Aggrieved Residents Around Goodwood receive Double Dose of Aggravation

To the chagrin of aggrieved residents the Goodwood Saints Football Club this week successfully applied to have an extension of light use at Goodwood Oval for training and for night matches.

Their application was heard and unanimously approved by the Council Assessment Panel (CAP).

Goodwood Oval LightsThe CAP is a body constituted under the Development Act. It has 4 independent members and 1 elected member. It hears and makes planning decisions on behalf of Council. Council’s elected body has no involvement in this process and is not able to impact on their decisions.

Residents and others, as required under the Act, made representations to the panel. 150 of them. 77 in favour and 73 against. 9 Aggrieved Residents backed up their written representations verbally on the night.

I am proud of my neighbours. They presented well and focused on planning issues. This is important as the Panel Members must make their decisions based on Planning principles.

I am proud too of the Panel Members. Their individual explanations indicated their interpretation of planning formed their respective opinions. This even though their opinion differed from the Residents.

With the decision favouring the Club, aggrieved residents may consider lodging an appeal. The ERD Court would hear any such appeal. Anyone considering appealing have 14 days to consider this.

I say aggrieved because they (the residents) feel the club is, by way of bracket creep, eating into their use of the facility and intrusion into their amenity.

These aggrieved residents unfortunately are now catching a double dose of aggravation with a section of the media choosing to pass judgement without knowing the facts.

Two Radio stations that I am aware of have covered this storey. Unfortunately however, news is littered with half-truths, myths and prejudices. Accordingly this compounds the agony for these residents.

One station chose to run an anti-resident campaign holding themselves up as knowing the facts. The other radio station researched the storey and the facts and covered it accordingly.

The first radio station focused on the right of girls to be able to play at the same venue as their brothers. It is quite appropriate to argue that case and I support that.

Their lack of research meant they failed however to even attempt to understand what the residents’ concerns were. Accordingly they ignored concerns that included extending the grief they already experience with illegal parking and not being able to access their driveways. The Oval being restricted to 2 nights a week was conveniently ignored.  And other like issues and I do not support that.

What they did was to ignore these very important issues. I guess this may be because they did not bother to research it.

They focused on the observation of just one resident. One of 73.

The Radio Station simply argued that lights will be turned off before bed time, or covered with a blind. So what’s the problem was their focus. Never mind noise and anti-social behaviour etc even though the Club acknowledges this.

They failed to check that the Oval is already being overused, even though the Club acknowledges this.

Any extension of the use by the club not only eats into the time they (the residents) might have access, but potentially makes the Oval unfit for the remaining access time they may have.

The other station understood this and reported accurately and without opinion.

For all that, Council has a responsibility.

The issues raised in this blog are issues that Council will have to manage, along with the Club and the residents.

We will. We already are. Let’s face it, it is our responsibility. The Club has confirmed publically that it has a responsibility too. Accordingly we should be able to work with them to address the concerns of their neighbours.

Watch for future blogs to see what we are doing.

Light Tension at Goodwood Oval as Saints Seek More illumination.

Our Council Assessment Panel will feel a light tension this Tuesday night. The Panel meets on that night to adjudicate on a single Development Application.

This application has prompted a not so light tension within the local community. This means it is the only application considered on the night.

Goodwood Oval LightsWith 4 independent members and just one elected member they are appointed under the Development Act to represent Council. They must assess applications based on the Act, the Development Regulations and the City of Unley Development Plan.

.

On Tuesday night they must decide whether to accept or refuse a Development Application by the Goodwood Saints Football Club. The club is seeking to extend the hours of use of the lights at Goodwood Oval.

As part of the process of determining the fate of the application they have received no fewer than 150 representations. Around half of these oppose the proposed development, half support. Some of those who have provided a representation will take the opportunity to verbally present to the Panel.

The tension between the Club and nearby residents caused by this application should not deter the Panel from their responsibility under the Act. That said I imagine there will be more than just a light tension in the gallery on Tuesday night.

As they exist courtesy of the Development Act and not the Local Government Act the panel cannot be lobbied. This is unlike when Council considers an issue. Even Council can’t influence them.

When the Panel read representations or hear testimonies they must evaluate them in purely development plan terms. This is enhanced with the influence of elected member diminished to just one of five. This courtesy, of course, of the former Planning Minister John Rau.

The big question is, will they agree with the recommendation of Council’s Planning Department who believe the application is not seriously at variance to the Development Plan.

The proposed Kaufland Development on the LeCornu Anzac Highway site is fundamentally flawed.

The proposed Kaufland Development on the LeCornu Anzac Highway site is fundamentally flawed. As I argued in my other blog today it is seriously at variance to the Development Plan.

I argued it is diametrically the opposite of the vision the State Government and the Council have for this site. A vision for medium density housing.

The Government was quite clear in how it looked to house our population into the future. It was by focusing on increasing residential density in the inner rim council areas. The development plan recognises this. The proposal does not. It recreates the carparking focus of the past.

Car parking at grade is a major component of this development. Because of the focus on this, the proposal is seriously at variance to the development plan.

The development plan views this site as primarily in a residential area. To compliment this, one of the Principles of Development Control in the Unley Development Plan states:

“no” vehicle parking is to be located or made visible from the Anzac Highway or Leader Street frontages, except where parking is required for people with a disability.”

In other words, the development plan recognises that parking at grade is a visual eyesore. Parking at grade (at street level) should not be a major part of a residential zone. With its retail focus, this development contravenes this basic principle.

With a focus therefore on anything but residential this development fails miserably. Because it is a retail only project, it is fundamentally flawed. Therefore, it is seriously at variance to the Development Plan.

The State Commission Assessment Panel must surely recognize the complete failure of the development to meet the fundamental requirement of the Development Plan.

Approval by the SCAP will make a mockery of what the Government and Council have endeavoured to achieve in addressing population growth. Taking a site so suited to medium density residential development and focusing it instead on a mega supermarket is diametrically opposite to the vision and should be refused.

Kaufland, Anzac Highway: Seriously at Variance to Unley Development Plan

The proposed Kaufland development on the old Anzac Highway LeCornu site is, I believe, seriously at variance to the Unley Development Plan.

Kaufland, Anzac HighwayAn initial cursory look at the plans last week had me thinking it was not seriously at variance. This was based on recognising only the built form.

.

The height of the proposed structure is only 2 storeys. The set back to Anzac Highway well over the allowable 3m. The set back to Leader Street, where it abuts the adjacent residential zone, is 5m rather than the 2m allowed.

Taking an opportunity this week to check  the development proposed more thoroughly revealed to me differently. Without a doubt, the Kaufland proposal is seriously at variance to the development plan.

The Development Plan stems from the recent Ministerial (Specific Sites) DPA. A plan influenced by Council’s input. Input in keeping with our strategy for all Urban Corridor Development Zones within our Council. Input the Government (as previously reported on this blog site) is now using to correct poor design outcomes in other Council areas.

Here is the crunch.

The proposed development is a fully retail development focusing on a mega supermarket. It has no residential component. This is diametrically the opposite of what the then minister, and Council envisaged for this area.

The first two objectives for what is called Policy Area 24 within the plan are as follows:

Objective 1

A medium Density Residential area” supported” by local shops, offices and community spaces.

Objective 2

A highly varied streetscape allowing “multiple” built form design responses that supports innovative housing and mixed-use development.

 

The desired character for the policy area therefore is (as the plan says) to “primarily’ serve a residential function with support “only” of shops, offices etc. There can be no argument therefore. This development therefore is clearly seriously at variance to the intention of the development plan.

The Development Plan goes even deeper. It includes a minimum density requirement. It calls for a minimum density of 45 dwellings per hectare. The development site is 20,950 m2 in size. This means there should be at least 90 homes/units on this site

This surely is a critical requirement. Without even a single house it can therefore seriously only be viewed as seriously at variance to the plan.

This fundamental flaw in the Kaufland Development creates a major conflict for a residential area. My blog today on carparking demonstrates further that it is  seriously at variance to the development plan and should be refused.

Community Engagement Charter Adopted by new State Government

Not quite a month in office and the new Government, through their Minister for Planning Stephan Knoll, has announced the adoption of the Community Engagement Charter.

Stephan Knoll

 

This is the Community Engagement Charter developed by the previous State Government. Let us hope the new government follows the intent of the Charter.

Many in the community believe the previous Government, while waiving the big stick at Councils, did not practice what they preached. This may well have contributed to their election loss.

The announcement is as follows:

The Minister for Planning has announced the adoption and release of the Community Engagement Charter for implementation commencing on 27 April 2018.

Community engagement is at the heart of the new planning system that will be introduced over the next 3-4 years.  The Community Engagement Charter (the Charter) supports new and innovative ways to talk to communities and other interested parties about planning issues.

The Charter changes the way that local and state governments are required to consult with the community during the preparation of changes to planning strategies and policies (such as rezoning of land).

Rather than legislative one-size-fits-all approach the Charter requires those consulting to tailor the engagement to suit the project and the communities who are interested and may be impacted by the proposed changes.

It recognises that with technological advances there are many options to successfully consult with communities. Local and state governments and other bodies consulting on planning matters will be required to meet the following principles in undertaking engagement.

  1. Engagement is genuine
  2. Engagement is inclusive and respectful
  3. Engagement is fit for purpose
  4. Engagement is informed and transparent
  5. Engagement processes are reviewed and improved

The Charter has been informed by a staged consultation starting with the Planning Together Panel and input by a broader stakeholder group.  The Discussion Draft of the Charter was then released for six weeks of public consultation. Following that the Draft Charter was released for another six weeks of public consultation before final amendments were made. More information on the consultation process can be found on the SA Planning Portal.

It is recognised that the Charter will need to evolve over time.  In its first year, it will primarily be applied to the development of the new State Planning Policies, the Planning and Design Code, and Infrastructure Schemes as required under the new Act.

As the State Planning Commission prepares these documents, it will test the Charter and its application to allow for its ongoing evolution. During this time the Commission welcomes ongoing feedback to assist in monitoring and improving the Charter.

A copy of the Community Engagement Charter can be downloaded from the SA Planning Portal http://www.saplanningportal.sa.gov.au/our_new_system/community_engagement_charter:

Kaufland have confirmed their interest in the Anzac Highway Le Cornu Site

By presenting a development application Kaufland have confirmed their interest in the Anzac Highway Le Cornu site.

 

Anzac Highway LeCornu siteThey recently lodged a development application for “a new retail development”. The proposed development is only for the front 60% of the existing LeCornu site . A development that will include a major supermarket, a range of small tenancies and office space.

A development which will not contain any residential component. Accordingly the 5 storeys height allowed under the new development plan will not be reached.

Other developers will be offered the remaining eastern rear 40% in due course. When this happens it may well be a 5 storey development.

The State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP) will determine the application and not Council.  Under the current planning laws we are allowed only a commentary role. We are limited to matters of direct involvement. Such matters as:

  • public realm improvements.
  • street trees.
  • stormwater.
  • traffic management.
  • waste management.
  • encroachments, or the like.

Our Administration will review the proposal.  In due course draft comments will be provided to Elected Members for our perusal and feedback before we submit them. We will then present them to SCAP.

Furthermore, the application will be subject to Category 2 public notification to adjacent properties. Notification will however be limited only to direct neighbours and property owners on the opposite side of the streets of the site within 60 metres of the boundaries of the site. Once the timing for Cat 2 notification is known, I will alert readers of this blog via my Facebook page.

In the meantime, I will seek audience with our administration so that I may view the detail of the proposal and offer assistance to Council’s input. I am aware of a number of concerns of near neighbours. I will ensure their concerns  are considered in our submission.

The extended use of the lighting at Goodwood Oval confuses Grandstand consultation

Hopefully a development application for the extended use of the lighting at Goodwood Oval does not hinder the Grandstand Redevelopment.

 

A development application for extended use of the lighting at Goodwood Oval has been submitted to Council. The timing of this application by the Goodwood Saints Football Club is poor. It will run concurrently with the consultation on the new Goodwood Oval Grandstand.

This is therefore not healthy, and I suggest poor timing by the Goodwood Saints.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

First of all, public consultation on the Grandstand is essential to achieving good design. As a result we look to our community to contribute to the design and to take ownership of the design.

Extended use of the lighting is a totally separate project. The Development Regulations deem this as development.

It requires public notification, in this case a category 3 notification. Hence public involvement in this process is not one of contributing to the final design. It is one of representing (positively or negatively) on the suitability of a predetermined design by the applicant. Cat 3 notifications means anyone can submit a representation to the Panel.

Our Council Assessment Panel (CAP) will assess the application. The Regulations require this.

This is not just a social issue. It is an infrastructure issue. Council itself will be providing a submission to the CAP. This will focus on the Oval’s ability to handle any extra use resulting from the extended use of the lighting.

 

Clashing with the Grandstand Consultation

With the history of opposition to the extended use of the lighting, the application is surely poorly timed.

It has the potential to cause a backlash on the Goodwood Oval Grandstand design. My earlier blog expands on what we are looking to achieve together on the Grandstand. The extended use of the lighting is a what do you think about this.

Hence I implore anyone wanting to have a say to separate the two. My earlier blog focuses on the Grandstand redevelopment.

You can provide a submission on either or both. Therefore, your choice.

Kate Bickford is representing SA Best in the fight for Badcoe.

Representing SA Best, Kate Bickford is the last candidate to be named in the Fight for Badcoe. This just before the Government goes into caretaker mode and the core flutes get erected.

Kate Bickford, SA Best candidate for Badcoe

As I have done with the other three candidates I sat down with Kate Bickford for a coffee and a chat. This I did on behalf of the ratepayers of Council’s Clarence Park Ward, and the neighbouring Goodwood Ward.

I found her to be quite a genuine person with strong links to the local community. She has lived around 20 years in Forestville.

>>>>>>

Kate is a lawyer and has worked on behalf of our indigenous Australians and for small and big business. This has seen her interact at all levels with Government.

What kate Bickford stands for.

I gleaned from her a concern many of you know I share about the future of South Road. What will be the redesigned South Road through Black Forest when the Government finally gets around to our section of the non-stop carriage way.

She is also keen to ensure balanced improvement to planning laws. Again, something that readers of this website know I share.

Kate indicated also that she is keen to see more work done in the ageing arena, including providing ways of bringing the aged and the young together. Sounds like she would really like the City of Unley Active Ageing project.

Another passion she has, which a number of you have indicated to me is a concern. That is to bring back safety gates to the pedestrian accesses and to improved DDA compliant ramps at the many rail stations we have in the City of Unley. Something my wife and I put to the liberals some time back.

This completes my initial interactions with all the candidates. If you wish to remember my initial observations of the other three you can check at here for Jayne Stinson (Labor), Lachlan Clyne (Liberal) and John Woodward (Independent).

You can contact Kate Bickford via email at [email protected] or call her on 0434 673 794 and arrange to meet with her to discuss any issue that concerns you in Badcoe. To view Kate’s electorate page, click here.

The State Commission Assessment Panel not a rubber stamp

News fresh at hand would suggest the State Commission Assessment panel is not a rubber stamp. I have just received advice on there most recent decision. The new proposed Cremorne Plaza development has been deferred.

At their recent meeting they resolved as follows:

The State Commission Assessment Panel resolved to defer consideration of the proposal by Future Urban Group for DA 090/M008/17 at 244-246 Unley Road, Unley subject to the receipt of amended plans and documentation in relation to the following:
·          A review of the height of the development in the context of the planning policy and surrounding character of the area.
·          A review of overlooking impacts.
·          A review of the amenity of the south facing apartments and balconies in light of potential development to the south of the property.
·          A review of the visual bulk of the building.
·          Further examination of the finishes and materials proposed particularly on the podium.
·          A review of the parking provisions in light of the loss of available street parking arrangements on Hart Avenue, and the shortfall of carparks on site related to the provision of retail space.
·          A review of the Unley Road frontage and the Unley Road/Hart Avenue corner of the site to ensure feasible activation of the ground floor and public realm, especially as the outdoor dining area is unlikely to be supported by Council and DPTI Transport’s requirement for a 4.5m by 4.5m corner cutoff, under the Metropolitan Road Widening Act.
·          Consideration of the inclusion of areas for deep rooted plantings on the development site.
·          An updated waste management plan.
It is strongly suggested that further engagement be made with ODASA to resolve some of the above matters.

This may be evidence that the Unley Development Plan is succeeding.

Succeeding in restricting the ad hoc development we have seen elsewhere. It certainly goes to the heart of our Development Plan and our submission to the SCAP.

Time will tell if the SCAP is not a rubber stamp.

Council Development Assessment Panels set to change

Word is that 1 August 2017 will see the commencement of the assessment panel provisions of the Planning Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (PDI Act). 1 October 2017 is set to be the designated day for the new system.

This means changes for our own Development Assessment Panel (DAP). First up, the Council Development Assessment Panel will now be known as a Council Assessment Panel (CAP).

The change though with the most impact will be the change to the membership of the Panel.

The current membership of the Panel is 7 people. Elected members fill three of the positions on the panel. The remaining four members are filled by independents appointed by Council.

The effective number will reduce to no more than 5 from 1 October however. More to the point, there can now only be one elected member of Council on the Panel.

Membership of the panel will now have to be reviewed by Council. It means we must reduce the elected member representation.  We can and I expect will retain the 4 independent members on our Panel.

We will need to consider keeping only one of the current elected members on the panel or starting again. The opportunity for all elected members now exists to nominate for membership of our panel.

Last night I attended Unley’s Development Assessment Panel meeting last night as a spectator. Interestingly there were two apologies dropping our 7 strong team down to 5.

As a result, if the new Council Assessment Panel was in operation 2 apologies would see the members of the Panel in attendance reduce to 3. Members of the Public were disturbed that the number on the night (5) was too small a number.

Finally, as has always been the case, assessment panels will be relevant authorities by virtue of the PDI Act, not because they receive delegated authority from another body, such as a council or the Minister.