Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
representations
Reports
on
the
hearings
of
Table of Contents
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................. 1
1.
Government Agencies.............................................................................................. 2
2.
Droughty................................................................................................................. 19
3.
Residential zoning Howrah -Mornington ................................................................ 49
4.
Zoning Corpus Christie School .............................................................................. 54
5.
Bellerive – Kangaroo Bay....................................................................................... 57
6.
Lindisfarne – Geilston Bay ..................................................................................... 64
7.
Richmond Valley .................................................................................................... 69
8.
Richmond village .................................................................................................... 74
9.
Single Hill, Acton, Seven Mile Beach ..................................................................... 80
10.
Mining and Quarrying............................................................................................. 90
11.
Hobart Airport ......................................................................................................... 95
12.
South Arm .............................................................................................................. 98
13.
Skyline protection and regional landscape issues ............................................... 104
14.
Ordinance provisions-protection of vegetation..................................................... 107
15.
Sustainable planning strategic directions and demography ................................ 113
16.
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage ................................................................................. 117
17.
Scheme provisions ............................................................................................... 122
18.
Landcare and Coastcare...................................................................................... 141
19.
Incidentals ............................................................................................................ 149
Note:
The reports on the draft planning scheme refer separately as the context requires to:
scheme: the written part or ordinance.
plan(s): the zoning and overlay plans
planning scheme: where reference is to both the scheme and the plans.
1
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
1.
Government Agencies
Representations were received from the Department of Primary Industries Water and
Environment (DPIWE), Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources (DIER)
and Department of Economic Development.
DPIWE addressed a wide range of issues with an emphasis on the philosophy of the
planning scheme and the application of State Policies.
DIER as the State road authority with responsibility for State roads within the
planning area objected to the lack of provisions for roads. Central to the issue raised
is the extent that State interests are embodied in planning schemes. The DIER
representation also had issue with agriculture and forestry definitions and uses
available in the Rural zone.
The Department of Economic Development covered issues with the structure of the
scheme and clarification of provisions.
1.1 Issues: Department of Primary Industries Water and
Environment (DPIWE)
Representation
R42 provided a detailed review of the draft planning scheme.
Council
Council review of the representation resulted in mostly minor recommendations to
modify the draft planning scheme.
Commission's considerations
R42 was a comprehensive response to the draft planning scheme that raised both
major and minor issues. The first hearing of the representation (16/12/03) was
adjourned for Council to provide a s.26(2) reply to matters initially omitted. The
reconvened hearing (16/4/04) considered Council's full response and the DPIWE
evidence.
Despite the detail of the initial representation and Council's revised s.26(2) report, 4
key issues were the basis of the DPIWE submission to the hearing. These are:
1.1.1 R42/1 format and structure of the planning scheme
R42/1 contended the planning scheme is deficient in its reliance on considerations and
lack of measurable standards. The representation contended the draft planning
scheme leaves an excessive array of matters to the discretion of Council and does not
include criteria to guide assessment. The submission further contended that more
specific performance requirements are needed to demonstrate the objectives have
been met.
2
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
In response to R42/1 Council's reply was consolidated in Attachment 3–Planning
Assessment Criteria. Attachment 3 contended the draft planning scheme adopts a
clear and proven mechanism to guide applicants in their understanding of the matters
that need to be taken into account in preparing their applications for the planning
authority when it assesses and decides on those applications. Council’s Attachment 3
detailed the structure of the scheme providing a hierarchy comprising:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Planning policy framework and Clarence strategic directions that ensures
that consideration of applications take into account the wider impact of
proposals and how they contribute to achieving overall strategic land use
planning goals.
Planning policy framework-planning policies that give statutory weight to
Council's planning policies.
Decision requirements-a listing of criteria against which applications must
be considered to determine approval, conditions or refusal.
Zone purpose-relevant in determining an application or conditions.
Zone subdivision controls
Zone development controls-building height, setbacks etc.
Application requirements (specific zones).
Overlay controls providing permit requirements, decision requirements
and for some overlays measurable standards.
Specific provisions – provisions including standards for car parking,
access and apartments.
In essence Council's response in Attachment 3 gives weight to rather than answers the
DPIWE submission that the planning scheme is deficient in respect to standards.
The draft scheme is based on a structure that provides the matters that an applicant is
required to or should address and against which Council is required to assess an
application. Clause 6.2 sets out the information to accompany an application and
clause 6.3 the decision requirements against which Council is to assess an application.
But in addition, for the applicable zone there are decision requirements and each
applicable overlay another set of decision requirements. Each permit application
requires an assessment against the planning policy framework that in effect gives
another list of decision requirements. Apart from minimum lot sizes for subdivision
few standards are specified. Standards are principally confined to the residential and
Village zones, the Bushfire Management and Bellerive Centre (extensive standards)
overlays and specific provisions for parking, advertising signs, multiple dwellings and
service stations. The planning scheme relies on judgement as to the application of the
decision requirement and how the permit application is to be assessed against the
requirements. With few measurable standards outcomes cannot be measured.
This issue has also been raised in other representations where concerns were
expressed for the equity of application of the multiple decision requirements leading
to inconsistent application of what amounts to defacto standards.
In addition to the above is the operation of exemptions that exempt not only minor use
or development but extends to for instance houses in a range of zones, yet the scheme
3
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
standards still apply. In other cases permits are required for development but not use.
In essence ‘use’ appears to be of little concern to the planning scheme other than to
set the categorisation for development. Issues about use and development are poorly
articulated. In addition, in respect to development, subdivision appears as a category
discrete from development despite the definition of development including
subdivision.
The panel is not satisfied the requirements and assessments for an application can be
readily discovered by an applicant beyond the statements to which Council is to have
regard. In addition measures that add certainty to the application are largely absent.
The draft scheme should be ‘done again’ with issues of standards, rationalisation of
decision requirements and use or development issues addressed.
Recommendation
R42/1 The draft scheme be ‘done again’ to rationalise the multiple decision
requirements and to expand the standards to provide measurable use standards and
measurable development standards.
1.1.2
R42/2 State Coastal Policy
R42/2 contended the draft planning scheme had not been prepared in accordance with
the State Coastal Policy.
R42/2 contended that the Department does not accept Council's view that the
implementation of the State Coastal Policy is dependent on jurisdictional
responsibilities or that the Coastal Management overlay will of itself achieve effective
coastal management in keeping with the intent of the Coastal Policy. The submission
referred to climate change, sea level rise and planning for the coastal zone extending
above and below the intertidal zone. DPIWE sought to have the draft planning
scheme extend to below the intertidal zone and to extend the Coastal Management
overlay further inland.
Council comprehensively replied to the assertion that the draft planning scheme was
not prepared in accordance with the State Coastal Policy. Council's replies were
provided in response to many representations and consolidated replies were given in
Council’s Attachments 1 and 4 (Droughty) to R42.
The State Coastal Policy was in place during the preparation of the draft planning
scheme and certification, declared void by the Supreme Court, but reinstated by the
time of the hearings.
Council's response places reliance on the Coastal Management overlay and other
overlays and the Recreation and Public Land zone to demonstrate accordance with the
Coastal Policy. However the Coastal Management overlay and the Recreation and
Public Land zone only apply to the land above high water and generally only to
publicly owned land. The flavour of Council's response is that the application of the
policy has been to fit the draft planning scheme rather than the planning scheme being
prepared in accordance with the policy. This observation is best defined in how the
4
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
planning scheme deals with the land at water's edge and the planning scheme
boundary.
The zoning boundary as it appears on the plans is to high water and in addition omits
Pipeclay Lagoon, parts of Barilla Bay and Betsy Island that are within the municipal
area. Council in reply nominated Rural zoning for Pipeclay Lagoon and Barilla Bay
and Recreation and Public Land zoning for Betsy Island but still omitted the intertidal
zone on the rest of the coast.
The scheme describes the planning scheme area at clause 1.2 as:
‘the area to which this planning scheme applies is the area defined by the
municipal district, identified in the accompanying planning scheme maps, and
any jetties, wharfs and accretions from the sea.’
The municipal boundary shown on the plan in the central plan register states:
‘The municipality boundary extends to low water mark and includes all
islands and offshore rocks adjacent to the coast line of this municipality.’
Therefore the written description is inclusive but the plans leave the intertidal area
without the scheme provisions that otherwise apply to land above high water. In
addition whilst the written description in the scheme may be inclusive, the planning
scheme does not address how jetties, wharfs and accretions are to be managed in the
context of the planning scheme.
S.7 LUPAA describes the extent of a municipality's powers seaward of high water. In
addition the LUPAA interpretation of land is relevant:
‘land includes:
(b) land covered with water; and
(c) water covering land;…’
In addition the State Coastal Policy and State Policy on Water Quality Management
contemplate a planning scheme influence seaward of high water.
Council's representatives argued at various hearings that the planning scheme did not
and should not claim responsibility for areas not within its jurisdiction. Council
contended the State Coastal Policy is capable of different responses in the context of a
planning scheme being prepared in accordance with state policy. Yet it is clear that
for a considerable part of the municipal area, the intertidal zone, the planning scheme
is effectively silent.
The panel is not satisfied that the draft planning scheme has been prepared in
accordance with the State Coastal Policy. The planning scheme should draw its
boundaries seaward of the coast and certainly seaward of low water and clearly
enclose areas that are within its jurisdiction. Parts of this seaward area will clearly not
be within Council's jurisdiction and this may change from time to time and on
different issues. Nevertheless if an issue of jurisdiction does arise that question will
5
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
need to be determined at the time of the permit application, as is the case for
terrestrial land.
Recommendations
R42/2.1 The draft planning scheme be ‘done again’ as follows:
i)
Draw the boundary of the planning scheme as a thick black line on the plans
seaward of the coast.
ii)
Show by zoning, overlays or any other relevant provision, the planning scheme
provisions for the intertidal zone and other lands within the planning scheme
boundary consistent with the LUPAA definition of land.
R42/2.2
Modify clause 1.2 to omit the provision and substitute:
‘The planning scheme area comprises all the land within the thick black line on
the plans.’
1.1.3 R42/3 State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land (PAL)
R42/3 stated that at least theoretically the planning scheme complies with PAL
through limitations on land subdivision and assessment requirements.
R42/3 however contended difficulties with the minimum lot size in the Intensive
Agriculture zone and the ready potential for conversion of lots to non-agricultural use.
Council's reply was consolidated in Attachment 2 to the R42 response. Council
contended that Clarence had no prime agricultural land (Class 1-3) so there was no
application of principles 1-4 of PAL. Council drew on the planning policy framework
and controls to protect agricultural land from conversion to non-agricultural uses to
demonstrate compliance with PAL.
The package of measures identified were: the urban growth boundary, zoning former
reserved Residential zoned land to rural, introduction of a 20ha minimum lot size in
the Rural zone, the discretionary status of house in the Rural zone (reviewed as part of
the hearings). Other measures identified were the limit on uses in zones and the
protection of the irrigable areas under the south-east irrigation scheme/Coal River
Valley irrigation scheme and the Coal River Valley water re-use scheme.
Council's Attachment 2 draws out the statements, strategies and decision requirements
that are consistent with PAL. However and as raised by other representations, the
status of use and the subdivision standards are potentially contrary to PAL. The first
matter to address is residential use that in the draft scheme is permitted in the Rural
zone and discretionary in the Intensive Agriculture zone, but with the condition: ‘the
land must be used for agricultural or animal husbandry.’
The Rural zone has as one of its purposes:
‘To encourage residential living in a rural environment where it is compatible
with rural land use’.
6
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
This statement is counter to the other purposes of the zone and the many decision
requirements described as being consistent with PAL. Council subsequently signified
that a house should be discretionary instead of permitted in the Rural zone. The area
zoned Rural on the draft plans clearly has an agricultural presence and the removal of
the residential reference in the purpose of the zone and houses discretionary is
consistent with the established rural activities and the decision requirements to
address agricultural land and fettering of agricultural activities.
Moving to the Intensive Agriculture zone, the scheme acknowledges the investment in
irrigation that has boosted agricultural activities. At issue here is the setting of a 4ha
minimum lot size as a discretionary application. Council argued that 4ha did not
entitle subdivision down to the minium lot size. Council submitted the 4ha minimum
lot was based on the Blundstone study – South East Irrigation District Tasmania by
Davey and Maynard, agricultural consultants June 1992. However the panel's review
of the Blundstone study found that except possibly for cherry orchards the report does
not provide a basis for setting a minimum lot size in the Intensive Agriculture zone.
In addition the report is based on pre-1992 dollar values. The Blundstone study
predated the more recent growth in agricultural production in the Coal Valley, the
PAL policy and the water re-use scheme. If a 4ha lot is unlikely to be approved as
contended by Council, it is the wrong standard. In addition although there may not be
an expectation of subdivision a 4ha minimum sets a standard for valuation and
potentially the price at which properties are traded, thus setting unrealistic
expectations and speculation.
The planning scheme is in accordance with PAL in terms of strategy and decision
requirements, but this is not carried through to the standards.
Recommendations
R42/3
i)
Modify the purpose for the Rural zone to delete the reference to ‘encourage
rural living’.
ii)
Modify clause 9.9.1 Table of Uses in the Rural zone to show the use class house
as discretionary.
iii)
Review the minimum lot size in the Intensive Agriculture zone as a ‘do again’
requirement.
iv)
As a ‘do again’ requirement ensure that the scheme strategies and provisions
refer to agriculture land as defined in State Policy on the Protection of
Agriculture Land and not just ‘productive’ or ‘good’ agriculture land.
1.1.4 R42/4 State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997.
R42/4 contended that because the draft planning scheme includes a few standards it is
not possible to be assured that the state policy will be satisfactorily implemented.
7
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Council's revised response to R42 details the planning scheme provisions that are
derived from or are consistent with the State Policy on Water Quality Management.
The panel is satisfied that the draft planning scheme has been prepared in accordance
with the State Policy on Water Quality Management.
Recommendation
R42/4 No modifications to the draft planning scheme in respect to the State Policy on
Water Quality Management.
1.1.5
R42/5 Other matters in the representation.
As noted earlier R42 provided a detailed representation and the Council subsequently
provided an equally detailed response. As part of the ‘do again’ requirements the
detailed matters raised by the Department should be reconsidered and the scheme
modified accordingly.
Recommendation
R42/5 In conjunction with the ‘do again’ requirements to include relevant matters
from R42 and Council's s.26(2) reply.
1.2 Issues: Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources
(DIER)
Representation
R40 Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources (DIER) concerning
provisions for road infrastructure, forestry, land use in the Rural zone, and other
matters.
1.2.1
R40/1 DIER concerning integrated land use and transport planning.
Council
Council recommended modifications to the draft planning scheme in terms of issues
and strategies but did not consider it necessary to provide controls to address the
requirements for road infrastructure as advocated in the representation.
Commission's Considerations
R40/1 concerned:
i).
Integrated land use and transport planning.
ii).
Protecting and planning the development of the transportation system.
Attachments to the representation expanded on the above points and provided a road
assets schedule for inclusion in the scheme. In subsequent submissions DIER
provided a road asset overlay approach in lieu of a schedule (the draft scheme does
not have schedules). Council provided a written response in reply.
8
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The matters raised by DIER in reply were to a degree clouded by the view of Council
as expressed in the s.26(2) report (R40/7) that: ‘it is unreasonable to expect Council to
take responsibility for imposing state requirements as an agency of DIER’.
The LUPAA system is based on shared responsibility. Specifically s.20(2)(f) a
planning scheme ‘may require specified things to be done to the satisfaction of the
…relevant agency...’
LUPAA objectives Part 1 (e) states:
‘to promote the sharing of responsibility for resource management and
planning between the difference spheres of government, the community and
industry and the state.’
LUPAA Part 2 objectives (h) states:
‘to protect public infrastructure and other assets and enable the orderly
provision and coordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit
of the community...’
LUPAA s.21(1) requires a planning scheme to be
‘consistent with and coordinated with the planning schemes applying to
adjacent areas and must have regard for the use and development of the region
as an entity in environmental economic and social terms.’
In addition s.4(1) LUPAA binds the Crown so there is a clear agency interest in the
planning scheme.
LUPAA requires that State and regional issues, in this case, relating to state roads are
embodied into the planning scheme. Therefore without documenting and detailing the
arguments of the parties the following are the recommended requirements in point
form. The detailed drafting of the provisions to give effect to the requirements need
to be prepared in consultation between the parties.
Recommendations
R40/1 The draft scheme be ‘done again’ to include provisions for transport and road
infrastructure that cover as a minimum the following points:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Purpose: detail the intent of the provisions.
Scope: identify the roads by category.
Permit requirements: for access standard for each road category, state the
situation where a permit is required for a change of use or an intensification of
a use, or the requirement for a permit for development (including subdivision).
The status of a permit ie permitted, discretionary or where prohibited is to be
determined by the provisions.
Provide standards involving sight distances and building setbacks. A building
setback of at least 50m for category 1-4 roads where the speed limit is greater
than 60 kph with relaxation provisions if deemed necessary.
Application requirements: include circumstances where a transport impact
assessment is required.
9
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
(vii)
Notification: the circumstances where consultation with the state road
authority is necessary.
1.2.2 R40/2 DIER concerning the planning and providing security for forestry
activities.
Council
Council did not support the linking of forestry to agriculture under a single use
classification.
Commission's Considerations
R40/2 sought to have the use classification forestry included in the definition for
agriculture. The DIER submission was based on the view that forestry was akin to
another crop and should be treated the same as agriculture. DIER submitted that the
combining of the two use classes would bring greater consistency with the State
Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2000 (PAL).
Council did not support this part of the DIER submission. A relevant point for
Council was that scarce irrigable intensive agriculture land should not be used for
forestry.
In the draft scheme the relevant definitions are:
‘Agriculture: Land used for horticulture, dairy farming, the keeping or
breeding of livestock, as a vineyard (s.26(2) recommendation) or the growing
of fruit, vegetables, grain or other produce.’
‘Forestry: Land used for the establishment, management and harvesting of
trees for commercial purposes and the provision of reserves normally
associated with the practice. It does not include tree harvesting of shelter belts
or wood lots which (sic) (associated with) agriculture.’
The separation of forestry from agriculture is displayed in a comparison of zones
where agriculture is permitted in three zones and prohibited in four zones compared
with forestry permitted in two zones and prohibited in nine zones. Of significance
though is that forestry is permitted in the rural and recreation and public land
(including state forest) zones.
The PAL policy defines agricultural uses as:
‘means animal and crop production and includes intensive tree farming and
plantation forestry’.
The PAL policy does not prevent forestry being separately defined from agriculture;
the issue under PAL is the protection of agricultural land (as defined in PAL) for
agricultural use.
The zones where forestry is prohibited is not seen as significant except for the
Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone where values other than forestry dominate.
The separation of use classes agriculture and forestry should remain.
10
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Recommendation
R40/2 No modifications to the draft scheme in respect to the separate definitions and
categorisation of agriculture and forestry.
1.2.3
R43/3 DIER concerning land use in the Rural zone
DIER sought to have greater restriction on uses in the Rural zone. Council agreed to
changing the use classification of ‘call centre’, ‘fuel depot’, and ‘transport depot’ to
prohibited but did not support changing a purpose of the Rural zone as ‘to encourage
residential living in a rural environment, where it is compatible with rural land uses.’
To describe a purpose of the Rural zone as being for rural living and to make a house
a permitted use is inconsistent with PAL in respect to the potential to fetter
agricultural activities and the strategy to consolidate residential use in Residential
zones.
Nothing in the Clarence strategy suggests that all agricultural activity will be confined
to the Intensive Agriculture zone. To encourage rural living in the Rural zone is
contrary to the other purposes of the Rural zone, being: the development of new
sustainable rural enterprises and protection and enhancement of the bio-diversity of
the area. This issue was also raised in other representations.
The Rural zone should be modified to reduce the capacity for the establishment of
non-rural uses. R42/3 required modifications to the Rural zone for residential use, the
other identified uses should be prohibited in the Rural zone.
Recommendations
R40/3
Modify the Rural zone in the draft scheme as follows:
(i).
Delete the following use classes from the table of uses in the Rural zone:
ancillary dwelling – (covered by clause 6.5)
call centre
fuel depot
transport depot
(ii). Change the classification of bed and breakfast from permitted to discretionary.
1.2.4
R40/4 DIER other
Other matters arising from the representation.
1.
Clarence Strategic Directions
Council's s.26(2) report recommended modifications to the section in the draft scheme
‘Clarence Strategic Directions’. The recommendations were in response to the DIER
call for a comprehensive view to be taken on transportation.
11
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The Clarence strategic directions section prior to clause 2.3-Vision is principally
descriptive and of little value in the assessment of permits. The matters raised by
DIER are covered in the decision requirements of clause 6.3.
2.
Road corridor
The entire road corridor for Rokeby Road, Pass Road and the proposed bypass for
Rokeby should be shown as Special use 2 on plan 20 as shown on the plan included
with R40.
Recommendation
R40/4 Modify plan 20 to show the entire Rokeby bypass as Special Use 2.
1.3
Issues: Department of Economic Development
Representation
R39 Department of Economic Development commenting on various aspects of the
planning scheme.
Council
Council recommended that restaurant and tourist operation be discretionary uses in
the Village zone and that a Kangaroo Bay enhancement policy be inserted in the
scheme.
Commission's Considerations
1.3.1
R39/1 Industrial estates
R39/1 supported the industrial estates as shown by Industry zoning.
Through the hearings the extent of the Industry zoning at Rokeby was raised. In a
later submission (24/5/04) Council described the attributes of the Rokeby industrial
land that should be recognised as of increasing importance as other green-field
industrial areas are developed.
The attributes of the Rokeby industrial area in terms of flat land are acknowledged
and access will be significantly improved with the eventual provision of the long
planned Rokeby bypass. There appears no basis for a reduction in the area of Industry
zoning at Rokeby in terms of competing land use.
However the portion of Industry zoning west of Droughty Point Road and west of the
sewerage treatment plant should be reviewed to establish whether Industry zoning
backing onto Clarence Plains Rivulet and the coast is appropriate and the provisions
to protect the rivulet defined if Industry zoning is retained.
Recommendation
R39/1 The Industry zoning of land west of Droughty Point Road and west of the
Rokeby sewerage treatment plant be ‘done again’ to determine its ongoing suitability,
12
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
and the provisions to protect the rivulet defined, if Industry zoning is to be retained
for the area.
1.3.2 R39/2 Hobart International Airport
R39/2 supported the protection of the airport. This representation presumably is in
reference to the airport buffer overlay. In response to R77, the overlay to the 20 NEF
is retained for the purpose of defining the area of potential adverse effects from
airport operations.
Recommendation
R39/2 no modifications to the Airport Buffer overlay.
1.3.3
R39/3 Development in the Coastal zone.
The representation sought to have the planning scheme recognise areas for tourism
development as contemplated in the State Coastal Policy.
State Coastal Policy 2.3.3 states:
‘Opportunities for tourism development will be identified wherever strategic
planning occurs for the coastal zone or any part of it.’
Whereas clauses 2.3.2 and 2.3.4 of the Policy refer to tourism development being
subject to environmental impact assessment and environmental capacity. The
Policy’s position on tourism is not without due assessment.
The Recreation and Public Land zone covers most of the shoreline and some tourism
use can be approved in this zone. Most zones that adjoin the Recreation and Public
Land zone provide for some level of tourism activity. In addition as concluded with
R42/2 the planning scheme is deficient in its response to the coast, as it is silent on
provisions seaward of high water. The planning scheme has not identified tourism
opportunities in terms of zoning land specifically for such a purpose, however this is
not seen as a deficiency in terms of the State Coastal Policy.
Recommendation
R39/3 No modifications to the draft planning scheme to identify opportunities for
tourism development in the coastal zone as defined in the State Coastal Policy.
1.3.4
R39/4 Extractive industries South Arm
R39/4 concerns clause 3.4.3-3 Rural Industry Strategies that discourage the future
expansion of soil removal and extractive industries in the South Arm area.
The representation questioned whether the strategy took account of regional
considerations.
In response to representations on mining and quarrying the recommendation is to
delete the offending part of clause 3.4.3-3. This recommendation appears under 10.1
Issue: Mining and Quarrying 1
13
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
1.3.5
R39/5.1 External documents
R39/5.1 contended that the scheme is ambiguous on whether the identified documents
were afforded statutory weight. Council's response was that they do not have
statutory weight but must be considered as part of the statutory approval process.
In another response to R39 Council in reference to Kangaroo Bay advised: ‘The
urban design guidelines are an important part of the planning process for the area and
should form part of the scheme’.
At another time Council submitted that the external documents contain no standards,
hence the representor’s claim of ambiguity and uncertainty is understood.
S.20(2)(g) LUPAA:
‘A planning scheme may:
apply, adopt or incorporate any document which relates to the use,
development or protection of land’.
.
The draft scheme identifies external documents as incorporated documents in various
contexts. In a submission to the R42 DPIWE hearing Council identified 9
incorporated and 13 referred documents. The referred documents were described as
documents that have formed the strategy and objectives for the planning scheme.
Whilst the Act clearly allows a planning scheme to incorporate a document there
needs to be rigour in how such documents are used. Of particular need is the
separation between documents that helped form the strategy of the planning scheme
and will not be called upon again and documents that are to be used as part of the
implementation of the planning scheme. Implementation would be in terms of
matters to which a permit assessment is to have regard or that set specific standards.
The relevant principles for dealing with incorporated documents are:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
A planning scheme should clearly identify the documents that are
incorporated and form part of the planning scheme. The documents
must be identifiable, accessible and exhibited with the scheme.
Incorporated documents must be operational – relevant to the use,
development or protection of land.
If the whole document is not to be incorporated, the planning scheme
should identify the parts of the document that are incorporated.
Legislative documents are not incorporated as they apply by their own
force.
An incorporated document can be interpreted as a document ‘as
amended from time to time’ provided it is clear from the planning
scheme that is what is intended. Such a document should be the
product of a recognised body that subjects its document to an external
review process.
14
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
6)
7)
8)
A decision is required as to whether it is better to incorporate a
document or simply include provisions adopted from the document into
the body of the scheme.
The planning scheme comprises the scheme, the plans and the
incorporated documents.
Clauses in the planning scheme that purport to allow councils to adopt
plans, guidelines, codes or standards are ultra vires.
The planning scheme should be ‘done again’ in respect to incorporated documents to
clearly identify the documents that are incorporated as distinct from those that are
referred.
Another related matter is clause 1.4- Furtherance of the planning scheme that states:
‘For the purposes of implementing the provisions of this Planning Scheme in
general and for the administration of clause 6 in particular, the Council may
adopt special plans, designs, guidelines, codes or standards relating to any
aspect of the Planning Scheme.’
To the extent that this clause purports to allow Council to adopt codes and standards
and other material that has application in addition to or in lieu of the planning scheme
without being subject to the amendment process is ultra vires. Clause 1.4 should be
deleted.
In addition clause 6.3 Decision Requirements, 5th dot point states:
‘any development plan, design or local plan adopted by resolution of Council
for the development of any locality, area or class of use or uses covered by the
provisions of this planning scheme.’
This requirement should be reviewed such that it is clear that a matter adopted by
resolution of Council does not take precedent over matters in the planning scheme
that have been through the statutory process.
Recommendations
R39/5.1
i)
The draft scheme be ‘done again’ in respect to the application of incorporated
documents.
ii)
Modify to delete clause ‘1.4-Furtherance of the Planning Scheme’.
iii)
Clause 6.3-Decision Requirement 5th point be ‘done again’ such that it does not
purport to give status to Council documents over the provisions of the planning
scheme.
1.3.6
R39/5.2 The application of TASCORD provisions
15
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R39/5.2 Concerned the extent of the application of the identified TASCORD
provisions in the Residential zone. Under clause 9.2.2 Decision Requirements it is
stated ‘Council must consider (the stated) elements of TASCORD’. The
representation questioned whether the identified TASCORD provisions were required
to be adhered to.
The identified elements of TASCORD at clause 9.2.2 provide performance criteria
and acceptable solutions that are of a nature which are not simply matters that Council
must consider. The TASCORD provisions should be recast as standards applying to
subdivision and not simply as decision requirements.
At the hearing Council noted that the column "performance criteria" should be deleted
from the TASCORD table.
Recommendation
R39/5.2 Modify clause 9.2.2 to recast the table identifying TASCORD elements as
standards for subdivision instead of decision requirements and delete the performance
criteria column from the table.
1.3.7
R39/5.3 Kangaroo Bay Special Area guidelines
The representation concerned the statutory weight to be given the Kangaroo Bay
Special Area Guidelines.
The Scheme refers to the guidelines in the following ways.
‘9.14.2 To define the boundaries of the precincts.’
Although the boundaries are shown on the plans they are more clearly defined in the
guidelines.
‘9.14.5 (an application is required to provide details of) ‘how the design
meets the criteria in the urban design guidelines for the relevant precinct.’
On the surface the guidelines are simply guidelines except perhaps for determining
the boundaries at a finer level of detail than provided on the plans and this may be
judged as the extent to which the guidelines are incorporated. However the guidelines
themselves state: ‘these guidelines are used by the Clarence City Council in the
assessment of applications for permitted and discretionary uses in the area where they
apply.’
To add complexity to the status of the guidelines, through the s.26(2) report Council
recommended the addition of a ‘Kangaroo Bay enhancement policy’ within the
planning policy framework. The policy appears at Attachment 4 of Council’s report.
Council’s report stated ‘the urban design guidelines are an important part of the
planning process for the area and should form part of the scheme’. The section in the
scheme containing the planning policies states that they are to ‘guide the exercise of
discretion’. The difficulty with the proposed policy is that it does nothing that cannot
be done through the zone provisions and in addition it opens the field for Council to
have regard to ‘any adopted urban design guidelines for the zone’. The intent of the
proposed policy as stated at R39/7 in the s.26(2) report has clearly not been achieved.
16
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The benefit of the Kangaroo Bay enhancement policy to the draft scheme has not been
demonstrated.
The Kangaroo Bay Urban Design Guidelines describe for each precinct the character
statements and character guidelines with illustrations of what is accepted and what is
not accepted. The guidelines do not raise any quantitative standards and they are not
easily read or applied. In terms of the representation it is reasonable to find that some
statutory weight is to be given to the guidelines but the extent of this weight is not
clear.
The guidelines are captured by the recommendation under R39/5.1 requiring the
application of incorporated documents to be done again.
Recommendation
R39/5.3 The application of the Kangaroo Bay Urban Design Guidelines under the
scheme be ‘done again’ particularly in respect to the relationship of the guidelines to
the zone provisions.
1.3.8
R39/6 Uses in the Village zone
R39/6 contended the Village zone should allow restaurant and tourist operation as
discretionary uses. Council agreed with the representation.
The purpose of the Village zone is described as:
‘To provide for residential and associated development in outlying small
communities and to ensure the character and sensitive nature of those places
are protected and enhanced.’
A restaurant does not include a shop, local shop and take-away food shop. A tourist
operation is defined as:
‘land used specifically for tourist purposes and includes wildlife parks,
country clubs or outdoor, historical or bush displays and the like, but excludes
any other tourism facility defined in this clause.
The settlements zoned Village on the draft plans are confined to Seven Mile Beach,
Opossum Bay, Clifton Beach, Honeywood Drive, Cremorne, South Arm and HalfMoon Bay.
In consideration of the uses proposed for the Village zone and the potential impacts of
a restaurant and tourist operation the need and merit for changing the status of these
land uses has not been established.
Recommendation
R39/6 No modifications to the Village zone to include restaurant and tourist
accommodation as discretionary uses.
1.3.9 R39/7.1 Industry zone, Standard Recommended Attenuation Distances
(SRAD)
17
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R39/7.1 sought flexibility in the application of SRAD as referred to in clause 9.6.5 for
the Industry zone. This clause refers to a Level 2 EMPCA activity that must not be
approved within the applicable SRAD.
As a SRAD is only a recommendation it would be inappropriate to give the weight of
‘no approval’ unless conforming to the SRAD.
The clause only refers to a Level 2 activity that involves environmental assessment by
the Board of Environmental Management and Pollution Control where the separation
distances against a range of pollution types would be assessed. The clause is
potentially misleading and should be deleted.
Recommendation
R39/7.1 Modify to delete clause 9.6.5-Environmental Standards for the Industry
zone.
1.3.10 R39/7.2 Height standard for the Industry zone.
R39/7.2 supported the absence of a height standard in the Industry zone submitting
that industrial development should not be subject to arbitrary height limits.
The planning scheme relies to a large degree on assessments for permits against long
lists of decision criteria. Whilst this approach may remove arbitrary standards it does
not promote equity and consistency in decision making. The absence of standards
does not provide a sound foundation for applicants and the Council. The lack of
standards is a matter pursued under other zones where the issue is likely to be more
contentious, nevertheless for the Industry zone height is relevant for areas such as
near the airport and the need for a height standard should be reviewed.
Recommendation
R39/7.2 The development standards in the Industry zone be ‘done again’ to identify
appropriate standards, including standards for height.
18
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
2.
Droughty
2.1
Preliminary
Overview
Droughty attracted the substantive number of representations and occupied the
principal period of the hearings.
For the purpose of this issue, Droughty is considered in its entirety being all the land
south of Rokeby Road.
The landmass comprises extensive areas of land committed to housing being Howrah,
Tranmere and Rokeby. The area also contains the principal area of undeveloped land
that has Residential zoning in the planning area and to a considerable degree the
region.
The prominence of Droughty as a landscape feature is of regional importance.
Nomenclature
The administrative areas for Droughty are principally Rokeby and Tranmere.
Geographical features are Droughty, Droughty Hill, Droughty Point and Tryworks
Point. For the Panel’s reporting the general area is referred to as Droughty and as a
promontory rather than a peninsula.
Provisions in the Certified Planning Scheme
The certified plans identified residential and Low Density Residential zoning for
western and eastern sides of Droughty and Landscape and Skyline Conservation
zoning for the upper slopes and ridge of Rokeby Hills. An alignment for the
incomplete sections of Oceana Drive was not shown on the plans. A development
plan overlay (DPO) requirement applies to the larger parcels of undeveloped land
with Residential zoning. The DPO requirement acts as a measure to provide for
staging, connectivity of infrastructure etc.
Zoning in the 1963 Planning Scheme
Droughty has carried residential, low-density residential, reserved-residential and
Rural zoning since the first approval of the 1963 Planning Scheme. Incremental
amendments have changed the rural and reserved residential zoning to residential.
Issues involving skyline and coastal have emerged over the years.
The Council has commissioned reports to review the planning of the area. The
certified planning scheme is Council's response as a synthesis of the issues in the
various studies and Council's preferred infrastructure strategy.
The alignment of Oceana Drive notionally planned for many years to link the
Tranmere and Droughty west to the eastern side of Droughty and Rokeby was not
shown as a future alignment on the 1963 Planning Scheme.
19
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Council's s.26(2) report on the representations.
Council recommended that the plans be modified to remove the Low Density
Residential zoning and extend Residential zoning on the western slopes of Droughty
to the 60 m contour and to show the alignment of the extension of Oceana Drive to
the Camelot Park subdivision as Special Use zone.
The s.26(2) report recommended no modifications to the zoning on the eastern side of
Droughty.
Infrastructure
In respect to the road asset plans, the Council’s documentation was the referred
document ‘City Plan Transport Network Study’ by Tony Peters October 1996.
The Peter’s report states ‘The Oceana Drive subarterial will need upgrading to cater
for future residential development. A link between Tranmere Road and Rokeby could
have connectivity benefits in the future’. The report identified a number of
connections in the Tranmere – Rokeby area but stated the planning for Droughty,
Rokeby and Clarendon Vale needs to be subject to an overall strategy plan (pages 44,
51)
Completion of Oceana Drive as dictated by development was classed as (long-term in
the project priorities of the Peters Report (page 46)). In contrast DIER (R40) sought
the completion of Oceana Drive to the current Carr subdivision and its connection to
South Arm Road to counter saturation traffic volumes in Howrah Road
Council’s engineer gave oral evidence on the provision of water and sewerage
services to Droughty.
Planning strategy
The planning scheme’s residential strategy is the development of the TranmereRokeby corridor. The documents that Council representatives sought to rely upon for
the strategy were Clarence 2050, Clarence Resource Management and Land Use
Strategy 2001, and Council's asset plans.
Clarence 2050 –( February 1999) simply states as a strategy the following:
‘Provide for future residential growth in the Tranmere, Droughty and Rokeby
areas’. (page 27)
Clarence 2050 states that it is to provide the strategic framework for the city over the
next fifty years. The framework is delivered in a series of dot points under issue
headings. The document does not provide any analysis or justification for the
identified strategy.
20
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The Clarence Resource Management and Land Use Study (RMLUS) 1999 and update
5/2003) has as its purpose the development of an integrated land use strategy for the
city. The strategy appears to adopt as a given, the Clarence 2050 strategy for future
residential growth in the Tranmere, Droughty and Rokeby areas. The report states
that ‘there is a need to facilitate the consolidation of zoning and available lots to areas
relative to Droughty where Council has made significant investment in upgrading the
existing service network’ (page 16).
The preference for a Droughty, Tranmere, Rokeby strategy is put in context with the
scheme’s planning policy framework.. The planning policy framework states
‘Council's key strategic directions for future land use planning and development are
identified in the City of Clarence Resource Management and Land Use Strategy 2002’
(page 18).
The grounds for Council's reliance on a Droughty-Rokeby strategy are not found in
the reports that Council relies upon. Clarence 2050 adopts Tranmere-DroughtyRokeby as a strategy but does not give the rationale for the strategy. Subsequent
reports appear to be based on the strategy without review or justification. Importantly
there is no evidence that the Clarence 2050 report was subject to assessment against
the State Coastal Policy. The justification for the strategy at the hearing was in terms
of the Policy but there is no evidence that the policy formed the strategy.
Relevant to the planning scheme urban growth strategy is the concept of an urban
growth boundary. The provisions for an urban growth boundary are set out in the
planning policy framework part of the scheme where at clause 2.3.5 (page 18) it
states: ‘the major strategic directions include (the) identification of the urban growth
boundary of suburbs and villages’.
The urban growth boundary is mapped on the strategic land use framework plan in the
scheme. The urban growth boundary is set to provide for at least ten years supply of
residential land (page 25) with the Howrah-Tranmere-Droughty corridor as the
preferred location for new housing.
Council's arguments in support of development strategy for Droughty
Council's position throughout the hearings was that Droughty was central to the
planning scheme strategy as the preferred development area.
Principal points in Council's submissions were:
•
With development confined to below the 60 m contour the majority of Droughty
will remain undeveloped.
•
Other areas previously zoned reserved residential, particularly in the Pass Road
area have been zoned Rural on the draft plans in favour of the preferred
development corridor and rural activity in that area.
•
Development of Droughty is considered in a ten year time frame.
•
Residential zoning of Droughty provides a clear understanding of the residential
strategy. The requirement for a development plan overlay amendment prior to
development provides a security net in terms of staging and tinkering of
boundaries.
21
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
•
•
•
Alternative development areas in Clarence have been otherwise committed or
constrained, as is the case for the hills. Pass Road is constrained by agricultural
development. Tranmere-Droughty is more attractive to the residential market
than other areas.
The extension of Oceana Drive around the bottom of Droughty provides for
development on the Eastern side of Droughty that is more acceptable to the
market.
Investment in sewerage infrastructure, the upgrading of Rokeby sewerage
treatment plant and extension to park networks has been based on the provision
of a development loop around the bottom of Droughty.
Representations Opposed to the Droughty residential Strategy
Matters raised by representation included.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Droughty forms the entrance to the Derwent that is highly visible. The visual
amenity should be protected.
Adequate protection of Aboriginal and European heritage including the 46
classified Aboriginal sites and the Tryworks Point whaling station.
Droughty represents a visual and cultural landscape.
Support for a continuous reserve on Rokeby and Droughty Hills and provision of
a useable coastal reserve.
Provision for access between the coastal reserve and a reserve along the hills. The
lower portion of Droughty should be designated public open space.
Amount of Residential zoning did not take adequate account of demographic
trends.
Insufficient accounts taken of previous studies on the development of Droughty.
The zoning creates a false view of demand for development on Droughty by back
zoning other land currently zoned reserved residential.
The geology of the area is not suitable for building.
Landscape values of Droughty will be compromised by the extent of Residential
zoning. The Southern part has high landscape values.
Representors also responded by using a proforma as their representation that allowed
a response in terms of preferences on reserves and subdivision.
The representors who used the proforma largely did not attend the hearings or provide
reasons beyond that of a preference for no development or limited additional
development.
Representations were also received from property owners seeking different zoning,
redefinition of zone boundaries or to support the draft planning scheme.
The Panel’s consideration of representations and recommendations for Droughty are
contained in specific responses to the representations from property owners.
Representations that included Droughty with other matters appear under different
headings, and notably the representations R40 DIER and R42 DPIWE fall in to this
category.
22
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
2.2.
Issue: Proforma 1 Representations concerning Droughty.
Representations proforma 1
Representations based on proforma 1 were received from:
R4 C Alomes, R5 K Ancher, R7 R & C Andrews, R9 S Baptist, R10 L & E Barber,
R11 J Bigwood, R12 E Bolt, R13 K Boud, R14 K Boulton, R15 K Boulton, R17 R &
J Brown, R18 M Brown, R19 A & M Carvosso, R20 B Chetwynd, R23 B Clark, R25
S Coad, R27 J Cook, R28 D Cooke, R29 E Cope, R30 D Copping, j R31 C Corbett,
R36 R & D Daniels, R43 R & D Direen, R44 R & R Direen, R46 N & J Donald, R48
H Dunn, R55 P & D Frost, R56 Mr & Mrs Gergely, R63/2 L Graham, R69 P Heather,
R70 S Henry, R76 A Hook, R86 N Jenkins, R87 P & M Jessup, R92 B Knowles, R93
H Kremer, R94 H & A Kuiper, R95 M & J Lamont, R97 A & P Leishman, R99 T, W,
C, K Long, R102 J Mayo, R104 P McLagan, R109 W & A Miller, R113 S Murfet,
R115 E Murray, R117 G Murray, R129 L Newman, R130 M Newman, R138 A
Olding, R139 J & S Pamplin, R145 R Perriman, R153 D Reeve, R154 F Reeve, R163
L Semmler, R165 S & Y Shea, R166 J Shelton, R170 D&J Smith, R183 C Thomas,
R185 W Thompson, R186 P Thornton, R190 J & B Tulloch, R193 D Vickers,R194 R
Walker, R198 A Watson, R199/2 C Watts
Other similar representations
Representations with issues similar to proforma 1 were received from:
R1 V Admun, R24 S & S Cleary, R38 B Dechaineux, R51 P Sullivan obo Friends of
Droughty Point, R52 P Sullivan obo Friends of Droughty Point, R53 A Hemming obo
Friends of Mt Nelson, R54 S Maharj obo Friends of Porter Hill, R75 K Hoey, R80 A
Hudspeth, R90 S Junior, R116 G & R Murray, R140 S Paulovics, R141 J & N Pavic,
R160 J Russell, R171 D Halse-Rogers obo South Hobart Progress Association Inc,
R172 R Spinner, R181 B Mansell obo Tasmanian Aboriginal Land Council
Council
Council's response to the representations was to establish the upper limit of
Residential zoning on the western side of Droughty at the 60m contour and to
abandon the low density Residential zone strip between residential and Landscape and
Skyline Conservation zoning.
Commission's Considerations
Proforma 1 provided for representors to express preferences in a ‘tick-a-box’ format.
The structure of the proforma also allowed representors to express additional
opinions.
The issues that representors were required to consider by the proforma were:
‘…the tops of the hills of Rokeby, Howrah and Droughty Point should become
a publicly owned reserve…’.
23
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
‘…no further subdivision allowed on Droughty Point Peninsula, to protect
native vegetation on the Rokeby and Howrah Hills and to protect the visual
amenity of Droughty Point, which is a key feature of the greater Hobart area.’
Or
‘…limited residential development of Droughty Point Peninsula should be
allowed, but restricted to below the 60m contour and be confined to infill to
just past Camelot Park and should not extend around Droughty Point.’
Other aspects of the Proforma 1 referred to the provision of walking trails and a
useable coastal reserve.
In terms of preference between no further subdivision and subdivision below the 60m
contour, 30 representations supported no subdivision and 33 supported a development
limit to the 60m contour and no development around Droughty Point.
This form of survey is not very helpful except as an indication of representor
preference. Additional comments to the tick-a-box proforma advocated public
reserves on hilltops and at Tryworks Point and that Droughty is a significant landmark
that should be preserved. The only other matter to observe is that whilst the proforma
referred to development to the 60m contour which appears to be the source of
Council's response, that response ignored the second part of the representors
preference that residential development should not extend around Droughty Point.
The points made in the proforma are embodied in recommendations to representations
on specific land parcels on Droughty.
Other representations with similar issues to those expressed in Proforma 1 advocated
the following.
R1 sought a binding skyline protection, ridgeline walking tracks and cycle tracks
around the coast.
R24 was an advocacy for proper footpaths and walking tracks and bike tracks.
R38 was an advocacy for development to be limited to the 200 foot level
(approximately 60m) and an objection to reflective rooves.
R51 comprehensively addressed issues relevant to the planning at Droughty and
advocated among other things:
Development to the 60m contour.
Protection of bushland through a bushland conservation zone.
Designation of the tip of Droughty as public open space in-line with the
Sansom report.
A proper visual assessment in the context of the harbour and the region.
R52 and R75 sought the provision of a ridgeline reserve, a useable coastal reserve and
links between the two. R52 also sought a ‘proper’ visual assessment in the context of
the harbour and the region.
24
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R53 and R54 sought effective mechanisms to protect skylines.
R58 sought less dense development on Droughty, expansion of walkways and
development of heritage areas beyond recognition of single buildings.
R90 sought Recreation and Public Land zoning for all the land south of AMG
northing 463 as a place close to the city for recreation, training and outdoor leisure
related to boating on the Derwent.
R116 sought public ownership for land above 60m, a 100m wide coastal reserve,
protection of heritage sites and inclusion of sensitive tourism options. R116 also
sought the inclusion of Tranmuir Cottages on the heritage list in the scheme.
R140 contended that further subdivision on Droughty did not suit an aging
population.
R141 concerned public access on Droughty, public open space and safe bicycle riding
paths.
R160 contended the zoning of Droughty did not have sufficient regard to the social
values of the place. In addition a proper assessment of skyline protection was
required.
R171 referred to the quality of the visual image of Droughty from central Hobart and
contended the strategic direction section of the draft scheme appears too focussed on
justifying the development of Droughty. The representation also covered issues on
exemptions, zones and overlays.
R172 opposed development on Droughty because of significant landmass with
historic values.
R181 sought protection of the area for its Aboriginal cultural values.
The representations help to form a conclusion for the zoning strategy for Droughty
but do not lead to specific recommendations at this point except for the heritage
listing of Tranmuir Cottages.
Recommendations
Proforma 1
i)
No modifications to the draft planning scheme arising specifically from matters
raised in proforma 1 and other related representations.
ii)
2.3
Modify clause 10.5.5-Heritage Register to list Tranmuir Cottages.
Issue Howrah Hills – Malwood Pty Ltd
Representation
25
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R58, GHD obo Malwood Pty Ltd concerning provisions affecting Malwood land
south of Rokeby Road.
Council
Council responded to the detailed points in the representation that led to
recommendations to modify the plans and scheme.
Commission's Considerations
R58 was a detailed submission covering provisions generally, standards and matters
considered inconsistent in the scheme and in addition raised matters specific to the
Malwood property. The representor’s submission to the hearing was in response to
Council's s.26(2) report.
Matters in the representation concerning inconsistencies particularly between
exemptions and zone use classifications and standards have been covered elsewhere.
The classification of different forms for residential development as discrete use
categories remain to be addressed in the ‘do again requirements’ of the Commission.
2.3.1
R58/1 Coventry Rise
R58/1 concerned land above Oceana Drive off Coventry Rise. The draft plans zoned
the subject land Low Density Residential with vegetation management overlay. In
response to the representations Council recommended the Low Density Residential
zoning south of Glamorgan Street be changed to Residential zoning for one block
depth on the high side of the future extension of Oceana Drive. However for the land
off Coventry Rise, Council sought the retention of Low Density Residential zoning
despite that land appearing to be at the same contour height as that now to be zoned
residential to the south. The difference in approach for the two areas is that
Residential zoning off Coventry Rise would be inconsistent with the one block depth
policy above Oceana Drive. The representation objected to the width of the area
zoned Low Density Residential that would not allow blocks on either side of a cul de
sac extension to Coventry Rise. The land can be serviced. The representor tabled a
plan at the hearing showing the subject area expanded to allow creation of blocks on
both sides of an access road. The status of the plan was simply that of a draft
development plan for the Malwood land.
The Low Density Residential zoning is stated as providing a buffer between
established urban areas and non-urban areas with a minimum lot size of 1500m2 and
minimum width of 25m. Although the low density residential zone provides for
larger blocks than the residential zone the actual direct difference in terms of impact
on natural and buffer attributes is probably not great. Where services are available
development to a greater density is consistent with the efficient utilisation of
resources.
The preferred zoning is residential.
26
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Turning to the up-slope zone boundary, there is insufficient evidence in the
representor’s submission to justify a change to the boundaries shown on the draft
plan. Any change in the zoning will need to be progressed through a later planning
scheme amendment.
Recommendation
R58/1 modify plan 16 to shown land above Coventry Rise from Low Density
Residential to Residential zoning.
2.3.2
Zoning above Oceana Drive, Malwood Land.
R58/2 supported Council's s.26(2) report Attachment 1 in respect to the alignment of
Oceana Drive south of Glamorgan Street and the change in zoning from Low Density
Residential to residential of one block depth. The definition of an alignment for
Oceana Drive and deletion of the Low Density Residential zoning is supported.
Recommendation
R58/2 Modify plan 16 to show the Malwood property zoned Residential and Special
Use 2 (for Oceana Drive) as shown on Attachment 1 of Council’s s.26(2) report..
2.3.3 R58/3 Vegetation Management overlay (VMO) over residential and Low
Density Residential zoning.
The representation contended the VMO should not apply to land zoned residential and
Low Density Residential. It was advocated that detailed flora and fauna surveys are
prepared as part of outline development planning and once development has taken
place the overlay is unlikely to apply by virtue of the exemption provisions and
difficulty of enforcement.
Council advised that the VMO is based on the natural asset inventory and applies for
the protection of endangered species.
The VMO applies to established residential areas as well as undeveloped land with
Residential zoning. The VMO provisions establish decision requirements that would
be hard to reconcile with residential development. In addition the exemptions are
such that the VMO is probably of little influence at Residential zone densities.
Significantly if the application of the VMO is to lead to a refusal of development at
the Residential zone density then the land should not be zoned residential or the VMO
removed. Clearly the values of the VMO cannot be retained or retained only at a
superficial level in Residential zoned areas. This inherent conflict of provisions has
not been resolved in the submissions received from Council. The VMO should not
apply to areas zoned residential.
The arguments are similar in respect to the low density Residential zone but at the
lower residential density there is some opportunity for retention of VMO values.
27
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Recommendation
R58/3 Modify draft plans-VM to remove the vegetation management overlay where
shown over the Residential zone.
2.3.4
R58/4 Development Plan overlay (DPO)
R58/4 contended the DPO requirements for a scheme amendment and other approvals
subsequent to the DPO were unnecessary.
In respect to Malwood the requirement for a DPO was placed over the extension to
Oceana Drive. Council's s.26(2) report recommended this requirement should be
removed.
The alignment for the extension of Oceana Drive and the up-slope boundary of
Residential zoning have been defined and a DPO is not required.
However the principal matter in the representation was the operation of the DPO.
The operation of the DPO was stated as:
‘A DPO is required to be incorporated into the planning scheme but can only
be by formal planning scheme amendment. The provisions for DPO are a
mixture from detailing how land is to be developed according to the zoning
and to being a basis for staging.’
Where the DPO is simply a resolution of, for instance, the layout of the streets and
other matters consistent and not in any way changing the planning scheme provisions
then a planning scheme amendment should not be required. Where a DPO proposes
zoning or to introduces standards contrary to the planning scheme provisions then a
planning scheme amendment is necessary.
However the draft planning scheme is using the DPO requirement to achieve staging
through a planning scheme amendment. In that, through a DPO land zoned
residential cannot be developed until there is a planning scheme amendment. In this
way Residential zoning is a type of reserved Residential zoning thus pre-empting the
future zoning of land with no commitment to that use until it is demonstrated that the
land should be used for that purpose.
The provisions for the DPO should be ‘done again’ as a general provision in the
scheme instead of an overlay. As a general provision a development plan is a means
of resolving the form of subdivision in terms of road and open space connectivity with
adjoining land and staging as part of the permit assessment process. A development
plan may also be used to justify an amendment to the planning scheme or perhaps be
incorporated to provide the unique planning provisions for the area subject to the
development plan.
Recommendations
28
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R58/4
i)
Modify the draft plans to delete the requirements for a development plan
overlay.
ii)
The development plan provisions in the draft scheme be ‘done-again’ as a
general provision applying to permit applications or as a vehicle for justifying
an amendment.
2.3.5
R58/5 Bushfire Management overlay (BMO)
R58/5 noted the BMO applies to part of the Malwood property and questioned how
the BMO areas were established. Council advised the BMO areas were determined
on Tasmanian Fire Service criteria.
The BMO has as its purpose to ‘minimise the loss of life and property from bushfire’.
The BMO map areas of bushfire risk. The scheme provides standards for
development within the BMO defined areas and specifies that a discretionary permit
is required to vary the standards.
Clause 10.2.3-Decision Requirements specifies that Council must consider whether an
application minimises fire risks, provides safe access, adequacy of water supply and
appropriate siting of buildings. The provisions appear to give effect to the Tasmanian
Fire Service guidelines.
The BMO areas shown on the plans display some potential anomalies. For instance
on BMO plan 16 small areas within fire risk areas appear to be excluded from the
operation of the overlay and the overlay applies to areas behind Bellerive and Howrah
beaches and a chunk of urban development in Tranmere. These spots are isolated
from larger areas of bushland and whilst there may be a fire risk the merit of
extending the BMO is not established. Another difficulty with the BMO would be if
it were assumed those areas not shown as BMO were free of fire risk. Whilst the
approach of mapping areas for Bushfire Management considerations has certain merit,
the actual areas included and the application of the standards to unmapped areas
requires further consideration.
Recommendations
R58/5
i)
Modify the draft plans to delete The Bushfire Management overlay.
ii)
The bushfire protection provisions in the draft scheme be ‘done-again’ as a
general provision.
2.3.6
R58/6 Landscape and Skyline Conservation (LSC) zone.
29
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R58/6 contended that the setting of a building envelope at the time of subdivision was
arbitrary, may lack relevance because of time lag between subdivision and building
and gives the impression of a development right although available use and
development in the zone is mostly discretionary.
Council contended the envelope established at the time of subdivision was necessary
to contain development but the requirement to be rectangular should be deleted.
The LSC zone specifies that a lot for subdivision must contain a (rectangular)
building envelope with a maximum area of 2500m2. The minimum lot is 20ha.
The purpose of the LSC zone concerns the identification and protection of areas of
conservation significance. The identification of a building envelope at the time of
subdivision means that the design of lots in the zone must have some recognition of
where the use and development is to be concentrated such that the values of the area
within the envelope can be appropriately assessed. In addition the impact of the
alignment of a future access road can also be assessed. The definition of building
envelope at the time of subdivision has merit and should be retained. Council's
amendment to delete the requirement for the envelope to be rectangular is supported.
Recommendation
R58/6 Modify clause 9.11.2 to delete the requirement for a building envelope to be
rectangular in the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone.
2.3.7
R58/7 Special Use zone and ancillary use.
R58/7 observed that an ancillary use to a permitted use appeared to have discretionary
status in the Table of Uses for the Special Use zone.
Council accepted the representation and recommended modifications shown in
Attachment 3 of the s.26(2) report.
Ancillary and multiple use or development is covered in clause 6.5 of the draft
scheme. Ancillary use does not appear in the tables of uses for any zone other than
Special Use except as a means of conditioning a (principal) use. The general
provision at clause 6.5 should be relied upon to deal with ancillary and multiple use
situations and to not take the form of a separate use category in the Table of Uses for
the Special Use zone.
Recommendation
R58/7 Modify clause 9.13.1 Special Use zone Table of Uses to delete the reference to
‘a use ancillary…’.
2.3.8
R58/8 Relaxation of residential standards
R58/8 contended that there should be a relaxation provision for the residential
standards. Council did not support the representation but submitted a new clause
30
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
5.10.8 (6.10.8) to allow a relaxation of standards for non-conforming existing
development and to allow an extension of an existing non-conforming use.
To the latter point, the extension of the use, is not qualified or quantified. The
extension of an existing non-conforming use should remain with s.20(6) LUPAA that
does not protect substantial intensification.
Clause 6.10.8 otherwise provides for a relaxation of standards for existing
development that is not available for new development applications. The position on
new applications not having the option of a relaxation of particular standards is a
policy decision of Council to reduce the incidence of discretion. Clause 6.10.8
however should be revised to clarify the application of the clause to development for
an existing use.
In review of clause 6.10-Existing Uses, other modifications are required. In response
to matters raised with Council, clarifications and amendments to clauses were
suggested (letter 6/9/04). The issues with clause 6.10 are as follows:
The second dot point to clause 6.10.1 requires restating for consistency of
words used.
Clause 6.10.9 should be revised as it purports to limit the operation of s.20(3)
LUPAA. Council’s submission providing revised wording is accepted.
Clauses 6.10.4-section 1 uses and 6.10.5-section 2 and 3 uses should be
deleted because they confuse existing use and existing non-conforming use,
restate requirements that exist in any event and conflict with proposed clause
6.10.8.
Clause 6.10.10 contains incorrect numbering.
Recommendations
R58/8
Modify the draft scheme as follows:
i)
ii)
Amend the heading of clause 6.10 to ‘Existing Use or Development’.
Omit clause 6.10.8 and substitute the following:
‘6.10.8 development for an existing use:
The development standards in the zone may be varied for an application for a
permit involving an existing use where that application cannot comply with
the relevant standards. The application must be considered as a discretionary
development.
iii)
Amend the second dot point clause 6.10.1 to omit the existing clause and
substitute:
31
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
‘a permit for the use or development of land has been granted before the
approval date and the use commences before the permit lapses.’
iv)
Delete clauses 6.10.4 and 6.10.5.
v)
Omit clause 6.10.9 and substitute the following:
6.10.9 Damaged or destroyed buildings
If a building is destroyed so that the use cannot continue without the building
or works being reinstated, a permit is required for the development, provided
the floor area and height do not exceed those of the original building.
The application must be considered as a permitted development and in
deciding on permit conditions, in addition to the decision requirements in
clause 6.3, Council must consider:
• The appropriate siting of the building on the land, having regard to
environmental impacts, fire safety, on-site traffic movement and visual
impact.
• The need for noise insulation in a building used for industrial purposes.
• The need for building materials and colours to be in keeping with the
amenity of the area.’
2.4.
Issue Tranmere 1 Metaxas property
Representations
R123: N. Shephard obo J. Metaxas and others
R197: Ware & Partners obo J. Metaxas and others.
Concerning residential, Low Density Residential and Landscape and Skyline
Conservation zoning for the Anatolia Estate subdivision Oceana Drive, Tranmere.
Council
Council supported the representations to the extent shown on Attachment 1 to the
s.26(2) report.
Commission's Considerations
Following Council's recommendations on the representations as contained in the
s.26(2) report, three issues remained for determination.
1)
The Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning of 2 spurs of land
identified as lots 59-61 and lots 88-90 accessed by access strips off
Oceana Drive.
2)
The boundaries of the vegetation management overlay (VMO).
32
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
3)
The development plan overlay (DPO) requirement.
The zoning as proposed in the s.26(2) report covered the existing subdivision
approvals that fixed the alignment of the extension to Oceana Drive and a single line
of lots on the high side of Oceana Drive except as contained in the two spurs defined
above. At the time of the hearing lots 59-61 had prior approval, but lots 88-90 were
before the Tribunal as lots 85-87. The Tribunal upheld the appeal (J303/2003) and
allowed the three lots amongst other things noting future reticulated water supply to
the 76m contour that currently was at 47m.
In view of the approvals and evidence contending insignificant landscape and
vegetation values, the area shown as comprising the Anatolia Estate on the plan
lodged with R123 should be zoned residential, Oceana Drive zoned Special Use and
the DPO and VMO requirements deleted from the plans.
Recommendations
R123/R197
(i)
Modify plan 16 to show the Anatolia Estate zoned residential and Special Use
2 (for Oceana Drive) as shown on Attachment 1 of Council’s s.26(2) report
but with the Residential zoning extending to include the 2 spurs of land on the
eastern property boundary.
(ii)
Modify plans 16 DP and VM to delete the overlays to the Anatolia Estate.
2.5.
Issue: Tranmere 2 Gourlay property
Representations
R62: DK & IB Gourlay supporting the Residential zoning for 286 A Tranmere Road
and concerning the planning for the alignment extension for Oceana Drive.
Council
Council noted the representation but did not support the comments on Oceana Drive.
Commission's Considerations
R62 supports the Residential zoning for land at 286A Tranmere Road.
Recommendation
R62 No modification to plan 16 in respect to 286A Tranmere Road.
2.6.
Issue: Tranmere 3 Luckman property
Representation
33
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R122: N. Shephard obo B Luckman – concerning boundaries of the residential, Low
Density Residential and Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning and the
alignment of Oceana Drive through the property.
Council
Council supported the representation to the extent shown on Attachment 1 to the
s.26(2) report.
Commission's Considerations
Following Council's recommendations on the representation as contained in the
s.26(2) report, the issue of Low Density Residential zoning was removed but the
boundary definition remained and submissions were made on the equivalent of a
reserved Residential zoning and the requirement for a DPO. Submissions for the
applicant included a report on urban values by urban design consultant L Woolley
(exhibit 74).
The essence of the submissions for the property owner was that urban form should be
in response to the site and not simply a predetermined upper contour. At the hearing
the significance of a gully ascending into the Droughty Hills emerged in terms of the
alignment of Oceana Drive and development at high contours.
Although not tested at this hearing the ability to achieve an across peninsula road link
over the Droughty ridge should be explored and the saddle on the Luckman property
is a possible location. At another hearing on the draft planning scheme this matter
was raised but quickly dismissed by Council on the grounds of cost. The concepts
outlined in the Woolley submission on road layout, revegetation and denser forms of
housing should be explored. In addition as water and sewerage services are provided
on a district basis roads should be similarly viewed otherwise the full development
potential and protection of Droughty will not be realised.
The 1963 Planning Scheme shows a lower section of the Luckman land zoned
residential. The rationale for this Residential zoning was not explored but appears to
neither relate to contours or the future alignment of Oceana Drive. However to
achieve an orderly sequencing of land release on Droughty and to connect the
remaining missing link in Oceana Drive, the Luckman land should be the next area to
be developed.
Similarly as Council confirmed the alignment (except for minor variation) of Oceana
Drive that alignment should be shown as Special Use.
Other representations have led to modifications being required in respect to smaller
lots in the Residential zone and the redefinition of housing classifications and
standards. These modifications should allow for a more flexible response to the site
as described in the Woolley submission.
34
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Should the applicant want to pursue residential development to a higher contour level
than currently proposed that will need to be via subsequent amendment to the
Residential zone boundary.
Turning to the DPO, as recommended elsewhere, the concept should be one that
resolves the detail of development as opposed to necessarily amending the planning
scheme to incorporate it. The DPO requirement should be deleted. Nevertheless a
development plan should still be called up as part of an application for a permit.
Recommendations
R122.
i)
Modify plan16 to show the Luckman property zoned Residential and Special
Use 2 (for Oceana Drive) as shown on Attachment 1 of Council’s s.26(2) report.
ii)
Modify plan 16-DP for the Luckman property to delete the development plan
requirement.
2.7.
Issue: Droughty 1 Howie
Representations
R128 N Shephard & Associates obo R.S. Howie concerning Landscape and Skyline
Conservation zoning for land above Oceana Drive, Tranmere. The representation
sought Low Density Residential for a portion of the property above Oceana Drive.
Council
Council did not support the representation because it constituted a further intrusion
into the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone.
Commission's Considerations
R128 concerned the title of 34.83ha that has frontage to Droughty Point Road on the
eastern side of Droughty and extends over the Droughty ridge to descend to Tranmere
to adjoin the Anatolia Estate (R123/R197).
The subject land has frontage to Oceana Drive by virtue of a lot at 712 Oceana Drive.
The land carries Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning on the western side of
Droughty with residential and Low Density Residential zoning on the eastern slopes.
The Residential zoning is subject to the DPO Requirement and parts of the title are
subject to the VMO.
R128 sought Low Density Residential for the area between the ‘two ears’ of the
Anatolia Estate.
35
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The hearing involved submissions for the representor from N Shephard (planning) L
Gulson (landscape), A North (botanical), I Johnston (engineering), G McNamara
(valuation) and M Chladil (Tasmanian Fire Service requirements). The central
proposal for the land was provided in a draft outline development plan prepared by
Ms Gulson that provided a subdivision concept described as ‘coupled envelopes’ of
housing with concentric fire management zones above Oceana Drive. At the next
higher level a ridge top park and on the eastern escarpment ‘contained impact
residential performance bays’. On the lower slopes of the eastern escarpment of
Droughty there is residential and Low Density Residential zoning.
The proposals in the draft outline development plan were supported by the other
submissions for the representor. Despite the submissions Council's representatives did
not support a change to the zoning on the draft plans partly due to the lateness of
those submissions.
The submissions for the representor provided a prima facie case for residential use
and development in parts of the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone. However
the outline development plan is embryonic and the zoning structure of the draft
planning scheme is not supportive of the particular approach. Therefore any change
in the use and development provisions for the subject land in respect to the Landscape
and Skyline Conservation zoning will need to be by future amendment.
Turning to the residential and Low Density Residential zoning on the eastern side of
Droughty, the zoning did not receive representation but the concept of the DPO did.
It is the panel's recommendation that the DPO concept, of being based on an
amendment to the planning scheme, should be abandoned. Without the role of the
DPO to regulate staging, the areas of residential and Low Density Residential zoning
shown on the eastern side of Droughty should be zoned Rural. The extension of
Residential zoning to the south of Rokeby either off Droughty Point Road or as an
extension of Tollard Drive prima facie has merit but proper assessments have not
been made. At the time of any future amendment the requirements of the State Policy
on Protection of Agricultural Land and other State Policies and Acts will need to be
applied.
Recommendations
R128:
(i)
No modifications to the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning as shown
on draft plan 16 for the Howie property at 252 Droughty Point Road.
(ii)
Modify draft plans 16 and 17 to delete residential and Low Density
Residential zoning and substitute Rural zoning for 182, 220 and 252 Droughty
Point Road.
(iii)
Modify draft plans 16 DP and 17 DP to remove the development plan
requirement from 182, 220 and 252 Droughty Point Road.
2.8
Issue: Droughty 2 Parkinson property
36
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Representation
R64 Griggs Leary obo DA & DE Parkinson concerning subdivision on zone
boundaries and subdivision in the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone to excise
an existing house at 310 Droughty Point Road Rokeby.
Council
Council did not support the representation on the basis that lots less than 20ha would
defeat the purpose of the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone. Council
however advised proposed clause 5.6 would allow subdivision on zone boundaries.
Commission's Considerations
At the hearing of R64 Mr Griggs advised that D.A. and D.E. Parkinson were no
longer the owners of 310 Droughty Point Road, nevertheless the representation
stands.
The subject property is 19.85ha and zoned residential, Low Density Residential and
Landscape and Skyline Conservation. The representation sought to subdivide the
upper Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone from the middle level low density
Residential zone. Council's submission was to not support either lots smaller than
20ha or excision of existing houses in the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone
but in response to other representations referred to proposed clause 5.6 that would
allow subdivision on zone boundaries.
Proposed clause 5.6 has been addressed in response to other representations, but
primarily R2.6.
Relevant to the subject property is the Panel’s position on the residential and Low
Density Residential zoning of the eastern escarpment of Droughty and the
development plan overlay.
The current land use is rural. Council advised the agriculture land classification is
class 5-6, but this classification was not verified. It is understood a viable orchard is
established on part of the land.
The zoning of the subject land in the 1963 Planning Scheme is reserved residential to
the 76m contour. On the draft plans Residential zoning is approximately to the 45m
contour and the Low Density Residential up to the 70m contour.
The residential and Low Density Residential zoning on the eastern escarpment of
Droughty should be zoned Rural. In principle the strategy for future residential
development is supported. However appropriate assessments, such as against the
State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2000 and the State Coastal Policy
1996, and sequencing of development to provide services need to be made and be
subject to future draft amendments to the planning scheme.
37
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The Panel's position on the DPO is that the concept involving amendment to the
planning scheme to achieve staging is not appropriate and should be abandoned. One
of the reasons for this position is that it pre-empts the zoning in a similar way to the
reserved Residential zoning of the current planning scheme.
Recommendations
R64:
i)
Modify draft plans 16 and 17 to delete Residential and Low Density Residential
zoning and substitute Rural zoning for 310 Droughty Point Road.
ii)
2.9.
Modify draft plans 16-DP and-17-DP to remove the requirements for a DPO to
310 Droughty Point Road.
Issue: Droughty 3 Carr property
Representations
R142/1 Peacock Darcey & Anderson obo A.J. Carr – supporting the zoning for 936
Oceana Drive, but queried the operation of the overlays applying to the land.
R142/2 Concerning the carry over of the provisions of clause 9.4 from the 1963
Planning Scheme to protect permits issued under that planning scheme.
R176 B Chow obo A.J. Carr – supporting the Residential zoning of Droughty but
considered the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning should have a minimum
lot size of 10ha and the foreshore Recreation and Public Land zoning was excessive.
R127 N. Shephard obo A.J. Carr indicating support for the zoning of 936 Oceana
Drive, Tranmere.
Council
Council noted the representations in support of the zoning provisions for the A.J. Carr
land. However Council’s amended zoning recommendations to restrict Residential
zoning to the 60m contour for the western escarpment of Droughty affects the subject
land. Council did not consider that it was necessary to replicate clause 9.4 from the
current planning scheme into the new planning scheme. Council proposed
modifications to the provisions on strata plans.
Commission's Considerations
2.9.1 Overview
R142, R176 and R127 concerned land owned by A.J. Carr subsequently the Estate of
Albert James Carr. For the purpose of the Commission’s consideration the Estate is
simply referred to as the Carr property. The Carr property comprises the southern
portion of Droughty that at the time of A.J. Carr's purchase in 1981 comprised 320ha.
Mr. Darcey's evidence for the Carr property detailed the land areas and permits
granted.
38
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The title represents the major portion of undeveloped land on Droughty and the
Rokeby Hills/Droughty Hill form a significant feature on the regional landscape and
the perimeter high ground of the lower Derwent River basin.
The land is in the process of subdivision for the parts that are zoned residential under
the 1963 Planning Scheme. The land is otherwise zoned reserved residential in that
scheme. The draft plans comprise bands of zoning with Recreation and Public Land
zoning on the waterfront, Residential zoning to the 60m contour followed by Low
Density Residential zoning to the 75m contour. Landscape and Skyline Conservation
zoning appears on the upper slopes and ridge of the southern extremity of Rokeby
Hills. The bands of zones apply to the western side, across the bottom and up the
eastern side of Droughty.
Council's s.26(2) report recommendations in response to representations on Droughty
were to abandon the Low Density Residential zoning to the western shore but retain
Residential zoning to the 60m contour. The recommended modifications are shown at
Attachment 1 to Council’s report.
The Carr property is subject to the Development Plan overlay (DPO) for the
Residential zone and small areas of Vegetation Management and Bushfire
Management overlays. The s.26(2) report recommendations of Council did not affect
the overlays applying to the land.
The principal submissions to the hearings for the Carr property were received from
Mr N Shephard (planning), and Mr M Darcey (surveying).
The Carr property attracted considerable representation objecting to further
development of Droughty including a consolidated submission from the Regional
skyline Group (R182).
Various representors referred to previous reports commissioned by the Council on
Droughty. The reports were
deGryse J and Woolley L Droughty Point ‘Landscape Assessment and Local
Area Plan Review’ October 1993 and
Sansom I ‘Droughty Point Local Area Plan’ City of Clarence 1990
The deGryse/Woolley report reviewed the Sansom Local Area Plan and largely
carried the Sansom strategies forward. The strategies advocated significant public
open space for the lower section of the promontory on the western shore around
Tryworks Point and extending to the top of the ridge.
Counsel and expert witnesses for the Carr property provided submissions on the
deGryse/Woolley report and answering submissions to the Regional Skyline Group
submission.
For the hearing of representations the Commission specifically requested Council to
address issues relating to:
39
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
1. ‘The appropriateness and need for Residential zoning on Droughty as
contemplated in both the draft planning scheme and in Council's s.26(2)
LUPAA report.
2. Whether there has been sufficient regard to the use and development of the
region as an entity in environmental, economic and social terms as
required by s.21(1) LUPAA.
3. Whether the draft planning scheme has been prepared in accordance with
the State Coastal Policy 1996.’
Council and representatives for the Carr property made submissions addressing these
issues.
2.9.2 R142, R176, R127 The Carr property representatives' case for the draft
planning scheme
Residential zoning
Council's s.26(2) report recommendation to reduce Residential zoning to the 60m
contour was objected to by the representatives for the Carr property.
Evidence from Mr Shephard referred to the approvals following amendment 5/96 to
allow development to the 75m contour. Mr Shephard contended that Residential
zoning to the 60m contour would result in a strip of Landscape and Skyline
Conservation between that and the 75m contour being an area of ‘no-mans-land’.
Mr Shephard contended:
• Individual proposals for development are required to be rigorous in addressing
basic land capability analysis.
• Development level contours should be determined on proper site analysis.
• A comprehensive assessment of the values of the southern tip of Droughty has not
occurred. The Development Plan overlay as a mechanism to analyse land
capability is the most appropriate option.
• A discontinuation of Oceana Drive would result in considerable costs and
inefficiencies in respect to traffic flow, infrastructure provision, emergency
service provision and land release for housing.
The certified plans show Residential and Low Density Residential zoning to the 75m
contour for the undeveloped southern portion of Droughty consistent with the
approvals under the 5/96 amendment. The land above the 75m contour for the whole
of the Carr land carries an approved subdivision of 6 lots of 20ha+. The difference
between the approved subdivision above the 75m contour and Council’s preferred
Residential zoning to 60m gives rise to Mr Shephard’s ‘no-mans land’.
Mr Shephard’s submission sought either Residential zoning to the 75m contour or the
provision for 1200m2 lots adjacent to the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone.
In addition the submission sought to have the foreshore Recreation and Public Land
zoning reduced to 30m. Mr Shephard also requested a correction to the Landscape
and Skyline Conservation zone were it is shown over approved lots (SD2002/39), that
should instead be wholly contained within the Residential zone.
40
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The Regional Skyline Group and others opposed Residential zoning on Droughty.
The Council and the representatives for the Carr property made counter submissions
to that of the Regional Skyline Group.
Mr Shield dismissed the Regional Skyline Group’s submission and sought weight to
be given to the DPO process that:
• ‘will form the basis for the future strategic and structural framework for the
incremental development of this important area; and
• such plans are intended to be incorporated by amendment to the scheme thus
including a public and community input process.’
Mr Darcey's reply to the Regional Skyline Group’s submission stressed the long term
planning for development around Droughty including the provision of major
infrastructure. He contended that unless Oceana Drive was continuous it would be a
6km long culdesac creating unacceptable problems with traffic flow, emergency
service provision and existing infrastructure would be unsustainable. Mr Darcey
contended the approval processes ensured detailed planning for reserves, access roads
and footways, heritage controls, Aboriginal sites and commercial and recreational
sites.
Development plan overlay
Whilst the evidence for the Carr property sought different zone boundaries to that
proposed by the Council and acknowledged detailed resolution of development
remains to be undertaken nevertheless contended that a DPO amendment should not
be a basis for determining development already zoned for the purpose.
The Carr property representatives made specific submissions on the DPO in terms of:
i)
As the DPO is shown applying to adjoining land as well as the Carr land it
would be inappropriate to assume that a single development plan was being
sought.
ii)
Objection to the provision that the DPO should be subject to the planning
scheme amendment process and that subdivision consistent with the
Residential zoning could not proceed without first amending the planning
scheme.
Mr Spence's submission argued the points that a land owner should not be required to
prepare development plans for land that he does not own and if the proposed
application is permissible there ought not be a requirement to amend the planning
scheme.
These submissions are accepted. It would be inappropriate to require an applicant to
prepare a single development plan covering land in other ownerships.
Notwithstanding this position any development plan would still require
acknowledgment of surrounding areas to ensure continuity of connections of roads,
services, open space etc.
41
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The second submission that the DPO should not be tied to planning scheme
amendments is also accepted. The preference is that a development plan preparation
should be part of a permit application or to inform a planning scheme amendment.
This position is expanded in response to other representations, however in essence
and as structured in the draft planning scheme a DPO over the Residential zone
principally provides for staging of development of that zone. The difficulty with this
approach is that it gives statutory pre-commitment to residential development of the
land at some future time when requirements may have considerably changed.
Recreation and public land zoning.
R176 contended the Recreation and Public Land zone around the foreshore was
excessive to requirements, or parts of the foreshore should have Residential zoning to
high water.
Council made no recommendation on R176.
The Recreation and Public Land zoning to the foreshore of Droughty is consistent
with the application of the zone to other parts of the planning area. However the
submission for R176 is accepted in general terms rather than in respect to any
conclusion on whether the area zoned Recreation and Public Land is inadequate or
excessive. As determined elsewhere the Recreation and Public Land zone should be
‘done again’ as an environmental management zone. In specific reference to Droughty
Recreation and Public Land zoning is premature. Council’s nomination for the
inclusion of the Coastal Management overlay to the shoreline of Droughty is
accepted, (R22).
Past reports on Droughty
Mr Shephard’s submission on the deGryse/Woolley report contended:
•
•
•
Council neither adopted nor endorsed the study.
The study did not provide a mechanism for resolving conversion and maintenance
of private land to public open space.
The study is essentially a landscape assessment and pays little or no attention to
issues of economic viability, strategic importance or social impact of Droughty
other than in visual and cultural landscape terms.
Mr Shephard considered the deGryse/Woolley report should be given no more than
passing consideration and no determining weight.
The reports for Council on Droughty may not have found favour with land owners as
contended by Mr Shephard and were not reflected in the zoning on the draft plans.
The reports do however provide a view on the development of Droughty relevant to
the brief given and not specific to individual land owner wishes.
It would appear that the Sansom report was adopted by Council but not the
deGryse/Woolley report, but the rationale for the jump from these studies on
Droughty to the planning scheme zoning has not been articulated in Council’s
42
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
submissions. The Sansom report appeared to carry the endorsement of representors
on the desirable future development pattern for Droughty.
Infrastructure
To address matters relating to infrastructure for Droughty, Council's engineer Mr J.
Stevens gave evidence.
Mr Stevens’ submission described the planning for the Rokeby sewage treatment
plant that has been sized to accommodate development of Droughty and Council's and
developer investment in infrastructure on the basis of continued development. Mr
Stevens referred to water capacity as not an issue on Droughty per se as the choke
points were at Howrah and Bellerive that involved resolution of responsibility
between Council and Hobart Water. Mr Stevens also described the planning for
Oceana Drive including fixing an alignment through the Luckman Property.
Mr Stevens contended that if residential development were stopped on southern
Droughty, investment in capacity would be thrown away.
The evidence on service commitments beyond the current development area was
inconclusive. Whilst it was contended that costs would be thrown away if
development could not proceed around Droughty Point, the actual costs thrown away
could not be quantified particularly if capacity at the Rokeby sewerage treatment plant
was taken up through development in other areas. In addition the evidence on Oceana
Drive was that it was required in any event and existing development commitments
could not rely on Tranmere Road to service the catchment based on current
commitments. In Council’s written submission to matters raised by the Panel the
response to a scenario of no development on the end of Droughty was ‘some
economic disbenefit’.
The Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) submission was to
support the strategy of containment of urban growth within an urban growth boundary
and to focus new housing within Howrah, Tranmere and Droughty areas. However
DIER did not support further development south of the current Carr subdivision until
the completion of an outline development plan and access to the area via an extended
Oceana Drive. DIER noted the requirement for a development plan under the DPO
requirement prior to development, but considered the outline development plan of
their submission would have been part of the approval process of the draft planning
scheme. The DIER submission noted previous evidence of Council to the 5/96
amendment for 936 Oceana Drive that stated that beyond the 5/96 amendment an
alternative road network to the area would be required. DIER's principal submission
was that infill development between Glamorgan Street and the Carr subdivision
would result in saturation traffic volumes in Howrah Road and have a significant
impact on amenity on residents. DIER advocated the alternative road link via Oceana
Drive and construction of the connection onto South Arm Road.
Council's reply to the DIER representation was that a DPO was required but the
planning scheme should not be held up whilst one is being prepared. Council did not
address the concept of pre-commitment to Residential zoning. Council viewed the
43
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Oceana Drive connection to South Arm Highway as one of 6 agreed priorities with no
commitment to a construction date.
Regional landscape and heritage values
The Regional Skyline Group contended that the values of regional landscape, heritage
and Aboriginal cultural heritage were not sufficiently recognised in the Residential
zoning of the southern portion of Droughty. The submissions described the regional
landscape as largely a cleared area but the micro-level suffers extreme environmental
degradation including extensive areas of tunnel and gully erosion, over-grazing and
weed infestation.
A submission for Ms Gulson on behalf of the Carr property dated July 2002 was
tabled and reported on a then proposed 3 lot 20ha+ subdivision above Oceana Drive.
Whilst the submission about landscape values and revegetation is noted, the
submission is not considered helpful to the issue of Residential zoning for the
undeveloped areas of Droughty.
The contribution of Droughty to the regional landscape is significant and on this issue
the evidence of Mr L. Woolley is preferred. Mr Woolley’s submission on the
Luckman property was for development to be contained within the middle harbour
formed by Mt Nelson on the western shore and Droughty on the eastern shore.
In terms of heritage and the Residential zoning on the Carr property, the significance
of the Tasmanian Heritage Council listing of the southern three titles across the
bottom of Droughty and the Aboriginal sites has not been given due recognition.
State Coastal Policy
The Regional Skyline Group and others contended that residential development across
the bottom of Droughty was contrary to the State Coastal Policy outcomes 2.1.1,
2.1.6, 2.4.1, 2.5.2, 3.1.2 and 4.2. The conclusion for Regional Skyline Group claimed
that the only way to implement the coastal policy on the tip of Droughty is to keep it
totally free from residential development of any kind along with a 50m ‘no-go’ zone
along its foreshore.
The Council (Mr M. Shield) and the representatives for the Carr property (Mr M.
Darcey and Mr N. Shephard) made counter submissions to that of the Regional
Skyline Group.
Mr Shephard's submission on the State Coastal Policy was in the following terms:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The entire Droughty peninsula is within the Coastal zone.
The peninsula has been recognised as a residential land bank through reserved
Residential zoning in the 1963 Planning Scheme.
Council's strategy for and commitment to services to Droughty as an urban growth
corridor.
Droughty has attributes as a regional land bank.
Droughty represents urban infill.
In a special visual sense, development as provided for in the draft planning
scheme represents completion of the urban/harbour setting.
44
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
•
Development of Droughty might be perceived as ribbon but instead represents
planned and sequential development that is not inconsistent with clause 2.4.2 of
the State Coastal Policy.
The State Coastal Policy was argued by representors to support particular cases.
Outcomes 2.4.1-2.4.3 are specifically relevant:
2.4.1. Care will be taken to minimise, or where possible totally avoid, any impact on
environmentally sensitive areas from the expansion of urban and residential
areas, including the provision of infrastructure for urban and residential areas.
Residential zoning of southern Droughty has not demonstrated that outcome 2.4.1 has
been satisfied. Council and the representatives for the Carr property conceded that
there were areas of environmental sensitivity and further work was required.
2.4.2. Urban and residential development in the coastal zone will be based on existing
towns and townships. Compact and contained planned urban and residential
development will be encouraged in order to avoid ribbon development and
unrelated cluster developments along the coast.
The provisions in the scheme for the Residential zone and continuous Residential
zoning as depicted on the plans will not readily achieve compact and contained
planned urban and residential development. Irrespective of labels given to
development as linear rather than ribbon some 6km of coastal development based
predominantly on a single access road can't avoid being described as ribbon
development.
2.4.3.Any urban and residential development in the coastal zone, future and existing,
will be identified through designation of areas in planning schemes
consistent with the objectives, principles and outcomes of this Policy.
The evidence does not allow a conclusion that zoning Droughty residential is
consistent with the objectives, principles and outcomes of the policy. The Recreation
and Public Land zoning is not an answer to the requirements in LUPAA to prepare
the planning scheme in accordance with State Policy. The evidence for Council
suggests that the attempt to find justification for Residential zoning on Droughty
through an analysis of the Policy was after the decision on zoning rather than the
Policy being used to inform the zoning.
Conclusions
Evidence for the Council stressed the long term commitment and strategy for
Droughty development but also conceded the zone boundaries were arbitrary. The
evidence on services was inconclusive.
The capability of the land for residential development has not been assessed in detail.
The preliminary investigations have been on the western shore but capability and
suitability is absent for the eastern side of Droughty.
45
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The documentation provided does not confirm that with Residential zoning of the
Carr property adequate recognition has been given to land capability, slope,
Aboriginal sites, and the Coastal Policy. Indeed evidence referred to the existence of
steep topography and significant areas of erosion.
Council’s setting of a 60m contour upper limit for residential development is assessed
as a compromise based on a visual approach but without good foundation. The
experts' opinions appear to suggest contour levels of development where the upper
levels varied according to conditions was more appropriate.
The remaining undeveloped portions of the Carr land should be zoned Rural instead
of residential and Recreation and Public Land zoning . The development potential for
the area needs to be established through analysis of topography, land capability,
proper recognition of drainage lines, breaks to continuous urban development,
increasing density to offset areas for no development that are provided in recognition
of regional landscapes, values and the State Coastal Policy.
It is the view of the Panel that the urban analysis that remains to be done should not
be from a base of Residential zoning or a combination of Residential zoning and
development plan overlay.
Future zoning boundaries should be developed through a development plan process
but not at a commencing basis of a pre-commitment to Residential zoning where
Council conceded the zone boundaries are nominal. This approach is not acceptable
for zone allocation in a statutory planning scheme.
Recommendations
R142, R167, R127
i)
Modify draft plans 16 and 19 in respect to the Carr property to omit Residential
zoning and substitute Rural zoning except where approvals stand under clause
9.4 of the 1963 Planning Scheme.
ii)
Modify draft plans 16 and 19 to omit the Recreation and Public Land zoning
south of the current approved residential subdivision and substitute Rural
zoning.
iii)
Modify plan 16 to omit Recreation and Public Land zoning from residential
lots in the approved subdivision under clause 9.4 of the 1963 Planning Scheme
and substitute Residential zoning.
iv)
Modify draft plans 16-DP and 19-DP to delete the development plan
requirement.
2.9.3 R142/1 (Other) provisions for strata subdivision and minimum lot
frontage
46
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R142/1 identified some general matters in the draft planning scheme for review.
Apart from minor wording inconsistencies the representation referred to strata title
provisions and minimum frontage in the low density Residential zone.
The provisions for strata subdivision in the certified scheme for the Residential zone
only permitted strata where not complying with the subdivision provision for multiple
dwelling development. By contrast, for the Rural zone, a strata title lot must comply
with all requirements for subdivision. In response to the representation Council
recommended provisions to apply to all zones as follows:
‘A lot created under the Strata Titles Act 1998 must not be approved, unless:
• it is for an approved and completed multi dwelling development or multitenancy/use development (sic); or
• a staged development scheme or community development scheme has
been approved for vacant or partially vacant strata lots and the relevant
conditions complied with.’
The other zones contained similar provisions but without the reference to multidwelling development. The provisions seem to provide strata for all situations
notwithstanding the subdivision provisions. The provisions require further review
such that the minimum lot/minimum tenancy density provisions of the scheme are
upheld under a strata title arrangement.
The second ‘other’ matter raised in R142/1 was the minimum frontage standard of
10m in the low density Residential zone. Council's submission that 6m should be the
standard for the Low Density Residential and Rural Residential zones has been
accepted in response to other representations.
9.6
Recommendation
R142/1 The clauses for strata are to be ‘done again’ such that the density provisions
are reflected either through subdivision minimum lot size or other standards in the
scheme that set the intensity of use.
2.9.4
R142/2 clause 9.4 Droughty Special Area provision
R142/2 sought to import the provisions from the 1963 Planning Scheme at clause 9.4
Droughty Special Area in to the draft scheme. Council considered that the
subdivision approvals that are in place did not require clause 9.4 to be replicated in
the new scheme. Council also advised that the titles created carried covenants
preventing multiple dwellings or further subdivision.
Clause 9.4-Droughty Special Area was inserted as amendment 5/96C to the 1963
Planning Scheme (14/12/01). The special area provision applies to a defined part of
the Carr property providing for an extension to Oceana Drive and development up to
the 75m contour. The provisions of the Droughty Special Area include requirements
for:
contributions to services;
geotechnical assessment;
47
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
lots to be greater than 550m2; and
multiple dwellings to be discretionary.
Requirements 3 and 4 above are contrary to the prevailing provisions in the 1963
Planning Scheme for other areas under Residential zoning. The prevailing provisions
encourage denser residential developments that have merit for urban consolidation.
Provisions peculiar to a subdivision that refer to larger lot sizes and density
restrictions are not supported for incorporation in to the draft scheme.
It would appear that the special area provisions have served their purpose and do not
need to be replicated in the draft planning scheme.
Recommendation
R142/2 No modifications to the draft scheme to include clause 9.4 from the 1963
Planning Scheme.
2.10
R176 Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone minimum lot size of 10ha
R176 contended the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone should be at a
minimum lot size of 10ha.
Council made no recommendation on R176.
Although R176 is a representation for the Carr property it referred generally to the
higher ground with Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning on Droughty. The
need to modify the provisions for the zone generally to provide for 10ha lots is not
demonstrated. Nevertheless subsequent amendment to the 1963 planning scheme has
provided for smaller lots for the Carr property.
Recommendation
R176 No modifications to the draft scheme in respect to minimum lot size of the
Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone.
48
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
3.
Residential zoning Howrah -Mornington
Representations concerning the draft plans for specific parcels of land in the HowrahMornington area.
3.1
Issue: Howrah Hills 1 Cannon property
Representations
R66 Griggs Leary & Co Ltd obo JD & EM Cannon objecting to Landscape and
Skyline conservation zoning 50 Minno Street, Howrah, and request for Low Density
Residential zoning.
Council
Council did not support a change in zoning to Low Density Residential.
Commission's Considerations
R66 seeks to subdivide three lots at the end of Minno Street, Howrah. The
subdivision would involve a small area off a large title extending over Glebe Hill.
The three lots would be accessed off Minno Street with no additional road works.
Urban services, water, sewerage and stormwater are available. At the hearing
planning consultant Mr R Giblin addressed issues relating to impacts on landscape
values and environmental values. To the first issue, landscape values, the submission
demonstrated that residential development would have little impact on skyline and the
treed lower slopes of Glebe Hill.
The second issue is impact on environmental values. Mr Giblin's submission included
a fauna and vegetation assessment prepared by Andrew North. The report identified
threatened species and the approvals under other legislation that would need to be
sought before subdivision could proceed. Mr North's report refers to ‘seemingly
minor incursions into bushland on the urban fringe are leading to a fragmentation and
gradual decline in the native remnants’.
In a subsequent submission to the Commission Mr Giblin described the attempts to
gain a permit from the Threatened Species Unit DPIWE under the Threatened Species
Protection Act 1995, but reported that the Unit considered the zoning of the land
should be settled first. In addition Mr North identified various impacts from clearing
to establish a buffer for fire protection.
In summary except for an access drive, Minno Street terminates in bushland and
provides a hard edge between bushland and urban development. The proposal for
subdivision of three low density lots based on the argument of graduation from
normal residential lots to Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning is not accepted.
The impacts of residential use and development involving clearing for the intended
use and for fire protection would result in the continuation of the minor incursions
into bushland on the urban fringe leading to a fragmentation and gradual decline in
the native remnants as described by Mr North.
Recommendation
49
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R66 No modifications to plan 16 in respect to Residential zoning for 50 Minno Street,
Howrah.
3.2
Issue: Howrah Hills 2 McCreadie property
Representation
R167 N Shephard obo R McCreadie objecting to Landscape and Skyline
Conservation zoning for 1 Monique Street Howrah and request for Residential zoning.
Council
Council did not support a change in zoning to residential.
Commission's Considerations
R167 described the property at 1 Monique Street as mostly zoned residential with a
small portion zoned Landscape and Skyline Conservation. R167 requested part of the
area in the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone to be zoned residential.
The submission drew on the Howrah Hills Local Area Plan that described the land as
not significant visually and contains only a small proportion of high significance
black peppermint grassy forest at its eastern end.
R167 concerns lot 5 of 6536m2 on SP15775. The major portion of lot 5 is zoned
residential but with the eastern end zoned Landscape and Skyline Conservation.
Approximately 40% of the southeast part of lot 5 is requested for Residential zoning.
Whilst the submission referred to a small proportion of high significance forest at its
eastern end, the submission did not detail the likely impacts if any on this vegetation.
At the hearing it was contended for the representor that the vegetation was not as
significant as previously thought however no specific work had been undertaken on
the botanical values. In addition whilst it was claimed that the subject land is not
significant visually no analysis was presented to verify this claim.
The lot is relatively steep and more exposed than surrounding land. An adjoining title
is a telecommunications tower that is clearly visible on the lower slopes of Glebe Hill.
Any development on the land would require additional clearing for fire protection that
would increase the exposure. The merit of the requested zoning has not been
established.
Recommendation
R167 No modifications to plan 16 in respect to Residential zoning for 1 Monique
Street Howrah.
3.3
Issue: Howrah 3 Watts property
Representations
R199: C.I. Watts concerning the boundary between Recreation and Public Land
zoning and Residential zoning for 1 Corinth Street Howrah.
Council
50
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Council supported the representations and recommended a redefinition of the zone
boundary.
Commission's Considerations
The title for R199 at 1 Corinth Street Howrah is to high water but with a 1.52m wide
right of way parallel to the coast on the land side of the high water title boundary.
The plans show Recreation and Public Land zoning along the waterfront of varying
widths but considerably wider than the right of way. The accuracy of the proposed
zone boundary is difficult to assess because of the GIS positioning of high water.
Recreation and Public Land zoning along the waterfront is appropriate in terms of
setting a boundary for Residential zoning setback from high water. However the draft
plans do show a considerably greater area of Recreation and Public Land zoning than
is reasonable. In addition Council did not express any commitment to purchase the
land.
Council's proposal that reduces the width of Recreation and Public Land zoning , as
shown on Attachment 18 to the s.26(2) report establishes an appropriate shoreline
zone boundary.
Recommendation
R199 Modify plan 16 to establish the boundary between Recreation and Public Land
zoning and Residential zoning for 1 Corinth Street Howrah as shown on Attachment
18 to Council's s.26(2) report.
3.4
Issue: Howrah 4 Nichols Property 12 Savoy Place
Representations
R131: B. Nichols – concerning residential D zoning for 12 Savoy Place, Howrah.
Council
Council supported the representation and recommended local business zoning.
Commission's Considerations
The zoning of 12 Savoy Place is residential on the current and draft plans. The land
use is a car park associated with the Howrah Garden Centre. Access to 12 Savoy
Place is through the Garden Centre entrance onto Rokeby Road. The formal access to
the lot is off Savoy Street by laneway, which is not used for the current land use as car
parking incidental to the Howrah Garden Centre. Council recommended the laneway
only remain in the Residential zone so that it is not available for commercial use.
The adjoining lot on which the Howrah Garden Centre is located is zoned Local
Business. Local Business zoning is also requested for the subject land.
Relevant to the zoning of 12 Savoy Place is the impact of any expansion of
commercial use on adjoining residences, the strategic land use retail centre hierarchy
and the traffic impacts on Rokeby Road.
51
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Evidence to the hearing indicated that an upgrading of Rokeby Road would involve a
service road that would address the issue of traffic access. However the zone
provisions are too open ended to conclude the local business zoning would not result
in adverse impact on adjoining residence and the retail centre hierarchy. The Local
Business zone provides for a wide range of permitted and discretionary uses.
Although the lists of decision requirements for the zone all appear to provide relevant
heads of consideration there are no standards or other measures to determine
satisfaction of the requirements.
Future applicants, adjoining residents and Council are not provided the quantitative
standards to judge applications.
Number 12 Savoy Place should remain in the Residential zone with car parking as a
non-conforming use. In addition the Local Business zone should be done again such
that quantitative standards or other measurable requirements are established for the
zone.
Recommendations
R131
(i)
The zoning of 12 Savoy Place remain as residential.
(ii)
The Local Business zone be ‘done again’ to establish quantitative standards or
other measurable requirements for use or development.
3.5
Issue: Howrah 5 Nichols property at 450 Rokeby Road
Representations
R16 M Briant obo JC & EH Nichols concerning Rural zoning to a former quarry at
450 Rokeby Road, Howrah.
Council
Council did not support Residential zoning for 450 Rokeby Road, Howrah as it would
constitute an isolated pocket abutting Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning.
Commission's Considerations
R16 concerns 450 Rokeby Road, a former quarry and surrounding land. The
representation contended the site is suitable for residential use and development could
be designed to have little impact on the adjacent Landscape and Skyline Conservation
zoning. The site is 4ha in total with 5085m2 comprising the quarry floor. With
development of the quarry 80% of the site would remain as native bushland. The
representation sought subdivision of 3-4 lots above the quarry and housing on the
quarry floor.
It was also contended that residential development would remove the current public
safety issues and lead to rehabilitation of the site. The site has a limited access
restriction that could be overcome by entry and exit lanes. Water and sewerage
services are available.
52
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
At the hearing it was established that there were no existing use rights for the quarry,
the activity having ceased in the 1970's. Current use of the site is storage. The
limited access was declared in 1994 with the licensed use identified as ‘contractors
depot’.
Although the representation referred to other examples of residential development in
quarries, the constraint to intensification of residential densities on the subject site is
Rokeby Road. Suitability of providing residential access onto Rokeby Road was not
demonstrated and the continued imposition of limited access is appropriate.
In the longer term access to the land from Pass Road may be achieved following
development of the adjoining Rural zoned land or as part of the upgrading of Rokeby
Road.
Recommendation
R16 No modifications to the Rural zoning of 450 Rokeby Road.
3.6
Issue: zoning Mornington Johnson property
Representations
R202 T.N. Woodford obo P Johnson concerning Rural Residential zoning 449
Tasman Highway, Mornington.
R89 P Johnson concerning Rural Residential zoning 449 Tasman Highway,
Mornington.
Council
Council supported the representations and recommended Residential zoning.
Commission's Considerations
R89 & R202 concerned land that has been rezoned to residential under the 1963
Planning Scheme and a permit for the subdivision of 59 lots has been granted. The
land should be zoned residential.
Recommendation
Modify plan 15 to zone Residential, 449 Tasman Highway Mornington as shown on
Attachment 11 in Council's s.26(2) report.
53
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
4.
Zoning Corpus Christie School
Representations from the Corpus Christie School and neighbours on adjoining land
objecting to the zoning on the draft plans.
4.1
Issue: Corpus Christie School, Bellerive
Representations
R32 Corpus Christie School
R12/125 N Shephard obo JB & PF Whitehead
R191 J VanderNiet
R148 C Polland
R200 JB & PF Whitehead
R112 D Morrisby
R184 K Thompson
Council
Council supported the representations to the extent of recommending that in the
Special Use 7 (Education and Cultural Centre) zone, within a setback distance of 10m
of the adjoining Residential zone, development for education purposes would be
discretionary. In addition the Council recommended ancillary use or development
have the same classification as the principal use.
Council submitted that the boundaries of the SU7 zoning should not be expanded
beyond that shown on the draft plans.
Commission's Considerations
Corpus Christie school fronts Alma and Bignell Streets and Cambridge Road
Bellerive. In the 1963 Planning Scheme the site is zoned residential and Special Use
– Education. On the draft plans, again, part of the site is zoned Special Use 7 and part
residential although on different boundaries to the 1963 Planning Scheme. The
Special Use 7 zone includes the school but not the church, presbytery and lower car
park.
In R32 the school supported the Special Use 7 zoning but objected to the restriction
on non-educational use. The representation contended that the range of discretionary
uses in the Residential zone should be available under Special Use zoning.
The Corpus Christie submission to the hearing reiterated support for the zoning on the
draft plans and Council's proposals for ancillary uses and the 10m discretionary
setback. The proposed ‘Decision Requirements’ (addition to clause 9.13.4) to protect
residential amenity was also supported. In addition the school sought:
i).
ii).
to have the rear part of 79 Clarence Street included in the Special Use 7
zone.
to make the use classifications: ‘active recreation’, ‘child care centre’
and ‘community building and place of worship’ discretionary in the
Special Use 7 zone.
54
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R32 advised that the school had reached its enrolment capacity and limits set by
Commonwealth legislation.
Representations other than R32 objected to any expansion of the school referring to
the experience of continued expansion, visual intrusion and traffic impacts. The
representations in part relate to the Bignell Street frontage. Bignell Street is a short cul
de sac that is apparently used extensively for drop off and collection of pupils. In
addition the school has, over time, purchased lots at the head of the cul de sac.
Number 5 Bignell Street is part of the school grounds now and Number 6 Bignell
Street is to be incorporated into the school grounds following demolition of the
existing house.
R148 relates to the interface of the school with properties fronting Cambridge Road
and similarly R184 and R12 in respect to Ormond Street.
R121 advocated the retention of Residential zoning for the school owned lots fronting
Bignell Street. The representation contended that Special Use 7 zoning would increase
land use conflict. The submission for R121 expanded on the problematic interface
between residences and the school. R121 contended that the area of dispute arises
from the acquisition of Residential D zoned land (1963 Planning Scheme) that is used
for ball games and other outdoor activities. R121 advocated that the school premises
not be available for out of school activities and to relate set back of buildings to height
of structures.
The school has a common boundary with residences and with the increase in the
school enrolments and purchase of additional land the school impacts have moved
closer to and intensified on the boundaries. The evidence for the school is that it is at
its maximum enrolment capacity, yet any future land purchases presumably allows an
expansion of the enrolment capacity. The issue with the residents is the outdoor
activities that are concentrated on their common boundaries. In addition and despite
other street frontages the short Bignell Street appears to be the major drop off and
collection point for children and also for general deliveries to the school. Traffic
generated by the school appears therefore to be concentrated on Bignell Street.
Council and the representors for the school argued for Special Use zoning as a means
of providing certainty to the school as the use class educational or cultural centre is
permitted in the Special Use zone compared with discretionary in the Residential
zone. The Special Use zoning however confines the use to the single use- educational
or cultural centre or a use incidental or ancillary to that use. The school is also
seeking the ability to conduct other activities from the site that do not fall into, or are
ancillary to, the use class-educational centre. The activities requested are those that
would be available as discretionary uses in the Residential zone.
Residents on the other hand advocated educational centre to be discretionary in the
Residential zone but the extension of the non-educational discretionary uses available
in the Residential zone to the school site was not supported. The residents principally
sought to have only the school properties 5 and 6 Bignell Street remain in the
Residential zone.
55
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
In essence schools and residences should coexist but the evidence suggests that
Corpus Christi has been insensitive to the residential interface. The creation of areas
of active ball games hard against the boundary with neighbours and the siting of play
structures allowing overlooking of neighbours properties from a close distance is
evidence of insensitivity. In addition there are issues perhaps outside the school
sphere of influence involving traffic management in the area leading to the
concentration of traffic on Bignell Street when other frontage access points to the
school grounds are available.
In terms of the planning scheme, the school seeks the ability to conduct non
educational activities from the site. Activities that are not unrelated and are available
in the Residential zone are: active recreation, childcare centre, community building
and place of worship. Council's response is to preclude these activities from the site,
yet greater use of under utilised school infrastructure has been generally advocated in
the community for a long period. In addition Council's proposal for a 10m
discretionary setback for use (should be use or development) is a questionable
compromise. In essence the site should be zoned residential. Although Residential
zoning for the site would be inconsistent with the zoning of other schools it better
provides for the management of the site in relation to the surrounding land use and
traffic considerations. As a consequence of the recommendation for Residential
zoning, section 2-Table of Use for the Special Use zone can be deleted.
Recommendations
Representations on Corpus Christie School:
(i) Modify plan 15 to show the Corpus Christie school in Bellerive entirely in the
Residential zone.
(ii) Modify the scheme to delete section 2-Table of Use for the Special Use zone.
56
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
5.
Bellerive – Kangaroo Bay
Representations to the provisions for Bellerive Bluff and Kangaroo Bay covered a
range of issues. Of significance is the widely contrasting provisions for Kangaroo
Bay and the Bellerive Centre.
5.1
Issue: Bellerive – Kangaroo Bay (1)
Representation
R77/1 P. Hookway, concerning the classification of residential use and various
commercial uses as discretionary for the Kangaroo Bay Special Development zone
Precinct 1.
Council
Council recommended modification to the draft scheme to insert the use classification
and standards for apartments.
Commission's Considerations
Bellerive and Kangaroo Bay are subject to zoning and overlay provisions. The
Kangaroo Bay Special Development zone comprises three precincts.
Precinct 1 – Bellerive boardwalk precinct
Precinct 2 – Marine development precinct
Precinct 3 – Future development precinct.
R77 Objected to the limitations on residential use and development in Precinct 1 of
the Kangaroo Bay Special Development zone.
The status of residential use by Kangaroo Bay precinct provides a house as
discretionary in Precinct 1 and must (not be) at ground floor level. In Precinct 2 a
house is discretionary at 80 and 82 Cambridge Road, Bellerive, otherwise a house is
prohibited in the zone.
The s.26(2) report of Council responded to R77 by prohibiting the use class-house in
the zone except as discretionary in Precinct 2 at 80 and 82 Cambridge Road. Council
proposed that a definition for apartment be inserted and classified as a discretionary
use in the zone and available in Precinct 1 only.
In the draft scheme a house is defined as:
‘A building on a lot used as a dwelling unit which must include:
a kitchen sink and facilities for the preparation and cooking of food; and
a bath or shower; and
clothes washing facilities, comprising at least one washtub and space in the
same room for a washing machine; and
a toilet and washbasin.
If any of the facilities listed above are detached from the main building, they
must be set aside for the exclusive use of the occupants of the building’
An apartment is proposed to be defined as:
‘A house located above the ground floor of a building. Typically the ground
floor of the building is used for a business’.
A multiple dwelling is defined as:.
‘One or more buildings containing a total of two or more dwelling units on a
lot. It excludes a House and Dependent Person’s Unit.’
57
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Other residential classifications are ancillary dwelling and caretakers house.
The use definitions refer to dwelling units but dwelling units are not defined.
However as shown above the definition for house is principally that used in earlier
schemes to define a dwelling unit as an interpretation from which use classes are
based.
Council's argument for not having residential development on the ground floor level
for Kangaroo Bay Precincts is to give priority to commercial use. Council argued that
multiple dwellings could be located elsewhere in the city and that a location in
Kangaroo Bay Precinct would be a poor use of waterfront resource.
The hearing also raised issues on the prohibition of carparking in Precinct 1. This
emerged as a misunderstanding of carpark as an incidental use compared with carpark
as a principal use or in a multiple use situation.
Issues of residential use classification whilst highlighted for the Kangaroo Bay zone
apply generally. The use classifications attempt to separate residential use by styles
of development eg. apartment, multiple dwelling then differentially categorising these
purported different uses based on confusing definitions and insufficient standards to
clearly define one residential development style from another residential development
style.
The quantitative standards drawn from the Residential zone, overlays and specific
provisions are set out in Table 1: It is to be noted that apartments are confined to the
commercial, local business and Kangaroo Bay Special Development zones. In
addition there are numerous qualitative requirements applying to an application
Table 1 Housing Standards.
Standard
House
Site coverage 40%
setback
Front side
and rear
height
7.5m
Dwelling
unit density
Presumably
set by min
lot (400m2)
Private open
space
nil
Use Classifications
House &
Multiple
ancillary
dwelling
dwelling
40%
30% up to 40%
Same as for
Same as for
house
house
7.5m
7.5m
100m circle
rule with
power to
relax
nil
1:375m2
Nil
Apartment
nil
nil
Nil (Bellerive
Centre Cambridge
Road Precinct has
an eaves or parapet
line set at 7.5m
above the footpath.)
nil
Min. area specified
based on no. of
bedrooms
58
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The structure of the planning scheme has styles of residential development based on
preconceived notions of form of housing dictating qualitative standards.
Returning to R77 there is merit in the representation, the residential use classification
should be available in Precinct 1 of Kangaroo Bay Special Development zone other
than at ground floor level. The prohibition on residential use in Precincts 2 and 3
(excluding 80 – and 82 Cambridge Road) is a policy decision of the Council and not
subject to representations.
The residential use classification should be reduced to one use category and the
appropriate standards of density, height, setback, carparking, private open space etc
applied so that development is based on setting envelope parameters rather than preconceived notions of style of development reduced to a use category. In addition as
there was no evidence that residential use should not be available in Precinct 1
appropriate standards should be set for development for the residential use.
R77 also leads to two further matters for review:
1.
The Kangaroo Bay Special Development zone urban design guidelines
as incorporated documents.
2.
The application of the Kangaroo Bay Enhancement Policy
3.
The interface between and provisions for Kangaroo Bay and Bellerive
village.
Matters 1 and 2 are addressed at R39/5.3.
To the third matter, the interface between Bellerive village and Kangaroo Bay is
raised because Bellerive Village is subject to the Bellerive Centre overlay comprising
the Bellerive village Precinct and the Cambridge Road Precinct and the Kangaroo Bay
zone Precinct 1. The complexity of provisions is demonstrated for a building having
a Cambridge Road Bellerive frontage where it would appear the facade is subject to
Bellerive Centre overlay provisions and the balance of the building subject to the
Kangaroo Bay Precinct Provisions.
The Bellerive Centre overlay provisions are extensive although requirements vary
with each precinct. Requirements include detailed dimensions of awnings, masonry
wall materials and specified colours, corrugated steel roofs of specified colours,
incentive for bay windows, exact height specification for eaves, exact pitch of roof
(north side of Cambridge Road) and extensive detailing of fenestration and doors.
In contrast the Kangaroo Bay Special Development zone for Precinct 1 has a quite
different approach to development requirements. However the classifications of use
differ little between the commercial zone of Bellerive and the Kangaroo Bay Special
Development zone.
The mix of Precincts in zones and overlays to zones and the need for the extensive,
virtual construction, standards in the Bellerive area should be reviewed.
There is a strong link between the Bellerive Centre and Kangaroo Bay and this link
should be approached in a more unified manner. Bellerive Village overlay should be
59
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
done again to remove the design determinism aspects of the standards and to integrate
the provisions with the revised approach for Kangaroo Bay as required under R39/5.3.
Recommendations
R77/1
(i)
The residential provisions in the draft scheme be ‘done again’ with a single
residential use classification and the respective use and development standards
established for all zones where residential use is permitted or discretionary.
(ii)
The Kangaroo Bay Special Development zone precinct 1 is to be done again to
make the residential use class a permitted use above the ground floor level.
The use and development standards are to be determined through the ‘do
again’ requirement for all residential use.
(iii) The Bellerive Village overlay be ‘done again’ to review the relevance of the
standards and to integrate provisions with the Kangaroo Bay Special
Development zone.
5.2
Issue: Bellerive – Kangaroo Bay (2)
Representation
R35 T Cupit concerning the lack of discretion to relax the maximum height standards
within the Bellerive Bluff overlay.
Interested parties opposed any relaxation on height standards within the Bellerive
Bluff overlay and sought provisions to regulate swimming pools.
Council
R35 Council recommended clause 10.6.3 be modified to allow a height discretion
from 5m to 7.5m.
Commission's Considerations
Bellerive Bluff is predominantly zoned residential with the Bellerive Bluff overlay.
The overlay divides the area into the Esplanade Precinct and Battery Precinct. The
Esplanade Precinct has a maximum height of 5m in the draft scheme. In response to
R35 Council proposed the reinstatement of the provisions in the 1963 Planning
Scheme to provide a discretion to relax the 5m limit to a maximum height of 7.5m.
Otherwise for the Residential zone generally the height limit standard is 7.5m with
power to relax without any upper limit.
At the hearing of R35 eight other parties from Bellerive Bluff made a combined
submission. This submission provided a counter argument for the retention of the 5m
maximum height provision in the draft scheme.
R35 submitted that discretion on height provided flexibility to respond to special
circumstances. The counter submission referred to a higher limit adversely affecting
view corridors, protecting residents to the rear and that there has been no relaxation of
the 5m standard since introduced in 1974.
60
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
A height standard of 5m would mainly restrict development to one habitable floor
level and a maximum height of 7.5 m would allow in the main two floor levels while
still retaining a pitched roof.
A maximum height in this location has merit as it results in a constraint on overly
high buildings dominating the river frontage. At the same time the precinct is
traditionally not without tall buildings. Height is one measure of intrusiveness, other
measures include bulk and overlooking where there are interests in view corridors and
residential amenity.
The power to relax the 5m standard but with an upper limit of 7.5m should allow the
objectives of height restriction remain without compromising other values.
Other Issues
The interested parties group to R35 submitted that private swimming pools should be
regulated in a similar manner to private tennis courts.
The draft scheme has a specific provision at clause 11.6 on private tennis courts. The
provisions require a discretionary permit application for the applicable zones . The
provisions also require an assessment of unreasonable disturbance to adjoining
residents or the affect on residential amenity. Lighting and hours of use are specified
as decision requirements.
The submission from residents of Bellerive Bluff was in response to a specific
application that would appear to be of a significant scale. The need for a separate
provision for tennis courts is accepted as there is potential for impact greater than the
residential use, particularly when night lighting is concerned.
Swimming pools would be incidental to the residential use unless for a commercial
purpose. As incidental the same provisions for the residential development should
apply in terms of set back and site coverage where the pool is housed in a building.
Otherwise unless exempt under clause 8.1 a pool will require a permit under the
proposed modifications to require a house to be a permit application. The need for a
provision similar to private tennis court is not established.
Recommendation
R35 Modify clause 10.6.3 for the Esplanade Precinct of the Bellerive Bluff overlay to
insert a relaxation of the standard for height to a maximum height of 7.5m as
recommended in Council’s s.26(2) report.
5.3
Issue: Bellerive – Kangaroo Bay (3)
Representation
R63 L Graham Concerning heritage schedules, Bellerive Bluff Special Provisions,
public open space and Kangaroo Bay
Council
61
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R63 Council recommended no modifications
Commission's Considerations
5.3.1 R63/1 Heritage Issues
R63/1 sought to have the Heritage Schedule expanded to include twentieth century
buildings and heritage trees.
Council advised that the Heritage overlay was based on the items on the Tasmanian
Heritage Register. Heritage trees have been recognised including trees within the
curtilage of listed buildings.
The merit of listing twentieth century buildings is accepted and this should be done
through the planning scheme or the Tasmanian Heritage Council. Heritage trees are
different as trees have a finite life or can present difficulties in an urban environment.
As a general representation on heritage matters rather than advocating specific
buildings or trees no specific modifications are required. It is a matter for the
planning scheme to be responsive to such issues over time.
Recommendation
R63/1 No modifications to the Heritage Schedule to include twentieth century
buildings and heritage trees.
5.3.2 R63/2 Bellerive Bluff overlay
The representation sought to have all development discretionary in the Bellerive Bluff
overlay. This submission is not accepted. The planning scheme should be able to
form standards or exemptions without discretion on all applications.
Recommendation
R63/2 No modifications to make all use and development discretionary in the area of
the Bellerive Bluff overlay.
5.3.3 R63/3 Bellerive Oval
R63/3 made reference to the public open space zoning of Bellerive Oval in the 1963
Planning Scheme contending the oval should have its own special zoning. The oval
is zoned Recreation and Public Land under the draft plans.
Clearly the oval, as a regional facility with national and international sporting events,
is significant but a separate special zoning is not warranted. However as the
Recreation and Public Land zoning is a ‘do again’ requirement as an environmental
management zone the appropriateness of this proposed zoning for Bellerive oval
needs to be assessed.
Recommendation
R63/3 As part of the ‘do again’ requirement for the Recreation and Public Land zone
(R132/2), determine the appropriate zoning for the Bellerive Oval.
5.3.4
R63/4 Kangaroo Bay playground area
62
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R63/4 sought to have the playground area of Kangaroo Bay included in the public
open space zone. The area is in Precinct 3 of the Kangaroo Bay Special Development
zone that includes passive recreation and active recreation use classes. However the
Precinct has specific intent that may result in the loss of the play area, however open
space in the Recreation and Public Land zone adjoins and is assessed as adequate to
requirements for the area.
Recommendation
R63/4 No modifications to draft plan 15 to include the playground area of Kangaroo
Bay in a public open space zone
63
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
6.
Lindisfarne – Geilston Bay
Representations from the Lindisfarne-Geilston Bay area concerning Residential
zoning are considered below. The Flagstaff Gully Quarry issue is considered under
issues relating to mining and quarrying.
6.1
Issue: Low Density Residential zoning Geilston Bay
Representations
R84 JB Medbury obo landowners Geilston Bay Road, Geilston Bay objecting to Low
Density Residential zoning off Geilston Bay Road, and requesting Residential zoning
Council
Council did not support the representation on the basis of access and no demonstrated
need for Residential zoning.
Commission's Considerations
The subject land is some 25ha adjacent to the East Derwent Highway at Geilston Bay.
The land is currently zoned residential C (Sylvan) in the 1963 Planning Scheme and
Low Density Residential on the draft plans. The representation sought Residential
zoning.
Residential C zoning has a minimum lot size of 1000m2 and the low density
Residential zone in the draft scheme a minimum lot of 1500 m2. Residential zoning
allows a lot of 400 m2 (Council’s s.26(2) recommendation). The evidence was that
access to the sewer was available at the Geilston Bay Road frontage and would be
bought up as the subdivision progressed. Water supply is available to the 60m
contour and no land capability issues were defined for residential densities. Noise
impacts on residential use from the highway and the visual impact when viewed from
the highway are not considered to necessarily differ between low density and
residential densities. Stormwater would be directed to the watercourse at the southern
end of the property.
Access to the site is available off Geilston Bay Road. There can be no direct access to
the East Derwent Highway.
The junction of Geilston Bay Road to the East Derwent Highway was acknowledged
as inadequate. The representor tabled a 1994 road layout plan from DIER showing a
roundabout on the highway and rationalisation of access points. The road layout plan
is currently of unknown status but covers the remaining section of the East Derwent
Highway that has not been upgraded to divided road standard. Whilst the current
status of plan is unknown, it does show how this section of the East Derwent highway
could be improved to address an existing traffic and multiple access situation.
The representation concerned density of residential development; there was no dispute
on use. The representor made the point that serviced low density residential was not
feasible on cost grounds. However cost feasibility to density aside, having established
that serviced residential use is appropriate then full residential densities should be
available. The representor also commented that land to the north of the subject land
64
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
that is zoned residential is not serviced and services for that land will be required
across the subject land.
The land adjacent to the East Derwent Highway off Geilston Bay Road should be
zoned residential for the area shown as Low Density Residential on the draft plans.
The subject land also has a strip of Special Use 2 (future road) zoning showing an
indicative alignment of a road between Geilston Bay Road and Napier Street. The
alignment has not been surveyed and there is no evidence that the alignment is the
most appropriate route. The Special Use zoning should be deleted. Whilst a link road
is no doubt necessary the alignment needs to be defined in conjunction with the
design of the residential subdivision.
Recommendations
R84
i.
Modify plan 9 to omit Low Density Residential and substitute Residential
zoning for land adjacent to and west of the East Derwent Highway off Geilston Bay
Road.
ii.
Modify plan 9 to delete the Special Use 2 zoning over the land described in (i)
above.
6.2
Issue: Residential zoning Geilston Bay
Representations
R178 R Sypkes objecting to Residential zoning 298-308 East Derwent Highway
Geilston Bay and requesting commercial zoning.
Council
Council did not support the representation noting that new owners support the
Residential zoning.
Commission’s considerations
The zoning of 298-308 East Derwent Highway in the draft plans is residential but
controlled industrial in the 1963 Planning Scheme. The representation sought
commercial zoning. Council advised that the representor had sold the land and
applications for rezoning and residential lots were under consideration under the 1963
Planning Scheme.
The Eastern Shore planning scheme 1963 was amended on 4 August 2003 to rezone
the subject land to Residential.
The site is within a residential area opposite the Geilston Bay High School. The
existing zoning reflected the former uses of the site rather than a strategic intent for
industrial development.
Recommendation
R178 No modifications to the plans for Residential zoning at 298-308 East Derwent
Highway.
65
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
6.3
Issue: open space zoning 280 Flagstaff Gully Road Lindisfarne
Representation
R 59 J & H Gillon concerning Recreation and Public Land zoning at 280 Flagstaff
Gully Road and requesting Low Density Residential zoning.
Council
Council supported the representation.
Commission’s considerations
R59 objected to a strip of Recreation and Public Land zoning across the front of their
property of 1.57ha at 280 Flagstaff Gully Road. The zoning has been carried forward
from the 1963 Planning Scheme. The open space zoning was apparently to provide a
buffer setback for a future extension of Flagstaff Gully Road through to the East
Derwent Highway.
The evidence was that the road extension was to be no longer pursued. Low density
Residential zoning should apply to the whole of 280 Flagstaff Gully Road.
Recommendation
R 59 Modify plan 9 to zone 280 Flagstaff Gully Road entirely in the low density
Residential zone.
Issue: Low Density Residential zone provisions and zoning
Karoola Road Lindisfarne.
6.4
Representation
R173 I. Stanley obo I. Hicks concerning the provisions in the low density Residential
zone for land at 76A Karoola Road, Lindisfarne.
Council
Council recommended the 10m minimum frontage in the low density residential zone
be reduced to 6m, and the inclusion of a minimum inscribed circle of 25m. Council
also supported changes to the provisions for dependent persons unit (ancillary
dwelling). Council did not support the representation in respect to multiple dwellings
in the low density residential zone.
Commission's Considerations
R173 was based on the circumstances of a block of 1.26ha zoned Low Density
Residential above Karoola Road, Lindisfarne. The block frontage is via a 12.4m wide
access drive that is too steep to provide reasonable physical access. The owner is
apparently negotiating with adjoining owners to achieve a more suitable access for the
rear of the block. The block is also impinged upon by land owned by Hobart Water.
The representation supported Low Density Residential zoning for the subject land and
the minimum lot size of 1500m2 but objected to other provisions for the zone.
6.4.1 R173/1 Inconsistency of use classifications for the Low Density
Residential zone.
66
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R173/1 suggested use classes aquaculture and tourist accommodation were
inconsistent with the purpose of the zone. Council agreed and nominated aquaculture,
local shop and tourist accommodation should be prohibited and major utility
installation classified as permitted in the Low Density Residential zone.
The change in status of these use classes is supported except major utility installation
where provisions for infrastructure are a ‘do again’ requirement as recommended for
R61/2,R201.
Recommendation
R173/1 Modify the table of uses for the Low Density Residential zone to classify
aquaculture, local shop and tourist accommodation as prohibited.
6.4.2
R173/2 Minimum frontage Low Density Residential zone
The representor objected to a 10m minimum frontage for the low density residential
zone. Council proposed the minimum frontage be reduced to 6m on the basis that
three parallel 6m frontages provide the minimum width for a road reservation of 18m.
Council also proposed a minimum inscribed circle of 25m to ensure an adequate
shape for the body of the lot. Council's rationale for the changes is supported.
Recommendation
R173/2 Modify the Low Density Residential zone clause 9.3.2 to set a minimum
frontage of 6m and a minimum diameter inscribed circle of 25m.
6.4.3
R173/3 residential density multiple dwellings.
R173/3 contended a housing density in addition to a minimum lot size should set the
density for the low density residential zone by providing for a multi-unit housing at a
density of 1500m2.
Council did not support this part of the representation arguing that the low density
residential zone had minimum application in the planning scheme and multiple
dwellings were an inappropriate form of development.
As discussed for R77/1 residential use should not be divided into different categories,
however different densities should be prescribed. The representation is supported and
residential use should be a permitted use in the low density Residential zone with
appropriate additional standards prescribed including a minimum dwelling density of
1500m2.
Recommendation
R173/3 Modify the table of uses for the Low Density Residential zone to make
residential use permitted with a minimum housing density of 1500m2 as part of the
‘do again’ requirement for residential use.
6.4.4
R173/4 Alternative division of land
67
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R173/4 suggested a modification to the provisions for strata subdivision. Council
recommended modifications, however the issue should be further reviewed.
Provisions for strata under the scheme should be done again as recommended in
response to R142/1.
6.4.5
R173/5 Definition ancillary dwelling
R173/5 submitted that there is no definition for ancillary dwelling. Council
recommended modifications to specific provisions-clause 11.3 to refer to ancillary
dwellings and to delete the term dependent persons unit.
The proposed definition for ancillary dwellings in clause 7.3 is ‘a second house
constructed on a lot’.
Standards for ancillary dwellings are in clause 10.3 as a housing option to meet a
specific family circumstance. The standards include setting floor area and setback
and a requirement for no separate services connection and no strata titling.
The use class ancillary dwellings is available in the Low Density Residential, Rural
Residential, Village, Rural and Landscape and Skyline Conservation zones with
dependant persons unit deleted, ancillary dwellings is available in the Residential
zone also.
The separate use class is presumably in response to a presumed social need for a
separate independent accommodation to a house. In essence the provisions prescribe
an extension to an existing house and should be treated as such. The need for a
separate use definition for a dependent persons unit or ancillary dwelling is not
established.
Recommendation
R173/5 Modify the draft scheme to delete references to dependent persons unit and
ancillary dwelling.
68
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
7.
Richmond Valley
Representations concerned primarily the Intensive Agriculture zone and issues of
subdivision. Representations also supported Rural Residential zoning at Cambridge.
7.1
Issue: Tolpuddle Estates, Back Tea Tree Road, Richmond
Representation
R119 N Shephard & Associates obo Tolpuddle Estates, concerning the provisions for
Rural Residential, Rural and Intensive Agriculture Zoning and seeking zoning to
reflect a development plan of C1987, or as an alternative, to show Rural Residential
zoning for a proposed stage 5 of the overall development for the property.
Council
Council advised that the development plan referred to in the representation was not
fully endorsed by the previous Richmond Council. Extensive Rural Residential
zoning would have adverse impact on vegetation values, would be contrary to the
State Policy on the Protection of Agriculture Land 2000 and there was already ample
land stocks available for rural residential development. No modifications were
recommended.
Commission's Considerations
The representation sought to describe how the provisions of the planning scheme
prevent the continued implementation of the purported endorsed plan for the
Tolpuddle Estates. The representation detailed issues with the Rural Residential zone
as inflexibility of minimum lot size, how to address compatibility between houses and
agriculture and the minimum lot frontage of 10m. The representation sought rural
residential subdivision based on a development plan that sets the standards.
In regard to the Rural zone, the representation objected to the minimum lot size and
areas zoned Rural where not suitable for rural activities. The representation sought a
density standard based on a development plan. The Intensive Agriculture zone was
objected to on the grounds of delineation on the plans and inflexibility of minimum
lot size.
In the event that the preferred approach outlined in the representation was not
accepted, the alternative proposed by the representor was to have Rural Residential
zoning for the area previously identified as stage five and an area adjacent to the
municipal boundary.
The representation sought to be able to continue the integrated rural residential and
horticultural development of the site in accordance with a revised development plan.
On the status of the 1987 development plan, the parties accepted that the Clarence
City Council had not formally endorsed the plan. Whilst Council refers to the plan not
having been totally endorsed, the representors submission included a letter from the
then Richmond Council 16/12/87 advising adoption of five recommendations. In
summary the recommendations were:
69
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Approval of the general concept of the proposed development.
Council to revise the interim order to accommodate the proposed
development and to amend the intensive agriculture boundaries.
A density of 1 house to every 4ha and a minimum 1ha to the total land
area.
Formal approval required for each subdivision stage.
The Commissioner for Town and Country Planning comments be sought
on the conceptual plan.
From the above it can be concluded that the Richmond Council approved the general
concept of the proposed development but there is no evidence as to whether the other
recommendations were implemented. The evidence is that stage 1 is completed and
the representor acknowledges the development plan requires revisiting particularly in
response to recent legislation.
Due to new legislation, State Policies and a different Council administration little
weight can now be given to the original development plan.
The representor’s submission to the hearing confined the representation to a request
for Rural Residential zoning for land north of the subject property adjoining the
Bourbon Estate above the Intensive Agriculture zone. The submission for Rural
Residential zoning in this location included botanical evidence. This evidence
advised no significant habitat values for the identified area.
Subsequent to the hearing a plan showing the area requested for rural residential as
defined by the vegetation work was submitted by letter to the Commission (21/4/04).
The area requested for Rural Residential zoning is zoned Rural and is subject to the
vegetation management overlay and bush fire overlay. The merit of these overlays
applying to this land was examined at the hearing principally through the botanical
work. This work found that improved pasture in the north of the property was
included in the vegetation management overlay where the vegetation was of no
particular significance and the most significant community is largely not covered by
the vegetation management overlay. The botanical report also referred to the
importance of retention of mature gum trees and the limited natural recruitment of
replacement trees because of grazing.
The development of the Tolpuddle estates has been based on developing a
comfortable interface between agriculture and housing. The area identified for Rural
Residential zoning adjoins similar zoning to the north and is on land that on the whole
has low vegetation significance but could benefit from reduced grazing that may
allow successful natural recruitment depending on how future subdivision is designed
and managed. The value of the land for agriculture appears limited, issues of fettering
adjoining agriculture will need to be addressed, as has been the case with the earlier
Tolpuddle subdivision.
Recommendation
R143 Modify plan 4 to show the area identified below in the Rural Residential zone.
70
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Rural
Residential
zoning
7.2
Issue: Intensive Agriculture zoning Hanslow Road, Cambridge
Representations
R68: J. Hanslow – concerning intensive agriculture zoning for land at Hanslow Road,
Cambridge.
Council
Council did not support the representation and contended even with Rural Residential
zoning subdivision was not available because of the minimum lot size.
Commission's Considerations
R68 sought to be able to subdivide a 2.2ha lot under Rural Residential zoning.
As the minimum lot in the Rural Residential zone is 2ha, no subdivision could be
achieved. The representor contended that the lot was unsuitable for any worthwhile
agricultural purposes, however the spot Rural Residential zoning within the intensive
agriculture zone is not appropriate because of the potential of conflict between
incompatible adjoining land use. The requested zoning would be contrary to the State
Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land.
In terms of the availability of irrigation water Council advised that the area would be
served by the sewage re-use scheme.
Recommendation
R68 No modifications to plan 11 to show Rural Residential zoning on Hanslow Road.
7.3
Issue: Subdivision in the Intensive Agriculture zone
Representations
71
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R179: T.N. Woodford & Associates in support of 4ha minimum lot size in the
Intensive Agriculture zone.
Council
Council noted the representation without recommending any modifications.
Commission's Considerations
A minimum lot size standard for the Intensive Agriculture zone of 4ha is considered
contrary to the intent of the zone and to the principles of the State Policy on the
Protection of Agricultural Land 2000. The discussion on this issue appears for R42/3
and in the Panel’s report.
Recommendation
R179 Review the minimum lot size for the Intensive Agriculture zone as a ‘do again’
requirement as recommended for R42/3.
7.4
Issue: rural residential
Representations
R71: D & E Hine – support for Rural Residential zoning.
R111: S Morris – support for Rural Residential zoning Kennedy Drive.
Council
Council noted the representations and made no recommendations.
Commission's Considerations
R71 advised support for Rural Residential zoning but did not nominate the area. The
representor’s address is Backhouse Lane that is zoned Intensive Agriculture. Council
assumed the representation was in respect to Kennedy Drive.
R111 supports Rural Residential zoning on Kennedy Drive.
The subject land is a small area of Rural Residential zoning at the western end of
Kennedy Drive, Cambridge. No issues arise in respect to the zoning except with the
common boundary with Industry zoning where conflict of use may arise. The
boundary interface of potentially conflicting uses will need to be managed through the
permit process.
Recommendation
R71, R111 No modifications to plan 11 in respect to Rural Residential zoning on
Kennedy Drive, Cambridge.
7.5 Issue: Objection to housing on wooded slopes and ridge tops
because of impact on natural values.
Representation
R151 G Ralph
72
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Council
Council made no recommendations.
Commission's Considerations
The representation appears to object to the impact of residential development in
bushland settings, specifically in the Richmond Valley. The draft plans do not zone
any new areas rural residential but development can still occur on existing lots and in
the Rural and Landscape and Skyline Conservation zones.
The Vegetation Management overlay provisions should also allow a range of natural
values to be addressed. The requirement for housing to be subject to a permit should
also assist.
Modifications required for other representations should address the concerns of the
representor.
Recommendation
R151 No modifications specifically arise from this representation.
73
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
8.
Richmond Village
Representations for Richmond Village concerned the zoning of specific titles on the
plans and the heritage provisions in the scheme.
8.1
Issue: Richmond Village zoning and overlay provisions
Representations
R57
R106
R106 & R137
R106
R110
R156
M & J Geursen, Saddco Pty Ltd & Bridge Inn
Developments.
H & K Meeks – Richmond Maze & Tea Rooms
A & J Quick – Old Hobart Town
D White
F Mitchell
Richmond Advisory Committee
Council
As the representations refer to different parcels of land, Council responded
accordingly.
Commission's considerations
The representations raised issues with the zoning of various parcels of land in
Richmond as follows:
8.1.1. 7 Edward Street, Richmond
Council owns this parcel. The current zoning is Special Use, the zoning on the draft
plans is Commercial. The land is currently vacant. The former use was a childcare
centre. The representors’ sought Recreation and Public Land zoning and retention of
the land as public open space.
Council's assessment was that the land was surplus to requirements and is to be sold.
Council did not support the representations.
The evidence for the representors contended that the former Richmond Council
purchased the land for public purposes. The property is in central Richmond
adjoining the open forecourt to the Richmond Gaol. The representations refer to
possible use for a croquet lawn.
Relevant to this property is the Richmond Cultural Resource Management Plan of
June 2001 that is a referred document under the planning scheme. The Management
Plan states that the appeal of Richmond ‘is due to its small size, intimate scale and
well preserved historic and rural town character’. The Cultural Resource
Management Plan’s recommended action was that ‘Council should introduce planning
controls to restrict the opportunities for infill development which is inappropriate to
the township values and to reduce the occurrence of subdivision which is
incompatible to the traditional pattern of land use’.
7 Edward Street is a centrally located property of 1600 m2. As public open space the
site will continue to contribute to the open space character of village in addition there
74
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
was no demonstrated need for additional commercial zoning. The zoning in the draft
scheme should be Special Use 3 public facility as part of the open space provision for
Richmond.
Recommendation 7 Edward Street, Richmond
Modify plan 6 to zone 7 Edward Street Richmond Special Use 3 Public Facility.
8.1.2. 11 Bridge Street Richmond
11 Bridge Street is a vacant lot zoned non urban in the Richmond Planning Scheme
and rural on the draft plans. The lot is 877m2. R106 requested commercial zoning.
R156 in contrast noted that the property was highly visible on the approach to
Richmond and that commercial development may detrimentally impact on the
attraction and heritage values. Council agreed with commercial zoning and to extend
the Richmond Village overlay to include the subject land.
11 Bridge Street is at the western entrance to the village and has the potential to
enhance or detract from that entrance. The extensive set of permitted commercial
uses in the commercial zone would be modified by the overlay that makes all building
discretionary. Nevertheless rural is the preferred zoning towards maintaining an
urban-rural boundary to Richmond. Whilst this may not be totally achievable over
time for an 877m2 lot, retaining Rural zoning does indicate the intent for the exercise
of discretion on applications.
Recommendation 11 Bridge Street Richmond
No modifications to draft plan 6. 11 Bridge Street should remain in the Rural zone.
8.1.3. 13 Bridge Street Richmond
13 Bridge Street is currently zoned non urban in the Richmond Planning Scheme and
rural on the draft plans. The use is tourism with two wooden mazes and tea rooms on
the site. R106 sought Commercial zoning.
Council supported R106 and recommended that the portion of 13 Bridge Street used
for commercial activity be zoned Commercial with the balance remaining in the Rural
zone. Further, Council recommended the Richmond Village overlay be extended over
the property and the use class tourist operation be made a discretionary use in the
commercial zone.
The extension of Commercial zoning and the Richmond Village overlay to 13 Bridge
Street is appropriate. Should there be a change of use of the property at any time the
streetscape issues related to the entrance to Richmond can be addressed.
The use class tourist operation is defined as:
‘land used specifically for tourist purposes, and includes wildlife parks,
country clubs or outdoor, historical or bush displays and the like, but excludes
any other tourism facility defined in this clause.’
The activities that fall within the definition would not usually be found in a
Commercial zone but as a discretionary application development and use within the
use class should be capable of consideration for places such as Richmond.
75
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Recommendation 13 Bridge Street Richmond
a)
Modify plan 6 to zone Commercial the portion of 13 Bridge Street shown on
Attachment 12 in Council's 26(2) report.
b)
Modify plan 6-RV to extend the Richmond Village overlay to cover the
portion zoned Commercial at 13 Bridge Street.
c)
Modify the table of uses for the Commercial zone to make tourist operation
discretionary.
8.1.4. 15 Bridge Street & 21A Bridge Street Richmond
On the draft plans 15 & 21A Bridge Street are zoned commercial for the front of the
properties and rural for the balance.
R106 & R137 requested Commercial zoning for the balance of the properties.
Council supported the representations.
The dual zoning of the properties apparently arose from a boundary adjustment at
some time that was not recognised on the plan’s cadastral layer. Commercial zoning
should be extended to apply to the whole of each title.
Recommendation 15 Bridge Street & 21A Bridge Street Richmond
Modify plan 6 to show the balance of 15 & 21A Bridge Street, Richmond zoned
Commercial with the Richmond Village overlay extended over the zone as shown in
Attachment 12 to Council's s.26(2) report.
8.1.5. 25 Bridge Street (corner of Bridge Street & Percy Street.)
25 Bridge Street is the sandstone Congregational Church. Current zoning is Special
Use but Commercial on the draft plans. R156 opposed Commercial zoning on the
grounds that commercial use may result in insensitive alterations to the building.
Council, after consultation with the property owners, advised that the appropriate
zoning was Special Use 7.
Special Use 7 is for education and cultural centres. Special Use 7 zoning for 25
Bridge Street is consistent with the zoning of other churches in Richmond.
Recommendation 25 Bridge Street Richmond
Modify plan 6 to zone 25 Bridge Street Special Use 7.
8.1.6. 35 Bridge Street, Richmond
35 Bridge Street is described as a small public park in the centre of Richmond zoned
public open space in the Richmond Planning Scheme and Commercial on the draft
plans. R156 objected to Commercial zoning on the ground that it could lead to
commercial use of the site.
76
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Council advised that the policy of the planning scheme was to only zone major parks
and open space networks as Public Land and Recreation zone and smaller public open
spaces were not separately identified from the surrounding zoning.
Council has consistently applied this policy on open space across the plans except in a
small number of instances where Recreation and Public Land zoning has been
applied to relatively small areas. eg. Phoenix Street, Howrah. The difficulty with this
policy on zoning is that commercial use is presumably not the desired future for the
land despite its commercial zoning. Nevertheless for consistency the property should
retain its commercial zoning.
Recommendation 35 Bridge Street, Richmond
No modifications to the draft plan 6 for commercial zoning at 35 Bridge Street,
Richmond.
8.1.7. 66 Bridge Street, Richmond
66 Bridge Street is Council owned open space adjacent to the Richmond Bridge with
Residential zoning under the existing and draft plans.
R156 sought Open Space zoning; Council supported Recreation and Public Land
zoning .
The subject land abuts the open space along the Cole River. Recreation and Public
Land zoning of the subject land would simply be an extension to the zoning of the
abutting land.
Recommendation 66 Bridge Street, Richmond
Modify plan 6 to show 66 Bridge Street, Richmond as Recreation and Public Land
zoning .
8.1.8. Other matters
The principal provisions for Richmond Village are as follows:
Plans
Zoning layer
The principal zones are residential, commercial, and Special Use contained within the
current urban area providing for infill rather that expansion of the urban area. The
expansion of Residential zoning is also constrained by Intensive Agriculture zoning to
the north and west of the Village.
Overlays
The heritage overlay within the Richmond Village is applied to individual buildings.
In addition on the east and west of the village, large areas of rural and Landscape and
Skyline Conservation zoning are subject to the heritage overlay.
The Richmond Village overlay applies to the old part of Richmond. The inundation
overlay applies to the low lying riparian land of the Cole River.
77
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Ordinance
Heritage overlay (HO)
The Heritage overlay has its purpose of conserving and enhancing heritage places.
Heritage places are listed in the scheme’s Heritage Register. The principal impact of
the overlay is to make most activities associated with heritage places discretionary.
The overlay at clause 10.5.1 also attempts to allow the discretionary approval for
prohibited uses in a zone without any provision to give effect to this attempt. The
issue is the relationship between zones and overlays in terms of overriding. Clause 10Operation of overlays states:
‘If an overlay is shown on the Planning Scheme Map, the provisions of the
overlay apply in addition to the provisions of the zone. Where an overlay
specifies minimum lot sizes, these override those of the zone.’
The ability for an overlay provision to override a zone appears limited to matters of
subdivision. The relationship between zones and overlays should be clarified to
ensure that where ever there is inconsistency between zone and overlay provisions the
overlay provisions override those of the relevant zone.
Recommendation.
Omit existing first paragraph to clause 10 and substitute the following:
‘Where an overlay is shown on the plans, the provisions of the overlay apply
in addition to the provisions for the applicable zone. The overlay provisions
override those of the applicable zone to the extent of any inconsistency’.
Richmond Village overlay (RVO)
The Richmond Village overlay has as its purpose ‘protecting historic groups of
buildings and streetscapes’. The overlay primarily sets a larger minimum lot size to
that prescribed for the respective zone and makes certain building activities and site
works discretionary. The overlay in part duplicates the regulation on listed buildings
but extends the controls to all buildings within the area of the overlay.
The RVO applies to part of Richmond, principally the commercial area. Council
advised that the RVO was sourced from plan 08 in the Richmond Cultural Resource
Management Plan however that plan extends the commercial and residential heritage
precinct boundary to a larger area of the village than that shown on the RVO.
Clause 3.4.2-2 of the planning policy framework states inter alia:
These strategies will be implemented by:
ƒ Applying the Heritage overlay to all recognised heritage buildings, sites
and precincts.
Supporting actions include:
ƒ Implementing a Cultural Resource Management Plan for Richmond the
Richmond Cultural Resource Management Plan (edits recommended by
Council s.26(2) report) to assist urban design, heritage protection and
economic development.
In addition the purpose of the RVO is stated as:
‘To enhance the historic integrity of groups of buildings and the streetscapes.
78
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
To retain the distinctive character of Richmond which is derived from its
buildings, open spaces, undulating topography and historic gardens and
orchards, and in particular the scale of buildings, low solid fences, walls, style
of building, building lines and building materials.
To retain important views to town landmarks and the surrounding rural
countryside.’
Consistent with the Richmond Cultural Resource Management Plan that is an
incorporated document and the purpose of the RVO the boundaries of the RVO
should be extended to the combined commercial and residential boundaries shown on
plan 8 of the Management Plan.
Recommendation Richmond Village overlay
Modify plan 6-RV to expand the boundaries of the Richmond Village overlay to
follow the boundaries shown on plan 08 of the Richmond Cultural Resource
Management Plan.
79
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
9.
Single Hill, Acton, Seven Mile Beach
Representations objecting to the zoning on the plans and related scheme provisions in
the Acton corridor and adjoining areas.
9.1
Issue: zoning Single Hill 1 Toronto property
Representations
R45 Dobson, Mitchell & Allport obo Toronto Pastoral Company Pty Ltd concerning
minimum lot sizes in the Rural Residential zone and agreements with Council on the
Toronto Development Plan.
R188 E J Farrell concerning minimum lot size for the Rural Residential zone on
Single Hill.
R149 T Purse obo Toronto Pastoral Company requesting Rural Residential zoning for
land on the Eastern side of Single Hill.
R133 (part) G Joiner, D Picone, L Norton, S Murfet, P McLagan, S Joiner and S
Joiner advocating Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning instead of Rural
zoning on Single Hill and objecting to Rural Residential zoning to the west of Acton
Creek.
R146 (part) D Picone concerning Rural zoning on Single Hill.
R164 (part) S Murfet obo Seven Mile Beach Coastcare and Consulting Group
concerning zoning on Single Hill.
Council
R45 & R188 Council recommended the following:
i)
The remaining undeveloped areas of Single Hill be shown as subject to a
development plan overlay requirements.
ii)
Modify clause 10.12.3 to show the Development Plan for Toronto Park (DPO 5)
as an incorporated plan.
iii)
Include retirement village as a discretionary use in the Rural Residential zone
subject to a development plan.
R149 Council viewed the extension of Rural Residential zoning on the eastern side of
Single Hill as a matter for later amendment under the development plan.
R133, R146, R164 Council made no recommendations for modifications.
Commission's Considerations
R149 purported to be a representative on behalf of the Toronto Pastoral Company. At
the hearing representatives of the Company claimed no knowledge of the
representation. This representation will receive no further consideration.
80
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Single Hill is a prominent feature of the Acton/Seven Mile Beach corridor. A large
portion of Single Hill is/was owned by the Toronto Pastoral Company that over time
has subdivided the northern and western faces for rural residential at a density of 1ha
with a minimum lot size of 0.4ha.
The remaining undeveloped portion of Single Hill still owned by the Company is
zoned Rural Residential, Rural and Landscape and Skyline Conservation on the draft
plans.
The matters objected to through representations for the Company (R45, R188) were:
1)
2)
The 2ha minimum lot size for the Rural Residential zone
whereas previous agreements and provisions in the current
planning scheme were for a 1ha minimum lot size and density.
The provision for a retirement village in the Rural Residential
zone to enable a retirement village to be established on
Company land on Acton Creek (see R158)
The matters objected to through other (non landowner) representations (R133, R146,
R164) included:
1)
2)
3)
The provision for a retirement village west of Acton Creek.
Rural Residential zoning on steep land near Acton Creek.
Rural zoning on the eastern side of Single Hill between the
Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone on the hill top and the
Recreation and Public Land zone on the foreshore.
For completeness, portions of the property are also subject to the Vegetation
Management and Subject to Inundation overlays.
9.1.1 Rural residential subdivision provisions for Single Hill
Concurrent with the hearings the Resource Management and Planning Appeal
Tribunal was considering subdivision applications for the remaining parts of the
northern face of Single Hill zoned Rural residential. The Tribunal's decision
J282/2003 was to approve the proposed subdivision excluding stages 11 and 12,
which were refused. The Tribunal's decision considered the range of matters relevant
to the subdivision in detail such that regard should be had to the decision of the
Tribunal in setting the final boundaries of Rural Residential zoning on this segment of
Single Hill. Whilst the Tribunal's decision excluded stages 11 and 12 it noted that:
‘It will be necessary to consider, in conjunction, the effects of soil stability,
effluent disposal, Acton Creek environmental buffer and potential visual
impact of any dwelling and access and associated works, and roadways and
then produce a design for stages 11 and 12 having regard to these factors.’
The Tribunal also concluded that subdivision should not extend east of the presently
proposed lots 23 and 52.
81
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Having regard to the Tribunal's detailed consideration of subdivision on Single Hill
above Acton Creek and the Panel's own assessments of the topography and impacts of
Rural Residential zoning the Panel finds as follows. The Rural Residential zone and
subsequent subdivision should terminate in a cul de sac at the eastern extent of the
currently described lots 23 and 52 as shown on the plan of subdivision attached to
Council’s permit 2003/8.
In consideration of the permit currently issued for subdivision on Single Hill on the
basis of a minimum of one lot per hectare the representations in support of a 1ha
minimum lot size are satisfied.
9.1.2 The status of the Development Plan for Single Hill
Amendment 17/97 to the Eastern Shore Area 2 Planning Scheme 1986 provided for
subdivision for the Single Hill property as follows:
‘5.8.2
Property known as ‘Single Hill’ (comprising 48,124 and 188, Seven
Mile Beach Road and 351 Acton Road):
(a)
Subdivision of this property shall be in accordance with a
development plan approved by Council addressing:
i.
vehicle and pedestrian networks;
ii. staging of land release;
iii. Service provisions;
iv. provisions to protect the landscape values of Single Hill;
v.
State Coastal Policy;
vi. together with any further issues as deemed necessary by
Council.
(b)
Any subdivision permit granted for this property shall be
subject to a requirement that the landowner enter into an
agreement under Part 5 of the Land Use Planning and
Approvals Act 1993 which ensures the application of the
provisions of the development plan.
Amendment 17/97 10/5/99’
The above requirement is for the details of subdivision to be incorporated into a
development plan and approved by Council. The development plan cannot extend to
changing zoning or standards in the approved planning scheme unless itself has been
subject to the planning scheme amendment process.
82
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R45 refers to the Toronto Development Plan June 2001 that provides for a ‘binding
Part 5 agreement’. The development plan has been examined (submitted with Mr
Farrell's (R45) evidence to the hearing). The areas on the development plan indicated
as ‘subject to future rezoning’ are of no effect in terms of the draft scheme, nor can
they bind the Commission. The area shown as rural residential on the draft plans have
been committed to subdivision. The purpose of clause 5.8.2 in the 1986 Planning
Scheme has been served.
Council’s s.26(2) report recommended that the remaining land be subject to a
development plan overlay. As the underlying zoning is Rural and Landscape and
Skyline Conservation the need for a continued requirement for the development plan
has not been demonstrated. The recognition of DPO 5 in the list of development
plans in clause 10.12.3 should be deleted.
9.1.3 Rural zoning single Hill
The next point is the Rural zoning of Single Hill. As representations were received
advocating Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning a separate hearing was
notified to examine the representations.
The draft plans show the upper slopes of Single Hill defined by the change in slope of
the land as Landscape and Skyline Conservation. Rural Residential zoning is shown
up to the 60 m contour on the north and west faces of Single Hill. There is a band of
Rural zoning between the hilltop as Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning and
the Rural Residential zoning on the lower slopes. On the eastern face of Single Hill
the band of Rural zoning is down slope to Recreation and Public Land zoning on the
waterfront. It is the Rural zoning on the eastern face of Single Hill fronting Frederick
Henry Bay that was subject to representations advocating Landscape and Skyline
Conservation zoning.
Submissions for Toronto (R45, R188) argued in favour of the Rural zoning as shown
on the plans. The submissions contended inter alia:
The undeveloped areas on Single Hill operate as a farm.
Under Rural zoning agriculture is exempt compared with the Landscape and
Skyline Conservation zoning where agriculture requires a permit.
The landscape is a rural farming landscape.
The farming operations are exempt from the payment of land tax under the
Land Tax Act 2000 because it is primary production. However under
Landscape and Skyline conservation zoning and permit requirements, the
classification could change to ‘general land’ with the consequence of a land
tax liability.
Landscape and Skyline conservation zoning will impose a different land
management obligation on the land owner through providing a public benefit
and could result in altered land management practices.
Landscape and Skyline conservation zoning would not add any particular
value or benefit over Rural zoning.
The representations in support of Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning instead
of Rural zoning argued that the scheme should recognise aesthetic values and remnant
bush. The representations contended that there were risks related to landslide and
83
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
erosion and the prospect of contamination from sewerage and scaring of the landscape
from development of roads and housing.
The representations further contended that no subdivision should be allowed.
The submissions of the representors in support of Landscape and Skyline
conservation zoning were based on the aesthetic values of the land and retention of
remnant vegetation in relation to Seven Mile Beach and as an undeveloped back drop
to Seven Mile Beach are preferred.
The representations contending unsuitability for residential development for the
eastern side of Single Hill are not accepted as neither Rural or Landscape and Skyline
Conservation zoning prescribe a housing future for the land. The submissions for the
landowner are accepted in respect to the continuation of farming activities. The
submissions are not accepted in respect to permit requirements as the use is
established and taxation implications are not a relevant matter for the planning
scheme.
The 1986 Planning Scheme has Single Hill zoned Non-Urban with Skyline Protection
or Woodland Special Area overlay. The density is DR0-no subdivision. The
implications of the 1986 Planning Scheme Special Area overlay is simply to require
no detrimental effect on the landscape.
Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning on the draft plans aligns with the current
special area in the 1986 planning scheme and likewise for the Rural zone with the
Non-Urban zone. The purpose of the Rural zone includes protection and enhancement
of the bio-diversity of the area. The subdivision requirements are for a minimum lot
size of 20ha. The purpose of the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning include
the protection of areas of landscape or conservation significance. The minimum lot
size is also 20ha.
The permitted and discretionary uses in the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone
are more limited than in the Rural zone.
With a continuation of agriculture land use on Single Hill, Rural zoning is appropriate
and the submission for the landowners about no value adding through Landscape and
Skyline Conservation zoning would be accepted. However in consideration of the
planning scheme intent and in recognition that subdivision has already consumed the
better agricultural land on the lower slopes and the lower agriculture capability for the
remaining portions of Single Hill then Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning is
preferred to Rural zoning.
Recommendations
Representations Single Hill:
(i)
Modify plan 18 to terminate Rural Residential zoning on the north east face of
Single Hill at the eastern extent of the currently described lots 23 and 52 as shown on
the plan of subdivision attached to Council’s permit 2003/8.
84
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
(ii)
Modify the scheme to delete the reference to DPO 5 in the list of development
plans in clause 10.12.3.
(iii) Modify plan DP-18 to delete the development plan overlay applying to Single
Hill.
(iv) Modify plan 18 to omit Rural and substitute Landscape and Skyline
Conservation zoning on Single Hill.
9.2
Issue: zoning Single Hill 2 Toronto property retirement village
Representations
R158 C.B. Rogerson obo Toronto Pastoral Company – concerning Rural Residential
zoning for land bordered by Seven Mile Beach Road and Acton Creek, Seven Mile
Beach. R158 sought provisions that would allow the use and development for a
retirement village.
Council
Council recommended the draft scheme be modified to allow a retirement village as a
discretionary use in the Rural Residential zone in accordance with an approved
development plan.
Commission's Considerations
R158 concerns a portion of the land owned by the Toronto Pastoral Company. The
subject land is shown as lot 2 on P29254 and zoned Rural residential. Acton Creek
forms a boundary between Rural Residential zoning and Village zoning. The
representation suggests that Village zoning could extend to include the lot proposed
for a retirement village.
There are two issues, first the merit of a retirement village for the subject land and
second the merit of making retirement village a discretionary use in the Rural
Residential zone.
For the first issue the suitability of the area for a retirement village or to extend the
Village zoning of Seven Mile Beach to include the subject land has not been
demonstrated. The proposed area is steep in parts and subject to inundation on the
lower portion adjacent to Acton Creek.
The second issue is the classification of retirement village in the Rural Residential
zone. The merit of a separate use classification-retirement village has not been
established. The scheme’s residential provisions across all zones are included in the
Panel’s recommended ‘do-again’ requirements.
Recommendation
R158 No modifications to the draft planning scheme for retirement village as a
discretionary use in the Rural Residential zone or to provide for a retirement village
on land near Acton Creek, Seven Mile Beach.
85
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
9.3
Issue: zoning and provisions Seven Mile Beach 1
Representations
R83 JB Medbury obo Royal Hobart Golf Club objecting to Recreation and Public
Land zoning Woodhurst Road, Seven Mile Beach.
R161 P Saraswati objecting to the large minimum lot size and lack of a sewerage
scheme for Seven Mile Beach.
R118 N Shephard obo Seven Mile Beach Caravan Park objecting to Recreation and
Public Land zoning for 23-27 Leyden Avenue.
Council
R83 Council recommended the plans be modified to show land fronting Woodhurst
Road in the Village zone.
R161 Council supported the retention of the minimum lot size of 1000m2 for Seven
Mile Beach.
R118 Council recommended the plans be modified to show the caravan park in the
Village zone.
Commission's Considerations
R83 concerns Woodhurst Road, Seven Mile Beach where on the north west side of
the road is land of the Royal Hobart Golf Club and on the opposite side is housing in
the Village zone. The Golf Club simply sought Village zoning for its land fronting
Woodhurst Road.
Village zoning would allow additional residential use within the perimeter of the
village. Village zoning should be approved.
R161 sought the ability to subdivide lots less than the minimum lot size of 1000m2 on
the basis of providing ‘reasonable levels of population density that will encourage and
support infrastructure’.
Seven Mile Beach is zoned Village. Other land use and natural constraints contain
the perimeter of the zone. The residential density is set by Council’s policy not to
provide sewerage infrastructure. In addition residential development is affected by the
airport buffer overlay that specifies acoustic standards for building construction.
Council's strategy to contain the spread and density of the Seven Mile Beach
settlement is an appropriate response to the constraints to outward expansion and the
policy to not provide reticulated sewerage whilst it can be avoided.
No modifications should be made to the minimum lot size for the Village zone.
R118 concerns the caravan park of Leyden Avenue, Seven Mile Beach that is zoned
active recreation under the 1986 Planning Scheme and Recreation and Public Land
86
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
zoning on the draft plans. The front half of the property was rezoned to Village by
amendment in 2002 but the amendment is not reflected on the draft plans.
Caravan parks and camping grounds are a prohibited use in the Village zone. The
owners of the land now request Village zoning for their entire property. Land at 2327 Leyden Avenue is within the perimeter of the urban area of Seven Mile Beach, so
Village zoning is appropriate.
Plans EB 12 and 18 also show an environmental buffer over part of 23-27 Leyden
Avenue. The environmental buffer relates to the intended site for sewage disposal.
The strategy for reticulated sewerage for Seven Mile Beach has changed, the site and
thus the environmental buffer are no longer required. The buffer has already been
removed from the 1986 Planning Scheme by amendment. The EBO plans should be
modified accordingly.
Recommendations
R83 Modify plan 18 to show Village zoning on the north west side of Woodhurst
Road Seven Mile Beach as shown on Attachment 10 of Council's s.26(2) report.
R118:
(i) Modify plan 18 to show 23-27 Leyden Avenue, Seven Mile Beach in the Village
zone as shown on attachment 13 of Council's s.26(2) report.
(ii) Modify plans EB-12 & 18 to delete the environmental buffer at Seven Mile
Beach.
9.4
Issue: zoning and provisions Seven Mile Beach 2
Representations
R133(part) G Joiner, D Picone, L Norton, S Murfet, P McLagan, S Joiner and S
Joiner – concerning planning scheme provisions for Seven Mile Beach.
R146(part) D Picone concerning planning scheme provisions for Seven Mile Beach.
R164(part) S Murfet obo Seven Mile Beach Coastcare and Consulting Group
concerning planning scheme provisions for Seven Mile Beach.
Council
Council determined that issues raised in the representations were covered by the draft
planning scheme or did not lead to recommendations for modifications to the draft
planning scheme.
Commission's Considerations
R133, R146, and R164 raised similar issues on Seven Mile Beach. Aspects of the
representations covering Single Hill are considered separately.
The issues raised in the representations concerning Seven Mile Beach are largely in
support of the draft planning scheme on zoning, minimum lot size and limited area of
local business zoning that gives Seven Mile Beach the character that is described in
the representations. The matters raised in the representations that are within the scope
87
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
of the planning scheme are embodied in the provisions and no modifications are
required.
Recommendations
R133(part), R146(part), and R164(part) No modifications to the draft planning
scheme in respect to issues raised for Seven Mile Beach.
9.5
Issue: zoning Acton
Representations
R81: J.B. Medbury – concerning Rural zoning for ‘Cilwen’ Cilwen Road.
R195: T. Walpole – supporting Rural Residential zoning Cilwen Road and Aspect
Place.
Council
Council supported R81 recommending Rural Residential zoning for Cilwen and
Removal of the DPO requirement. Council noted R195.
Commission's Considerations
R81 concerns the property ‘Cilwen’ that is zoned Rural with a development plan
overlay requirement. The representation requested Rural Residential zoning that is
consistent with the surrounding zoning and land use.
The DPO as it is contemplated to operate in the draft planning scheme is to be
abandoned and as such should be removed from the plans. A development plan could
well be desirable as part of the permit process but not as a necessary amendment and
incorporation of the development plan in the planning scheme.
The subject land is also within the overlay of the Mt Canopus observatory. However
as a significant area of Rural Residential zoning is within the overlay the addition of
the ‘Cilwen’ property should not jeopardise the functioning of the observatory
provided there is compliance with the provisions controlling light emissions.
R195 that supports the Rural Residential zoning off Cilwen Road is noted.
Recommendation
R81
i)
Modify plan 11 to show the property ‘Cilwen’ in the Rural Residential zone as
shown on Attachment 9 to Council's s.26(2) report.
ii)
9.6
Modify plan 11 – DP to remove the development plan requirement for the
‘Cilwen’ property and adjoining property.
Issue: Foreshore zoning, Pittwater - Lewis property
Representations
88
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R98 C Lewis objecting to Recreation and Public Land zoning on the Pittwater
foreshore and provisions for tourism development in the Recreation and Public Land
zone as applied to the Milford property Tasman Highway, Cambridge.
Council
Council considered Recreation and Public Land zoning was appropriate.
Commission's Considerations
The Milford property lies between Pittwater Road and Pittwater immediately east of
the airport. The property is zoned Rural with Recreation and Public Land zoning
along the waterfront. The Vegetation Management, Heritage, Airport Buffer, Coastal
Management and Bushfire Management overlays apply to all or parts of the property.
The title is some 136ha and extends to high water.
The representation contended that Recreation and Public Land zoning implied public
access that was contrary to the private tenure and high environmental values of the
land. The representor advocated Rural zoning or a zoning of the environmental
management ilk as found in other planning schemes.
Council contended the Recreation and Public Land zoning was a translation from the
Passive Recreation zoning of the 1986 Planning Scheme and there were no
exceptional circumstances to remove the zoning. Council did however note that the
boundary limits of the Recreation and Public Land zoning were the same as for the
Coastal Management overlay. Council further noted that there was no intention to
purchase the land for public use but Recreation and Public Land zoning would be the
area for public open space dedication if the land was to be subdivided.
The Panel's concerns for the Recreation and Public Land zoning have been identified
in response to other representations. The wide array of permitted and discretionary
uses is not consistent with the purpose of the zone. For the reasons largely identified
by the representor in respect to the protection of environmental values of the
foreshore, the Recreation and Public Land zoning is inappropriate for the Milford
property.
The representor’s reference to an Environmental Management zone is supported and
this is one of the ‘do-again’ items for the planning scheme.
Council's submission on Recreation and Public Land zoning defining areas taken for
public open space through subdivision is not accepted in total. Whilst foreshore
should be taken as public open space at the time of subdivision this should not be
solely dictated by the presence or otherwise of Recreation and Public Land zoning .
In response to the natural values of Milford and the overlays applying, the Recreation
and Public Land zone should be replaced by Rural zoning.
Recommendation
R 98 Modify plan 12 to delete Recreation and Public Land zoning to the foreshore of
Milford and substitute Rural zoning.
89
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
10. Mining and Quarrying
Representations concerning the identification and protection of quarry material for
access in the longer term. Clarence is a major source of construction material in the
form of hard rock and sands. Future access to the material is under pressure from
other land use.
10.1
Issue: Mining and Quarrying 1
Representations
R41 Department of Infrastructure Resources and Energy (DIER) – Mineral Resources
Tasmania concerning provisions for extractive industries.
R147 Pioneer Construction Materials Pty Ltd concerning the Flagstaff Gully quarry
and provisions for the Landscape and Skyline conservation zone.
R174 Stenning & Associates obo RNB Trading Pty Ltd concerning sand extraction
and definitions.
R34 Crushed Stone & Sand Association (Tasmania) concerning environmental buffer
overlays and definitions for extractive industries.
Council
R41 Council considered that the policy framework gave appropriate recognition for
extractive industries.
R147 Council did not accept that the boundaries of the Landscape and Skyline
Conservation zone were inappropriate, but agreed to an extension of the Rural zone at
Flagstaff Gully as shown on Attachment 15 s.26(2) report.
R174/R34 Council agreed to amended definitions.
Commission's considerations
R41 contended that the importance of extractive industries to the metropolitan area
had been overlooked. Without an extractive industry zone, the potential for conflict
with residential and other use conflicts will increase. R41 also contended that there
was little provision for the expansion of the Flagstaff Gully quarry. The availability
of extractive industries as a discretionary use in the recreation and public land Use
zone was supported. The continuation of sand extraction at South Arm and the
potential development of sand at Llanherne needed to be recognised. R41 contended
that sand was omitted from the definition of extractive industries and the definition of
soil removal was contradictory.
R34, R147, and R174 were representations from or on behalf of sand or quarry
operators.
The submission for R41-DIER on the importance of quarry resources providing
construction material to the region is accepted. The evidence from DIER is that the
hard rock quarry at Flagstaff Gully operated by Pioneer can provide material in the
90
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
longer term. In respect to sand resource South Arm will continue to be an important
source of material and Llanherne at Seven Mile Beach should be protected as a future
source of sand material.
The draft scheme has the use class extractive industry as discretionary in the Industry,
Rural and Recreation and Public Land Zones and prohibited in the other zones.
Extractive industry is defined as:
‘Land used for the extraction or removal of stone from land for commercial
use, or to use the stone for building, construction, road or manufacturing
works. It includes the treatment of stone or the manufacture of bricks, tiles,
pottery, or cement products on the land from which the stone is extracted.’
The related definition ‘soil removal’ is defined as ‘land used for removing sub-soil,
minerals or stone from the ground’.
Soil removal is classified as discretionary in the same zones as extractive industry and
prohibited in all other zones.
Sand Resource
The draft planning scheme provides for the continued access to the sand resource on
South Arm particularly at the South Arm Neck and at Seven Mile Beach through
discretionary classifications in the rural and recreation and public land zones. The
South Arm Neck is also subject to the Coastal Management overlay. The Coastal
Management overlay adds additional considerations to a permit application but does
not prohibit the use unless within the frontal dune system or within 50m of any tidal
flat, salt marsh or lagoon.
The draft scheme however at clause 3.4.3-3 states as a strategy:
‘Discourage the future expansion of soil removal and extractive industries in
the South Arm area.’
This provision is contrary to the continued supply of the sand resource and
applications should be based on their merit rather than being subject to a strategy
opposed to future expansion. One counter point to this is the evidence for N McShane
R174 that stated the likely scenario of a time horizon of three years supply of sand
extraction at South Arm followed by a concentration of activities at Llanherne.
Despite this view of R174, the strategy should be deleted.
Quarry Material
Evidence on quarry material was confined to the Flagstaff Gully quarry. The upper
parts of the quarry and adjoining areas are zoned Landscape and Skyline
Conservation. Mr Shield for Council referred to Attachment 15 of Council's s.26(2)
report that recommended additional Rural zoning to the Pioneer land on the area of
the approved quarry plan but otherwise retention of the Landscape and Skyline
Conservation zoning. Pioneer (R147) in response reiterated its request for Rural
91
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
zoning or Recreation and Public Land zoning for all of its property to retain the
option for access to the hard rock resource that is not available under LSC zoning.
The submission for R147 recognised the constraints on quarrying in new areas and
has undertaken mapping of conservation priority forests and the rigours involved with
approval for mining applications. In addition Pioneer described the planning for the
site that was in progress and their exploration of the possibility of opening a quarry on
the adjoining Council land.
Although at the time of the hearing the planning for the quarry had not been
completed and the future areas for quarrying not defined, the submissions for Pioneer
that all the company land should be zoned Rural are accepted. The various overlays
and the approval process under various Acts should ensure that planning interests as
expressed in the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone is retained despite Rural
zoning.
Buffers
The draft plans include an environmental buffer overlay to Flagstaff Gully quarry.
R34 supported the buffer concept but referred to standard recommended attenuation
distances (SRAD) in the Quarry Code of Practice that could be varied based on site
conditions.
R147 also supported the environmental buffer overlay but requested that the buffer
exclude existing residences in Flagstaff Gully road. Council's response to the
representations on the environmental buffer overlay was to recommend that the
findings of a technical report become the basis to vary the boundaries of the
environmental buffer and for this to be stated in the decision requirements for the
overlay.
The merit of the environmental buffer overlay to Flagstaff Gully quarry is not
challenged. Hard rock quarrying where activities include blasting should be protected
from encroachment from non-compatible land use and in addition the buffer should
protect activities outside that buffer from further impact. The environmental buffer
overlay for Flagstaff Gully should be retained but modified to exclude existing
residences as requested by Pioneer. Council supported this approach in its reply.
Turning to the provisions for the environmental buffer overlay. The purpose is stated
as:
‘to ensure that development is compatible with environmental values.’
Within an environmental buffer overlay all use and development requires a
discretionary permit. The provisions refer to SRADs in the decision process and
Council's recommended modifications are to allow consideration of a technical report
to vary the environmental management overlay. Therefore in operation the
environmental management overlay identifies an area of interest with the response on
a permit potentially modified by the SRAD for the activity or through a site specific
technical investigation.
Clause 10.13.2 should be modified to include the following:
92
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
‘The findings of a site specific technical investigation which provides for a
reduction of the attenuation distance’.
Use Definitions
Representations objected to the inclusion of minerals or stone in the definition of soil
removal and the exclusion of sand extraction from the definition of extractive
industry. The representations contended that extractive activities were defined and
recognised in the Mineral Resources Development Act 1995 and that the definitions
from that Act should be incorporated into the scheme. The definitions advocated for
inclusion in the scheme were mineral, mining, mining operation, and soil removal.
Council supported the inclusion of mining and mining operations from the Mineral
Resources Development Act 1995 as discrete use classifications in the scheme.
The importation of definitions from other Acts to describe use classes does not always
present an easy path despite merit in aligning with other legislation. The scheme seeks
to distinguish between mining and soil removal and yet applies the same use
classification in all zones. In addition no specific standards apply to either use
classes. The merit of separation of extractive industries from soil removal has not
been demonstrated.
The Common Key Elements Template (Planning Directive No. 1) defines extractive
industry as:
means use of land for extracting or removing material from the ground for
commercial use, construction, roadwork or manufacturing works. Included is
the treatment or processing of these resources by crushing, grinding, milling or
screening on or adjoining the land from which it is extracted. Examples are,
mining, quarrying, sand mining and turf extraction.
The above definition should provide a comprehensive use classification for extractive
industry activities.
Recommendations
Mining and quarrying:
(i)
Modify the scheme to delete the use definition and provisions for soil removal.
(ii)
Modify the scheme to delete from clause 3.4.3-3-Strategies:
‘Discourage the future expansion of soil removal and extractive industries in
the South Arm area.’
(iii)
Modify draft plans 9 & 10 to omit the Landscape and Skyline Conservation
zoning and substitute Rural zoning for the Pioneer property at Flagstaff Gully.
(iv)
Modify the scheme to insert at clause 10.13.2 the following:
‘The findings of a site specific technical investigation which provides for a
reduction of the attenuation distance’.
(v).
Omit the definition of extractive industry and insert the following:
93
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
‘means use of land for extracting or removing material from the ground for
commercial use, construction, roadwork or manufacturing works. Included is
the treatment or processing of these resources by crushing, grinding, milling or
screening on or adjoining the land from which it is extracted. Examples are,
mining, quarrying, sand mining and turf extraction.’
10.2 Issue: Mining and Quarrying 2
Representations
R96 DE Leaman concerning the identification and protection of mineral resources,
crushed metal and sand.
Council
Council considered the preparation of the planning scheme provided an appropriate
response to resource management requirements.
Commission's Considerations
R96 contended that the planning scheme completely overlooks the fact that Clarence
provides a large proportion of the crushed rock and sand resource used in southern
Tasmania. R96 referred to the loss of possible future mineral resource sites through
encroachment of other uses not compatible with the resource operation and lack of
general protection of the resource.
The claims of R96 have foundation. Whilst the planning scheme makes reference to
the recognition and protection of resources this is in the context of: ‘a balance
between local values and the value of extractive resources’.
In addition the Rural zone gives priority to residential living and the strategic land use
framework plan in its purported mapping of economic development, does not
recognise the sand and crushed rock resource. There is no overt statement that
extractive industries will be given appropriate consideration in planning decisions or
that the draft planning scheme has adequately considered the resource.
Recommendation
R96 The draft scheme provisions for mineral and quarry resources be ‘done again’ to
ensure appropriate recognition and weight is given to the protection of extractive
resources for future mining activities.
94
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
11. Hobart Airport
One representation objected to the basis and location of the airport buffer. In addition
the airport operators made submissions as interested parties on the planning scheme
provisions for the airport buffer and exemption of Commonwealth airport land.
11.1 Issue: Airport and Airport Buffer overlay (ABO)
Representations
R77/2 P Hookway concerning the relevance of the 20NEF noise contour as a basis
for the establishment of the Airport Buffer overlay.
Interested Parties. Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd concerning provisions for the
airport and retention of the buffer overlay.
Council
Council recommended the retention of the buffer as shown on the ABO for policy
consistency and to protect airport activities from incompatible use or development.
Commission's Considerations
R77 contended that the 20NEF contour had been superseded by the smaller ANEF 20
and that the buffer should follow contemporary noise buffer setbacks. Further that the
land otherwise impacted by the 20NEF should be zoned residential.
Mr Hookway provided extensive documentation on aircraft noise, the Melbourne
Airport environs strategy plan 2003 and reports prepared for the Hookway land at
Cambridge. The representor claimed that the noise buffer adversely affected their
property.
Submissions for the Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd (HIAPL) referred to a
review of the ANEF contours as part of the review of the master plan for Hobart
Airport. HIAPL sought retention of the 20NEF as the threshold for residential
development until the 20ANEF is revised.
The 20NEF (Noise Exposure Forecast) has been established for Hobart Airport since
the early 1970's as an interim development order and subsequently included in the
1986 Planning Scheme. Over time new measures of aircraft noise in the form of a
ANEF (Australian Noise Exposure Forecast) have evolved. The 20ANEF as
described in the current Master Plan for Hobart Airport 1999 covers a considerably
smaller area than the 20NEF being largely confined to the boundaries of the airport.
Evidence for HIAPL is that with the ANEF system a certain percentage of people
outside the 20ANEF line will still be seriously or moderately affected by aircraft
noise.
It was submitted that the Hobart airport receives comparatively few complaints on
aircraft noise compared with other airports in Australia and this was attributed to the
setback of houses from the airport.
95
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The 1986 Planning Scheme provisions based on the 20NEF prohibit residential
development except for the area within the confines of the Seven Mile Beach
settlement. Turning to the draft planning scheme, within the Airport Buffer overlay
residential development is discretionary subject to construction complying with the
Australian standard AS2021-1994 Acoustics Aircraft Noise Building Siting and
Construction.
Although different measurement techniques for noise have evolved and aircraft have
become quieter, protecting the airport from encroachment of sensitive uses has merit.
As submitted for the HIAPL the airport is now probably unique amongst Australian
capital and major cities to substantially and permanently avoid the mutual pressures
that urban communities and airports inevitably put on each other as they move closer
together.
Although noise as a basis for the overlay may not be as valid as in the past, the future
is not as clear. Retention of the buffer retains the option for airport expansion and
possible activities such as aircraft maintenance not available at other airports. In
strategic terms it is appropriate for the Council to apply controls it deems appropriate
to protect the future of the airport.
Whilst the representor may have provided significant evidence that the airport buffer
was too expansive, the argument that the land now subject to the buffer should be
zoned residential was not sufficiently made out. The submission that the land is
prime residential land is not supported under the planning scheme strategy. The
underlying zoning is rural. In effect, under the draft planning scheme the airport
buffer overlay does not greatly change the development potential. The representation
does not demonstrate the provisions in the airport buffer overlay or the underlying
Rural zoning should be modified.
Minor amendments were identified for the airport buffer overlay at clause 10.11.1 to
clarify the requirement for a permit and clause 10.11.2 to refer to the 2000 Australian
Standard in lieu of the 1994 reference.
Recommendation
R77/2
(i) Modify clause 10.11.1 to omit the existing provision and to substitute the
following:
‘Except on land zoned Village, a discretionary permit is required for the use or
development for a house within the airport buffer overlay.’
(ii)
modify clause 10.11.2 to omit 1994 and substitute 2000.
11.2 Issue: Jurisdiction of the planning scheme and Commonwealth
legislation
HIAPL submitted that the airport is subject to the Airports Act (Commonwealth) 1996
which excludes the application of state laws in respect to land use planning. HIAPL
contended the planning scheme should be amended to remove any requirements for a
permit application.
96
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The Airport land is zoned Special Use 4–Airport. Under this zoning use and
development for airport is a permitted and ancillary use. However, in response to R32
lodged obo Corpus Christie School, ancillary use will also be permitted ie consistent
with clause 6.5 an ancillary use takes on the classification of the principal use. The
Special Use zoning states that a discretionary permit is required for subdivision. The
HIAPL submission is that to require a permit is ultra vires to Commonwealth
legislation.
Submissions for Council and HIAPL argued approval of the planning scheme with the
requirement for a permit in place would be invalid and other parts of the planning
scheme may be affected.
The planning scheme covers land which from time to time maybe beyond its
jurisdiction. This is the case for instance for marine farming or where a regulation
declares this to be the case or there is a reference to the Commission under the Public
Land (Administration and Forests) Act 1991).
The jurisdiction of the Council as a planning authority to deal with the matter must be
determined on the circumstances of the case at the time of application. However the
HIAPL's position is that a permit should not be required to establish jurisdiction and
the requirement for a master plan for the airport under Commonwealth legislation
takes the place of the planning scheme.
In consideration of the submissions the preferred course is to leave the zoning and
Special Use provisions as they stand other than to add to clause 9.13.6. For clause
9.13.6 against SU4-Airport add the following ‘Use or development on land subject to
the Airports Act (Commonwealth) 1996 shall not be subject to permit requirements
under clauses 9.13.2 - 9.13.4.
Recommendation
Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd:
Modify clause 9.13.6-Schedule to Zone against SU4-Airport the following:
‘Use or development on land subject to the Airports Act (Commonwealth)
1996 shall not be subject to permit requirements under clauses 9.13.2-9.13.4.
97
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
12. South Arm
Representations for South Arm, the peninsula south of Lauderdale, covered the
planning for the area generally and the zoning of specific land parcels. Issues relating
to the sand resource for South Arm are covered in the section on mining and
quarrying.
12.1 Issue: Community derived planning scheme
Representations
R100 J MacDonald advocating a development plan overlay for the South Arm
Peninsula derived through full community consultation.
Council
Council considered that a development plan was unnecessary in that the South Arm
settlements were defined through Village zoning.
Commission’s considerations
R100 was a representation formed at a meeting of residents of the South Arm
settlement. The representation contended that the community was capable of
achieving community objectives, consultation by the community and the development
of a plan out of such a process.
The hearing allowed for a wide ranging presentation on the area described as fronting
the southern segment of Ralphs Bay from Musk Road/Gellibrand Drive. The
presentation described the activities and issues for the area including sand extraction,
ecology, viability of the local shop, school, church and RSL. The advocacy for a
development plan overlay was based on the Richmond Village overlay example.
Although the representation concerned primarily the southern extension of the South
Arm peninsula, taking the whole peninsula area south of Lauderdale, the planning
scheme strategy of zones and overlays does not differ from other areas, except that
urban-type development is largely confined to existing settlements. The strategy of
containment of urban development is in response to the lack of reticulated water and
sewerage services, road capacity constraints and environmental factors.
The Richmond Village overlay is, for the South Arm community, an example of finer
grain planning than that provided by the standard zoning provisions. The Richmond
example sets a purpose, minimum lot size and building design and siting
considerations specific for Richmond and additional to the underlying zoning
provisions. The matters that concern the community of South Arm are capable of
being addressed through the items listed under clause 6.3-Decision Requirements that
apply to all applications. This approach however probably does not satisfy the request
for community derived planning provisions as advocated in the representation. This
is a matter for the community and Council to resolve. However one requirement of
the decision requirements in clause 6.3 presents the opportunity for the community to
plan. This opportunity is in the form of a ‘development plan, design or local plan’ to
98
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
which Council is empowered to have regard so long as there is no inconsistency of
provisions between the local plan and the planning scheme.
The provisions for South Arm give effect to the settlement pattern and strategy that
are appropriate for the natural values and limitations on available services. A local
plan can be prepared that could resolve to greater particularity the development of
South Arm. Otherwise the concerns for the residents to keep the economic/social
infrastructure viable in the form of the school, church, RSL and shop are matters that
are not solved by the planning scheme.
Recommendation
R100 No modifications to the draft planning scheme.
12.2 Issue: South Arm zoning 33 Spitfarm Road, Opossum Bay
Representations
R204 D & H Howlin concerning Village and Rural zoning for land at 33 Spitfarm
Road, Opossum Bay
Council
Council supported the representation to the extent of extending the Village zoning to
match that in the 1986 Planning Scheme.
Commission's Considerations
33 Spitfarm Road is zoned Rural and Village on the draft plans. The land is similarly
zoned in the 1986 Planning Scheme. However on the draft plans the area of Village
zoning is contracted. Council's s.26(2) response agreed that the Village boundary of
the 1986 Planning Scheme should be reinstated.
The representor argued for the current Village zone boundaries to establish a density
of development but that density be transferred over the adjoining Rural zoned land
thereby achieving the same number of lots that could be produced for the Village
zoning but at a lower density.
The restricted capacity of Spitfarm Road, the lack of alternative road connections, and
the lack of water and sewerage services are relevant considerations to setting zoning
and density standards. The boundaries on the draft plans are preferred with
development contained to within the area defined for the village and not expanded
either through additional Village zoning or at the equivalent density spread over a
much larger area.
The minimum lot size in the Village zone is 1000m2. The final density of lots
achieved on the area zoned Village will need to be determined through consideration
of infrastructure including road capacities.
Recommendations
R204 No modifications to draft plan 19 for Village zoning at 33 Spitfarm Road,
Opossum Bay.
99
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
12.3
Issue: South Arm zoning 66 Wisteria Avenue, Cremorne
Representation
R33 C Cowley & O Becker supporting Residential zoning for 66 Wisteria Avenue,
Cremorne.
Council
Council noted the representation.
Commission's Considerations
66 Wisteria Avenue is zoned non-urban in the 1986 Planning Scheme and residential
on the draft plans. The land is 1.6ha and fronts Frederick Henry Bay. The land is
elevated above the Cremorne village. The State Coastal Policy 1996 is relevant.
Although comparatively small in area development of the land constitutes ribbon
development and potentially leads to the subdivision of adjoining coastal land on the
prominent Calverts Hill. In addition Cremorne is not served with water and sewerage
and the merit of expanding the urban boundary of Cremorne has not been
demonstrated. The land should be zoned Rural. As this conclusion did not receive
appropriate review through the hearing process, the zoning should be a ‘do again’
requirement.
Recommendation
R33 The zoning of 66 Wisteria Avenue, Cremorne be ‘done again’ with the view to
zoning the land rural.
12.4
Issue: South Arm zoning Dorans Road
Representations
R150 T Purse obo J Campbell concerning Rural zoning for land at Dorans Road,
Sandford.
Council
Council supported the representation for Rural Residential zoning at the end of
Dorans Road as a minor extension to the existing Rural Residential zone.
Commission's Considerations
The subject land comprises some 45ha at the end of Dorans Road. The lot is
relatively long compared to its width extending from the foreshore of Ralphs Bay to
the hills on the east. The application is for Rural Residential zoning on the lower area
of the property of approximately 15ha. The evidence is that this lower area has two
houses, no physical constraints and is of low agricultural capability, (class 5
agricultural land).
Relevant to the representation is the setting of the boundary interface between Rural
Residential and Rural zones. Land to the south and east is zoned respectively Rural
and Landscape and Skyline Conservation. Land to the north is zoned Rural
Residential. The land character for the subject land is more akin to the rural
residential character to the north than to the cleared land to the south and the zone
100
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
boundary is defined by the earlier subdivision. The subject land appears to be in the
area shown as rural residential on the urban growth boundary plan in the scheme.
Rural Residential zoning appears appropriate. The area for the zone is shown on
Attachment 16 in Council's s.26(2) report. However the eastern zone boundary
should be modified such that the Rural Residential zone does not intrude into the
Landscape Skyline Conservation zone as shown on the draft plans.
Recommendation
R150 Modify zoning plan 20 to zone land off Dorans Road, Sandford Rural
Residential as shown on Attachment 16 to Council's s.26(2) report except that the
eastern boundary shall be set by the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone.
12.5 Issue: South Arm zoning 1754 South Arm Road and 402 Clifton
Beach Road.
Representations
R147 W Doran concerning Rural zoning and vegetation management overlay for
1754 South Arm Road and 402 Clifton Beach Road, South Arm.
Council
Council recommended no modifications on the basis that the proposed zoning is
consistent with the strategy for rural land south of Lauderdale.
Commission's Considerations
The subject properties are apparently of some 100ha with zoning in the 1986 Planning
Scheme that allows subdivision for part of the property at a density of one lot per
10ha. The zoning on the draft plans is Rural with a minimum lot size of 20ha. The
change in the approach to subdivision and setting a minimum lot size instead of
density is a major change from the 1986 Planning Scheme approach to rural and nonurban zones.
The representation does not demonstrate that the zone provisions generally or
specifically for the property should be modified.
A second matter raised in the representation is the affect of the vegetation
management overlay on the operation of a ‘rural based agricultural enterprise’. On the
evidence available it is not possible to assess the impact of the vegetation
management overlay on this property. The impact is probably limited unless the
owner intends to land clear.
Recommendation
R147 No modifications to draft plan 21 in respect to properties at 1754 South Arm
Road and 402 Clifton Beach Road.
12.6 Issue: South Arm zoning Bicheno Street, Clifton Beach
Representations
101
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R205 E Lawrence concerning Rural Residential zoning Bicheno Street, Clifton
Beach.
Council
Council did not support the representation.
Commission's Considerations
The subject land is zoned Village under the 1986 Planning Scheme but with a 2ha
density rating. The draft plans show Rural Residential zoning but with a 2ha
minimum lot size. The representation objected to the Rural Residential zoning and
sought lots of 2000m2. The representor did not attend the hearing.
Council submitted that it would be inappropriate to zone the land Village that has a
minimum lot size of 1000m2 because of no strategic or land suitability justification
and the area is low lying with drainage constraints. Clifton Beach is without water
and sewerage services and except for some smaller lots in the vicinity the subject lot
is of similar size to those surrounding it. The need or capacity to increase the density
through Village zoning has not been demonstrated.
Recommendation
R205 No modifications to draft plan 21 for 66 Bicheno Street (27 Dysart Street)
Clifton Beach.
12.7
Issue: South Arm vegetation protection and open space
Representations
R136 R O'Keefe concerning retention of understorey vegetation, provisions of
public open space including trails and protection of skylines.
Council
Council considered the draft planning scheme, particularly the vegetation
management overlay, addressed the matters raised in the representation and no
modifications were required.
Commission's Considerations
The matters raised in the representation are addressed through the overlays and the
planning policy framework. No specific modification arises from the representation.
Recommendation
R136 No modifications to the draft planning scheme.
Issue: South Arm zoning 326 and 290 Rifle Range Road and
211 School Road, Sandford
12.8
Representations
R126 N Shephard obo Valley Field Developments / S Ward concerning land at 326
and 290 Rifle Range Road and 211 School Road, Sandford.
Council
102
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Council did not support the representation. The land was of a rural size holding and
the State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2000 was relevant.
Commission's Considerations
The subject land principally fronts Rifle Range Road. Earlier amendments resulted in
part of the property being rezoned and subsequently subdivided for rural residential
lots.
The representation concerns a large lot of the previously subdivided area retained for
farming purposes. The subject land is 42ha and regular in shape. On three sides of
the property the surrounding land is zoned and developed for rural residential. The
evidence for the representor suggested that because of a lack of water for irrigation
and insufficient soil quality for cropping the land is not suitable for farming. In
addition there are no significant flora or fauna values.
The overlays to the draft plans do not indicate any constraints in the form of hazards
or habitat values. It was submitted that the land was class 5 cleared land that had been
used for farming purposes for a long period.
The scheme includes an urban growth boundary concept that shows rural residential
areas. The subject land appears to not be included in but adjoins the growth area for
rural residential.
The evidence suggested that the subject land has limited agricultural capability and
previous subdivision of the title and surrounding lands defined a residential rather
than rural future. The previous subdivision of the title resulted in a balance lot of
approximately 38ha being hilltop land of high conservation values being protected by
a Part 5 LUPAA agreement, preventing further subdivision and the incorporation of
an integrated bush land conservation and fire risk management plan.
In consideration of the bush land protection and limited agricultural capability of the
parcel now under consideration, rural residential is the appropriate zoning.
Recommendations
R126:
(i)
Modify plan 20 to show 326 and 290 Rifle Range Road and 211 School Road,
Sandford in the Rural Residential zone.
(ii)
Modify the plan showing growth boundaries to include 326 and 290 Rifle
Range Road and 211 School Road, Sandford within the rural residential
growth boundary.
103
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
13. Skyline protection and regional landscape issues
Representations with objections to the draft planning scheme in terms of the
protection of regional skylines from development and the provision of open space and
public access are included below, however many other representations were
concerned with essentially similar issues. The latter representations appear under
other section headings. The major subject of the representations on skyline protection
and regional landscape issues was Droughty.
13.1
Issue: Regional Skylines
Representations
R182 Regional Skyline Group (RSG) - concerning a regional focus in planning
schemes with a specific concern for Rokeby Hills and Droughty Point.
R21 C.E. Christian – contending Droughty should not be developed due to its unspoilt
landscape for the greater Hobart area.
R144 K Peart - concerning seas level rise, community involvement in planning,
various development issues and development and access to Droughty skyline.
Council
R182: Council considered the matters raised in the representation were addressed in
other representations and that the recommended modifications for Droughty as shown
on Attachment 1 of the s.26(2) report embodied those matters.
R21: Council did not support the representation.
R144: Council considered the planning scheme was capable of addressing the matters
raised and made no recommendations for modifications.
Commission's Considerations
R182 contended among other things:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The draft planning scheme does not adequately protect values for skyline or visual
amenity for the greater Hobart area.
The strategy for development of Droughty Point, rather than build communities in
the Rokeby, Clarendon Vale and Pass Road areas, was flawed socially,
environmentally and economically.
The proposed zoning on Droughty constitutes an ambit claim. In many instances
development could not necessarily occur due to local natural impediments.
Residential zoning on Droughty allows expectations beyond the land's capability.
Consistent with its purpose, the Vegetation Management overlay should cover
Droughty.
The top one third of Droughty should be conserved to protect environmental
issues, the hills face and skylines.
The 20ha minimum lot should be discretionary instead of permitted in the
Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone.
104
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
•
The draft planning scheme does not further the LUPAA objectives and is not
prepared in accordance with the State Coastal Policy.
The RSG offered proposals for additional requirements for permit applications in the
Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone.
The comprehensive submission for the Regional Skyline Group also ranged over past
reports to Council, administrative actions of Council that were opposed by RSG,
inequities in urban form and the provision of community facilities and services,
particularly in respect to pedestrian links between Howrah and Rokeby.
The matters raised in R182 that are relevant to the draft planning scheme have been
addressed through representations on specific land parcels. The objection to
subdivision as a permitted development in the Landscape and Skyline Conservation
zone is confined to minor boundary adjustment and public services or public open
space, otherwise subdivision is discretionary.
R21 advocated no further subdivision on Droughty. The submission referred to the
Sansom and DeGryse/Woolley reports. The submission also referred to the extension
of the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone to Glebe Hill, bush corridor walks
and additional land set aside for the Flagstaff Gully quarry to preserve the resource
from encroachment from housing. These matters have essentially been addressed in
response to other representations.
R182 and R21 and other representations objected to the back zoning of reserved
residential areas in the 1963 Planning Scheme to Rural zoning on the draft plans. It
was contended that the back zoning, principally in the Pass Road area, created an
artificial emphasis on Droughty and did nothing to build the Rokeby and Clarendon
Vale communities to address social inequity. Further, that with a residential strategy
favouring the western shore of Droughty, the lots created were for the higher income
groups and others as a consequence were priced out of the market.
Council's response to these claims included the example of development of
agricultural enterprises in Pass Road, servicing strategy and community preference
that supported the back zoning of the reserved Residential zoning in the Rokeby and
Clarendon Vale areas.
The much repeated strategic intent of the draft planning scheme is stated in terms of:
‘a Howrah/Tranmere/Droughty development corridor and Rokeby area are the
focus for future growth.’ and
‘to optimise the use of Clarence assets within the Howrah/Tranmere and
Droughty corridors and Rokeby’.
The strategy for ‘back zoning’ refers to the large stock of land previously zoned
reserved residential extending from Pass Road, Rokeby to Clarendon Vale which is
stated as being ‘excess to medium to long term requirements.’
The reserved residential to rural back-zoning claims by R182 and R21 applies to the
southern end of Pass Road providing for infill between Rokeby and Howrah.
105
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Otherwise the claim is without a basis for there is undeveloped Residential zoned land
in the draft scheme at Oak Downs and on the eastern side of Droughty.
The claims by the representors that the planning scheme will, in effect, lead to
inequitable outcomes is not without substance. On the other hand Council's strategy
to the extent that it directs development to Droughty is consistent with a strategy of
consolidation of development areas and sequential development. The Panel’s
recommendation to reduce Residential zoning on Droughty allows a review of the
strategy of release areas, but within the Howrah, Tranmere, Droughty and Rokeby
areas. Interested developers, access to services and the market will largely prevail on
the order that areas are developed within the preferred development area.
R144 ranged over many issues. At the hearing Mr Peart’s submission concentrated on
and contended there was lack of protection of wildlife and advocated the protection of
Droughty free of development.
Whilst the draft planning scheme predominantly deals with vegetation & not fauna for
a sound reason that vegetation habitat supports wildlife habitat, clearly the protection
of vegetation particularly undergrowth will have gains for wildlife. In addition,
Council has recommended as a decision requirement the inclusion of ‘impact on
important wildlife corridors’.
Where R144 advocates the protection of skylines, this should be achieved through
Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning. R144 makes reference to a skyline
reserve and walking trail network. As an advocacy for public open space on the
skyline this part of the representation is not supported in the context of the draft
planning scheme.
Responses to other representations have defined modifications that principally address
the issues raised in R182, R21, and R144.
Recommendation
R182, R21, R144 No modifications arising from matters raised.
106
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
14. Ordinance provisions-protection of vegetation
Representations raising issues on vegetation, wood smoke pollution, Landscape and
Skyline Conservation zoning and subdivision implications for properties in more than
one zone.
14.1 Issue: provisions for the protection of vegetation
Representations
R2/R3 J Alexander concerning the extension of the Vegetation Management overlay,
firewood collection, building height in the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone
and advocacy for a ban on wood heaters.
R78/R79 J Alexander obo Howrah Hills Landcare Group Inc. – concerning the
extension of the Vegetation Management overlay, firewood collection, subdivision
across zone boundaries, building height restrictions in the Landscape and Skyline
Conservation zone and definitions of terms used in the scheme.
Council
Council recommended a clause (5.6) be inserted in the scheme covering subdivision
of land in more than one zone and changed boundaries for zones on Droughty but
otherwise no further modifications were recommended.
Commission's Considerations
R2/R3, R78/R79 raised a number of issues that were expanded upon at the hearings.
Issues raised in the representations concerning Droughty are considered under other
representations. For simplicity the representations are consolidated and matters
addressed to R2.
14.1.1 R2/1 Vegetation Management overlay (VMO)
R2/1 contended the VMO should extend to all areas of skyline and not just vegetated
areas.
The VMO is based on Council's Natural Assets Inventory. The representation
advocated a wider application for the VMO than is consistent with the purpose of the
VMO where it refers to the ‘protection of remnant ridge lines and hills, which
contribute to important vistas’. However the extension of the VMO to non-treed areas
is not supported although non-forest vegetation communities also need consideration.
Council submitted that the VMO identifies areas of high, very high, and extremely
high significance vegetation and this should be identified in the purpose of the VMO.
The Delegates accepted the terminology submitted by the Council as defined in its
Natural Assets Inventory.
Recommendation
R2/1 modify clause 10.1-Vegetation Management overlay to omit the 1st purpose and
substitute the following:
‘to protect and enhance areas of high, very high, and extremely high,
vegetation significance and bushland habitat.’
107
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
14.1.2 R2/2 VMO exemptions
R2/2 contended that VMO clause 10.1.1 should not exempt the cutting of firewood
from the requirements for a permit.
Clause 10.1.1 identifies a long list of exemptions to the requirement for a permit.
Whilst the management of a permit system covering vegetation is difficult, and
unlikely to be strictly observed, nevertheless should there be excessive intrusion on
the values of the VMO then exemptions will not assist compliance with the planning
scheme. Exemptions relating to vegetation that provides habitat, juvenile vegetation,
cutting of firewood, removal for establishment of survey lines should be deleted.
Recommendation
R2/2 modify clause 10.1.1 to delete:
• Native vegetation which is dead.
• The cutting of firewood adequate for the personal use by the landowner or
occupier.
• The removal, destruction or lopping of the minimum extent of vegetation
necessary for establishing sight lines for the measurement of land by
surveyors in the exercise of their profession.
14.1.3 R2/3 Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone (LSC zone) building
heights
R2/3 contended the LSC zone should have a building height limitation.
The LSC zone does not specify a height but refers to ‘building to be single storey....’.
Storey is not a measurement of height yet height is a relevant issue in the zone.
Further the LSC zone requires subdivision to contain a building envelope with a
maximum area of 2500m2, but decision requirements covering design, siting and
development issues do not relate to the building envelope produced through the
subdivision process. In addition the interpretation of building envelope should
include the area to satisfy fire management requirements.
The representation also sought the inclusion of a building setback in the LSC zone.
As development in the zone is based on a building envelope and qualitative
assessments, no particular setback is considered necessary.
Recommendations
R2/3
i)
As a ‘do-again’ requirement for the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone:
a)
specify the relationship of design, siting and other development standards
to the building envelope required as a condition of subdivision. In
addition, review the situation and determine standards for a permit
application where no building envelope has been previously defined.
108
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
b)
ii)
specify a maximum building height such that the concept of building
envelope is 3 dimensional.
Modify clause 7.2-General Definitions such that building envelope is defined
as:
‘The dimensional space in which buildings, associated structures and area for
fire management requirements are contained.’
14.1.4 R2/4 wood heaters
R2/4 contended the scheme should ban wood heaters as a means of reducing future
health concerns from wood smoke.
It possibly is within scope of the scheme to ban wood heaters or effectively ban wood
heaters by setting emission standards. However there are many social and economic
issues that are raised and other means are probably better placed to address the
problem of wood smoke rather than through the scheme. In addition the scheme
cannot fix the existing problem caused by wood heaters.
Recommendation
R2/4 No modifications to address wood smoke emissions by a ban on wood heaters.
14.1.5 R2/5 definitions.
R2/5 submitted a revised definition for ‘zone’. The revised definition submitted to the
hearing is accepted.
Recommendation
R2/5 Modify to omit the definition for zone in clause 7.2 and substitute: ‘a particular
area delineated on the plans within which a specific set of planning controls apply’.
14.1.6 R2/6 subdivision on zone boundaries
R2/6 contended that provisions to allow subdivision on zone boundaries would
compromise the protection of important vegetation and skylines throughout Clarence.
Council in response to the representations proposed the following clause 5.6:
‘Subdivision of land in more than one zone.
Land may be subdivided (or divided under the Strata Titles Act 1998) along
the zone boundaries.
The application must be considered as a discretionary development. Before
deciding on an application, in addition to the Decision Requirements in clause
5.3 Council must consider any decision requirements of the relevant zones.
The issue mostly affects the Landscape and Skyline Conservation and Rural zones
where a 20ha minimum lot size is specified. However the issue could arise for other
zones where zone boundaries are based on features other than cadastral boundaries.
The issue is illustrated by the example of title where a portion is zoned residential
with a minimum lot size of 550m2 and balance of the title is zoned Rural but is less
109
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
than 20ha. The residential land could not be subdivided if it resulted in a subminimum lot in the Rural zone. Council's clause 5.6 is intended to address this
situation.
The representor's argument is that proposed clause 5.6 could result in a significant
increase in dwellings in the LSC zone on sub-minimum lots, thus compromising the
LSC zone.
The representation examined options to address the issues raised including a
specification for compliance with minimum lot sizes and a prohibition on dwellings
on sub-minimum lots arising from subdivision in an adjoining zone.
The issue is one that has possibly existed for many years in other planning schemes
without a realisation that the applicable planning scheme has been breached. In the
Clarence situation it was submitted that some 40 lots could be created contrary to the
provisions for the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone.
A clause as proposed by Council is required otherwise the residential strategy could
not be achieved where lots are in both Residential and Landscape and Skyline
Conservation or Rural zones. Yet the issue raised by the representation that the
Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone can be compromised is also accepted. The
advocacy for prohibition of houses on sub-minimum lots created and therefore a
means of encouragement of amalgamation titles has some attraction although the full
implications cannot be assessed. The clause should be submitted to a ‘do-again’
requirement with a provision to prohibit dwellings on sub-minimum lots created
under the clause. In this way the implications of the provisions can be assessed.
In addition to the above, clause 5.6 requires a specific relaxation provision against the
minimum lot size in zones otherwise the differing provisions would be a conflict.
Recommendation
R2/6 Draft clause 5.6 be ‘done-again’ to provide for a relaxation of the minimum lot
size to allow sub-minimum lots in adjoining zones and to prohibit dwellings on any
sub-minimum lot created.
14.1.7 R2/7-1 vegetation requirements for applications
R2/7-1 contended the information requirements for applications that referred to the
identification of trees greater than 5m failed to recognise slow growing trees, young
trees and under storey vegetation.
Clause 6.2-Information to accompany an application, specifies the matters for a
permit application. The clause states:
‘An analysis of the site and surrounding area setting out accurate descriptions
of the following:
In areas of skyline and conservation importance a plan locating trees
greater than 5m in height.’
110
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Clearly the vegetation interest is greater than solely trees higher than 5m. In addition
the provisions should not be confined to just areas of skyline and conservation
importance but to the portion of the lot that is subject to the proposed development.
Recommendation
R2/7-1 Modify to omit the 4th dot point in clause 6.2 and substitute the following:
‘A survey of plant communities, an assessment of their importance and
measures to protect threatened species in the area subject to disturbance by the
proposed use or development’.
14.1.8 R2/7-2 vegetation requirements on decisions
R2/7-2 concerned clause 6.3 Decision Requirements that requires consideration of the
impact (of use or development) on important native vegetation. The representation
questioned the emphasis on ‘important’.
Another requirement on applications is an assessment as to ‘whether native vegetation
is to be or can be protected, planted or regenerated through the application’. This
clause appears to cover the issue. The clause that was of concern to the representor
largely duplicates requirements and should be deleted.
Recommendation
R2/7-2 Modify clause 6.3 to delete dot point 20 ‘The impact on important native
vegetation.’
14.1.9 R2/8 animal habitat
R2/8 concerned clause 10.1.2-Decision Requirements VMO that requires an
assessment of:
‘Whether the removal of native vegetation will disturb significant habitats for
native animals’.
The representation suggested alternative wording for the requirement.
In addition dot point 3 in the same clause 10.1.2 requires:
‘the need to retain native (vegetation) if it supports rare or threatened species
of flora or fauna or forms part of a wildlife corridor’.
This latter point appears to cover the issue. The clause of concern to the representor
can be deleted.
Recommendation
R2/8 Modify clause 10.1.2 to omit the last dot point concerning native animals.
14.1.10
zones
R2/9 decision requirements in the Intensive Agriculture and Rural
R2/9 contended decision requirements in the Intensive Agriculture zone and Rural
zone for protection of the natural environment were more comprehensive compared to
the decision requirements for the LSC zone. A consistency of clauses on the same
issue would appear appropriate across zones.
111
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Recommendation
R2/9 modify clause 9.11.4 Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone Environmental
Issues, 5th dot point to read as follows:
‘The protection and enhancement of the natural environment and the character
of the area including the retention of vegetation and fauna habitat and the need
to regenerate land including riparian areas, gullies, ridge lines and property
boundaries.’
14.1.11
R2/10 height standards for antennae and satellite dishes
R2/10 Concerned minimum frontage and maximum height of antennae and satellite
dishes in the low density Residential zone.
Matters relating to minimum frontage in the low density Residential zone are
considered under other representations. The issue of maximum height of aerials etc
above buildings as exempt development should be retained and any adverse impacts
monitored.
Recommendation
R2/10 No modifications to the low density Residential zone provisions.
14.1.12
R2/11 VMO other issues
R2/11 A range of issues concerning the VMO were submitted by M Linders on
behalf of the representors. The issues are relevant to the VMO and should be
considered as part of the ‘do-again’ requirements on the scheme.
Recommendation
R2/11 The provisions of the Vegetation Management overlay be ‘done again’
particularly in respect to making environmental weeds a purpose and reviewing the
exemptions to a permit requirement in terms of cumulative impacts.
112
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
15. Sustainable planning strategic directions and
demography
Representations that contended the draft planning scheme does not represent
sustainable planning and insufficient account of changing demography.
15.1 Issue: Sustainable planning and structure of the draft scheme
Representation
R37 J. Davidson – concerning sustainable planning and the structure of the provisions
of the draft planning scheme.
Council
R37 Council responded to the matters raised in the representation but made no
recommendation for modifications.
Commission's Considerations
R37 contended:
• The draft scheme misses the opportunity to adopt a more innovative approach to
sustainability planning.
• The implications of recent socio-demographic data on projected population
decline and aging are largely ignored with likely costly consequences in planning
for future infrastructure and housing needs.
• The planning policy largely retains its sectoral basis with environment treated as a
separate sector.
• Community consultation for the planning scheme review is of a minimal kind.
• The critical natural capital of economic zones receives greater protection than that
of some non-economic zones.
• There is a gap between the rhetoric of sustainability as espoused in the draft
scheme and its practice on the ground such that: ’the exercise of discretion is not
supported by guidelines or standards’; and
• Decision requirements are not supported by a commitment to monitor and enforce
compliance especially in sensitive areas.
The hearing submission elaborated on the above points that on whole are viewed as
valid criticisms of the planning scheme. Turning to a specific matter the issue of
discretion that is not supported by standards is accepted. The submission contends:
‘The range of strategies and decision criteria that on the surface appear quite
reasonable but with no standards to guide their application will continue to be
little more than rhetoric and a source of contestation until there is adequate
commitment both in political will and resourcing to monitor and enforce
compliance.’
Council's response to this claim was that: ‘providing detailed standards would
unnecessarily complicate the scheme and the assessment process.’
113
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Clearly it is not possible to write standards for all situations but long lists of decision
requirements do little to add certainty and increases the opportunity for inconsistency
of decision making leading to inequitable responses on applications. Participants in
the process, the applicant, Council and other interested parties do not necessarily
benefit from this type of structure.
The representation provides a theoretical basis for the assessment of the planning
scheme and should be used to inform the process for the ‘do-again’ requirements
identified in response to other representations.
Recommendations
R37 No specific modifications to the draft planning scheme.
15.2 Issue: Population, older suburbs, and urban growth boundary
Representation
R180 L Tanner concerning issues relating to population decline and ageing
population improving older suburbs, an urban growth boundary for rural residential,
protection of trees, salinity and wildlife protection on South Arm Highway.
Council
Council noted the representation but recommended no modification to the draft
planning scheme.
Commission's Considerations
The representation raised a number of issues that either relate to the operation of the
planning scheme or are not directly relevant to the planning scheme. The issues raised
are addressed in other representations except for the advocacy for a rural residential
growth boundary.
The concept of an urban growth boundary is introduced at various places in the
scheme. The urban growth boundary is also mapped on the plan titled ‘Strategic Land
Use Framework Plan’ on page 19 of the draft scheme. The operation of the urban
growth boundary is not succinctly stated but references to the concept are as follows:
‘…creation of a hard urban growth boundary will be an important planning
outcome for future structure planning in the City's non urban areas’ (p16).
‘Council's ‘strategic land use framework include … identification of the urban
growth boundary of suburbs and villages’ (p18).
‘an urban growth boundary around the urban areas including the development
corridor will ensure that the key locational criteria are met, while non urban
areas are protected from inappropriate fragmentation’ (p23).
‘these strategies will be implemented by: establishing an urban growth
boundary around urban areas’ (p24).
114
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
‘ensuring there is at least 10 years supply of residential land within the urban
growth boundary’ (p25).
From the above it is clear that the urban growth boundary is an important element and
is established for the longer term. It is also clear that there should be some significant
reason to vary the boundary by amendment otherwise the future of the boundary is
simply a duplication of the role of zones. Council representatives at the hearings
essentially endorsed the above conclusions.
Whilst the page 19 Strategic Framework plan identifies rural residential areas they are
not identified in the context of a growth boundary. To satisfy the principles of the
urban growth boundary, the rural residential area as shown on page 19 should also be
expressed as a growth boundary. The Council accepted this approach. A revised
substitute page 19 plan showing firmer boundaries for both urban and rural residential
growth boundaries and an additional strategic land use framework statement was
provided to the Commission by Council letter 27/05/04 and email 14/7/04.
Other issues in R180 have been covered in other recommendations or are not relevant
to the planning scheme.
Recommendations
R180 Modify the draft scheme as follows:
(i)
The Strategic Land Use Framework Plan be omitted from the draft scheme and
the revised Council plan substituted (submitted 27/05/04).
(ii)
Insert in clause 3.3.5-Strategic Land Use Framework Plans:
• ‘Identification of a growth boundary for rural residential areas.’
15.3 Issue: Proforma 2 Strategic Directions and Scheme Provisions
Representations
R26 M Coatman, R49 M Edwards, R50 K Fontaine, R60 C Gilson, R67 S Hale, R74
B & L Hocking, R91 D Keats, R101 A Marmion, R105 P McLagan, R107 P
Middleton, R134 J Oakes, R152 B Rees, R155 B Richardson, R177 J Symes, R192 M
Verrier, R203 J Wright.
Council
Council examined each of the points raised and recommended no modifications
except for the application of the Coastal Management overlay (CMO) to Droughty
corresponding to the area zoned Recreation and Public Land.
Commission's Considerations
Proforma 2 provided a general review of the planning scheme under headings of
Strategic Directions, General Provisions, Exemptions, zones and overlays.
Specific points raised were:
The strategic section is too focussed on justifying development of Droughty.
115
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Back zoning of areas zoned residential in the 1963 Planning Scheme gave a
false impression on supply of land for development.
Better use of existing infrastructure rather than expanding out into new areas.
Clarence should ban genetically modified organisms.
Protection of small trees and vegetation.
No exemptions in the Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone.
Protection of organic farms from other farm practices.
Better protection of native vegetation.
Extension of the Coastal Management overlay to all waterways and wetlands.
Additional comments added to the proforma were:
A requirement for solar orientation and rain water catchment on all new
construction.
Better protection of wildlife.
The development of a local area plan for South Arm.
To keep Bellerive shopping area ‘old world’.
Other representations
R101 contended:
• the VMO was based on an old plan;
• exotic trees, hedges, walls and wells of historic significance require protection;
• better controls are required on bushland and inclusion of a bushland
conservation zone;
• retention of the public open space area at Kangaroo Bay;
• expansion of the Heritage Schedule to include post-Victorian houses;
expansion of Bellerive Bluff Special Area Precinct; and
• conditions on energy efficient buildings.
Proforma 2 provided an expression of opinion on a range of issues in the draft
planning scheme. The principal matters raised have been examined in response to
other and property specific representations. Otherwise the matters raised should be
used to inform the ‘do again’ requirements as specified in response to other
representations. Council’s recommendation for the Coastal Management overlay to
be applied to Droughty is a recommendation for R22.
Recommendations
Proforma 2
No modifications to the draft planning scheme specifically arise from Proforma 2.
116
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
16. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
Representations concerning the provisions in the scheme for the consideration and
protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage.
16.1 Issue: Aboriginal cultural heritage 1
Representation
R135 K Brown obo Office of Aboriginal Affairs concerning protection of Aboriginal
cultural values and clauses that should refer to an Aboriginal interest.
16.1.1 R135/1 clause 3.25 should recognise Aboriginal cultural values.
Council
Clause 3.25 relates to ecological values and therefore no modifications are
recommended.
Commission's Considerations
Whilst management of the indigenous flora and fauna habitats is related to the
recognition of Aboriginal cultural values, such values are not the subject of clause
3.25.
Recommendation
R135/1 No modifications to clause 3.25 in respect to Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.
16.1.2 R135/2 clauses 3.4.1-2 and 3.4.2-1-residential and environmental land use
objectives, strategies and implementation should recognise Aboriginal issues.
Council
Council recommended clauses 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 should refer to protection of known
Aboriginal sites.
Commission's Considerations
Clauses 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 are part of the planning policy framework of the scheme.
Applications for a permit require consideration against the planning policy framework
by virtue of clause 6.3. As the whole framework requires consideration, subject areas
should not require repeating through the subject clauses. Council's approach is
accepted with further modification to remove concepts of ‘known’ and ‘important’
and to be consistent with the Aboriginal Relics Act 1973.
Recommendation
R135/2
i) modify clause 3.4.1-Objectives to insert ‘the conservation of Aboriginal relics’.
ii) modify clause 3.4.1-Strategies to insert ‘ensuring that development avoids
Aboriginal relics’.
117
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
iii) modify clause 3.4.1-Implementation to insert ‘seeking comments from suitably
qualified persons when applications for a permit may impact on Aboriginal relics’.
16.1.3 R135/3 clause 3.4.4-4-Recreation and community facility strategies do not
allow for the protection and management of Aboriginal sites and landscapes.
Council
No modifications recommended.
Commission's Considerations
Agree with Council, clause 3.4.4-4 relates to use of recreational and community
facilities and not protection and management of sites.
Recommendation
R135/3 No modification to clause 3.4.4-4 to insert a requirement for protection and
management of Aboriginal sites and landscapes.
16.1.4 R135/4 clause 6.3-Decision requirements and reference to recognition of
Aboriginal cultural values.
Council
Council recommended no modifications as cultural values include Aboriginal cultural
values.
Commission's Considerations
Separate references to Aboriginal cultural values are appropriate for clause 6.2,
information to accompany an application and 6.3 Decision Requirements.
Recommendations
R135/4
i) Modify clause 6.2 to add: ‘whether the site contains Aboriginal relics’.
ii) Modify clause 6.3 to add: ‘the conservation of Aboriginal relics’.
16.1.5 R135/5 exemptions and that no requirement to consider Aboriginal
cultural issues.
Council
Council recommended no modifications to exemptions to include Aboriginal cultural
issues as a consideration otherwise all use and development would require a permit.
Commission's Considerations
Agree with Council’s response. For exempt development there is a need to rely on
other mechanisms including the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 to protect Aboriginal
cultural heritage. Exemptions allow minor use or development that do not benefit
from planning assessments.
Recommendation
118
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R135/5 No modifications to the exemptions to consider Aboriginal cultural issues.
16.1.6 R135/6 clauses 9.9.2, 9.10.2, 9.11.2 for subdivision in the Rural, Intensive
Agriculture and Landscape and Skyline Conservation zones and Aboriginal
cultural issues.
Council
Council recommended a reference to Aboriginal issues in the subdivision standards in
zones is not required as the modifications to the decision requirements apply across
all zones.
Commission's Considerations
Agree with Council’s response, the operation of clauses 6.2 and 6.3 should raise
Aboriginal cultural heritage as a matter that is addressed.
Recommendations
R135/6 No modifications to the subdivision provisions in selected zones.
16.1.7 R135/7 inclusion of clauses related to the identification and consultation
on Aboriginal sites consistent with the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975.
Council
The Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 applies regardless of the planning scheme provisions.
No modifications recommended.
Commission's Considerations
The representation suggests a process for identifying Aboriginal relics. The
modifications already proposed to the draft scheme should result in the same outcome
although not as overtly stated as that suggested in the representation.
Recommendation
R135/7 No modification to add clauses defining a process for dealing with Aboriginal
issues.
16.2 Issue: Aboriginal cultural heritage 2
Representation
R85 R Jacklyn
16.2.1 R85/1 clause 3.4.4-4 concerning Aboriginal access to sites and
identification of sites for protection preceding development.
Council
Council was advised that comprehensive identification of sites couldn't be assured and
protection relied on referral of applications and the operation of the Aboriginal Relics
Act 1975.
Commission's Considerations
119
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R85/1 sought to have Aboriginal sites adequately protected prior to development
rather than being discovered during development. This requires survey as part of the
planning investigations by applicants and an assurance this is done by the planning
authority. These are procedural matters and modifications specifying requirements
have been recommended to clause 6.2 and 6.3 (see R135/4).
The representation also sought ‘other’ be inserted before ‘relics’ in clause 3.4.4-4.
Under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 ‘relic’ includes a ‘site’.
Recommendations
R85/1 Modify clause 3.4.4-4 Strategies to delete ‘sites and’ in the sixth line of the
third dot point.
16.2.2 R85/2 Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone clause 9.11-Purpose.
Insert reference to Aboriginal sites and other modifications.
Council
Council considered clause 6.3-Decision Requirements was the place for reference to
Aboriginal sites.
Commission's Considerations
Council’s view is supported on the role of clause 6.3. The representation also
suggested modifications to the second purpose for the Landscape and Skyline
Conservation zone. The purpose of this zone is considered under R132/1.
Recommendation
R85/2 No modifications to the draft scheme
16.2.3 R85/3 include Government Hills Local Area Plan as a development plan
overlay.
Council
Council advised the 1993 Government Hills Local Area Plan has been implemented
and as such is not required to be identified in the development plan overlay.
Commission's Considerations
Council’s view is supported. In addition the development plan overlay provisions are
a ‘do again’ requirement.
Recommendations
R85/3 No modifications to the development plan overlays to include the Government
Hills Local Area Plan.
16.2.4 R85/4 inclusion of National Heritage listed sites on the Heritage overlay.
Council
120
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Council advised the scheme identifies sites listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register
predominantly and other sites with documented history.
Commission's Considerations
The exclusion of National Estate Register sites that are not otherwise listed on the
Tasmanian Heritage Register results in an incomplete approach to the issue.
Recommendations
R85/4 the Heritage overlay be ‘done again’ to include sites on national listings where
not already listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register.
16.2.5 R85/5 include an Aboriginal Relics overlay to show where sites exist.
Council
Council considered it inappropriate to attempt to identify and map Aboriginal sites for
inclusion in the planning scheme.
Commission's Considerations
Council’s view is supported. The location of Aboriginal sites is not for general public
viewing and in addition current knowledge of site location is minimal. Such an
overlay could not be relied upon.
Recommendations
R85/5 No modifications to include an Aboriginal Relics overlay.
121
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
17. Scheme provisions
Representations generally on the draft scheme provisions
17.1 Issue: scheme provisions 1
Representations
R132 C Nicholson concerning provisions in zones and overlays.
Council
Council recommended modifications are identified under the points of representation.
Commission's Considerations
R132 raised a series of matters across zones and overlays. The following addresses
the issues not previously addressed for other representations.
17.1.1 R132/1 Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone
R132/1 contended the second purpose of the Landscape and Skyline Conservation
zone should be strengthened to emphasise the protection of bio-diversity. Council
supported a modification to the purpose. The purposes for the Landscape and Skyline
Conservation zone should be modified.
Recommendation
R132/1 Modify the draft scheme to omit the 2nd purpose for the Landscape and
Skyline Conservation zone clause 9.11 and substitute the following:
‘to ensure use or development is in accordance with sound management and
land capability practices and which protects the environmental sensitivity and
bio-diversity of the locality.’
17.1.2 R132/2 recreation and public land zone
R132/2 contended the Recreation and Public Land zone allowed permitted and
discretionary uses potentially in conflict with the high landscape and environmental
values of many of the locations where the zone applies.
Council's response was to suggest that where land in the Recreation and Public Land
zone was sensitive the values would be protected by the relevant overlay.
The Recreation and Public Land zone is a curious mix of zoning by tenure and other
values. The range of permitted and discretionary uses is extensive and akin to the
array of uses in a commercial zone. Council's response on this matter was that land in
the zone is also protected by public ownership. The concerns of the representor have
merit. The Recreation and Public Land zone should be recast as an environmental
management zone and the zoning on the plans reviewed such that tenure is not the
basis for a land use zone.
122
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Recommendation
R132/2 The Recreation and Public Land zone be ‘done again’ as an environmental
management zone with use or development based on planning requirements and
assessments and not on land tenure.
17.1.3 R132/3 Vegetation Management overlay (VMO) and wildlife corridors
R132/3 concerned the VMO and wildlife corridors, where the purpose of the overlay
identifies fauna as an interest but this is not reflected in the decision requirements.
Council recommended clause 6.3-Decision Requirements should be modified to add:
‘The impact on important wildlife corridors’.
The matters specified in clause 6.3 apply to all applications for permits and not just
areas in the VMO. Nevertheless wildlife is an issue that should be flagged and given
appropriate consideration where applicable.
Recommendation
R132/3 Modify clause 6.3-Decision requirements to insert:
‘The impact on important wildlife corridors’.
17.1.4 R132/4 Bushfire Management overlay
R132/4 contended the Bushfire Management overlay should have vegetation values as
a consideration. The representation referred to situations where safety took
precedence over vegetation values but also where vegetation values warranted
prohibition or severely limiting development in an area to remove the need to clear
vegetation so as to present an acceptable fire risk.
Council's response was that where more than one overlay applied the interests of all
relevant overlays would apply to the permit and specific cross referencing between
overlays was not necessary. However the weighting to be given to conflicting
purposes of overlapping overlays is not addressed. Nevertheless Council's view on
this matter is accepted.
Recommendation
R132/4 no modifications to the draft planning scheme in respect to cross-referencing
of overlay requirements.
17.1.5 R132/5 the inundation overlay
R132/5 contended that use and development should not be classified as permitted in
the Subject to Inundation overlay.
The Inundation overlay has as its purpose:
123
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
‘To identify areas which may be subject to periodic inundation and control
erosion, pollution and undesirable changes in stream hydrology.
To promote sustainable catchment management practices.’
The overlay requires a permit that must be considered as a permitted development
(clause 10.3.1).
In response to representation R208 Council recommended the following be inserted at
clause 10.3.1:
‘Unless within 30m of a waterway, area of inundation or wetland, or 50m
from the Coal River, where the application must be considered as a
discretionary development.
The decision requirements (clause 10.3.2) include:
‘Whether there is a need for the applicant to submit certification from an
independent expert that the development will not be affected by inundation’.
The inundation overlay applies to areas of residential, rural residential, village and
Industry zoning yet the decision requirements do not change the classification of the
permit. For permitted development Council would be restricted simply to conditions
to ameliorate the inundation risk.
Clarification was sought on Council's proposed amending provision to set distances of
30m and 50m. The overlay has as its main purpose concerns for areas subject to
periodic inundation, yet Council's recommended modifications refer to a setback from
an area of inundation. Council’s revised position as advised by letter (6/9/04) was
that clause 10.3.1 should simply state:
‘A permit is required for all development on land identified in this overlay.
The application must be considered as a discretionary development.’
R132 also referred to the adequacy of the provisions to respond to climate change. In
response to R144/1 on sea level rise, Council suggested that this was a matter taken
into account in the zoning of coastal areas particularly with the Recreation and Public
Land zone. Issues of climate change and corresponding sea level rise concern high
tides and storm surge yet the draft scheme confines issues of storms and sea level rise
to a ‘key issue’ in the planning policy framework section. These issues should be part
of the decision requirements for zones and relevant overlays. The provisions of the
Inundation overlay should be reviewed.
Recommendation
R132/5 The provisions for the Subject to Inundation overlay be ‘done again’ with
particular reference to the purpose of the overlay, decision requirements and a review
of the planning scheme response to storm surge and sea level rise.
17.2
Issue: scheme provisions-2 Subdivision Standards
124
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Representations
R82: J.B. Medbury and R196 T. Walpole concerning the minimum lot frontage of
10m in the Rural Residential and Low Density Residential zones.
Council
Council supported the representations to the extent of recommending a reduction of
the frontage standard to 6m for the Rural Residential and Low Density Residential
zones and adding a minimum inscribed circle standard of 25m for the Low Density
Residential zone.
Commission's Considerations
The subdivision minimum lot criteria for the Low Density Residential and Rural
Residential zones is set out in the following table together with the modifications
recommended by Council.
Standard
low density Residential
zone
Min area
1500m2
Min frontage
10m
1.
Min frontage
6m
Minimum inscribed circle1. 25m
1.
Council’s s.26(2) report recommended modification
Rural Residential
zone
2ha
10m
6m
none
The representations contended that a 10m frontage was excessive particularly
considering the previous minimum frontage was 3.6m. R82 referred to previous
subdivisions that were laid out to allow later subdivision on a 3.6m frontage basis.
R196 sought discretion to reduce the frontage.
Council's recommendation for a minimum frontage of 6m is based on the position that
3 x 6m frontages gives sufficient width for a road reserve if later re-subdivision was
to occur. The conventional 3.6m frontage can be too narrow for larger vehicles
included emergency vehicles to access a lot. The rationale for setting a 6m frontage is
accepted.
Turning to the minimum inscribed circle of 25m for the low density Residential zone,
this will help ensure lots have a depth to frontage ratio that is not too great, such that
there is the opportunity for a reasonable separation of dwellings on adjoining sites.
The provisions should be approved.
Recommendations
R82, R196
i)
Modify clause 9.3.2-Low Density Residential zone to provide for a minimum
frontage of 6m and minimum inscribed circle of 25m.
ii)
Modify clause 9.4.2 in the Rural Residential zone to set a minimum frontage of
6m.
17.3 Issue: scheme provisions 3- provisions for kennels
125
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Representations
R169 – D Smith concerning restriction on the number of kennels to 6 in the Rural
Residential zone.
Council
Council recommended the use class Animal Boarding Establishment be added to the
scheme and classified discretionary in the Rural Residential and Rural zones. In
addition it was recommended that the additional use class in the Rural Residential
zone be conditioned with ‘subject to a maximum of 6 dogs over 6 months age.’
Commission's Considerations
Kennels are defined as:
Land used for the accommodation and/or breeding of three or more dogs
(excluding working farm dogs). It also includes the keeping of cats for
commercial reward.
This use class is conditional in the Rural Residential zone to a ‘maximum six dogs
over 6 months of age’. Council proposed that the last sentence in the Kennel
definition be deleted.
Council’s proposed definition for Animal Boarding Establishment is:
Land used for short term board of domestic pets such as dogs and cats.
Council's proposals for ‘Animal Boarding Establishment’ have the same status in
zones and do not introduce standards to distinguish this use class from the provisions
for kennels. The need for the additional use class is not established. The definition
for kennels should be modified to simply refer to domestic animals but the restriction
on number of animals in the Rural Residential zone should remain.
Recommendation
R169 Modify the definition for kennels to ‘Land used for the accommodation and/or
boarding of three or more domestic animals.’
17.4 Issue: scheme provisions 4
Representations
R65/1 N Leary obo Griggs Leary & Co,
R88 D Lemm obo Jodal Property Pty Ltd
17.4.1 R65/1, R88 Blanket minimum lot size of 550m2 in the Residential zone.
Council
Council recommended that provisions be inserted in the Residential zone for a
minimum lot of 400m2 .
Commission's Considerations
Small lots assist with urban consolidation and should be available in the Residential
zone. With smaller lots however is the necessity to ensure appropriate responses in
terms of dwelling design for appropriate fit, particularly with neighbours. The
126
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
requirement for the residential provisions to be ‘done again’ and for a house to require
a permit rather than be exempt is consistent with increasing density of development.
Recommendation
R65/1, R88 Modify the subdivision provisions for the Residential zone as shown in
Council's s.26(2) report Attachment 6.
17.4.2 R65/2 Requirement for minimum frontage of 10m in the low density
Residential zone.
Commission's Considerations
Other representations objected to the 10m minimum frontage provision. A 6m
minimum frontage has been recommended, see R82, R196.
17.5 Issue: scheme provisions 5 boundary adjustment provisions in
the Rural Residential zone
Representor
R6 C Andrews
Council
Council advised no modifications.
Commission's Considerations
The representation suggested that a lot of 430 m2 could grow to a size presumably
suitable for building using the boundary adjustment provisions for the zone. The
relevant provision refers to a ‘minor’ boundary adjustment and the size of the lots
involved must be at least 2ha.
The boundary adjustment provisions are unlikely to satisfy the representor but the
need for modifications to the provisions have not been demonstrated.
R6 also raises the requirement for minimum density specifications for housing in
zones on existing lots. This is a matter that should be investigated as part of the ‘do
again’ requirement for housing.
Recommendation
R6 The ‘do again’ specification for housing provisions establish housing density
standards in zones that are independent of subdivision standards but that set a density
that is consistent with that achievable through subdivision.
17.6
Issue: scheme provisions 6
Representations
R61/1, I Goudie
R201 R Wiehe
17.6.1 R61/1, R201 Objection to multiple dwellings as permitted in the
Residential zone - discretionary status is sought.
127
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Council
Council recommended no change to the permitted classification for multiple
dwellings.
Commission's Considerations
The representation opposes multiple dwellings without notification. A more
fundamental view is taken on residential provisions that do not single out different
styles of residential development for different treatments. The standards should
address this matter as permitted use and development in the first instance.
Recommendation
R61/1, R201 No modifications to the draft scheme.
17.6.2 R61/2, R201 Objection to utility installation as a permitted use in the
Residential zone.
Council
Council recommended major and minor utility services be defined with minor utility
installation exempt or permitted in zones and major utility installations permitted in
identified zones and prohibited in the remainder.
Commission's Considerations
The need for discrete definitions for major and minor utility installations is not
established. The classification of utility services should be based on the
circumstances, either exempt, incidental, permitted or discretionary. Indeed a
particular installation may end up prohibited depending on the applicable standards.
Council’s s.26(2) report included a definition for minor utility services that includes
works such as a ‘sewage treatment plant for a neighbourhood’ that are prima facie
inappropriate as exempt from requiring a permit. Council’s recommendation to make
major utility installations permitted in many zones is similarly inappropriate. The
approach to infrastructure should be more responsive to impacts than can be delivered
by description on use as proposed by Council in the s.26(2) report. In addition the
standard telecommunications schedule should be incorporated in to the scheme.
Recommendation
R61/2, R201 As part of the ‘do again’ requirement review the approach and
provisions for infrastructure including the inclusion of the standard
telecommunications schedule.
17.6.3 R61/2, R201 Objection to the building setbacks for outbuilding walls in
the Residential zone.
Council
Council recommended clause 9.2.5 be modified to reduce the size of an outbuilding
wall on a side or rear boundary to 6.5m long and 3.5m high.
Commission's Considerations
128
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The provision to limit walls to boundaries should not be confined solely to
outbuilding walls. The provisions for walls should be combined and party walls
recognised.
Recommendations
R61/3, R201 Modify the table to clause 9.2.5 Residential zone as follows:
Omit provisions for outbuildings and all other walls and substitute the following:
Criteria
Side and rear boundaries
Minimum building setback
Minimum building setback:
0m provided the wall does not exceed
6.5m in length or 3.5m in height and not
including a party wall.
Otherwise 1.5m for walls less that 3m in
height and 9m in length or adjacent to a
fee simple access strip or right of way.
All other walls are to be setback 2.5m or
50% of the maximum height of the wall,
whatever is the greater.
17.6.4 R61/4, R201 Objection to removal of third storey discretion.
Council
Council submitted the height of a building is relevant measure rather than the number
of floors.
Commission's Considerations
Agree with Council’s response.
Recommendations
R61/4, R201 No modifications to introduce a residential development standard based
on number of storeys.
17.6.5 R61/5, R201 Views and sunlight should be considerations on permit
assessments.
Council
Council submitted that loss of a view or sunlight was not objectively measurable.
Council recommended ‘any representation’ be inserted in clause 6.3-Decision
requirements.
Commission's Considerations
Council’s position to not consider protection from loss of ‘private’ views is accepted.
Loss of sunlight on buildings is however measurable and appropriate standards should
129
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
be applied. This should be a matter for the ‘do again’ requirement for residential
development standards as recommended for R187.
Turning to Council’s recommended modification, for a representation to be
considered, is a requirement of LUPAA, however the modification is supported.
Recommendation
R61/5, R201 Modify clause 6.3 to add ‘any representation’.
17.6.6 R61/6, R201 Discretionary approvals where neighbours affected.
Council
Council submitted that it would be inefficient and unnecessary to make all
applications discretionary.
Commission's Considerations
Agree with Council’s response.
Recommendations
R61/6, R201 No modifications required to make all residential development
discretionary.
17.7 Issue: scheme provisions 7
Representation
T & C Scott
17.7.1 R162/1 advocacy for a 400m2 minimum lot in the Residential zone.
Council
Supported the recommendation.
Commission's Considerations
Agree with Council’s response, the provision for smaller lots in the Residential zone
is supported (see scheme provisions 4).
17.7.2 R161/2 More flexibility in the standards for the operation of the dwelling
density in the Residential zone.
Council
Council recommended revised wording for setting dwelling density through 48
dwellings within a 100m radius.
Commission's Considerations
Agree with Council’s response but provision should be reviewed in the context of the
‘do again’ requirements for the residential provisions.
130
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Recommendation
R161/2 Clause 9.2.5-Siting of Multiple Dwellings be done again consistent with the
requirement to standardise residential use to a single use class and to devise use and
development standards related to the specific requirements of the applicable zones.
17.8 Issue: scheme provisions 8
Representation
R103, J McIlhenny
17.8.1 R103/1, R103/2 residential development in the Residential zone.
Council
Council proposed modifications to clause 8.2.1 otherwise the representation was not
accepted.
Commission's Considerations
Matters raised in the representation have merit and the residential provisions should
be done again as required for R77/1. The setting of a maximum building height for
Victoria Esplanade Bellerive should be examined towards extending the principle to
other waterfront residential areas as part of the review of the residential provisions.
The adoption of further TASCORD standards should be re-examined.
Recommendations
R103/1, R103/2 the residential provisions be ‘done again’ based on a single
residential use class. Review TASCORD standards for additional incorporation of
elements into the scheme.
17.8.2 R103/3, R103/4 Objectives for the low density Residential zone cannot be
met where a permit is not required for a house and inconsistent application of
dependent persons unit.
Council
Council’s view was that the larger minimum lot size and required standards should
satisfy the low density Residential zone objectives without the requirement for a
permit. Dependent persons unit should be renamed ‘ancillary dwelling’ and made a
discretionary use in the low density Residential zone.
Commission's Considerations
As qualitative assessments are required in the scheme a permit should be required for
residential use and development. A dependent persons unit as for ‘other types’ of
housing should be subject to density standards as for all housing. The issue is subject
to the ‘do again’ requirement for residential use and development standards.
Recommendation
No modifications specific to this representation.
17.8.3 R103/5 Uses described for the Recreation and Public Land zone lack
requirements. Inconsistent use of integral and subservient provisions.
131
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Council
As public land there is no threat associated with subdivision and development in the
recreation and public land zone. No modifications recommended.
Commission's Considerations
Although the Recreation and Public Land zone may predominantly be public land the
wide range of permitted and discretionary uses suggests extensive development
associated with the array of uses is contemplated. The zone should be done again as
an environmental management zone unrelated to tenure (see R132/2).
Recommendation
R103/5 The Recreation and Public Land zone be ‘done again’ as an environmental
management zone with use and development based on planning requirements and
assessments and not on land tenure.
17.8.4 103/6 Objection to Residential zoning for the southern tip of Droughty
based on regional landscape values.
Council
Council did not address this issue for this representation.
Commission's Considerations
The matter has been considered under other representations with the recommendation
that rural instead of Residential zoning apply to the undeveloped areas of Droughty.
17.8.5 R103/7 Background material in clauses 3.1-3.3.5 adds to the length and
complexity of the scheme and will date quickly.
Council
Council supported the retention of the planning policy framework as the key planning
directions and strategic policy framework for the City.
Commission's Considerations
Clause 3.1-City Profile provides a general description and statistics on the municipal
area that are of limited merit in the operation of the scheme. Clause 3.1-should be
deleted.
Recommendation
R103/7 Modify the draft scheme to delete clause 3.1 City Profile.
17.8.6 R103/8 Use of sections to describe the categories of use in the tables of
uses for each zone is not common in Tasmania.
Council
Use of sections in the Tables of Uses provides for simpler interpretation.
Commission's Considerations
132
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Use of sections for use categories have not been a feature of Tasmanian planning
schemes and as the concept is not included in the template through Planning Directive
No 1, therefore no other planning scheme will adopt the section approach. The
approach appears an unnecessary addition to the scheme. The need for the approach
has not been demonstrated.
Recommendation
R103/8 Modify the draft scheme to delete the reference to sections in the tables of
uses in zones and where ever else this concept appears.
17.9 Issue: scheme provisions 9 Lauderdale – Ralphs Bay
Representation
R143 Peacock Darcey & Anderson obo Tominex Holdings Pty Ltd concerning private
recreational areas on Strategic Land Use Framework plan, economical development
(sic) retail centre for Lauderdale and support for strategy not to extend urban growth
South of Dorans Road.
Council
Council considered that the representor misunderstood the purpose of the strategic
framework plan.
Commission's considerations
The representation responds to the Strategic Framework plans following clause 3.3.5.
The plans are indicative of strategy with detailed provisions found on the plans and in
the scheme. The representation does not establish a case for modifications.
Recommendation
R143 No modifications in respect to the strategy for Lauderdale and Ralphs Bay.
17.10 Issue: scheme provisions 10
Representation
R159 R & F Rowell contending that the maximum residential height standards should
be lower particularly for foreshore areas similar to that applying to Bellerive Bluff.
17.10.1
R159/1 residential Development Standards
Council
Council did not support the representation arguing Bellerive Esplanade was a special
case.
Commission's Considerations
The draft scheme provides for a maximum height of 7.5m in the Residential zone with
power to relax this standard with no upper height limit. The Bellerive Esplanade
precinct provides for a height of 5m with a Council recommended relaxation to 7.5m.
133
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The Bellerive Esplanade precinct applies to the first row of houses fronting Victoria
Esplanade and north of the Kangaroo Bluff Fort Historic Site. Council argued that
Victoria Esplanade height restriction was based on the special qualities of the Bluff
that are not applicable to other residential areas.
This position of Council, that Bellerive Bluff is different is not accepted. At issue at
Rose Bay and other waterfront areas is the tendency for applicants to pursue a greater
building height through the relaxation of the 7.5m standard. The issue can be covered
by a standard for instance that sets a height of 5m where there is a direct frontage to
high water or where the lot fronts a coastal reserve or where the lot fronts a road
which if it had not existed would have direct frontage to high water or a coastal
reserve. As for Bellerive a relaxation of this standard to 7.5m should be available.
The setting of a height standard for waterfront residential areas should be examined as
part of the ‘do again’ requirements for the residential provisions.
Recommendation
R159/1 As part of the ‘do again’ requirement for residential use or development,
examine the setting of appropriate provisions for a height differential for waterfront
blocks in the Residential zone.
17.10.2
R159/2 contended that applications should include a 'virtual view' to
demonstrate visual impact.
Council
Council considered that a requirement for a computer based visual assessment had
significant problems in terms of access and equity.
Commissions considerations
R159/2 argued for a computer image as part of the permit application to show how the
proposed building would fit the streetscape. Council's view was that this should not
be a requirement on applicants. At the hearing the suggestion was that the
requirement only apply where there is an exercise of discretion.
The potential to digitally illustrate how a proposed development would fit the
streetscape could be beneficial for the community and planning authorities and is
available to applicants to pursue if they chose to do so. However the need to make all
or some permit applications to submit digital presentations is not demonstrated.
Recommendation
R159/2 No modifications to the draft scheme to require a digital view of proposed
developments.
17.11 Issue: scheme provisions 11 residential development standards
Representation
R168 N Shillito concerning the standards for residential development particularly as
applied to existing residential areas, where infill development can impact on privacy,
sunlight, visual intrusion, view corridors etc.
134
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The representation sought greater community involvement in decisions on residential
development.
Council
Council only recommend modifications in relation to side setbacks.
Commission's Considerations
R168 raises issues relevant to the design of residential development within existing
residential areas. R168 contends that the standards in the scheme will not allow
appropriate design or neighbour involvement in the decision process.
Council has intentionally kept the standards in the Residential zone to the minimum
such that matters of discretion are also kept to a minimum. The sole discretion is a
relaxation on the maximum height standard. The application of judgement based on
the extensive decision requirements is however very wide. This is a policy decision of
Council that is aimed to provide development certainty. The points made in the
representation are valid and good design does not necessarily result from the
application of standards or in fact neighbour involvement. However some standards
providing the envelope are necessary
The Commission's modifications will result in a house requiring a permit rather than
be exempt such that the qualitative provisions of the scheme can be addressed. A
house as a permitted use will require the assessment of the application against the
requirements of the scheme but not lead to discretion and public involvement unless a
standard is relaxed. The ‘do again’ requirement is aimed at a re-examination of the
standards for residential development.
Recommendation
R168 No modifications to the draft scheme beyond those already required for the
residential use classifications.
17.12 Issue: scheme provisions 12 housing definitions
Representations
R8 C Shuttleworth obo Association for Children with Disability (Tas) Inc.
Concerning elements of discrimination in the definitions: ‘institutional building’,
‘remedial accommodation’ and ‘residential building’. The representation argued that
the scheme should not be concerned with the characteristics of people or make up of
households. The Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 was identified as relevant.
Council
Council recommended the definition of ‘institutional building’ be deleted, ‘remedial
accommodation’ amended and ‘correctional facility’ inserted as an additional
definition.
Commission's Considerations
R8 raised valid matters. Use definitions need to be framed such that use classes are
based on impact and performance as apposed to some social pretext.
135
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Council's response to delete institutional building and insert corrective facility is
appropriate. Although, and consistent with the Planning Directive No1 the definition
‘corrective institution’ should be adopted and defined as:
‘means any land for holding or reforming persons committed to it by the
courts. Examples are a prison, remand centre and any other type of detention
facility.’
Turning to the definition remedial accommodation, the proposed definition is:
‘Land used for the accommodation of persons who receive constant care,
rehabilitation or supervision. It includes nursing home, aged care and the
like.’
As a use class remedial accommodation is a discretionary use in the residential and
Rural Residential zones. In the Residential zone the only applicable standard is
height. In the Rural Residential zone the applicable standards are setback and height.
Hospital is of similarly defined to that proposed for remedial accommodation ie. ‘land
used to provide health services…’. The need for a separate definition remedial
accommodation has not been demonstrated as the activity is covered by the definition
for hospital. However to provide a broader view on the hospital definition, the term
should be ‘hospital services’.
Recommendation
R8 Modify the draft scheme to:
(i) delete the use classes institutional building and remedial accommodation.
(ii) insert the definition corrective institution as follows:
‘means any land for holding or reforming persons committed to it by the
courts. Examples are a prison, remand centre and any other type of detention
facility.’
(iii) amend the title of the definition of hospital to ‘hospital services’.
17.13 Issue: scheme provisions 13
Representations
R187 J Todd concerning the inclusion of standards for building insulation and
orientation of buildings for solar gain.
Council
Council advised insulation was now covered by the Building Code of Australia and
solar orientation of residential development would be addressed through the inclusion
of provisions from TASCORD.
Commission's Considerations
Council's view that building insulation is a building matter is accepted however
building orientation for solar efficiency is a relevant planning matter. Council has
136
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
proposed TASCORD element E3.1-Subdivision and Site Design should be
incorporated as a standard for the Residential zone. Implementation of the standard
will result in lots being appropriately oriented for subsequent building. However
unless the subsequent housing is appropriately oriented to follow the subdivision then
the solar efficiency gains will not be achieved and poor orientation on one lot could
be adverse to the siting of houses on neighbouring lots. TASCORD element 3.10
covers matters related to energy efficient residential design.
TASCORD elements E3.1 and E3.10 should be included as standards for residential
development.
Recommendation
R187 As part of the residential ‘do again’ requirement, include TASCORD elements
3.1 and 3.10 as requirements for housing development in the Residential zone.
17.14 Issue: Ordinance provisions 14- retirement villages.
Representations
R108 M Grant concerning provisions specific to retirement housing.
R120 N Shephard concerning the definition of retirement village.
Council
Council advised that the use category retirement village was included in the draft
scheme but recommended modifications to the definition as suggested by R120.
Council also recommended a retirement village be classified as discretionary in the
Rural Residential zone.
Commission's Considerations
The draft scheme defined retirement village as:
‘land containing more than two dwellings used occupied (sic) by the elderly
and may include communal building and facilities.
In response to the representations an amended definition was proposed:
‘accommodation for persons over the age of 55 years, usually in serviced
units of multiple occupancy where tenancy arrangements are provided on a
lifetime basis together with the relevant facilities, services and maintenance’.
In a further submission Council recommended a definition as follows:
‘ Land in one ownership, containing a number of dwellings, used to provide
permanent accommodation and which includes communal, recreation, or
medical facilities for residents of the village.’
The submissions are that so called ‘retirement villages’ have specific needs that suit
the elderly and in addition require lower standards for car parking and open space
than that required for multiple housing. The use class retirement village is
categorised as discretionary in the Residential zone and prohibited in other zones.
137
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
In addition to the modifications to the definition of retirement village Council also
recommended retirement village be a discretionary use in the Rural Residential zone
subject to an approved development plan.
In essence the submissions were:
i)
ii)
iii)
A separate definition retirement village was required.
The use should be available as a discretionary permit application in the
Residential zone and in the Rural Residential zone subject to a development
plan.
No specific standards to be set for retirement villages.
The first issue is the need for classification of retirement village as a use. The use is
residential so a separate use classification is not appropriate. The second issue is
development. On the evidence from Mr Shephard a range of features exist for a
retirement village in terms of design and administration. These features are not at
issue, many should be available in any event in all housing or as a later retrofit as the
occupant’s needs change. The main feature that separates retirement village from
other dwellings is tenure and physical standards of density, car parking and private
open space.
Tenure should not be at issue nor should an occupant’s age to qualify for housing.
The other standards are however relevant. Matters of density should relate to the zone
including considerations of issues such as servicing. In respect to car parking, whilst
the occupants may not have cars, their visitors inevitably will and create a parking
demand. Private open space is an appropriate requirement. In essence the scheme,
through setting the standards and provisions (and relaxation of provisions if judged
necessary), should be able to deliver many different styles of housing. This approach
will allow a suitable response to the market without compromising the strategy that
underpins the planning scheme in terms of density of dwellings. In addition this
approach does not badge different forms of residential use based on the age of a
person or some category of disability.
The use and development provision for housing is a matter to be ‘done again’ such
that the approach to residential development is reviewed under a single residential
use.
Recommendation
R108, R120 The requirement for the residential use and development provisions to be
‘done again’ to include a review of the need for development standards for ‘special
purpose’ housing classifications.
17.15 Issue: scheme provisions 15-home occupation
Representation
R124 N Shephard concerning the standards for home occupation in non-urban zones.
Council
138
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Council recommended modifications to the definition for home occupation for the
maximum floor area but no relaxation of the number of non-residential employees.
Council’s recommendation was shown as clause 10.5 (11.5):
‘In the rural residential, rural and intensive agriculture zones, a permit may be
granted to vary the maximum gross floor area used in conducting the
occupation including the storage of any materials or goods. The application
must be considered as a discretionary development’.
Commission's Considerations
In the draft scheme home occupation is defined as:
‘an occupation carried on in a house, or on the land around a house, by a
resident of the house. It may include a use defined elsewhere.’
In most zones a complying home occupation is an exempt use.
Part 11 Specific provisions at clause 11.5 set the standards for a home occupation.
Relevant to R124 are the standards that require: ‘no more than one person who does
not live in the house may work in the occupation at any time, and that the gross floor
area must not exceed 30m2’.
In response to the representation Council’s proposed modification is to allow a
variation to the maximum gross floor area for home occupation in the residential,
rural and intensive agriculture zones. In not supporting a relaxation on non resident
employees, Council considered a labour intensive business belonged in Commercial
and Industry zones.
Council proposes to allow the standards for an exempt use to be relaxed or varied by a
discretionary application. The intent is clear; home occupation is a reasonable
expectation for a dwelling but there is a point where it ceases to be a home
occupation. Whether that point leads to a requirement for relocation to a Commercial
or Industry zone is potentially non-viable for a start-up activity. However an
expansion of employees in a residence could result in the business becoming the
principal use and the residence a secondary use. In answer to the issue of size and to
be still related to a residential use, R124 proposed a category, Home Business, but this
as a use class could suffer the same definitional problem as Home Occupation.
The structure of the planning scheme is relevant to this issue. A defined use in a zone
is categorised as permitted or discretionary. If the use is undefined then that use is
discretionary, a type of miscellaneous category. If the use is defined but not listed as
permitted or discretionary then it is prohibited in that zone.
Home occupation is a defined use but exempt in zones except the industrial, Village,
and Intensive Agriculture zones where the use is permitted. (Council recommended
the exempt status for home occupation include the Village and Intensive Agriculture
zones).
In zones where the defined use ‘home occupation’ is not listed as permitted or
discretionary it is, by default, prohibited.
139
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
The preferred approach is to confine exemptions to use or development that does not
require a permit and that does not lead to relaxation of a standard and therefore an
interface with the table of uses in zones where the use is categorised as prohibited. To
resolve the issue consistent with the structure of the scheme, ‘home occupation’
should be inserted as a conditioned discretionary use in the tables of uses for the
applicable zones. The condition and exercise of discretion would relate to a relaxation
of the standards that otherwise apply to home occupation as an exempt use or
development.
Recommendations
R124 Modify the draft scheme to:
(i)
make the use class ‘home occupation’ discretionary in the tables of uses for
the Rural Residential, Rural and Intensive Agriculture zones.
(ii)
condition the discretion for home occupation within the tables of uses for the
Rural Residential, Rural and Intensive Agriculture zones to allow a relaxation
of the standards for non resident employees and the gross floor area for the
conduct of the home occupation.
140
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
18. Landcare and Coastcare
Representations on behalf of Landcare and Coastcare groups covered a range of issues
with the principal submission from the Tranmere-Clarence Plains Land and Coastcare
group. The issues ranged over the natural and built environments that are relevant to
matters covered in planning schemes and matters that are of an ongoing management
nature that do not come within the scope of the planning scheme to address.
18.1 Issues: Environmental and conservation issues with the
planning scheme
Representation
R189 W. Andrew obo Tranmere-Clarence Plains Land and Coastcare Inc. –
concerning various zoning and overlays on the plans and scheme provisions.
Council
Council recommended modifications to some points raised in the representation as
identified below otherwise Council did not support the representation.
Commission's Considerations
R189 is a comprehensive submission raising detailed issues with the draft planning
scheme. In the s.26(2) report Council accepted issues identified as topographic
mistakes and anomalies on plans and recommended the draft planning scheme be
amended accordingly.
At the hearing submissions for the representor (exhibit 79A) were made on the
remaining issues in the representation.
18.1.1 R189/1, R189/2 (Issue 2) General Issues
Apart from the matters identified below the draft planning scheme should be modified
as agreed between the representor and Council.
Recommendation
R189/1, R189/2 Modify the draft plans as defined in the representation and agreed in
Council's s.26(2) report. The modifications are defined as Areas 1-9 under Issue 2 of
exhibit 79A.
18.1.2 R189/3 (Issue 3) weed management Coastal Management overlay
R189 advocated the inclusion of a weed management overlay and matters relating to
the Coastal Management overlay. Council submitted that weeds were better managed
through the Weed Management Act 1999 and that is accepted. The representation
sought a riparian overlay or extension of the Coastal Management overlay to all
waterways. The representation arguing better protection of water courses should be
afforded through the planning scheme.
141
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
To comprehensively identify water courses on an overlay raises questions of
definition for smaller streams and drainage lines and is not supported. However
clause 6.3-Decision Requirements should identify water courses as an element in the
assessment of applications. Turning to the Coastal Management overlay, this should
be applied to the estuarine areas of the Clarence Plains Rivulet.
Recommendations
R189/3
i)
Modify plan 17 to extend the Coastal Management overlay to the estuary of the
Clarence Plains Rivulet.
ii)
Modify clause-6.3 Decision Requirements to add ‘the protection of water
courses and adjoining riparian vegetation.’
18.1.3 R189/4 (Issue 4) Vegetation Management overlay (VMO)
R189/4 identified seven additional areas for the application of the VMO. The
representation also questioned the VMO in terms of management of vegetation,
revegetation, non-forest communities and accuracy of mapping areas.
The VMO is derived from the Council's Natural Assets Inventory but it was conceded
by Council that ground truthing could vary the identified areas. The issue is whether
greater weight should be given to the areas identified on the VMO at the expense of
other vegetated areas not included in the VMO. In addition, the representation raised
issues with the permit exemptions relating to vegetation management.
The provisions of the draft planning scheme and the representation identify native
vegetation protection as an important value for the Clarence community. However the
appropriate mechanisms for a planning scheme to respond to this highly held value is
vexed. Council should review the identified areas the representor advocated for
inclusion in the VMO.
Apart from mapping vegetation areas, the decision processes should ensure vegetation
is considered. Clause 6.3-Decision Requirements, requires an assessment of whether
native vegetation is to be or can be protected, planted or regenerated through the
application. However a corresponding requirement should be placed on the applicant
under clause 6.2 as defined in response to R2/7-1, being ‘a survey of plant
communities, an assessment of their importance and measures to protect threatened
species in the area subject to disturbance by the proposed use or development’.
Recommendation
R189/4
i)
The Vegetation Management overlay be reviewed as a ‘do again’ requirement in
respect to the areas of vegetation defined under R189 Issue 4 in exhibit 79A.
ii)
Modify clause 6.2-Information to accompany an application, to insert
142
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
‘a survey of plant communities, an assessment of their importance and measures
to protect threatened species in the area subject to disturbance by the proposed
use or development’
18.1.4 R189/5 (Issue 5) Bushfire Management overlay (BMO)
R189/5 raised issues with the Bushfire Management overlay describing the reasons
for the overlay as confusing. Council did not accept the criticism, contending the
BMO was prepared in conjunction with the Tasmanian Fire Service.
The BMO identifies areas of bushfire risk on the plans. The provisions in the scheme
are adapted from the Tasmanian Fire Service Guidelines. The extent to which the
areas defined on the plans can be relied upon over time, as being the areas of bushfire
risk, is not accepted. An assessment of risk should be applied based on defined
criteria. The concept of an overlay for bushfire should be abandoned and the
requirements and standards in bushfire prone areas be included in the scheme as a
specific Provision.
Recommendation
R189/5
i)
Modify the draft plans to delete the Bushfire Management overlay.
ii)
As a ‘do again’ requirement insert in the scheme the triggers, assessments and
standards for use or development in bushfire prone areas.
18.1.5 R189/6 (Issue 6) Coastal Management overlay.
R189/6 advocated the application of the CMO to Clarence Plains Rivulet and
Droughty. The CMO to these areas has been recommended under R189/3 and R22.
18.1.6 R189/7 (Issue 7) Heritage overlay (HO)
R189/7 sought to have the Heritage overlay extended to include geological features,
Aboriginal sites and to include heritage sites in the Rokeby area. The Heritage
overlay has as it’s stated purpose:
‘to conserve and enhance heritage places of natural and cultural significance.’
The hearings revealed that the Heritage overlay predominantly applies to European
cultural heritage and specifically places on the Tasmanian Heritage Register. The
Council's representatives dismissed the inclusion of geological heritage on the
Heritage overlay and the inclusion of built heritage places not on the Tasmanian
Heritage Register. Nevertheless in final submissions Council agreed to places of the
built environment identified in the representation being added to the heritage list.
The Heritage overlay should be reviewed in terms of defining what classes of heritage
are covered and to include places that have heritage value such as those identified in
R189. As it stands the Heritage overlay is deficient. To confine considerations to
simply the Tasmanian Heritage Register that are protected in any event by the
143
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 ignores the apparent backlog in that listing and
the places that have local heritage significance that may never make state or national
registers. In the case of the representation the identified historic buildings of Rokeby
is a major omission. The heritage overlay should also be considered for defining
areas in addition to places.
Recommendation
R189/7 The Heritage overlay be ‘done again’ to review the purpose and listings,
particularly in respect to listings of places that have local significance and the possible
inclusion of heritage areas where streetscapes are recognised.
18.1.7 R189/8 (Issue 8) Development Plan overlay (DPO).
R189/8 sought vegetation management to be a consideration for a DPO. Council
considered this is an inherent requirement and no modifications were required.
In response to other representations it is recommended that the overlay approach for
development plans should be abandoned in favour of requirements for a development
plan as part of a permit assessment. A development plan may also have value as part
of an application for a rezoning but not in the manner proposed with the DPO where
the land is already zoned for the purpose.
The issue of vegetation management including weed eradication strategies should be a
matter addressed with the permit.
Recommendation
R189/8 No modifications to the DPO provisions.
18.1.8 R189/9 (Issue 9) Rokeby Hills, Droughty.
R189/9 contended the Residential zones of 503 and 505 Rokeby Road comprising
Skillion Hill at 110-120 metres was totally inappropriate and should be zoned
Landscape and Skyline Conservation. Skillion Hill was defined as a volcanic event
considered to be of geological significance at the State level. Residential zoning is
proposed at a level above Landscape and Skyline zoning and is highly visible from
Rokeby.
Council's response to the representation was that the owners were not involved and no
technical justification was given for a different zoning. The submission for the
representors established a prima facie case for Landscape and Skyline zoning for
Skillion Hill consistent with the surrounding zoning. Council in its final submissions
advised that the Trustees of the Catholic Church owned the land.
The zoning for Skillion Hill should be ‘done again’
Recommendation
R189/9 The zoning of Skillion Hill be ‘done again’ with the view to zoning the land
Landscape and Skyline Conservation.
144
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
18.1.9 R189/10 (Issue 10) Development Plan 473 Rokeby Road.
R189/10 sought to have a DPO applied to 473 Rokeby Road. The subject property is
owned by Malwood (R58). At a later point of the hearing Council agreed that a DPO
should apply to the whole of Malwood.
As it is recommended that the concept of DPO should be abandoned the
representation is not supported.
Recommendation
R189/10 No modifications in respect to placing a DPO requirement over 473 Rokeby
Road, Howrah.
18.1.10
R189/11 (Issue 11) Local Business zone Tranmere area.
R189/11 advocated identification of a neighbourhood centre in the Tranmere area.
Council argued that the identification of a business area was problematic and market
forces should prevail on the siting of a neighbourhood centre. Council also offered a
local shop up to 100m2 gross floor area could be established in the Residential zone as
a discretionary use.
Whilst Council's view on the failings of identifying local business zones approach is
understood, it is not accepted. The simple solution of zoning Droughty to the 60m or
75m contour residential is not accepted. A more comprehensive approach is required
that should be able to identify major roads and waterfront public spaces with
commercial zoning etc adjoining should southern Droughty have an urban future.
In response to other representations it was recommended that the undeveloped areas
on Droughty be zoned Rural in lieu of residential such that the presumption for the
whole area is not residential.
Recommendation
R189/11 No modifications to the draft plans in respect to local business zoning for
Droughty.
18.1.11
R189/12 (Issue 12) Rokeby industrial area.
R189/12 advocated a reduction of Industry zoning at Rokeby on the basis of no
established need, deficient transport links, agricultural soils and higher and better use
for other than industrial activity.
Council did not support the representation on the ground that it was an established
industrial area.
The arguments of the representors have merit in terms of Industry zoning and a
sewerage treatment plant being poor users of waterfront land. However the Industry
zoning at Rokeby was reviewed as part of R37 (Department of Economic
Development) where it was accepted that the area should continue to carry Industry
zoning. However the portion of Industry zoning west of Droughty Point Road and
145
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
west of the sewerage treatment plant should be reviewed to establish whether Industry
zoning backing onto Clarence Plains Rivulet and the coast is appropriate.
Recommendation
R189/12 The land west of Droughty Point Road and west of the Rokeby sewerage
treatment plant be ‘done again’ to determine the ongoing suitability for Industry
zoning, and to define the provisions to protect the rivulet, if Industry zoning is
retained for the area.
18.1.12
R189/13 (Issue 13) Landscape and Skyline Conservation zone.
R189/13 contended Landscape and Skyline Conservation zoning should be applied to
coastal areas, beaches etc to recognise a landscape and conservation experience.
Council's response was that foreshore areas were predominantly zoned Recreation and
Public Land and this zoning provided adequate protection.
The recommendation in response to R132/2 is that the Recreation and Public Land
zoning should be ‘done again’ in the form of an environmental management zone
with a restricted range of use categories.
Recommendation
R189/13 No modifications to the draft plans to extend the Landscape and Skyline
Conservation zoning to coastal areas.
18.1.13
R189/14 (Issue 14) recreation and public land zone.
R189/14 supported Recreation and Public Land zoning on the foreshore of Droughty
Point and provided a general caution to the call in other representations for the
provision of walking tracks and trails.
The Recreation and Public Land zoning on the southern part of Doughty is to be
deleted. The cautionary view on tracks and trails is not of direct concern for the
planning scheme.
Recommendation
R189/14 No modifications to the draft plans specifically in response to this
representation for Recreation and Public Land zoning on Droughty.
18.1.14
R189/15 (Issue 15) zoning southern Droughty.
R189/15 submitted that the three 20ha plus titles on southern Droughty should be
zoned Recreation and Public Land and Landscape and Skyline Conservation. Council
considered that the heritage overlay would protect the heritage items.
Whilst the three lots at the southern end of Droughty are listed under 936 Oceana
Drive in clause 10.5.5, unlike other heritage listings they are not shown on the
Heritage overlay plans. R189/7 recommended the heritage overlay be ‘done again’.
If it is concluded that the heritage items should be shown as an overlay, places listed
at 936 Oceana Drive will need to be shown on the Heritage overlay plans.
146
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
Recommendation
R189/15 Subject to the review of the Heritage overlay, show the heritage places listed
as 963 Oceana Drive on the Heritage overlay plans.
18.1.15
R189/16 (Issue 16) Village zoning Rokeby.
R189/16 advocated Village zoning for Rokeby village to recognise the historic
elements and to retain the single storey character of the place. Council considered
Village zoning was inappropriate and at the hearing Council suggested a Heritage
overlay in due course.
Council's view that Village zoning would be inappropriate is preferred, however the
identification of heritage areas in addition to individual places is an opportunity to be
pursued as identified in R189/7.
Recommendation
R189/16 In the review of the Heritage overlay provisions assess the merit for the
inclusion of Old Rokeby as a heritage area as defined on Attachment 16 of exhibit
79A (R189).
Other Issues
At the hearing R189 raised other issues beyond those raised in the initial
representation.
18.1.16
R189/17 Low Density Residential zoning 473 Rokeby Road
R189/17 sought to support the Low Density Residential zoning for Malwood off
Coventry Rise above Glamorgan Street.
In response to the Malwood representation the arguments for Residential zoning over
Low Density Residential was accepted at R58/1.
Recommendation
R189/17 In response to this representation no modifications to plan 16 for land above
Coventry Rise.
18.1.17
R189/18 Grassland.
R189/18 sought to have the VMO extend to native grasslands, particularly on
Droughty.
Protection of rare and endangered non-forest vegetation communities is a potential
area for planning schemes to address. As part of the ‘do again’ requirement Council
should establish the current position on this matter with the DPIWE and incorporate
provisions into the planning scheme as required.
Recommendation
147
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
R189/18 As part of the ‘do again’ requirements on the scheme, determine the
planning scheme response to non-forest vegetation communities.
18.2 Issue: Community values consultation
Representations
R22 P. McGlone obo The Clarence Land and Coastcare Network Inc – concerning the
identification of community values consultation and structural issues with the scheme.
Council
R22 Council responded to the claims of the representation and recommended the
Coastal Management overlay be applied to Droughty.
Commission's Considerations
R22 ranged similar issues to other representations. The issues raised should be used
as a basis for the review of the scheme through the ‘do-again’ requirements.
Council’s recommendation that the Coastal Management overlay should be applied to
Droughty is supported.
Recommendations
R22 Modify draft plans 17-CM and 19-CM to apply the Coastal Management overlay
to the Droughty foreshore as shown on Attachment 2 to Council’s s.26(2) report.
148
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
19. Incidentals
Modifications and ‘do again’ requirements arising other than from representations.
19.1 Specific clauses
1.
Clause 6.9-Time limits on permits, omit the existing clause and substitute the
following.
‘6.9 Time limits on use or development
Council may impose a condition on a permit that specifies the period after
commencement that the use or development must cease.’
2.
Clause 7.2-Site Coverage, having regard to the LUPAA definition of ‘building’
define what is captured by ‘building footprint’.
3.
Use class definitions ‘forestry’, insert ‘associated with’ before ‘agriculture’.
4.
Exemptions: Confine exemptions to items that are exempt from the planning
scheme and not simply not requiring a permit. An exemption that requires an
assessment of compliance with a standard or judgement on the application of a
requirement should not be treated as exempt.
5.
Review clause 8.1-Uses and developments not requiring a permit. The draft
scheme appears to state that use or development is exempt unless there is a
variation of a requirement. This conflicts with the provisions of overlays that
require a permit application irrespective of whether there is a variation.
6.
Review clause 9.2.2 Residential zone table where TASCORD provisions E.3.1Subdivision and Site Design includes acceptable solutions for lot sizes that
differ from the subdivision standards already specified in the zone.
7.
Clause 9.6.4 industrial zone – decision requirements, identify relevant
environmental performance considerations and standards on industrial use.
8.
Clause 9.7 commercial zone, establish relevant development standards,
particularly height.
10.
clause 9.8.2 local business zone, review relevance for specification of 2ha in the
subdivision provisions.
11.
Review clause 10.4.1 Coastal Management overlay. The clause appears to
prohibit appropriate use or development, eg. conservation works and activities.
19.2
1.
General requirements
Refer to ‘a permit’ rather than ‘planning permit’ for consistency with LUPAA.
149
Report on the draft Clarence Planning Scheme 2002
Attachment 3
2.
Where referring to the plans component of the planning scheme use the term
‘plan’ rather than ‘map’.
3.
Number subclauses instead of using dot points.
4.
Clearly distinguish provisions for use from provisions for development and
where referring to both concepts identify the term as ‘use or development’.
5.
Clarify matters covered when specifically referring to ‘buildings’ and ‘works’ in
relation to development. Building and works are categories of development.
Identify subdivision as a form of development.
150