial site. A building could be constructed to a permitted height of 10.0m. A greater height could be approved at Council’s discretion subject to performance criteria. If onsite parking were proposed in between William Street and the proposed buildings on the site (as could be expected on a typical hardware store site layout), it would require Council discretion and would need to be designed so that it would: a) not dominate the architectural or visual frontage of the site or adjacent land with frontage to the road; b) provide durable screening to attenuate appearance of the vehicle parking area from a frontage and adjacent land; and c) be consistent with any desired future character statement
Clause 8.23.4.3 – Privacy for adjacent residential development Clause 8.23.4.4 – Setback from Zone Boundaries
A proposal that included car parking along the William Street frontage on either side of 81 William Street would not comply with the above criteria hence it would be necessary to address this in the site design, i.e. through the provision of landscaped areas. This control would protect the privacy of 81 William Street in terms of potential overlooking from commercial buildings. The clause allows a permitted setback of 10.0m from boundary of a ‘General Residential Zone’. Notably there is no ‘General Residential Zone’ under the current scheme and this reference ought to refer to ‘Closed Residential’ in order to be applicable to 81 William Street. A lesser setback could be approved at Council’s discretion, subject to performance criteria.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 12 Report to Special Council Meeting on 6 May 2013
The Draft Amendment in its current form therefore offers the following protection to the amenity of 81 William Street:
A 10.0m setback and a 10.0m height requirement for buildings; Controls to avoid overlooking from commercial buildings and; Requirements for outdoor parking to not dominate the ‘visual frontage’ of an adjoining site.
The rezoning plan proposes significant changes to the streetscape context and character of the area of 81 William Street. It is difficult to justify that maintaining an island of residential zoning within a commercial zone represents an orderly approach to land use planning, particularly given the likely scale of commercial development on the site. If ‘Bulky goods sales’ were made discretionary, this would potentially prevent this from occurring as it would be difficult to justify how demolishing the nine houses could satisfy the Desired Future Character statements or the requirements for car parking in relation to a frontage. If such redevelopment were not possible however, it would mean that the site would be unworkable for the intended purpose of the proposed zoning. Property valuation is not a planning matter and therefore does not warrant modification to the Draft Amendment. The representations warrant modification of the Draft Amendment to give Council scope to consider the impact of potential impacts associated with a ‘Bulky goods sales’ use, such as noise and traffic. In its current format, it would be necessary to revise the Draft Amendment to give ‘Bulky goods sales’ discretionary status so that the use standards would apply. With respect to the setback from zone boundaries requirements, the references to zones would need to be consistent with the zoned under the current Planning Scheme.
5.
Support for Draft Amendment Representations No. 4, 5, 6 and 12 Four representors supported Council’s Draft Amendment, citing the following reasons:
Commercial use of the site would have a positive economic impact by reducing escape spending and with flow on benefits for the CBD; Commercial zoning will be more compatible with surrounding residential uses than the current General Industrial zoning; The site is underutilised, highly visible with good road access; Traffic can be adequately managed; Bulky goods tenancies are not suited to CBD locations.
Response As these representations are supportive they do not warrant modification to the Draft Amendment.
6.
Structure of Draft Amendment Representations No. 3, 8, 9 Numerous representations criticised the structure of the Draft Amendment. The criticisms can be summarised as follows:
Proposed amendment does not include any controls outside of upper and lower floor area limits; No operative provisions; Use of undefined terminology and use classes; ITEM 4.1
PAGE 13 Report to Special Council Meeting on 6 May 2013
All uses are discretionary under the current drafting; No standard for parking requirements; No signage controls.
Response It is acknowledged that the original application did not specify how the ordinance changes ought to be drafted outside of a control on upper and lower floor area limits. Council’s Draft Amendment did however does include a suite of controls, based on provisions taken from the Draft Interim Planning Scheme Template for the Cradle Coast Region. The adoption of clauses directly from the Draft Interim Planning Scheme is problematic as the proposed clauses do not accord with the structure of the current Planning Scheme. There are no operative provisions that would specify how to interpret use status or how acceptable solutions/performance criteria work. Furthermore, the use categories listed in the Use Table of the proposed clause 8.23.2 are not defined anywhere in the Planning Scheme. It is acknowledged that all uses that are not permitted would be discretionary, which reduced certainty as to what could be approved on the site. With regards to development standards, the absence of any parking or signage requirements is also problematic, as there it gives no control what could be developed and the impact it may have on the amenity of the area. Also, the building setback requirements of clause 8.23.4.4 refer to zones that do not exist under the current Planning Scheme, hence are not applicable. The representations warrant substantial modification to the Draft Amendment. For the current format to work, it would be necessary to incorporate operative clauses, relevant use definitions from Planning Directive 1 and include appropriate development controls for signage and parking. An alternative approach would be to modify the Draft Amendment to be in accordance with the current Planning Scheme structure. This could take the form of a specified departure within Part 9 allowing particular uses and incorporating development controls such as height which are not covered by the current zoning.
7.
Devonport CBD Structure Plan Review 2009 Representations No. 3, 9 The representations object to the Draft Amendment on the basis that it is contrary to the Structure Plan Review document. The applicant’s suggestion that the site ought to be considered as part of an expanded CBD was seen to be contrary to the Structure Plan Review’s recommendation that no significant extensions to the CBD Zone occur. Also, the site was not identified as a key development site. Response The representations refer to the Devonport CBD Structure Plan Review, which was a strategic document commissioned by Council in 2009 to evaluate and revise the 1997 CBD Structure Plan. The Structure Plan Review specifically considered whether any additional commercial land is required in the CBD, whether previous policies needed to be updated and where key development sites within the CBD are located. The Structure Plan Review observed that the development of the Regional Homemaker Centre and approval of major outlets at Don Road would reduce demand for large format retail in the CBD, shifting the focus more towards speciality retail (p.4). ITEM 4.1
PAGE 14 Report to Special Council Meeting on 6 May 2013
Key recommendations of the Structure Plan Review included:
No significant expansions to the CBD Zone are required. Maintaining the CBD boundaries avoids further fragmentation, maintain walkable focal precincts, support efficient public transport and to maintain the amenity and traffic safety of inner residential areas; Expansion of the Four-Ways Precinct to include and recognise the existing commercial development on Steel Street (described as the ‘Steele Street Precinct’ in the Retail Study 2008); Recognition of three key CBD sites suitable for mixed use development.
A range of Planning Scheme amendments were identified in order to implement the above, however these have not yet been implemented yet. Section 6.1.4 of the Structure Plan Review maps the recommended boundaries of the Four-Ways Precinct and clearly states the objective “To recognise the existing extent of land uses by extending the boundaries but to provide strong policy support for the retention of the boundaries with no further movement of these” (p.25). Furthermore, the intent of the Four Ways Precinct is clearly described as “To provide for convenience retail shopping” (p.25). The subject site is not identified as a key development site and is some 100m outside of the recommended Four-Ways Precinct boundaries, a precinct that is not intended to be a homemaker retail centre. If the site is to be considered as an extension to the Four-Ways Precinct, it is not considered to be consistent with the intent of the Structure Plan Review. The strategic argument that the Draft Amendment is consistent with that document is therefore not supported. The representations are considered to reflect the Draft Amendment’s inconsistency with the LUPAA Schedule 1 Objectives.
8.
Devonport LivingCity Plan Representations No. 3, 11 The representations objected to the Draft Amendment on the basis that further fragmentation of retail offer is contrary to the strategic direction of the Devonport Living City Plan, which is currently being prepared by Council. Response Council is currently preparing a plan that will guide the redevelopment of the CBD with the aim of resolving current problems in the City centre and creating new opportunities that provide a resilient and attractive living and investment environment. The plan will aim to consolidate retail activities and prevent further fragmentation. The Draft Amendment will facilitate homemaker retail development outside of the existing precincts. It does not affect land within the CBD and does not affect the diffusion of retail outlets that may be better suited to the CBD (i.e. specialty shops). Although the Living City Plan has not been completed at the time of writing, it does not appear that the Draft Amendment is in conflict with the strategic direction that the plan seeks to adopt. Accordingly, this matter does not warrant modification to the Draft Amendment.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 15 Report to Special Council Meeting on 6 May 2013
9.
Cradle Coast Regional Land Use Strategy 2010-2030 Representation No. 3 One representation objected on the basis that the Draft Amendment will result in further fragmentation of bulky goods retail in the City, contrary to the direction of the Cradle Coast Regional Land Use Strategy. Response The Regional Land Use Strategy states the following policies that relate to the specific issue raised in the representation: 3.3.9 Business and Commercial Activity … e.
maintain the integrity, viability and vitality of established centres by locating new business and commercial development onto land within or immediately contiguous with existing town centres and commercial zones
… g.
prevent linear commercial development
h.
prevent leakage of commercial and retail activities from preferred locations by restricting retail sales in other land use areas
i.
provide designated locations for bulky goods and large format retailing, including for vehicle, building and trade supply, and home improvement goods
… k.
require proposals for major business or commercial development outside designated town centres be supported by need, absence of suitable alternative sites and of potential for immediate, incremental or cumulative adverse affect on established town centres and the regional pattern of retail and service provision
In this case, the proposal seeks to establish a new bulky goods retail centre when there is existing land available within a designated bulky goods precinct. The Draft Amendment would also further extend the linear commercial development along William Street. The representation is considered to reflect the Draft Amendment’s inconsistency with the LUPAA Schedule 1 Objectives. That said however, they do not warrant modification to the Draft Amendment as this would not remedy this inconsistency.
10. Devonport Strategic Plan 2009-2030 Representation No. 3 The representation objected to the Draft Amendment on the basis that further fragmentation of bulky goods retail is inconsistent with Council’s current Strategic Plan. This relates to the following specific policies:
Outcome 2.1 - Our local planning scheme encourages clustering of common property uses and facilitates appropriate development Outcome 3.1 - Devonport is the retail and service centre for North West Tasmania
Response The Regional Homemaker Centre was developed with the aim to establish a homemaker precinct that would service the North West Region. In addition to that ITEM 4.1
PAGE 16 Report to Special Council Meeting on 6 May 2013
site, there is undeveloped land within the Don Road Precinct that may potentially be suitable for bulky goods retail. As has been discussed previously, there does not appear to be a strong justification for departing from the established activity centre network. The representation is considered to reflect the Draft Amendment’s inconsistency with the LUPAA Schedule 1 Objectives. That said, they do not warrant modification to the Draft Amendment as this would not remedy this inconsistency.
11. Alternate Sites Representation No. 3 The representation criticises the level of detail in the applicant’s argument as to why other sites are not suitable to accommodate a Bunnings hardware store. The applicant stated that Bunnings requires at least 2ha of land in Devonport and argued that the Devonport Regional Homemaker Centre is an inappropriate location hence the proposed site was required. It was argued that the Homemaker Centre failed to meet Bunning’s locational criteria in that:
Bunnings requires high visibility from the busiest or second busiest road in the location; The site accommodates a direct competitor (K&D Warehouse); There is no in and out access to the main road.
The representation points out that Bunnings had previously signed a Heads of Agreement to locate on Lot 6 of the Homemaker Centre and that they even identified a building envelope that was shown on the site plan approved by the Tasmanian Planning Commission. It was observed Lot 6 that this land can be easily seen from the Bass Highway and Stony Rise Road and that the site has an in and out access from Stony Rise Road. The representation concludes that the amendment results not from there being no suitable sites, but from Bunnings seeking to avoid co-locating with a competitor and that this is not a valid planning argument. Response The Devonport Regional Homemaker Centre has a capacity to accommodate up to 46,150sqm of floor area. Of that, a permit has been issued for 18,725sqm, leaving some 27,425sqm capacity on the site. There would appear to be sufficient area available on the site at present to accommodate further bulky goods retail outlet such as Bunnings. The representation demonstrates that Bunnings could in fact locate on the site and indeed intended to at some stage. It is noted that the Don Road Precinct has undeveloped Light Industrial land that could also potentially be suitable for bulky goods retail, subject to adequate road frontage being secured(although that option may require a scheme amendment if the use interpretation made by the Tribunal were applied). In the absence of a compelling case to depart from the existing activity centre network, the rationale for the Draft Amendment is weakened, as is its compliance with the LUPAA Schedule 1 Objectives. This does not however warrant modification to the Draft Amendment.
12. Infrastructure Capacity Representation No. 3 ITEM 4.1
PAGE 17 Report to Special Council Meeting on 6 May 2013
The representation observes that no analysis of water or sewer capacity has been conducted and that the area is likely to have limited stormwater infrastructure capacity. The applicant stated in their submission that discussions with Cradle Mountain Water indicated that there was adequate water and sewer capacity to accommodate the development. Response The site is located within an existing serviced area. Any works required to accommodate commercial uses on the site would be dealt with as part of the development application process. Council’s engineer has advised that the site is located within the Chinaman’s Creek Catchment, a historically problematic catchment. If a commercial development were proposed on the site, stormwater would need to be controlled to predevelopment volumes. Again, this would need to be assessed as part of a future development application. This matter does warrant modification of the Draft Amendment.
13. TASRMPAT 168 Representation No. 3 A Bunnings outlet was previously proposed on the site but ultimately was rejected by the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal. The representor pointed out that the Tribunal decision states that the subject site is not the appropriate one for Bunnings. Response The subject application must be assessed on its merits, regardless of what comments the Tribunal made previously with regards to the site’s suitability. This matter does not warrant modification of the Draft Amendment.
14. Exclusion of 81 William Street from Draft Amendment Representation No. 7 The representation questioned the logic of excluding 81 William Street from the proposed Tasman Street Commercial Zone, labelling this as ‘ad hoc planning’. Response It is agreed that the exclusion of 81 William Street is problematic for the reasons discussed previously in response to Issue 4. Retaining a residential lot midway along a commercial frontage is not considered to represent an orderly approach to land use planning. The representation is considered to reflect the Draft Amendment’s inconsistency with the LUPAA Schedule 1 Objectives.
15. Contrary to LUPAA Schedule 1 Objectives Representation No. 8 Representation 8 includes an assessment against the Schedule 1 Objectives of LUPAA, concluding that the application is contrary to:
Part 1, Objective (b); Part 1, Objective (d); Part 2, Objective (a); Part 2, Objective (b); ITEM 4.1
PAGE 18 Report to Special Council Meeting on 6 May 2013
Part 2, Objective (c); Part 2, Objective (d); Part 2, Objective (f); Part 2, Objective (i).
Response As discussed in this report, it is agreed that the Draft Amendment is contrary to multiple objectives of LUPAA.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications associated with this report.
CONCLUSION The representors raise a number of concerns with respect to the Draft Amendment. For the Draft Amendment to be legally robust, it would be necessary to incorporate operative clauses, relevant use definitions from Planning Directive 1 and include appropriate development controls for signage and parking. An alternative approach would be to redraft the Draft Amendment to be in accordance with the current Planning Scheme structure. This could take the form of a specified departure within Part 9 allowing particular uses and incorporating development controls such as height which are not covered by the current zoning. The Draft Amendment seeks to create a new bulky goods centre, primarily intended to accommodate a Bunnings outlet and a smaller bulky goods retail tenancy. Such development should be encouraged within the City, but it is important that it occurs in a manner that is consistent with existing strategic planning framework. Unfortunately, the current strategic planning framework does not appear to provide any clear guidance for the future of the vacant industrial land at 117 Tasman Street. It does however clearly aim to consolidate bulky goods retail within precincts rather than allow for further fragmentation to occur. Consolidating homemaker retail within defined centres creates an identifiable destination with a wide range of retail offer, reducing escape spending to other centres and drawing a larger trading catchment. Co-locating such uses favours multiple-purpose trips and avoids the need for cross-town trips to compare the offer at competing outlets. Furthermore, a defined precinct allows for efficient infrastructure provision. Given that existing land is available within existing bulky goods centres and in the absence of a compelling argument as to why the existing centres are unsuitable, it is difficult to support a new zoning for a third bulky goods centre under the current policies. This is particularly the case where the site presents significant issues with respect to residential amenity. With respect to residential amenity, the impacts of the Draft Amendment in its current form would be felt most acutely by residents of 81 William Street, who would be surrounded by commercial zoning on three sides. Following assessment of the representations, it considered that the Draft Amendment is inconsistent with the LUPAA Schedule 1 Objectives.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Representation - Judy Richmond
2.
Representation - Charles & Elizabeth Jacobs
3.
Representation Alex Brownlie/GHD Pty Ltd obo Forum Project Services ITEM 4.1
PAGE 19 Report to Special Council Meeting on 6 May 2013
4.
Representation - Lester Franks / Kristina Butler
5.
Representation - Paul Ridley
6.
Representation - Michael Leary
7.
Representation - Douglas Janney
8.
Representation - Page Seager obo Kemp & Denning Limited
9.
Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
10.
Representation from DIER
11.
Representation - Peter Stegman
12.
Representation - Brent Gillard
RECOMMENDATION 1.
That Council resolve to withdraw its support for the Draft Amendment, based on the issues raised in the representations; OR
2.
If Council seeks to maintain support for the Draft Amendment, then it ought to be modified to incorporate operative clauses, relevant use definitions from PD1 and additional development controls. Alternatively, it could be redrafted to be in accordance with the structure of the current Planning Scheme; AND
3.
That this report be forwarded to the Tasmanian Planning Commission as per the requirements of Section 39 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 20 Representation - Judy Richmond
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 21 Representation - Judy Richmond
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 22 Representation - Judy Richmond
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 23 Representation - Charles & Elizabeth Jacobs
ATTACHMENT [2]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 24 Representation - Charles & Elizabeth Jacobs
ATTACHMENT [2]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 25 Representation - Charles & Elizabeth Jacobs
ATTACHMENT [2]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 26 Representation Alex Brownlie/GHD Pty Ltd obo Forum Project Services
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [3]
PAGE 27 Representation Alex Brownlie/GHD Pty Ltd obo Forum Project Services
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [3]
PAGE 28 Representation Alex Brownlie/GHD Pty Ltd obo Forum Project Services
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [3]
PAGE 29 Representation Alex Brownlie/GHD Pty Ltd obo Forum Project Services
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [3]
PAGE 30 Representation Alex Brownlie/GHD Pty Ltd obo Forum Project Services
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [3]
PAGE 31 Representation Alex Brownlie/GHD Pty Ltd obo Forum Project Services
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [3]
PAGE 32 Representation Alex Brownlie/GHD Pty Ltd obo Forum Project Services
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [3]
PAGE 33 Representation Alex Brownlie/GHD Pty Ltd obo Forum Project Services
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [3]
PAGE 34 Representation Alex Brownlie/GHD Pty Ltd obo Forum Project Services
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [3]
PAGE 35 Representation Alex Brownlie/GHD Pty Ltd obo Forum Project Services
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [3]
PAGE 36 Representation - Lester Franks / Kristina Butler
ATTACHMENT [4]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 37 Representation - Paul Ridley
ATTACHMENT [5]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 38 Representation - Michael Leary
ATTACHMENT [6]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 39 Representation - Michael Leary
ATTACHMENT [6]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 40 Representation - Douglas Janney
ATTACHMENT [7]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 41 Representation - Douglas Janney
ATTACHMENT [7]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 42 Representation - Page Seager obo Kemp & Denning Limited
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [8]
PAGE 43 Representation - Page Seager obo Kemp & Denning Limited
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [8]
PAGE 44 Representation - Page Seager obo Kemp & Denning Limited
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [8]
PAGE 45 Representation - Page Seager obo Kemp & Denning Limited
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [8]
PAGE 46 Representation - Page Seager obo Kemp & Denning Limited
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [8]
PAGE 47 Representation - Page Seager obo Kemp & Denning Limited
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [8]
PAGE 48 Representation - Page Seager obo Kemp & Denning Limited
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [8]
PAGE 49 Representation - Page Seager obo Kemp & Denning Limited
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [8]
PAGE 50 Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [9]
PAGE 51 Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [9]
PAGE 52 Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [9]
PAGE 53 Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [9]
PAGE 54 Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [9]
PAGE 55 Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [9]
PAGE 56 Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [9]
PAGE 57 Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [9]
PAGE 58 Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [9]
PAGE 59 Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [9]
PAGE 60 Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [9]
PAGE 61 Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [9]
PAGE 62 Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [9]
PAGE 63 Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [9]
PAGE 64 Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [9]
PAGE 65 Representation - The Planning Group obo Harvey Norman
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [9]
PAGE 66 Representation from DIER
ATTACHMENT [10]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 67 Representation from DIER
ATTACHMENT [10]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 68 Representation from DIER
ATTACHMENT [10]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 69 Representation from DIER
ATTACHMENT [10]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 70 Representation from DIER
ATTACHMENT [10]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 71 Representation - Peter Stegman
ATTACHMENT [11]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 72 Representation - Brent Gillard
ATTACHMENT [12]
ITEM 4.1