port lincoln council residential development plan ... · port lincoln council residential...

Port Lincoln Council

Residential Development Plan Amendment

Summary of Consultation and Proposed Amendments (SCPA) Report

NOVEMBER 2016

N20164157

Port Lincoln Council Residential Development Plan Amendment

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

Consultation ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Consultation Process .................................................................................................................................... 1 Public Notification .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Public and Agency Submissions ........................................................................................................................ 1 Public Submissions ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Agency Submissions ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Review of Submissions and Public Meeting ................................................................................................. 2

Additional Matters and Investigations ................................................................................................................. 2

Timeframe Report ............................................................................................................................................... 2

CEO’s Certification ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Summary of Recommended Changes to the Amendment following Consultation ............................................. 3

Attachment A – Summary and Response to Public Submissions .............................................. 5

Attachment B – Summary and Response to Public Meeting Submissions ............................. 17

Attachment C – Timeframe Report .............................................................................................. 21

Attachment D – Schedule 4A Certificate ..................................................................................... 22

Attachment E – Schedule 4B Certificate ..................................................................................... 24

Attachment F – Additional Matters and Investigations ............................................................. 26


SCPA Report

1

Introduction

This report is provided in accordance with Section 25(13) of the Development Act 1993 to identify matters raised during the consultation period and any recommended alterations to the amendment. The report also provides details of the consultation process undertaken by Council.

The SCPA Report should be read in conjunction with the consultation version of the DPA. Where relevant, any new matters arising from the consultation process are contained in this Report.

The Amendment reflects the recommendations of Council contained in this Report.

Consultation

Consultation Process

Statutory consultation with agencies and the public was undertaken in accordance with DPA process B (consultation approval not required) and in accordance with Section 25(6) of the Development Act 1993; Regulations 10 and 11 of the Development Regulations 2008; and the agreed Statement of Intent.

The following Local Member(s) of Parliament were consulted on the DPA:

(a) Peter Treloar, Member for Flinders

No comments were received.

The consultation period ran from 5 November 2015 to 21 January 2016.

Public Notification

A tailored community consultation program occurred in relation to the DPA in accordance with the Development Plan Amendments Community Engagement Strategy adopted by Council on 2 November 2016.

Notices were published in the Port Lincoln Times on 5 November 2015 and the Government Gazette on 5 November 2015.

The DPA documents were also on display and were made available at the City of Port Lincoln Council Offices, Level One, Civic Centre, 60 Tasman Terrace, Port Lincoln and City of Port Lincoln Library, 2 London Street, Port Lincoln. A copy of the DPA was forwarded to the Department of Planning and Local Government on 5 November 2015. An electronic information sheet was also available on Council’s website explaining key elements of the DPA, the consultation process and inviting attendance to the information sessions held on 24 November 2015 and the Public Meeting scheduled for 8 February 2016.

A letter of advice including the information sheet and inviting comment was forwarded to property owners directly affected by the proposed changes within the Residential DPA document.

Two information sessions were held on 24 November 2015. Around 30 people attended the sessions which were formatted as an information presentation and opportunity for questions/answers for clarification.

Letters were also sent to more than 12 government agencies, District Council of Lower Eyre and other local and regional stakeholders.

Public and Agency Submissions

Public Submissions

Twenty two (22) public submissions were received by Council at the conclusion of the statutory consultation period. Key issues raised in the submissions are summarised as follows:

(a) Comments regarding the proposed changes from Rural Living to Residential Zone in Reevesby Court

(b) Delivery, funding and timing of future infrastructure

Port Lincoln Council Residential Development Plan Amendment SCPA Report

2

(c) Requests for rezoning of additional land to Residential or Residential Hills Zone

(d) Concerns over potential increase in Council rates

(e) Non complying triggers for infrastructure.

A report on each submission (summary, comments, and action taken in response to each submission) is included in Attachment A.

Agency Submissions

Eight (8) responses were received from agencies. Key issues raised in the responses are summarised as follows:

(a) Infrastructure in Residential Hills Zone to be appropriately managed including the possible requirement for Infrastructure Agreements.

(b) Minor updates to Residential Zone Desired Character.

(c) Exclusion of Residential Flat Building(s) in Precinct 1 Happy Valley.

(d) Ensuring adequate separation distances between future residential development and DK Quarry.

(e) Need for additional stormwater management and water quality policies.

(f) Landfill risk within the Residential Zone.

Review of Submissions and Public Meeting

Copies of all submissions were made available for public review from 22 January 2015 to 8 February 2016 at the Civic Centre, Level 1, 60 Tasman Terrace, Port Lincoln.

Ten submitters requested to be heard, and therefore a public meeting was held on Monday 8 February 2016 at the Civic Centre, Level 1, 60 Tasman Terrace, Port Lincoln. A copy of the proceedings and a summary of verbal submissions made at the public meeting are included in Attachment B.

Additional Matters and Investigations

The following additional matters were identified and the following investigations conducted after the consultation process:

(a) Road link between Happy Valley Road and Flinders Highway as denoted on Map PtL/6 Happy Valley Environs (b) Road upgrade costs for Nootina Road

(c) Master planning for Precinct 10 Northern and initial road cost assessment

(d) Water and waste water infrastructure and delivery

(e) Additional stormwater and road infrastructure investigations for Precinct 4

Southern A copy of additional investigations and documents is provided in

Attachment F

Timeframe Report

A summary of the timeframe of the DPA process relative to the agreed Statement of Intent timetable is located at Attachment C.

Delay(s) occurred because:

(a) Council resources and attention focussed on preparation of the draft Greater Port Lincoln Structure Plan during

2012/13 and addressing strategic planning matters (i.e. extent of land for future residential development) outstanding following the cessation of this project.


SCPA Report

3

(b) Council taking a leading role in facilitating the infrastructure negotiations process and seeking suitable investigations to the benefit of the stakeholders (including additional master planning for Precinct 10 Northern).

(c) Finalisation of waste water and water advice from SA Water.

CEO’s Certification

The consultation process has been conducted and the final amendment prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Act and Regulations as confirmed by the CEO’s Certifications provided in Attachment D (Schedule 4A Certificate) and Attachment E (Schedule 4B Certificate).

Summary of Recommended Changes to the Amendment following Consultation

The following is a summary of the recommended changes to the Amendment following consultation and in response to public submissions and/or agency comments:

(a) Amend General Section Design and Appearance module Principle 18 to increase width of buffer and insert need

for stormwater channel

(b) New text in Residential Zone Desired Character clarifying that development on land within 500m of the old Port Lincoln landfill will appropriately respond to any potential landfill gas risk;

(c) Additional water sensitive design policies in General Section Natural Resources module;

(d) Additional text identifying need to include riparian and riverine animal and plants in Principal 26 (Biodiversity and

Native Vegetation) of the General Section Natural Resources module;

(e) Add reference to new Concept Plan Map PtL/8 Southern in General Section Orderly and Sustainable Development Principle 10;

(f) Amend Residential Zone Desired Character to reflect comments from the EPA, DEWNR and Council’s traffic

consultant;

(g) Amend Residential Zone Precinct 4 Southern Desired Character Statement to reflect recommended wording from DPTI and comments from the EPA and Council’s further stormwater investigations;

(h) Amend Residential Hills Zone Principle 21 and non complying list to remove reference to a ‘sewage pump station”;

(i) Add new Principle in the Residential Zone seeking that waste water from development is disposed via the City’s

sewerage network

(j) Amend new Precinct 4 Southern Principle increasing road buffer width from 15 metres to 18 metres to accommodate a stormwater channel

(k) Minor amendment to Residential Hills Desired Character Statement to reflect DEWNR comment regarding

minimising road alignment and additional text to Residential Hills Precinct 10 Northern Desired Character Statement reflecting need for coordinated development based on infrastructure investigations and master planning;

(l) Delete Residential Hills Zone Principles 17 and 18 (Affordable Housing)

(m) Insert new Residential Hills Zone Principle seeking that waste water from development is disposed via the City’s

sewerage network;

(n) Amend Residential Hills Zone Principle 22 (as consulted) deleting reference to a sewage pumping station and other minor text changes based on legal advice (also reflected in the non complying list);

(o) Amend Concept Plan Map Pt:/6 to remove indicative road links between Happy Valley Road and Flinders Highway

and realign indicative road link between Happy Valley Road and Garrett Road;

Port Lincoln Council Residential Development Plan Amendment SCPA Report

4

(p) Amend Concept Plan Map PtL/7 to remove public open space and realign north-south road;

(q) Insert new Concept Plan Map PtL/8 and insert related Principle of Development Control seeking development in accordance with the Concept Plan in Residential Zone Precinct 4 Southern.

Port Lincoln Residential Development Plan Amendment

5

Attachment A – Summary and Response to Public Submissions

Report on each public submission received (including summary, comments and action taken in response)

Sub No.

Name and Address Submission Summary Comment Council Response

1. Wayne Miller Reevesby Court

1. Initially supported proposed rezoning of Reevesby Court but changed mind due to: − Affordability – land value will

rise − Conservation – native

vegetation protected under LMA. LMA need to be released or reserve areas created

− Viability – does not consider individual landholder could achieve viable subdivision, need people to group together

− Does not support extension of Reevesby Court to Robertson Road due to increased traffic (road could be a shortcut) and potential need to relocate power lines.

Noted.

As part of previous investigations Council identified that Reevesby Court had opportunity to increase density within close proximity to the city centre and with infrastructure in place or within reasonable distance.

The area contains existing native vegetation, however, none is assessed as being worthy of future protection. Additional text will be added to the Desired Character Statement (DSC) for Precinct 2 Lincoln Central seeking that retention of native vegetation is encouraged, where it forms a useable green link and meets bushfire safety risk criteria.

Grouping or collaboration between landowners to cross subsidise cost of subdivision is typical and would be encouraged by Council.

An extension of Reevesby Court is identified as a possible outcome in the Desired Character Statement. Subject to appropriate road design outcomes and infrastructure requirements it is considered a legible and desired new connection in this locality that could facilitate better development outcomes.

Minor amendment to Desired Character Statement for Lincoln Central Precinct seeking protection of good quality native vegetation, where possible.

2. Anderson & Victoria Blesing 1 Does not support proposed Noted. Residential infill development No change.

Port Lincoln Council Residential Development Plan Amendment Attachment A — Summary and Response to Public Submissions

6

Sub No.


Reevesby Court rezoning of Reevesby Court to Residential. Would have negative effect on area and increase noise pollution and road traffic with decreased vegetation and birdlife.

2 Does not support proposed extension of Reevesby Court to link with Roberston Road.

3 Concerned that rezoning will lead to higher council rates.

4 Would we be required to pay for and/or connect to new sewage infrastructure.

5 Not fully opposed to subdivision but proposed rezoning will threaten lifestyle.

could alter existing amenity derived from very low density living, However, adequate policies are contained in the Development Plan to ensure good development outcomes for the subject land and streetscape.

An extension of Reevesby Court is identified as a possible outcome in the Desired Character Statement. Subject to appropriate road design outcomes and infrastructure requirements it is considered a legible and desired new connection in this locality that could facilitate better development outcomes.

Having regard to the basis of Council revenue raising and rates determination, it cannot be assumed that a change in zoning will directly or automatically result in increased rates assessments for affected properties.

It is likely that new sewer infrastructure will be required to facilitate residential development. This can be adequately addressed at land division stage and cost would be borne by landowner/developer. Grouping or collaboration between landowners to cross subsidise cost of subdivision is typical and would be encouraged by Council.

3. Sam & Kate Jervis Milton Avenue

1 Pleased with proposed rezoning of our land.

2 Concept Plan PtL/7 shows major connector road from Milton Avenue to Boundary Road. This consumes a significant portion of our developable land.

Noted.

The final location of the road is subject to detailed master planning as part of a collaborative approach to the development of this Precinct. The loss of developable land within certain

No change.


7

Sub No.


3 Seek clarification on who is responsible for construction and cost of road.

4 Request that development of our land which fronts Milton Road should be allowed before connector road is constructed

allotments will be a matter for the landowners to agree between them and identify if compensation is required. The construction of the connector road would be the responsibility of the landowner/developer.

Land division is listed as non complying before the road is constructed or legal agreement to ensure residential development is not ad-hoc, nor results in an illegible or unworkable development pattern. This has been fully explored as part of the master planning process with the Northern Fringe Residents Group.

4. JM & CJ Weber Happy Valley Road

1 Not opposed to subdivision but feel that proposed rezoning would threaten current lifestyle.

2 Potential for loss of views due to future subdivision

3 Seek no change to current Rural Living Zone

As part of previous investigations Council identified that the Happy Valley Road area had opportunity to increase density in close proximity to the city centre and with infrastructure in place or within reasonable distance.

Access to views is a positive feature of this part of the Council. Dwellings may be elevated to capture town or coastal views. It is challenging to protect views on sloping land, however, General Section Design and Appearance module Principle 5 addresses protection of existing views available from neighbouring properties. No additional view protection policy is proposed.

No change.

5. Robert and Samantha Cope Barley Road

1 Support proposed zoning changes. 2 Proposed zoning changes will

ensure consistency with adjoining land and provide opportunity for reducing bushfire risk.

Noted and agreed. No change.


8

Sub No.


6. Damien and Paula Wise Wiseman Court

1 Does not support indicative road as shown on Concept Plan PtL/6.

2 Considers there are alternative options on adjacent land that connects to either Jillian Avenue, Wendland Avenue, Roslyn Street and Paige Street.

3 Concerned that a road will consume land on property, require removal of vegetation and result in loss of land value.

4 Does not consider 600sqm allotments to be of sufficient size for a septic systems.

5 Questions if a sewer system will be required.

6 Proposes that allotments should be no less than 1200sqm

7 Does not consider that traffic volumes would reach 10,500 vehicles per day along Happy Valley Road.

Council engaged specialist traffic advice to further consider future traffic volumes, potential network upgrades and new road/links required to accommodate future development (maximum build out).

Council’s traffic consultant advises that the volume of traffic generated by future development would be accommodated by the existing Happy Valley Road/Flinders Highway intersection (with some upgrade) and some ‘filtering’ of traffic into adjoining existing residential areas. Based on additional advice Council agrees to remove the indicative road links as requested. Connection to the mains waste water system would be required for future residential development. This would be typically addressed at the land division stage. Septic systems to dispose of waste water is not considered appropriate for future residential development in the proposed zone. The amendment proposes a minimum site area of 600 square metres that increases subject to the slope of a particular parcel of land. On steeper land, the minimum site size is 900 square metres. This is considered sufficient to accommodate an appropriate building envelope and retain useable land for private open space and access purposes. The proposed minimum site size of 600sqm is greater than the majority of the Residential Zone where the minimum site area for a semi-detached dwelling is 300sqm.

Amend Concept Plan Map PtL/6 to remove indicative road links between Happy Valley Road and Flinders Highway.


9

Sub No.


7. Nigel & Teresa Melzner Milton Avenue

1. Supports proposed rezoning of area to the north of Milton Avenue. − Generally support the objectives

and desired character statement for the Residential Hills Zone.

− Do not support Zone Principles 17 and 18.

− Do not support Zone Principle 21 as clause is only imposed on this Precinct, there is existing infrastructure along Milton Ave (and allotments facing onto this road), land division can occur elsewhere in Port Lincoln where supported by existing infrastructure and would ensure some level of early land division.

− Requests that Principle 21 is removed or an additional text inserted that states that “land division may occur in Precinct 10 Northern provided it can be adequately serviced by existing infrastructure and is not reliant on either the link road to Boundary Road or the sewer pumping station”.

Noted.

Council agrees that Principles 17 and 18 should be removed.

Council does not agree that Principle 21 (as consulted) should be amended as requested as the proposed policies are considered to be a reasonable mechanism to ensure that future subdivision and residential development is delivered in a coordinated manner that ensures necessary infrastructure is provided.

Delete Residential Hills Zone Principles of Development Control 17 and 18.

8. SK Planning on behalf of Mr & Mrs Thompson Walter Street

1 Disappointed that after lengthy discussions with Council over many years that land is not proposed for rezoning.

2 Also note that no policy changes are proposed for the Rural Landscape Protection Zone.

3 Considers that road access to land is readily accessible and that lower parts of land are below AHD 122m

Council has reviewed this request and agrees that the portion of land below AHD 122m contour is appropriate for rezoning to Residential Hills Zone. However, the land within this expanded area is not under sole ownership and this proposed change is not considered minor.

On this basis, Council will request that

Seek approval from the Minister for Planning to ‘split’ the DPA.


10

Sub No.


contour (recognising that water supply can be provided above this line nowadays).

4 Requests that lower part of land below AHD 122m contour is incorporated into proposed Residential Hills (Walter Precinct).

the DPA be ‘split’ and this component be subject to additional investigation and consultation.

9. Milton & Julie Hunt 1 Does not support proposed rezoning if results in higher Council rates.

2 Considers they may need to sell if rates did increase.


No change.

10. Lukin Corporation 1 Identifies that subject land not included within area proposed for rezoning to Residential Hills.

2 Considers that land is best piece of

land in Port Lincoln for subdivision.

3 Outlines family history in economic and land development activities in Port Lincoln. Puts forward strong ability to deliver development.

4 Considers that delivery of water and sewer can be achieved for development above the AHD 122m contour.

5 Outlines that land has good access, no granite bedrock issues, no viable primary production use, no native vegetation, is not highly visible from

As part of the DPA investigations, Council identified likely future dwelling yield and demand and considered the areas for contiguous and appropriate expansion of residential zoned land in an orderly manner. As part of this process, Council reviewed all Rural Landscape Protection zoned land with an overarching intent to retain a significant portion of this finite land resource for the longer term.

This review included land under the ownership of the Lukin Corporation, however, current property boundaries meant that land extended above the AHD 122m contour and into the upper reaches of the northern part of Council towards Winter Hill.

The submission requests only a

Seek approval from the Minister for Planning to ‘split’ the DPA.


11

Sub No.


other parts of Council and close to CBD.

6 Requests that land be rezoned to Residential Hills with potential for own precinct to be created.

portion of the large land holding to be rezoned, namely, below the AHD 122m contour and with direct access to the Flinders Highway.

Council has reviewed this requests and agrees that the portion of land below AHD 122m contour is appropriate for potential rezoning to Residential Hills Zone.

The request cannot be considered as a minor inconsequential amendment to this DPA and further investigation is required including infrastructure assessment, policy formulation and consultation. On this basis. Council will request that the land be incorporated as part of a ‘split’ DPA.

11. SK Planning on behalf of Mrs Ann Lukin

1. Requests rezoning of Lot 746 from Rural Landscape Protection to Residential Hills Zone

2. Identities reasons to allow rezoning,

See response to Submission No. 12.

No change.


12

Sub No.


namely: − Land allows for flexible

subdivision patterns − Not viable for primary production − No significant issues with

granite − No backdrop function − Access to Winter Hill Drive and

Flinders Highway − Close proximity to city − Potential views − Single land owner

3. Considers that Lot 746 performs better in site specific assessment against criteria in Land Priority Analysis compared to Study Area 9 as a whole

.

12. SK Planning on behalf of the Northern Fringe Residents Group,

1. Group supports proposed rezoning.

2. Considers that requirement for a road link unnecessarily constrains development potential and needs to be rethought.

3. Strong view that requirement for

sewer pump station is not a Council matter. SA Water is appropriate agency to determine engineering requirements.

Noted. Not agreed. Investigations have identified a need for a road link at early stage of division of precinct. Proposed policy controls are considered necessary in order to achieve a legible and connected higher order road layout. Scything allotments from this requirement (some of which extend halfway into the precinct) is not considered an appropriate or orderly approach.

Further discussion with SA Water to be conducted in regards to need for a sewer pump station at the policy formulation stage. SA Water has advised that a water pump station is required for the Northern Precinct and other areas to be rezoned. Construction may be funded by a combination of augmentation charges

Amend Concept Plan to reflect agreed Master Plan prepared on behalf of the Group by Fyfe. Amend Principle 21 and non complying list to remove reference to sewage pump station.

Land Management Agreement is being negotiated between Council and the residents of Precinct 10. Refer Attachment F (2).


13

Sub No.


payable by developers on land sales, discounted by SA Water capital contributions and anticipated revenues.

On this basis, Council is satisfied that a pump station can be delivered as part of the normal statutory land division process, coupled with reference to provision of a pump station and the need to work with other parties such as SA Water in a Land Management Agreement(s) to be signed by each land owner.

13. MR and MC Hall 1. 2008 Living Areas Masterplan identified that subdivision could use existing road network and has good access to arterial roads.

2. Consider land is sited away from DK Quarry and other adverse environment impacts.

3. Land not used for low intensity farming and no native vegetation issues following 2009 bushfire.

4. Request land bounded by Holder Road, Lyle Drive and Frances Avenue be included in extended Residential Zone.

The area requested for rezoning is larger than the parcel of land owned by MR and MC Hall. The land is recognised as potential future residential in the Living Areas Masterplan 2008, however, this is a long term vision likely to take 25 years or more to realise.

Land is partly located within Medium and High Bushfire Risk as shown on BPA Map PtL/4. It is not separated by road or other significant physical barrier to boundary with DC Lower Eyre. Yield assessment identifies that proposed areas for rezoning will satisfy demand for plan period.

Council has identified likely future dwelling yield and demand and considered the areas for contiguous and appropriate expansion of residential areas in an orderly manner. There are other parts of the Council where residential development may be appropriate in the longer term. Future Development Plan review(s) will note

No change.


14

Sub No.


this request and evaluate accordingly as demand necessitates.

The request cannot be considered as a minor inconsequential amendment to this DPA and further investigation would be required.

14. Simon Bey & Kirsten Rough 1. Requests further information from Council regarding: − Impact of rezoning on rate

calculation − Will properties not involved in

subdivision expect a rate rise − How are properties assessed

for subdivision − Will rezoning facilitate

infrastructure delivery

Having regard to the basis of Council revenue raising and rates determination, it cannot be assumed that a change in zoning will directly or automatically result in increased rates assessments for affected properties or those not part of the rezoning process.

The Development Plan contains a qualitative and quantitative planning policies designed to guide future development including the division of land. The key policy requirements are a minimum allotment size and allotment frontage subject to the future type of land title and dwelling to be constructed.

It is intended that necessary infrastructure will be provided as part of future development.

No change

15. Brad & Kelly Greenfield 1 Do not support proposed road shown on Concept Plan Map PtL/7.

2 Considers that road would be in close proximity to dwelling and cause increased traffic and noise.

3 Suggest an upgrade of Jillian Avenue connecting to Flinders Highway via Stanley Grove.

Prior to consultation, Council engaged specialist traffic advice to consider future traffic volumes, potential network upgrades and new road/links required to accommodate future development (maximum build out).

Potential new road links are shown in ‘indicative’ form on Concept Plan Map PtL/6. The exact design and alignment of any future road would be undertaken at the appropriate stage.

Amend Concept Plan Map PtL/6 to remove indicative road links between Happy Valley Road and Flinders Highway.


15

Sub No.


That said, Council has reviewed the need for a link road between Happy Valley Road and Flinders Highway and concluded that they can be removed.

16. Sandy Rodd 1. Supports proposed rezoning of land.

Noted No change

17. Robyn Davey and Darryl Matthews 1 No objection to proposed rezoning, however, do not support proposed road shown on Concept Plan Map PtL/7.

2 Requests that road be realigned to west of existing power pole.

Prior to consultation, Council engaged specialist traffic advice to consider future traffic volumes, potential network upgrades and new road/links required to accommodate future development (maximum build out).

Potential new road links are shown in ‘indicative’ form on Concept Plan Map PtL/6. The exact design and alignment of any future road would be undertaken at the appropriate stage, however, Council does accept to realign the road to follow cadastral boundaries in this section of the Precinct.

Amend indicative road alignment between Happy Valley Road and Garrett Road on Concept Plan Map PtL/6.

18. Sheree Giles 1. Do not support proposed rezoning in Happy Valley area.

2. Considers spending money is waste of time and that new road will increase safety risks and disturb rural tranquillity.

Noted. The proposed areas for rezoning are considered to be an appropriate response to delivering Councils strategic aims in addressing future dwelling demand, and planning for longer term growth of the city.

It is not intended the Council fully fund the construction of a future road link as shown on Concept Plan PtL/6. This is a matter for negotiation with land owners.

No change.

19. Brett Baddams 1 Support proposed rezoning to Residential and consider that their land is suitable for future residential development.

Noted. No change.


16

Sub No.


2 Considers there is a need for commitment from state, local and federal governments to maintain job security and growth to ensure residential demand.

3 Considers that Port Lincoln is a great place with potential future growth.

20. Lynette Craig 1. Does not currently seek rezoning of land, however, seeks acknowledgement from Council that land is eligible to be rezoned in the future. Primarily thinking of children’s future.

2. Identifies detailed list of previous correspondence and discussion with Council regarding zoning of land.

3. Was not aware of change in zoning to Rural Landscape Protection and seeks clarification on when this occurred.

Noted. Land would be subject to future review, however, there is no timeframe for next assessment. Your request will be logged.

The applicable zoning for the subject land was most recently altered as part of the Better Development Plan (BDP) and General BDP – [9 September 2010].

This DPA updated Council’s Development Plan to better align with the SA Planning Policy Library. Previous zones were converted to the most appropriate or similar zone within the Planning Policy Library. In this case, land was rezoned to Rural Landscape Protection.

No change.

21. URPS on behalf of the estate of Mr Ian Fletcher Whillas Road

1. Requests that the DPA be amended to include the subject land, and three other residential allotments it envelopes, within the area to be rezoned from Rural Landscape Protection Zone to Residential Zone, Lincoln Central Precinct 2.

2. Proposed are to be rezoned is 10.6 hectares.

3. Notes that viticulture, restaurant and cellar door activities are not profitable. Considered to be justified as:

A letter dated 26 October 2016 was received from the new owner Teak Corp Pty Ltd withdrawing the request to rezone this land to Residential Zone.

No change.


17

Sub No.


− Contiguous − Has frontage to road network − Possible coastal views − Flexible density and layout

options − Minimal affect on native

vegetation and Kathai National Park

− Good connectivity to community infrastructure

− Will not materially change interface proposed by current DPA.

22. Paul & Anna Harders 1. Concerned with potential rate increases associated with rezoning of land to residential.

2. Do not support smaller allotments as this would change character of areas and destroy rural ambience.


The Council envisages that infill development will occur over the longer term. Adequate policies are in the Development Plan to ensure that future residential development and subdivision patterns build upon existing high amenity values.

No change.

18

Port Lincoln Council Residential Development Plan Amendment Attachment B – Summary and Response to Public Meeting Submissions

Attachment B – Summary and Response to Public Meeting Submissions

Ten submitters requested to be heard, and therefore a public meeting was held on 8 February 2016.

Sub No.

Name of Respondent Summary of Verbal Submission/Issues Raised Council Response

1. Paula and Anna Harders Concerned with rate difference between Rural Living and Residential zoned land. Do not foresee opportunity for infill development as existing housing built out to maximise views of the land. Notes that the sewer stops at the top of Hilltop Drive. Questions the need for the zoning to be changed.


2. Dean Andrew Lukin Representor’s concept is to divide land only below AHD 122 contour line. Reviewed the DPA and the land selection analysis and undertaken review of their land. Considers that land scores well against Council’s criteria (2nd highest score). Has prepared master plan for Elected Members. Notes that other land previously rezoned remains vacant and undeveloped. Suggests that Lukin can deliver and has strong track record. States that water and waste water can be connected to network further down Flinders Highway.

The points raised by Mr Lukin are noted.

As part of the DPA investigations, Council identified likely future dwelling yield and demand and considered the areas for contiguous and appropriate expansion of residential zoned land in an orderly manner. As part of this process, Council reviewed all Rural Landscape Protection zoned land with an overarching intent to retain a significant portion of this finite land resource for the longer term.

This review included land under the ownership of the Lukin Corporation, however, current property boundaries meant that land extended above the AHD 122m contour and into the upper reaches of the northern part of Council towards Winter Hill.

The submission requests only a portion of the large land holding to be rezoned, namely, below the AHD 122m contour and with direct access to the Flinders Highway.

Council has reviewed this request and agrees that the portion of land below AHD 122m contour is appropriate for potential rezoning to Residential Hills Zone. The request cannot be considered as a minor inconsequential amendment to this DPA and further investigation is required including infrastructure assessment, policy formulation and consultation. On this basis. Council will request that the land be incorporated as part of a ‘split’ DPA..

3. Nigel and Teresa Melzner Supports the proposed rezoning to Residential Hills. Happy with the Desired Character Statement, however, not happy with inclusion of Principles 17 and 18 (affordable housing).

Noted and agreed that Principles 17 and 18 should be deleted as not contextually appropriate in a Residential Hills Zone.

Not agreed to remove Principle 21 as Council considers this a prudent and


Attachment B – Summary and Response to Public Meeting Submissions

19

Sub No.


Considers Principle 21 to be unfair and not required in other precincts. Requests that Principle 21 be removed if infrastructure can already be directly provided.

necessary policy mechanism to ensure future delivery of an essential road link within the Precinct. In addition, to providing a legible base to the future road network it also provides important dual access and egress during a bushfire event. The road link cannot be readily provided by any other means. Council will further review the delivery of pump stations with SA Water at the appropriate time.

4. Mark Baade, SK Planning on behalf of Lukin Corporation

Identifies that the site is 37 hectares in size and contains no granite, existing road frontage, close to the city centre, good views and under single ownership. Considers that AHD 122m contour line is no longer valid and land can be serviced at height above this mark. Notes that Lukin Corporation has good history of development including recent land division and master planning in land near Murray’s Point. Requests that Council reviews the request and includes the land in the DPA as part of a Residential Hills Zone. Suggests that a Policy Area and Concept Plan could be prepared addressing key development issues including access, density and open space provision.

See response for Sub. No. 4.

5. Mark Baade, SK Planning on behalf of Northern Fringe Residents Group

There is general support for the proposed amendment from the Group. The Group is a cohesive and cooperative collective of 15 land owners/parcels. There are 8 allotments with frontage to Milton Avenue, 5 to Boundary Road and 3 to Lincoln Highway. Considers that the need for a road link and a sewer pump station derives from an earlier land division plan prepared by land owners. Suggests it is heavy handed to control infrastructure by a non complying trigger and future legal agreement/deed. Suggest that sewer infrastructure is a matter for the developer and can also be controlled as part of a section 51 clearance. Notes that some allotments may not need to be serviced by sewer. Requests that Council acknowledges some need for flexibility and the value of allowing for ‘low hanging fruit’

Noted. Not agreed. Investigations have identified a need for a road link at early stage of division of the Precinct. Proposed policy controls are considered necessary in order to achieve a legible and connected higher order road layout. Scything allotments from this requirement (some of which extend halfway into the precinct) is not considered an appropriate or orderly approach.

Further discussion with SA Water were conducted in regards to the need for a pump station at the policy formulation stage. SA Water has advised that a water pump station is required for the Northern Precinct and other areas to be rezoned. Construction may be funded by a combination of augmentation charges payable by developers on land sales, discounted by SA Water capital contributions and anticipated revenues. On this basis, Council is satisfied that a pump station can be delivered as part of the normal statutory land division process, coupled with reference to provision of a pump station and the need to work with other parties such as SA Water in a Land Management Agreement(s) to be signed by each land

20

Port Lincoln Council Residential Development Plan Amendment Attachment B – Summary and Response to Public Meeting Submissions

Sub No.


land division to be allowed. This would increase confidence and unlock investment for the area. The road link shown on the Concept Plan leading to the Puglisi land to the west does not make sense as this land is undeveloped and is considered to be a burden.

There are 3 properties with direct access to Lincoln Highway. Proposed policies restrict access to Lincoln Highway and will force future lots on these properties to drive through the precinct to exit via Milton Avenue.

owner.

Council recognises that the timeframe for development of the land to the west (known as the Puglisi land) is unknown. Council proposes to retain an indicative road link on Concept Plan PtL/7 but remove the need to fund and/or construct this road as part of a non complying trigger and legal agreement.

Previous discussions with DPTI (Transport) has confirmed that no additional access should be taken from the Lincoln Highway. Milton Avenue has capacity for expected future traffic volumes.

6. Mark Baade, SK Planning on behalf of Mr Vivian and Coral Thompson

Subject site is not included in land proposed to be rezoned. This is not consistent with previous discussions with Council and raised expectations over time that the land was suitable for residential development. Owners have relied on this as part of retirement plan. Notes that an indicative plan is included as part of the submission and all land proposed for rezoning lies below the AHD 122m contour line notwithstanding that the representor’s land continues further upslope. Reiterates that the boundary of any rezoned land can be below this contour line. Seeks the land to be rezoned to Residential Hills Zone and suggests that a Concept Plan may be inserted into the Development Plan to guide future development.

The points raised by Mr Baade are noted.

Council has reviewed this request and agrees that the portion of land below AHD 122m contour is appropriate for rezoning to Residential Hills Zone. However, the land within this expanded area is not under sole ownership and this proposed change is not considered minor.

On this basis, Council will request that the DPA be ‘split’ and this component be subject to additional investigation and consultation.


Attachment C – Timeframe Reports

21

Port Lincoln Council Title Development Plan Amendment Attachment C — SCPA Timeframe Report: Process A / 1 Step

Attachment C – Timeframe Report

SCPA Timeframe Report: Process B without consultation approval / 1 Step

The SOI was agreed by the Minister and Council on 25 November 2011.

Investigations conducted and draft DPA prepared

15 weeks 48 months *see below

Agency and public consultation period (report on any delays incurred by agencies

8 weeks 12 weeks Council allowed additional time due to

consultation occurring across Christmas and new year period.

Public Hearing held, submissions summarised and DPA amended in accordance with Council’s assessment of submissions. Summary of Consultations and Proposed Amendments submitted to Minister for approval.

7 weeks 9 months To fully address and complete outstanding

infrastructure (road, water, sewer and stormwater management) and master planning matters for two precincts.

* In close succession following approval of the SOI, Council (along with the District Council of Lower Eyre) commenced the Greater Port Lincoln Structure Plan. This project was undertaken in response to strategic direction and in collaboration with the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. The project necessitated a hold on other planning policy work as it sought to consider and plan for the longer term future of the region. Detailed investigations and stakeholder engagement was undertaken during the project. Ultimately, the draft Structure Plan was not endorsed by either Council following detailed discussions with the Department. The work undertaken to inform the draft Structure Plan was refined and transposed into the investigations for the Residential DPA. In this, Council had to carefully analyse and agree to the extent of land proposed to be rezoned to ensure it was logical and achieved a good planning outcome for the city. Liaison with Government Agencies and consultant input was sought which was time consuming but ultimately important to achieve consensus on the amount of land sought to be rezoned.

Key steps Length of time agreed in SOI

Actual time taken

Reason for difference (if applicable)


Attachment D — Schedule 4A Certificate

22

Attachment D – Schedule 4A Certificate

Schedule 4A—Certificate—section 25(10)

Certificate of chief executive officer that a Development Plan Amendment (DPA) is suitable for purposes of public consultation

Robert Thomas Donaldson, as Chief Executive Officer of City of Port Lincoln, certify that the Statement of Investigations, accompanying this DPA, sets out the extent to which the proposed amendment or amendments—

(a) accord with the Statement of Intent (as agreed between the Council and the Minister under section 25(1) of

the Act) and, in particular, all of the items set out in regulation 9 of the Development Regulations 2008; and

(b) accord with the Planning Strategy, on the basis that each relevant provision of the Planning Strategy that relates to the amendment or amendments has been specifically identified and addressed, including by an assessment of the impacts of each policy reflected in the amendment or amendments against the Planning Strategy, and on the basis that any policy which does not fully or in part accord with the Planning Strategy has been specifically identified and an explanation setting out the reason or reasons for the departure from the Planning Strategy has been included in the Statement of Investigation; and

(c) accord with the other parts of the Development Plan (being those parts not affected by the amendment or

amendments); and

(d) complement the policies in the Development Plans for adjoining areas; and

(e) satisfy the other matters (if any) prescribed under section 25(10)(e) of the Development Act 1993.

The following person or persons have provided advice to the Council for the purposes of section 25(4) of the Act:

Rosa Gagetti, Executive Director Development & Environment, City of Port Lincoln, MPIA

Paul Vivian. Principal Planner, Intermethod, MPIA

Date:

....................................................................................

Chief Executive Officer

24


Attachment E — Schedule 4B Certificate

Attachment E – Schedule 4B Certificate

Schedule 4B—Certificate—section 25(14)(b)

Certificate of chief executive officer that an amendment to a Development Plan is suitable for approval

I, Robert Thomas Donaldson, as Chief Executive Officer of City of Port Lincoln, certify, in relation to the proposed amendment or amendments to Port Lincoln Council Development Plan as last consolidated on 28 August 2014, referred to in the report accompanying this certificate—

(a) that the Council has complied with the requirements of section 25 of the Development Act 1993 and that the

amendment or amendments are in a correct and appropriate form; and

(b) in relation to any alteration to the amendment or amendments recommended by the Council in its report under section 25(13)(a) of the Act, that the amendment or amendments (as altered)—

(i) accord with the Planning Strategy, on the basis that each relevant provision of the Planning Strategy that

relates to the amendment or amendments has been specifically identified and addressed, including by an assessment of the impacts of each policy reflected in the amendment or amendments against the Planning Strategy, and on the basis that any policy which does not fully or in part accord with the Planning Strategy has been specifically identified and an explanation setting out the reason or reasons for the departure from the Planning Strategy has been included in the report of the Council; and

(ii) accord with the other parts of the Development Plan (being those parts not affected by the amendment

or amendments); and

(iii) complement the policies in the Development Plans for adjoining areas; and

(iv) satisfy the other matters (if any) prescribed under section 25(14)(b)(ii) of the Development Act 1993; and

(c) that the report by the Council sets out a comprehensive statement of the reasons for any failure to complying with any time set for any relevant step under section 25 of the Act; and

(d) that the following person or persons have provided professional advice to the Council for the purposes of

section 25(13)(a) of the Act:

Date: 21 November 2016

....................................................................................

Chief Executive Officer

26

Port Lincoln Council Residential Development Plan Amendment Attachment F – Additional Matters and Investigations

Attachment F – Additional Matters and Investigations

The submission review process identified a number of additional matters for consideration, to which the investigations and recommended policy position is outlined in the following pages.

a. Road link between Happy Valley Road and Flinders Highway

As part of the consultation process, Council received submissions from land owners in the Happy Valley Environs area raising concern with the identification of indicative road links on Concept Plan Map PtL/6 Precinct 9 Walter. The focus of concern was the indicative road links potentially connecting Happy Valley Road to Flinders Highway and a link connecting Happy Valley Road to Garrett Road. Representors sought removal of the road links or, at the very least, realignment to reduce perceived threat to their homes or outbuildings.

The Concept Plan (as consulted) was guided by independent traffic advice and therefore Council sought further input from its consultant Frank Siow of Frank Siow & Associates to review these submissions. After further view, Frank Siow advised that with the removal of a road link approximately 5000 vehicles per day (full development scenario) would travel along Happy Valley Road and utilise the intersection with Flinders Highway. In his view, the intersection would operate within reasonable limits and well below capacity although some upgrade would be required such as a sheltered right turn lane.

The above advice has been considered in a review of Concept Plan Map PtL/6 Precinct 9 Walter and Council has now deleted the indicative road links between Happy Valley Road and Flinders Highway. Council has further amended the Concept Plan and slightly realigned the indicative road link between Happy Valley Road and Garrett Road to follow existing cadastral boundaries.

b. Road upgrade costs for Nootina Road

Council sought advice from Frank Siow to provide an estimate on upgrade costs for the section of Nootina Road adjacent to the proposed expansion of Precinct 4 Southern (i.e. between the Western Approach Road and Barley Road). Frank advised that Nootina Road would not be expected to carry significant volumes of traffic resulting from the rezoned land and suggested the following design criteria for the road upgrade:

The requirement for Nootina Road based on its status as a collector road would be:

Carriageway width of 7.0m

Parking bays at one space for every two allotments

Footpath provision on both sides

Based on a 500 metre length of road and 1000 metres of footpath, plus parking bays, Frank Siow estimates a cost of $570,000. This cost estimate will assist Council to negotiate a Land Management Agreement (and possible future Infrastructure Agreement) for land owners within this Precinct.

c. Master planning for Precinct 10 Northern and initial road cost assessment

The consultation version of the Residential DPA included the rezoning of land north of Milton Avenue from Rural Landscape Protection Zone to Residential Hills Zone. In its response, DPTI encouraged Council to undertake further review and identify methods to ensure infrastructure is appropriately managed.

Subsequently the Council has worked collaboratively with the majority of land owners in the Precinct (the Northern Fridge Residents Group) to prepare a master plan for the Precinct, identify initial costs for the main north-south road link and agree a legal framework to ensure the future delivery of a high quality, co-ordinated land division supported by essential infrastructure. An initial cost for the north-south link was provided by the Group and this road will be delivered as part of a future Infrastructure Agreement set in place under a legal agreement (see below).



27

The Council and the Northern Residents Fringe Group have agreed a master plan (see below) that provides a positive response to the proposed Residential Hills Zone policies taking into account topography constraints, dwelling densities, drainage requirements and provision of a legible road network. The master plan has had regard to the Concept Plan as consulted.

Based on a successful masterplan design, Council has now proceeded to preparing a Land Management Agreement(s) with the participating land owners. This agreement is intended to: to notify future land owners that land division applications lodged with the Council prior to the north-

south road link (identified in the current version of the DPA as road link “A”) being constructed or appropriately bonded will be non-complying forms of development;

to ensure an orderly development of the Precinct based on the master plan dated 15 September 2016

as prepared by Fyfe Pty Ltd; to reinforce the agreement reached (or to reinforce the need to cooperate) between the residents to

jointly contribute to the cost of the north south road link by:

confirming that the present owners of the properties have agreed to cooperate in funding and constructing the road link for their mutual benefit;

reaffirming the need for the road link;

summarising the advantages to be gained when the road link is constructed or appropriately

bonded; and

depending on the final outcome of the residents’ negotiations with SA Water, to explain what (if any) contributions need to be made for future water and sewer infrastructure and the consequences of providing/not providing that infrastructure;

to establish a process for further discussion regarding the provision of public open space in the

Precinct and possible vesting of land marked as ‘drainage reserve’ on the Precinct master plan through the above, to adjust the expectations of future land owners as to the development potential of

the properties in all respects. Based on the outcomes of the above work, Council has also slightly amended the Concept Plan to remove the small parcel of open space in the central section of the Plan

d. Water and waste water infrastructure and delivery

Following receipt of SA Water’s submission as part of the Agency consultation for the DAP, Council and SA Water have worked together to prepare a detailed development scenario to allow detailed modelling to be undertaken. This scenario comprised an additional 1500 allotments over a 30 year period with 80% of lots acquired by residents not residing in the Eyre Peninsula. The primary purpose of additional investigations was to consider water security, water infrastructure, and wastewater implications of future population growth.

Water Security

By letter to Council dated 24 August 2016, SA Water advised the following:

Port Lincoln’s water supply is currently sourced from the Lincoln Basin and Uley South Basin bore

fields.

28

Port Lincoln Council Residential Development Plan Amendment Attachment F – Additional Matters and Investigations

Demand projections prepared independently by SA Water and the Department of Environment, Water, and Natural Resources indicate that, with continued access to current allocation levels from these sources, a new source of water will not be required before 2025.

The water supply for the City of Port Lincoln is secure, as is the supply for the whole of the Eyre Peninsula. At most, the population growth envisaged by the scenario provided would require SA Water to bring forward its plans for augmenting the water supply by about one year.

Water infrastructure

In that same letter, SA Water identified that the existing water network can service the 1,500 additional developments envisaged by Council’s scenario, subject to the construction of 8,100 metres of additional pipes, installation of an additional pump station, and upgrade of an existing pump station.

SA Water costed this infrastructure at $10million over the life of the development rollout (30 years). SA Water further commented that these infrastructure works would typically be funded by a combination of developer augmentation charges and SA Water capital contributions.

In more detail, SA Water states that the pump station infrastructure comprises:

upgrading of the Whillas Road Pump Station, near the intersection with Reevesby Crescent. The

cost of the upgrade project is estimated at $98,500 in 2016 terms. A new pump station (water) is proposed to be installed on Sarah Crescent, just west of the

intersection with Chapman Street. The cost of the new pump station project is estimated at $984,500 in 2016 terms. This pump station would serve Precinct 10 Northern and parts of Precinct 9 Walter.

In further correspondence, SA Water reinforced that the cost of new infrastructure would not typically be borne by the Council, unless it were the developer. It would typically be borne by a combination of augmentation charges payable by developers on land sales, discounted by SA Water capital contributions and anticipated revenues.

Waste Water

SA Water advises that they are currently planning a program of works to reconfigure and augment Port Lincoln’s wastewater system. SA Water has considered the waste water infrastructure demands from the DPA and outline that this growth will be taken into account in the planned future approach. These changes will also need to accommodate waste water discharges from other users such as the seafood processing industry.

The cost of these planned works is estimated at $31.2 million (in 2016 terms). Again, SA Water advises that infrastructure would typically be funded by a combination of developer augmentation charges and SA Water capital contributions.

As detailed above, SA Water has undertaken a detailed analysis of water and waste water infrastructure for the City of Port Lincoln including development that would arise from this DPA. SA Water appear satisfied to work with land owners/developers to help contribute towards the cost of infrastructure as development triggers demand. SA Water advise that Council does not typically need to be involved in negotiations and delivery of supporting infrastructure. On this basis, Council has not sought to negotiate legal agreements or other mechanisms for water and waste water infrastructure as part of this DPA.

e. Stormwater infrastructure investigations for Precinct 4 Southern

Council endorsed a Stormwater Management Plan in February 2014 as prepared by Tonkin Consulting. The primary purpose of the Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) was to investigate existing and future drainage requirements, establish a range of stormwater management related objectives. The SMP sets out a plan of actions and strategies to meet the objectives. A prioritised 10-year plan of capital works was also developed.



29

Based on comments from DEWNR and the EPA, Council sought additional advice from Tonkin regarding the need for any additional stormwater detention basin(s) in the proposed extension to the Residential Zone Precinct 4 Southern (land bounded by the Western Approach Road, Nootina Road and Barley Road). This land was not originally envisaged for residential development during the preparation of the 2014 Plan.

Given the potential additional yield of up to 200 dwellings and topography of the local area, Tonkin advises that two detention basins would likely be needed to adequately address stormwater runoff. The location of each basin is shown on the plan below prepared by Tonkin.

In regard to Council’s other queries, Tonkin advises that:

A channel (as shown on sketch plan prepared by Tonkins Consulting below) would need to about

around 10-15m wide. This is based on a 100-yr ARI flow in the vicinity of 5m3/s (from the original Stormwater Management Plan ILSAX model, subject to potential refinement as part of the 2D flood modelling). Additional width may be required, if an access track was required along the channel. However, as it runs parallel with the Western Approach Road this probably isn’t required.

Provided there are regional detention basin(s) to serve the entire development such that peak

downstream discharges are at a level that they will not make a measurable impact on downstream flood risk, there should not need to be any requirement for additional flood management with the division itself. However, for land within the area proposed to be rezoned, there are potentially areas that are located within gullies that are likely to act as overland flood flow paths as shown as blue arrows on sketch plan below. These would either need to be retained or possibly incorporated into a road alignment that can act as a surface flood flow path. Dwellings constructed across the main overland flood flow path alignment would not be recommended. Given the water discharges into the ocean there would also be some water sensitive urban design elements that should be incorporated into the land division to improve the quality of discharge.

Taking into account comments from Tonkin, Council has now prepared a new Concept Plan for inclusion in the DPA clarifying the location of future detention basin(s) and the location of a stormwater channel within the buffer located along the interface with the Western Approach Road. Additional Water Sensitive Urban Design and stormwater management policies are addressed in a combination of existing Development Plan policies and the additional General Section policies recommended by the EPA.

port lincoln council residential development plan ... · port lincoln council residential...

Documents