lot 3 appleby road, morphettville - engagement report .lot 3 appleby road, morphettville -...

Click here to load reader

Download Lot 3 Appleby Road, Morphettville - Engagement Report .Lot 3 Appleby Road, Morphettville - Engagement

Post on 25-Jul-2019

215 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • 1 | P a g e

    Lot 3 Appleby Road, Morphettville - Engagement Report

    SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY

    SEPTEMBER 2017

    Prepared by: RSA Engagement Team

  • 2 | P a g e

    ENGAGEMENT REPORT

    Background

    The Project

    Renewal SA (RSA) on behalf of the South Australian Housing Trust has begun the Renewing Our Streets and Suburbs (ROSAS) program to renew all pre-1968 SA Housing Trust housing over the next 15 years.

    In September 2015 the Development (Renewal of Social Housing) Variations Regulations were made to support the objectives of the ROSAS program. The State Co-ordinator-General (SCG) and the Development Assessment Commission (DAC) were appointed as the relevant bodies to assess the ROSAS development applications.

    Applications for dwellings and associated land division proposals will be lodged directly with the SCG, having been assessed against a set of published performance criteria. For Apartment Developments, a pre-lodgement process is undertaken that includes planning and design input from State agencies and Councils.

    As part of the SCG process, RSA consults with neighbours of apartment development proposals to canvass comments.

    Engagement Objectives & Methodology

    To provide an opportunity for residents, property owners and recent purchasers (of land adjacent to the proposed apartment site) who might have an immediate interest in the development proposal for Lot 3 Appleby Road, Morphettville, RSA held a Drop-in and Chat session on September 6 2017 at the Park Holme Library. Residents and property owners adjacent to the project site at Lot 3 Appleby Road, Morphettville, were invited (see Appendix 1) and advised that the purpose of the session was to view and discuss the redevelopment plans proposed for the site with staff from RSA and Studio 9 (Architects), and provide comments for consideration by the State Co-ordinator General as part of the planning approval process. If unable to attend this session, individuals (those invited) were encouraged to contact RSA by September 13 to discuss opportunities to view and provide comment. No approaches were received by RSA during this time.

    The key audience was neighbouring residents, property owners and recent purchasers within the engagement area (see blue area on map). A Category 2 notification (as defined within the SCG process) was determined, with an extended radius of notification and exclusion of the 3 properties directly opposite the project site on Nilpena Avenue which are Housing Trust properties (2 vacant and 1 tenant awaiting relocation). The Community Drop-in and Chat Session invitation letter was also forwarded to Marion Council. Engagement with local residents focussed on an engagement area of some 11 properties + 5 recent purchasers, (one declining the offer) identified in the map (over).

  • 3 | P a g e

    Map showing Project site (red) and Engagement (blue) area.

    Key Engagement Findings

    Eight people attended the Drop-In and Chat session of which 6 identified themselves as living within the engagement area and the remaining 2 living outside the engagement area, including Mayor Holdfast Bay Council and Liberal candidate for Morphett, Stephen Patterson.

    Participants attending the session were invited to view the plans on display (see Appendix 7) and provide comment with post-it notes on the Ideas and Comments panel or in writing by September 20 in two ways, either via email to Renewal SA or by completing a community comment form (which was provided to all attending at the Drop-In and Chat Session and which could be returned then or posted to Renewal SA using a reply-paid envelope).

    Participants engaged with team members, discussing aspects of the project plans and expressing views about the planning approach and process, impact of increased density on traffic congestion and car parking availability on Appleby Road, a dead-end road with a playground. No post-it notes (see Appendix 3) or Community Comment Forms (for the State Co-ordinator General) were received (see Appendix 4) at the Drop-in and Chat session with participants electing to take the form home to complete and return.

    Nineteen community comment submissions were received by Renewal SA after the session (see Appendix 5). Six submissions were received from residents within the engagement area and thirteen from outside the engagement area (but no further than 700 metre walk from the project area).

  • 4 | P a g e

    Key points from the submissions included

    car parking traffic congestion location suitability planning conflict proposed built form lack of consultation with local residents current greenspace and proposed streetscape safety and security concerns.

    A summary of the submissions received (ranging from located nearest to and furthest from the project area) is provided in Appendix 5.

    In addition, one of the residents from within the engagement area expressed concern at the proposed apartment building development ahead of the engagement process, submitting and receiving responses to two ministerials.

    Subsequent correspondence Letter received from Marion Council October 2017 (see Appendix 6)

    RSA has addressed each of the issues raised in the submissions and is providing information on its position/action for each within a separate document accompanying the revised architectural plans to the SCG.

    While the submissions are included in this report, the identities of the respondents (and any photographs, illustrations or text identifying or depicting their property) have been withheld from this public document in respect of personal privacy. The full details and all photographs/illustrations have been provided in confidence to the State Co-ordinator General.

  • 5 | P a g e

    Appendix 1

  • 6 | P a g e

    Appendix 2 IMAGE DEPICTING ATTENDING RESIDENTS LOCATION WITHHELD

    Appendix 3 Post it notes completed by public NIL

    IDEAS or COMMENTS is there anything that you feel has not been addressed?

    IDEAS or COMMENTS What did you think of todays drop-in and chat session?

    Appendix 4 submissions received at the Drop-in & Chat Session - NIL

  • 7 | P a g e

    Appendix 5 Submissions received after the Drop-in & Chat session (19)

    Submission Summary

    RESPONDENT NO.

    LOCATION ISSUES RAISED

    1 Within engagement area Issues with built form & location Conflicts with Marion Council DP overlooking, car parking allowance Conflicts with 30 year plan & RSA goals

    2 Within engagement area Built form & Expression Overlooking, height, transit/connected focus, design quality, Housing mix, affordability and noise emissions. Supportive of development but not four storey complex on proposed site.

    3 Within engagement area 4 storey apartment out of character for area. Existing car parking problem, privacy concerns, devaluation in area, proposed apartment location and lack of community consultation

    4 Within engagement area Oppose the proposal inconsistent with Marion Council DP, Negative impact, car parking, road safety issues and unsuitable location

    5 Within engagement area Opposition to 4 storey conflicts with what resident was told when they purchased 4 storey apartment will be 14 metres away from boundary- contradicts Marion council DP. Supportive of Morphettville renewal but opposes 4 storey

    6 Within engagement area Development not in keeping with Marion DP policy building height and privacy concerns. Conflicts with 30 year plan. Proposed project position & traffic increase RSA process not transparent

    7 Approx. 250m away from project site

    Opposition to proposal of four storey

    8 Approx. 300m away from project site

    Disagree with proposal congestion and insufficient parking

    9 300m away from project site

    Attended 2016 engagement and no mention of proposal for 4-storey apartment. Car parking, increased congestion, environment and open space concerns

    10 Approx. 300m away from project site

    4 storey apartment out of place, add to existing road congestion/cars on street, devalue area and no consultation

    11 Approx. 300m away from project site

    Lack of engagement and consultation from RSA, increase in existing traffic (Le Cornu). Safety and blind corner issue, 4-storey apartment not in keeping with the area. Questions affordable housing outcome, impact on current bird life, high density housing impact on demand for utilities and infrastructure

    12 Approx. 400m away from project site

    Objection to project, increased traffic, disturbance of peace and safety risk for horses

  • 8 | P a g e

    NO LOCATION ISSUES RAISED 13 Approx. 400m away

    from project site Opposition to 4 storey, noise and insufficient parking, suggests bridge over the creek, increased traffic flow in Le Cornu Ave particularly

    14 Approx. 400m away from project site

    Objection to 4 storey, increased traffic in Le Cornu, noise, suggesting bridge

    15 Approx. 500m away from project site

    Concerned about changes to the character of the area, car parking and infrastructure concerns

    16 Approx. 500m away from project site

    Objection to traffic caused by density increase. Insufficient parking, road congestion, not located near public transport, Questions planning bodies need to investigate development impact on roads and parking.

    17 Approx. 550m away from project site

    Totally against 4 storey apartment blocks. Current townhouses being built insufficient car parking allowance. Question about measures in place re demand on sewera