The City of Greater Geelong will consider adopting Amendment C103 at Tuesday night's meeting (28 September 2010).
This amendment affects the land borderd by Princess Street, Woodville Street, Clarendon Road and Murradoc Road in Drysdale, and is proposing to rezone the area to Residential 1. the land is currently open farm land with a creek running through the area.
Details of the amendment are documented and extracted from the Council Agenda published today in pdf format. The document is more than 9.5mb in size! More information, maps and diagrams is available within the pdf document - however the bulk of the information is reproduced below:
AMENDMENT C103 PRINCESS STREET, DRYSDALE, INFILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA – CONSIDERATION OF PANEL REPORT AND ADOPTION
Portfolio: Planning - Cr Katos
Source: Economic Development, Planning and Tourism – Strategic
Implementation
General Manager: Peter Bettess
Index Reference: Project: Amendment C103
Subject: Council Reports 2010
Summary
- The purpose of this report is to consider the Panel Report for Amendment C103 and adopt the Amendment. The Amendment seeks to facilitate the development of land for residential purposes directly south-east of the Drysdale town centre.
- The applicant for this Amendment is St. Quentin Consulting Pty Ltd, acting on behalf of Urban Land Developments (ULD) Pty Ltd, who is the principal landowner.
- The Amendment applies to land generally bounded by Clarendon Road, Princess Street, Woodville Street and to the rear of the Business 4 zoned properties fronting Murradoc Road. The Amendment area consists of eleven titles and has a total area of 28 hectares.
- The Amendment proposes to rezone the land to Residential 1 Zone and incorporate a Development Plan Overlay (DPO). It is also proposed to apply the DPO to adjacent vacant land which is already zoned Residential 1, to ensure an integrated development plan is prepared for the entire site.
- The Amendment is consistent with the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan, adopted April 2009. The Amendment to implement the Structure Plan (C194) into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme was considered simultaneously with this Amendment and was referred to a joint Panel Hearing.
- The Amendment is accompanied by a Section 173 Agreement which addresses contributions to community infrastructure, open space, road upgrades and drainage.
- Exhibition of Amendment C103 between 14 November 2009 and 18 January 2010 resulted in the receipt of 15 submissions, of which 11 objected to the Amendment or raised concerns.
- At its meeting of 23 March 2010 Council decided to refer the submissions to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning. The Panel was held on 12, 13 and 14 May 2010 at City Hall, Geelong.
- The Panel formed the view that the rezoning of the land and the application of the DPO is strongly supported by State and Local Planning policy, and consistent with the adopted Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan 2009 and Amendment C194.
- It is therefore recommended that Council adopt Amendment C103 generally as recommended by the Panel.
Recommendation:
That Council:
1) Adopt Amendment C103 as contained in Appendix 3-3 to this report;
2) Submit the adopted Amendment together with the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval, subject to receipt of signed Section 173 Agreements from a majority of landowners; and
3) Sign and seal the Section 173 Agreements accompanying the Amendment.
Report
Background
Amendment C103 has been prepared following a request by St Quentin Consulting Pty Ltd, acting on behalf of Urban Land Developments (ULD). The Amendment seeks to facilitate the development of land for residential purposes directly south-east of the Drysdale town centre. The Amendment applies to land generally bounded by Clarendon Road and Princess Street to the east and west respectively, Woodville Street on the south and to the rear of the Business 4 zoned properties fronting Murradoc Road (see Appendix 3-1 aerial map).
The Amendment proposes to rezone the land from Farming Zone and Low Density Residential Zone to Residential 1 Zone, and incorporate a Schedule 22 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO22) into the Planning Scheme. It is noted that the area to be covered by the DPO shall exceed the land to be rezoned, to include existing Residential 1 zoned properties that will require integration with the site.
The Amendment is accompanied by a Section 173 Agreement which addresses contributions to community infrastructure, road upgrades, drainage and public open space. The Amendment is considered to be consistent with the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan, adopted April 2009. The Amendment to implement the Structure Plan (C194) was considered simultaneously with this Amendment. Amendment C103 was exhibited between 14 November 2009 and 18 January 2010.
Discussion
A total of 15 submissions were received as a result of the exhibition of the Amendment. Three submissions were from Authorities (Barwon Water, the CCMA and VicRoads) that either supported or did not object to the Amendment. ULD lodged a supporting submission and acknowledge that a section 173 agreement is the best way to implement the developer contributions required. The submission included suggested minor modifications to the DPO schedule.
The landowner at 44-50 Clarendon Road raised concerns as to the content of the Section 173 Agreement, in particular that a disproportionate amount of development contributions is allocated to their property and that further clarification on the proposed decision to widen Clarendon Road is required.
Two of the other directly affected landowners (12-20 & 22-40 Clarendon Road) lodged a joint submission prepared by Whyte, Just & Moore Lawyers, stating they wish to preserve the current character and use of their properties and therefore object to the Amendment. It is noted that the landowner of 22-40 Clarendon Road, by way of a letter dated 15 April 2010, has withdrawn his objection
The remaining landowners subject to the DPO, who did not lodge a submission, are considered to be generally supportive of the Amendment.
Other submitters objected to the Amendment on various grounds including: that the proposal would destroy the "rural aspect" of Drysdale; increase in traffic congestion; the loss of amenity during the construction period; and any development should be for low density residential only. The north adjoining landowner to the subject land at 76-98 Murradoc Road sought clarification on interface and acquisition matters.
At its meeting of 23 March 2010 Council decided to refer the submissions to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning. The Panel was held on 12, 13 and 14 May 2010 at City Hall in Geelong.
The Panel has now provided its report to Council and recommended on page 40 that:
"…Amendment C103 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme should be adopted..."
A full copy of the Panel's report is available in the Councillor's lounge and on Council's website. The summary and recommendations of the Panel are shown in Appendix 3-2. A summary of the key issues raised in the submissions, the Panel's response and Council officer comments are provided below:
Strategic justification
The Panel was of the view that the rezoning of the land and the application of the DPO22 was strongly supported by State and Local Planning Policy. The Panel further stated: "The proximity of the land to the Drysdale Town Centre, its abuttal to business and industrial uses to its north and the availability of services to the land also provide strategic support to allow development at higher densities at this location" (Panel Report p. 17-18).
Officer Response
Council officers agree with the Panel's conclusions.
Residential 1 Zone
Concerns raised by submitters who opposed the Amendment ranged from whether residential development of the land is necessary and appropriate, to landscape and environmental impacts and infrastructure requirements.
The Panel inspected the site and noted it is degraded and almost devoid of vegetation, and was of the opinion that the rural landscape values do not outweigh the contribution the proposal will make to the future development of Drysdale. The Panel considers that sites like this one should be developed for residential purposes, relieving continual pressure for development outside township boundaries, which in turn enables more intact and higher quality rural landscapes to be protected.
The Panel accepted that rezoning the land will not make a significant contribution, in terms of total numbers, to the overall housing market. However, the Panel considered that the land's proximity to the Drysdale town centre, and the opportunity to include higher densities within walking distance of it, would result in a positive contribution to the housing market. The Panel also suggested that the proponent and Council may wish to consider adopting a higher lot ratio, particularly in the northern part of the site, and recommended revising the 'Key Development and Increased Housing Diversity Areas July 2009' Incorporated Document to reflect the rezoning.
The Panel noted that the development concept plan included in the proponent's submission shows that the area either side of the creek will be set aside as open space and that the creek will be rehabilitated with a series of ponds. The Panel considered that this will be a vast improvement on existing conditions and will create an opportunity to improve the habitat for both flora and fauna.
The Panel recognised that development of the site for residential purposes will increase the number of car movements along Woodville Street, requiring the construction of a road which will change the character of the area. The Panel considered that the change in character is an inevitable consequence of development but that does not negate the benefits to be gained from the rezoning.
The Panel referred to the Structure Plan which recommends that the site should be developed for residential, rather than industrial or commercial purposes, noting that increased residential development in and around the Drysdale Town Centre will provide increased stimulus for economic activity. With respect to owners who do not wish to develop their land, the Panel noted that rezoning the land to Residential 1 does not place an obligation on existing owners to redevelop their land.
Officer Response
Council officers agree with the Panel's conclusions and recommendations. The recommendation to consider increasing the density of development from 10 lots/ha to 15 lots/ha by including larger allotments south of the business zone and closer to Princess Street to facilitate medium density housing is supported. Additional wording to the DPO22 will help provide for such actions.
The recommendation to consider including part of the site within the 'Increased housing diversity area' identified in the 'Key Development and Increased Housing Diversity Areas, City of Greater Geelong, July 2009' Incorporated Document, to reflect the rezoning and provide support for any future medium density housing, is also supported. It is considered that Amendment C103 presents the most appropriate and logical mechanism to achieve this change, and is shown at Appendix 3-3. This change is considered to be 'policy neutral' and will not impact on the relevant landowners.
Overlays affecting the land
3 submissions were received regarding the proposed Schedule 22 to the DPO. The proponent (ULD) suggested a number of minor changes, the most significant being a requirement that planning permits for subdivision include a condition for a Section 173 Agreement with respect to infrastructure contributions. VicRoads submitted that sealed shoulders would be required for the intersection of Murradoc Road and Clarendon Road, notwithstanding the provision of thru access from Mortimer Street and Urbis Planning Consultants on behalf of ALDI Stores, were opposed to a direct pedestrian link into its site from the Amendment land.
In its response to the position of VicRoads, the Panel accepted the expert evidence presented by Mr Walsh of Cardno Grogan Richards (on behalf of ULD) that, based on vehicle access to the land being provided from Mortimer Street and the projected relatively low increase of vehicle movements at the intersection of Murradoc and Clarendon Roads, improvements to this intersection will not be required.
The Panel did not support the Urbis objection, stating: "… allowing for pedestrian access from the subject land to the supermarket/specialty shop site in its layout will provide residents with the option of being able to walk to this facility if built. On this basis, the Panel is of the opinion that reference to a 'pedestrian/cycle link' should be included on the Concept Plan in the DPO, even though whether it can be provided will largely depend on the outcome of Amendment C208" (Panel Report p. 30).
In reviewing the wording contained in both the Council and proponent versions of the DPO22 (which the Panel noted are for the main part similar), the Panel adopted the Council version to which it made some further minor changes, including some matters requested by the proponent. The Panel also recommended the Concept Plan be modified as follows: (1) Remove the words "Intersection upgrade" at the intersection of Murradoc Road and Clarendon Road; and (2) Remove the "arrow" and words "future B4 expansion" from land on the south side of Murradoc Road.
The Panel provided a brief discussion on other applicable overlays to Amendment C103; that being the Schedule 14 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO14) and Heritage Overlay 1620: Drysdale Commercial Heritage Area (HO1620). It was the Panel's opinion that it would be appropriate and reasonable to delete the DDO14 and that Council may wish to review the location of the eastern boundary of the HO1620, as it relates to the land affected by Amendment C103.
Officer Response
Council officers generally agree with the Panel's conclusions and recommendations. There was agreement at the Panel Hearing between Council and ULD to include wording in the DPO22 to the effect that a permit for subdivision must require a Section 173 Agreement be entered into. The DPO22 Concept Plan showing "future B4 expansion" will also be changed to reflect the Amendment C194 (Drysdale – Clifton Springs Structure Plan) Panel recommendation to identify this area for "medium – long term urban consolidation", pending the completion of an Urban Design Framework and examination of any future expansion of the Business 4 Zone.
Officers support the finding of the Panel that improvements to the intersection of Murradoc and Clarendon Roads are not warranted. Following Council's decision to abandon the termination of Mortimer Street and provide thru access to Murradoc Road, it was accepted that the Murradoc Road / Mortimer Street intersection would need to be upgraded and the traffic volumes utilising Clarendon Road would be significantly reduced. The position of VicRoads is appreciated and it is noted that the DPO22 will require the completion of a Road Safety Audit. Should the audit determine that, as a consequence of the development, the intersection of Murradoc and Clarendon Roads requires upgrading, there is an expectation that this work would be translated as conditions on any applicable subdivision permit.
Though not specifically raised by the Panel, Officers consider it necessary to modify the wording of the DPO22 regarding staging of the development. Works are to commence on the western portion of the site to better integrate the residential estate with adjoining developed urban land. Due to an oversight, the exhibited Amendment did not provide for the deletion of the DDO14. Council officers requested that this matter be addressed as part of C103. The Panel was of the view that this matter is 'policy neutral' and, given the separation of the land from the low density residential area to the south, it considered its removal would not have a material affect on that area.
It is intended that the Structure Plan will be modified to include reference to review the extent of the HO1620 as it applies to the Amendment C103 land.
Section 173 Agreement
A supporting submission was received from the proponent stating that a Section 173 Agreement was the most appropriate mechanism to deal with developer contributions. A submission from the owners of one property affected by the Amendment raised concerns about the detail of any Agreement associated with the subdivision of their land, rather than whether the use of an Agreement was appropriate.
The Panel supported the use of an Agreement stating: "Having considered the submissions and the expert evidence provided by Mr Matt Ainsaar, the Panel agrees that a Section 173 Agreement is the most appropriate mechanism in this case, in providing a legally binding agreement to ensure that required works are undertaken, whilst still being responsive to individual owners' timing to develop their properties" (Panel Report p. 36).
Officer Response
Council officers agree with the Panel's conclusions.
76 to 98 Murradoc Road, Drysdale
A submission was received from David Curtain Consulting P/L on behalf of landowners G & G van Beek, who believe that any interface treatment that may be required along their property boundary should be located on the Amendment land. The submitter also sought details regarding compensation for any loss of land and who would be responsible for the cost of any footpaths and road works associated with the future widening of Clarendon Road, where adjoining their property.
The Panel formed the opinion that in the event that all or part of the van Beek land is included in the Business 4 Zone in the future, the onus will be on its owner/developer to ensure that any development and use comply with the zone provisions, including to protect nearby residential amenity. The Panel considers the DPO22 Concept Plan could be modified, removing reference to "Interface treatment" where adjoining 76–98 Murradoc Road. In relation to the widening of Clarendon Road, the Panel believe this is a matter to be dealt with at such time as this site is developed.
Officer Response
Council officers do not entirely support the Panel conclusions, particularly the removal of the "Interface treatment" reference in the Concept Plan. The Panel's view would appear to be at odds with the Burton Acoustic Report 2008, prepared by the proponent, which identified Greater City Fencing at 71-74 Murradoc Road as a significant generator of noise requiring reduction by barrier and/or buffer, including to part of the van Beek boundary. It is considered the reference to an "Interface treatment" should remain and there is sufficient flexibility in the wording of the DPO to ensure a reasonable and appropriate outcome.
Community Consultation
The Drysdale Clifton Springs Community Association criticised the extent of the informal notification and consultation by Council prior to the preparation of the Amendment. The request of the representative of the Association was that the Panel recommend the Amendment not be adopted, based on the poor initial consultation with the community.
Officer Response
The Panel provided the following brief response which Council officers support: "The Panel is satisfied that the Council met its statutory obligations in relation to giving notification of the Amendment. It is not in a position to be able to comment on the method used and extent of any informal consultation the Council may have undertaken prior to its exhibition" (Panel Report p. 39).
In summary, the Panel recommended some minor drafting changes to the proposed Schedule 22 to the DPO, which is considered to improve the intent and clarity of the development control, and generally supported. The Panel supported a rezoning of the land to the Residential 1 Zone and deletion of the DDO14. Appendix 3-3 contains map changes and revisions to the DPO22 to be adopted, to be forwarded to the Minister for implementation into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
Environmental Implications
The Amendment is considered to be consistent with the City's Environmental Considerations – A Guide for Decision Makers.
The location and context of the site, in close proximity to the town centre, will result in an efficient use of energy and greenhouse gas emissions from reduced car dependence and availability of services and infrastructure. It is expected that the future residents will be more likely to walk to the town centre, encouraged by the short distance and pedestrian links shown in the DPO.
The provision of potable water will be to the requirements of Barwon Water and all future residential development must be compliant with the current building regulations of Victoria. The proposal is inclusive of a vegetation report which concludes that no significant vegetation is to be found on the site other than one isolated Manna Gum and native riparian species within the natural waterway. This vegetation will be protected and enhanced under the provisions of the DPO.
The requirements of the DPO and Clause 56.07 of the Planning Scheme will ensure the quality of storm water runoff entering the waterway meets best practice guidelines. The subject land eventually discharges into two lakes within the McLeods Waterholes Reserve which exhibit significant habitat values.
Air quality and aesthetic impacts from the operations on the Business 4 Zone to the north can be addressed as part of the Development Plan Overlay.
Financial Implications
The Amendment is not expected to result in any significant financial implications for Council, other than those usually associated with the processing of planning applications. The Section 173 Agreement exhibited with the Amendment requires that developers pay a contribution of $900 per residential lot toward community facilities. These community facilities are expected to include a 'regional and community learning hub'.
Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications
The proposal is consistent with current policy, including the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework. The proposal is consistent with the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan, adopted April 2009.
Officer Direct or Indirect
No Council officers involved in the preparation of this report are known to have a direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the report relates as per Section 80C(1),(2) of the Local Government Act.
Risk Assessment
There are not expected to be any significant risks associated with implementing or not implementing the recommendations in this report.
Social
The proposed Amendment is expected to have a positive social impact on the community. The proposed Section 173 Agreement exhibited with the Amendment requires that developers pay a contribution of $900 per residential lot toward community facilities. These community facilities are expected to include a 'regional and community learning hub'. The proposed DPO schedule includes the requirements for a local playground of a minimum of 0.5 hectares, located generally central to the development and incorporating children's play facilities and park furniture. The playground will be readily accessible to the natural east-west waterway, which is to be enhanced with a shared walking/cycle track and landscape elements, and designated as a public reserve.
Communication
The Amendment was exhibited for a two month period in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act, 1987.
Council Officers have held face-to-face meetings with all landowners directly affected by the Amendment and corresponding section 173 agreement. The purpose of the meetings primarily was to explain how the proposed section 173 agreement would operate to provide for developer contributions and an equitable apportionment of costs.
Submitters were invited to make presentations to an Independent Panel.
It is noted that following the 23 March 2010 Council resolution to refer the submissions to a Panel, Council officers decided to abandon the termination of Mortimer Street (as stated in the exhibited DPO22) and provide thru access to the future residential estate from Murradoc Road. All property owners and occupiers facing Mortimer Street were subsequently notified of this change by letter dated 22 April 2010. No submissions were received regarding this matter.
Summary
Amendment C103 was prepared at the request of Urban Land Developments (ULD). The Amendment seeks to facilitate the development of land directly to the south-east of the Drysdale town centre for residential purposes.
The Amendment applies to land generally bounded by Clarendon Road and Princess Street to the east and west respectively, Woodville Street to the south and the rear of the Business 4 zoned properties fronting Murradoc Road, to the north.
The Amendment will rezone the land from Farming and Low Density Residential to Residential 1 and apply a new Schedule 22 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO). It is noted that the area to be covered by the DPO22 includes some existing Residential 1 zoned properties, fronting Princess Street. The purpose of including these properties in the DPO is to ensure any development on them is integrated with the land to be rezoned by the Amendment.
The Amendment was accompanied by a draft of the Section 173 Agreement which will be required in association with subdivision of land. These Agreements will require contributions to community infrastructure, road upgrades, drainage and public open space. As exhibited, the draft Schedule 22 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO22) does not include a trigger to require such an Agreement. This is a matter that has now been addressed by the Council and proponent and revised wording of the DPO22 was submitted to the Panel by these parties.
Amendment C103 was exhibited between 14 November 2009 and 18 January 2010 and of the 15 submissions received, eight objected to the Amendment. The remainder of submissions either supported the amendment or raised specific issues relating to the DPO22 and the need for a Section 173 Agreement.
Having considered the submissions made to it and also in writing to the Council (the Planning Authority) the Panel has formed the view that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Drysdale - Clifton Springs Structure Plan, adopted by Council in April 2009 and Amendment C194, which have also been considered by this Panel. The Panel recommends that the land be included in the Residential 1 Zone and that DPO22 be adopted in the revised form included in Appendix A of this Report.
Recommendations
Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that Amendment C103 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme should be adopted subject to the modified form of Schedule 22 of the Development Plan Overlay included in Appendix A and with the following additional changes to the Concept Plan contained in that Schedule:
- Remove the words "Intersection upgrade" at the intersection of Murradoc Road and Clarendon Road.
- Remove the "arrow" and words "future B4 expansion" from land on the south side of Murradoc Road.
- Remove the "Interface treatment" symbol from that part of the land abutting 76 to 98 Murradoc Road.
The Panel is also of the opinion that Schedule 14 to the Design and Development Overlay that applies over that part of the land currently in the Low Density Residential Zone could be deleted as part of this Amendment. If this is not accepted the Council will need to prepare a further Amendment to this effect.
In addition to the above recommendations the Panel makes the following comments for the consideration of Council:
- that the proponent and Council consider increasing the density of development from 10 lots/ha up to 15 lots/ha, which may be by providing larger allotments close to Princess Street and the adjoining business zone to facilitate medium density development closer to the Town Centre;
- That Council consider including all or part of this site within the 'Increased housing diversity area' identified in the "Key Development and Increased Housing Diversity Areas", City of Greater Geelong, July 2009 to reflect the rezoning and provide support any future medium density development; and
- That Council consider reviewing the extent of the Heritage Overlay HO1620 as it relates to the land affected by Amendment C103.
No comments:
Post a Comment