BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL
13.16 - Attachment 3
Key issues and analysis of submissions to Ewingsdale Planning Proposal
This document expands on the key issues raised during the public exhibition process and provides comments and recommendations for Council to consider. The issues raised below have been organised in relation to the greatest numbers of submissions received which raised common themes. This is not necessarily a reflection of which issues are deemed to have the highest priority, merely a qualitative way to format this document.
1. Traffic and congestion
Approx 65% of all objections to this planning proposal raised the issue of additional traffic and congestion that will flow from the future development of this site and how it will impact on both residents of Ewingsdale and the users of Ewingsdale Road, William Flick Drive and McGettigans Lane. In particular, concern was raised about the volume of traffic, overall safety issues, intersection treatments, access points to the site, the current dysfunction of Ewingsdale Road at peak times, the combination of future traffic from West Byron and other mooted developments, the attraction of traffic that will use the shopping centre, the timing of the traffic counts used and the proximity of the site to the highway.
Planning comment
At the planning proposal stage Council needs to be confident that traffic likely to be generated by the site can be dealt with in a way that is plausible and realistic in terms of engineering, costs and safety. Council cannot require DA standard traffic assessment at the planning proposal because the final DA has not been lodged. The current proponent of the planning proposal may not be the future applicant at DA stage and this has been suggested at public meetings.
The supporting information provided by the proponent makes no commitment to intersection upgrades from William Flick Lane or McGettigans Lane to Ewingsdale Road citing insufficient traffic volumes arising from the two development sites to warrant any upgrades.
Traffic engineers response:
The hospital site development needs to be considered in regard to this proposal, not least site access arrangements, which for the western site is proposed to be via the existing William Flick Lane and the eastern site directly to/from McGettigans Lane.
Peak hour movement at William Flick Lane is 45 vehicles. This will increase eight fold by 2024 with the development. This is significant and most pertinent to the right-out movements expected to occur eleven (11) times more frequently than the 11 such movements recorded in 2013 to 116 predicted per hour in 2024.
As the traffic report expects over 1,700 vehicles on Ewingsdale Road as through traffic in the same hour by 2024, this right-turn out is expected to be greatly delayed despite the report’s SIDRA analysis concluding acceptable Levels of Service (i.e. delays). There is also a safety element to consider as increased risk taking will inevitably occur after people are significantly delayed.
Therefore it is recommended this increase in right-turn out and dominance of through traffic on Ewingsdale Road requires addressing, preferably via re-design of the intersection that (via approved signage) bans right-turn out (eastbound) movements from William Flick Lane and physically restricts vehicles to a left-out (westbound) only option who can then proceed to the highway interchange roundabout some 150m to the west and use that facility to make a u-turn to head eastward. This is considered safer, more efficient and considerably less delayed than waiting to make a right-turn out from William Flick Lane, especially in the peak.
In considering the proposed site access arrangements for the hospital development to the east of the lane, i.e. a roundabout, there is also merit in modelling the impacts of a full closure of the intersection and restricting William Flick Lane to only left-out and left-in. This is possible given that Woodford Lane is being diverted in to the aforementioned highway interchange roundabout currently being upgraded and would result in all departing traffic heading west, with those wishing to return east undertaking a u-turn at the highway roundabout and those approaching William Flick Lane from the west able to u-turn at the hospital roundabout. Modelling of this option is sought and needs to consider the highway proposal and its expected traffic generation.
As for the eastern site, the report concludes that SIDRA analysis indicates the McGettigans Lane and Ewingsdale Road intersection will operate satisfactorily after the eastern site is developed and operating. This is in contrast to Council’s 2008 MR545 Strategic Study which identified the need for a roundabout to provide a controlled intersection that assists departing traffic and also considered to help with road safety, noting intersection type accidents occur at the site.
To this end, the proponents should be required to model the benefits/impacts of a roundabout and provide the report to Council for further consideration. This modelling should be based upon the West Byron model and incorporate the traffic volumes associated with that development plus the hospital. The same report should also provide indicative concepts and cost of such a facility and how it ties in with the existing road environment to the east and that proposed to the west, noting Council is requesting the hospital development provide (or at least cater) for a dual-lane roundabout and land for future dual lanes on Ewingsdale Road. The report should also consider the realignment of Quarry Lane so as to make any future roundabout at McGettigans Lane cater for four legs being east and west Ewingsdale Rd, south McGettigans Lane and north Quarry Lane.
Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) response
The RMS has commented on the proposal that it considers the traffic studies supporting the planning proposal are inadequate because:
· The average flows used in the assessment are not likely to represent the full extent of traffic flows on Ewingsdale Road;
· A ‘Demand transport model’ should be prepared to examine the impacts on the Pacific Highway interchange;
· Revised traffic generation rates should be used for the seniors living proposals (technical circular cited);
· Passing trade should be assumed to be 20 % not 25%;
· The trip distributions should be based on a quantitative approach not an assumption approach.
The issue of traffic has not been dealt with to RMS satisfaction and it was a specific concern of the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) in its Gateway Determination. The issue of traffic is a major concern of the community, RMS and Council engineers. If Council proceeds with the planning proposal without resolving these issues then it may find that it cannot be resolved at DA stage or can only be resolved at significant expense to Council and the State government. The traffic solutions suggested in supporting material do not appear to be reliable and the outcomes are not plausible.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council request the applicant to undertake traffic assessment work satisfactory to RMS and Council requirements (Demand Model) which is to be prepared prior to the lodgement of a Development Application (DA) and commits to traffic solutions in the best interest of Byron Shire and future road users.
2. Impacts on the character of the Ewingsdale area
Most objectors who raised the issue of impacts on the lifestyle and amenity of the area also raised the issue of impacts on the rural character of Ewingsdale.
Planning Comment
The character of a locality in planning and urban design terms is usually summarised in a character statement that can be described as:
‘A statement and supporting principles for development within an area or neighbourhood. The statement is place-specific and draws on the unique qualities of a neighbourhood and provides an important direction for development controls and built form guidelines.’ (after City of Sydney DCP 2012.)
Understanding the character of an area helps to understand the locality and how it works. In identifying the character of an area one would undertake research and ask residents questions such as ‘who lives here? Where do they shop, work or go to school? How do people move around? What makes this place special? What would you change if you could? Only those who live there can truly understand it. Planners work closely with a community to establish the character of a locality and then use that to formulate controls that enhance that character or change it to make it a better place to live.
The current planning proposal will potentially change the character of parts of Ewingsdale by introducing approximately 400 new residents (predominantly seniors) as well as an employment area (medical centres and a commercial and retail area). This will follow on from the new hospital that will also affect the character of the locality as a major employer and community service provider.
Recommendation
It is recommended that a site specific Development Control Plan (DCP) be prepared for the site prior to the lodgement of a DA to ensure adequate buffer areas of approx. 20m are provided between the existing rural-residential areas and the proposed development.
3. Lifestyle and amenity issues
Many of the objectors to the planning proposal raised lifestyle impacts on local Ewingsdale residents. This included noise, light spill and construction related impacts on the houses that back onto the site. It also includes the broader impacts on visual amenity, traffic and general tranquillity that draws people to live on large lots out of town. Many objectors suggested that they would not have chosen to live in Ewingsdale if they knew that this development and the urbanisation of this area was proposed.
Planning Comment
The initial major change to the lifestyle of Ewingsdale residents has come about because of the decision to place a new district hospital and ambulance station in an ‘out of town’ location. It could be suggested that the urbanisation of the locality was inevitable and part of the way communities change when infrastructure decisions are made on this scale. However, it is fair to say that the Byron Bay and Suffolk Park Settlement Strategy (2002) did not foreshadow these changes. It identified the subject land as Area 3 and concluded as follows:
‘Area 3 is in the McGettigans Lane area at Ewingsdale. Part of Area 3 has already been subdivided as a rural residential area. The Local Environmental Study indicates that a range of residential densities are possible in Area 3. However the traffic study shows that higher density options are not appropriate in the short to medium term given the current traffic problems along Ewingsdale Road and in entering Byron Bay………..The remainder of Area 3 has some potential for rural residential development, but this needs to be verified through a review of the Byron Rural Settlement Strategy. In the interim these lands should be rezoned to reflect their agricultural attributes.’
The opposition to urban density development (albeit seniors housing) is evident in the submissions to this planning proposal. In permitting this planning proposal to proceed, Council is potentially affecting the lifestyle of adjacent landowners to the subject land. That impact can be ameliorated by a site specific DCP which will in turn guide future decisions at the DA stage in relation to site design, buffers, screening, and traffic management. However, the change to the lifestyle of current residents in varying degrees is inevitable if this planning proposal proceeds.
Recommendation
It is recommended that a site specific Development Control Plan (DCP) be prepared for the site prior to the lodgement of a DA to ensure potential impacts on existing residents are minimised to retain the existing character in the locality.
4. Capacity of West Byron STP
There is no commitment to connect the subject land to the West Byron STP. Concern is raised about the concept of disposal of wastewater on site. Concern is also raised about the capacity to take the additional wastewater from this site as well as the hospital and the unrelated West Byron urban expansion area. Concern is also raised about trade waste from any commercial or retail uses on the site.
Planning Comment
The report by Greg Alderson and Associates confirms that there will need to be approximately 240 ET of capacity in the West Byron STP to cater for the development that will likely arise from the planning proposal.
Council engineers have confirmed that there is sufficient capacity to deal with the wastewater from this site at the West Byron STP. They will be expected to pay the Sewer s64 Contributions to Council (and the Water component to Rous Water) if the wish to connect to either of these services. Assuming that they want to connect to the sewer system they will also need to fund and construct a method of discharging the sewage to Council's system. The main two options available to them are:
1. They build their own pump station and rising main through to the Byron STP to service the development; or
2. They deliver flow to the proposed hospital sewage pump station and contribute to the cost of that.
At the planning proposal stage Council needs to know that there are plausible options for providing services to the subject land. In this case plausible options are available for the subject land and its proposed future use. It is not necessary that a commitment is made at this stage. However, with the construction of the hospital likely in the foreseeable future some decisions will have to be made by the landowners on a sewage pump station and rising main.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
5. Flora and fauna issues
A number of submissions suggested the flora and fauna report supporting the planning proposal is inadequate and omits fauna species that occur on the site. One resident quoted a recent Koala sighting at Bay Vista Lane as an example of the inadequacy of the work. Other submissions raised the effect of the planning proposal on the Cape Byron Marine Park, in terms of runoff from the site.
Planning Comment
The level of detail required for information at the planning proposal stage is not meant to be at the same level of detail as the DA stage. In considering this planning proposal for additional permitted uses Council needs to be confident that this land is suitable for these uses and they can be carried out subject to reasonable conditions being imposed. In relation to flora and fauna the work has been undertaken by a qualified and experienced ecologist. It includes a vegetation map and a fauna study that includes assessment for threatened species. No Koalas were found on the site and it does not contain Koala food trees. Most of the site is cleared grazing land. The native vegetation that does remain can be protected as part of the site layout and design in a future DCP. There is no assumption at this stage that permitting the additional uses through an LEP amendment will result in the destruction of the site’s environmental values (albeit that they are limited) at the DA stage. Preliminary sketches submitted with supporting information demonstrate that items such as fig trees, a White Lace Flower, and remnant waterway related vegetation can be accommodated in a future DA. The marine park will receive drainage and run off from the site via Simpsons Creek (a sanctuary zone) that eventually drains to the Brunswick River. It is important that any development on this site be consistent with water sensitive urban design principles to minimise the impact on receiving waters. The presence of the marine park itself is not a reason to stop this planning proposal.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
6. Too much retail proposed
The Schedule amendment allows for commercial uses on the site limited to 3000m2 but this is too big as it is actually bigger than the existing 2800m2 Bayshore Drive shopping centre that services all of Sunrise estate and future west Byron.
Planning Comment
The proposed schedule amendment currently limits ‘all commercial uses listed in subclause (2) (business premises, restaurants or cafes and shops but does not include medical centres) to a maximum floor area of 3000m2. Subsequently, Medical Centres could be proposed in addition to the commercial uses and is not limited in floor area as per the current wording of the schedule. It is possible that the maximum floor area of retail development on the subject land could be as big or bigger than that at Bayshore Drive. If the 3000m² was solely used by a single supermarket, it would be one of the larger supermarkets in the Shire. If the likely population of the seniors housing is about 400 persons (320 in small self-contained houses and 65 in a hostel) as well as hospital usage then 3000m2 will only be viable if it draws on a much wider catchment area for business. Presumably this includes Ewingsdale rural residents and passing traffic. The supporting information in the planning proposal indicates that a LGA wide perspective on the trade area is anticipated.
Paul McFarland, a lecturer from the University of New England has conducted a peer review (contained in Annexure 8(d)) of the Retail Floorspace Analysis included as Annexure 9 within the planning proposal. The review highlights a number of unresolved issues with the retail analysis such as the limited catchment area of the study, overly optimistic projections about unmet retail demand in Byron, lack of justification for the scale of the commercial development and lack of evidence that it is only designed to cater for the proposed development, hospital visitors and adjoining residential population.
The hospital itself would normally only generate demand for a ‘neighbourhood shop’ size retail outlet (up to 200 m2) servicing staff, patients and visitors. Presumably the retail is therefore needed to support the seniors housing (only about 400 persons), the hospital and some of the existing Ewingsdale residents. Taking the figure from Annexure 9 of the planning proposal prepared by LOCATIQN (March 2013) of 2.2 m2 per person, the seniors housing development would generate demand for 880m2. Rounding these figures up suggests that 1200m2 should be more than enough floor area for a future supermarket to support the projected development, the future hospital and adjoining residents. This would permit a small supermarket of about 1000m2 and 200m2 for cafes and other shops or business premises. ‘Medical centre’ uses could take up the remaining 1800m² of floor area to bring the total for all non-residential uses on the subject land to 3000m² as initially intended.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the combined maximum commercial floor area be limited to 1200m² and the maximum floor area for medical centre uses be limited to 1800m². The proposed schedule will need to be amended to reflect these new floor area limits.
7. Community expectation
The community supported Councils earlier decision to deal with any such proposal as part of a Local Growth Management Strategy (LGMS). It also noted that the Local Environmental Study 2008 (LES) and Shire wide LEP that flowed from it did not envisage the development as now proposed. To come back now supporting a stand-alone planning proposal is not consistent with community expectation. The project is being ‘sold’ to the community by a developer that admits they may not be the one who does the development.
Planning Comment
The decision by the State government to place the new ambulance station and Byron Hospital in an ‘out of town’ location is the reason that Council is now in this situation. Council decided to review this planning proposal on its merit because it is still considering a timetable for a LGMS and there is no clear time frame for reviewing the Far North Coast Regional Strategy (FNCRS). Without a strategic basis then it comes down to the merit of the location and the detail of what is being proposed.
The proposal was not recommended for an urban zone in the LES and therefore the Shire wide LEP also did not rezone it. It was the subject of a submission to Council as part of the LEP public exhibition and Council agreed that it could be dealt with as a stand alone planning proposal once the Shire wide LEP was completed.
Once the LEP is amended and development opportunities have been scheduled for the subject land then it can be bought or leased by another party (or more than one) who may prepare and lodge the development application/s. The key at this stage is to focus on what the planning proposal will permit and where it will be permitted, rather than any draft concepts that may or may not end up as development applications.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
8. Supply and demand information for seniors housing
In summary the argument presented is that new housing (about 190 dwellings per year) has been approved in Byron Shire faster than population growth (about 120 persons per year) over the period 2006 to 2011. The dwelling approval rate exceeds the DPE target in the FNCRS. There is sufficient zoned land for realistic development in places such as Bayside Brunswick (160 dwellings), West Mullumbimby (240 dwellings), Bangalow (150 dwellings) and West Suffolk Park (42 dwellings). Development is now being forced on Byron Bay even though it is exceeding its land release expectations as indicated in the FNCRS.
Planning comment
A typical measure of demand for housing is the average annual approval rates for dwellings taken over the last five years and then projected forward with an additional amount (say 30%) added to avoid shortages in supply. Shortages in supply usually lead to price increases due to scarcity. Using the figures in the submission the projected five year demand for dwellings would be 950 plus 30%, which is 1235 dwellings. The supply areas suggested in the submission account for 592 dwellings which is less than half of the projected demand over the next five years. If Byron Shire wants to meet demand expectations then it will need additional land releases.
Seniors housing is a specialist market and general dwelling approvals may not match the demand for seniors housing. However, Byron Shire (as with many Northern NSW locations) has a shortage of affordable housing. The BSC Affordable Housing Options Paper recommended ‘The need to significantly diversify housing opportunities and stock in order to meet changing demographic needs, including a strong increase in demand for smaller, more manageable dwellings for older households’.
It can’t be guaranteed that any seniors housing built on the subject land will be affordable. However, given a likely shortfall in general housing supply (based on current demand) and a historic lack of affordable seniors housing it is realistic to suggest there is a demand for them and they will be taken up by the market if they are built.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
9. Drainage issues
The subject land has drainage issues and this is likely to get worse if the development proceeds.
Planning Comment
Drainage is an issue that will have to be assessed on its merits at the development application stage, should the proposed development proceed. It is a normal consideration for Council in a high rainfall area and the submissions concerns are noted.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
10. Location requirements for seniors housing
A number of submissions questioned if the subject land is an appropriate location for seniors housing given its distance from an existing urban centre (6km west of Byron Bay and 3km west of Sunrise shopping centre) and lack of infrastructure.
Planning comment
State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 indicates that land is potentially suitable for seniors housing if it:
‘ is land zoned primarily for urban purposes or land that adjoins land zoned primarily for urban purposes,’
The subject land is currently zoned part RU2 Rural Landscape (mainly), part R5 Large Lot Residential and part SP2 Infrastructure (Health Services Facility). The SEPP states that land zoned R5 is not necessarily regarded as being zoned primarily for urban purposes and that when applying the SEPP ‘most’ of the land that it adjoins should be land zoned for urban purposes. If ‘most’ is interpreted as more than half the length of the boundary then the subject land does not entirely meet the SEPP requirements for seniors development suitability as its boundaries are more than half R5, RU2 or RU1. That piece of the subject land zoned SP2 could be eligible for application of the SEPP.
However, the purpose of the planning proposal is to create permissibility of seniors housing across the site regardless of the SEPP and to permit other facilities such as a medical centre and shops in close proximity. As a guide the SEPP suggests that seniors housing should be within 400m walking distance (on flat ground) of services such as:
(a) shops, bank service providers and other retail and commercial services that residents may reasonably require, and
(b) community services and recreation facilities, and
(c) the practice of a general medical practitioner.
If the planning proposal were to proceed and all uses anticipated were constructed then the facility that may still be missing is community and recreation facilities. The proponents have recently sent Council draft plans showing a bowling green, swimming pool and community gardens on the eastern portion of the site which would provide some recreation facilities on site. A public bus service that may travel between the new hospital and Byron Bay would also assist in solving this issue.
DPE (in its Gateway Determination) requested further information to determine if there is a better location than the subject site for seniors housing. The proponents have responded in Annexure 8 of the planning proposal which states that seniors housing is only permitted in R3 Medium Density Residential and B4 Mixed Use Zones and such available land is highly limited near Byron town centre. There may be some infill opportunities which would be limited in scale with other potentially larger sites being on environmentally sensitive land. Market forces tend to drive land values too high for seniors developments near urban centres hence the desired location out of town. The hospital is also a major drawcard for the location of seniors housing given the affiliated land uses such as medical facilities which will be sited nearby.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
11. Precedent for other sites
A number of objectors are concerned the LEP amendment being made for this site is not a ‘one off’ event, it is a precedent for other sites either nearby or elsewhere in Byron Shire to try for the same or similar changes to the controls that apply to development of their land.
Planning Comment
This issue was raised by a number of submissions and relates to the fact that Council has not got an approved LGMS that includes this site and that its not included in the FNCRS. Council decided to review this planning proposal on its merits because there was no clear time frame for reviewing either the FNCRS or preparing a LGMS. It is being considered in response to the decision by the State government to locate the new hospital on land adjacent to the subject site at Ewingsdale.
It would have been preferable for the LGMS to have been prepared prior to further residential development in the Shire, however seniors housing in particular is an obvious need and is appropriately located near the hospital site which is in the process of being developed. Whilst Council acknowledges that a housing strategy is needed, this site is appropriate for seniors housing and associated medical facilities and shops adjacent to the hospital site. Given the adjacent hospital land use, this proposal is not deemed to create a precedent for similar developments throughout the Shire.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
12. Agricultural land values of the locality
The subject land is good agricultural land and should be maintained for grazing or small crops.
Planning comment
The NSW DPI acknowledge that the subject land is mapped as regionally significant farm land under the Northern Rivers Farmland Protection Project. Allowing the site to be used for urban purposes is inconsistent with the agricultural values. However, the placement of the hospital on similar land and the original rural residential subdivision immediately to the south of the subject site have all contributed to the added pressure on this piece of land. It is an area of good red soil and at approximately 15 hectares (in two pieces) it is large enough to undertake a market garden (perhaps spray free or organic). However, its loss from agriculture is likely at some time given its proximity to the new hospital and its separation from other agricultural areas. On balance the loss of this area is unlikely to impact significantly on agriculture in the region or on nearby agricultural areas. Setbacks from agricultural land to the north of Ewingsdale Road should be applied to avoid future conflicts.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
13. Local Growth Management Strategy
A number of submissions suggested that this site should (and was going to) be assessed as part of a new LGMS. Council did not opt to rezone this land as part of the recent Shire wide LEP and the LES that supported the LEP did not recommend this land should go to an urban use.
Planning comment
Byron Shire intends to prepare a Housing Strategy commencing in 2014. The previous Byron Bay and Suffolk Park Settlement Strategy (2002) is out of date and there needs to be a fresh look at a range of sites and options for urban development in Byron Shire. It is agreed that a LGMS provides the opportunity to investigate this site and the implications of a new urban area focussed around the hospital site. The issues of servicing (water and sewerage) as well as traffic would be dealt with in one document rather than a series of ‘one off’ applications. However the subject site is a logical location given that the hospital redevelopment is proceeding at present and it is deemed unnecessary to wait until a LGMS is prepared for the Shire.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
14. Impacts on the entrance to Byron Bay
Some submissions commented that the ‘feel’ as you leave the highway roundabout to enter Ewingsdale Road is an important entrance vista characterised by beautiful green pastures and farmland leading in towards the lighthouse.
Planning comment
The entrance to Byron Bay does start with the Ewingsdale Road intersection. The batching plant and electricity depot are not ideal, but it does open up beyond that to a green farm land appearance. Preliminary sketches put forward by the applicant suggest that they would agree to wide setbacks on Ewingsdale Road and a large part of the development will be directly behind the batching plant and electricity depot and therefore not visible at all. This will be an issue to address at the DA stage and site layout and design can be used to ensure the entrance statement is preserved or at least not unreasonably impacted by development on the subject land.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
15. Inconsistent with Council’s ageing strategy and policy
A number of submissions suggest that the site does not comply with the ageing in place objective of the Byron Shire Positive Ageing Strategy. Also that without easy access to services such as Centrelink or recreation facilities such as a bowling club the seniors will be heavily reliant on their cars and the overcrowded Ewingsdale Road.
Planning comment
Neither Council’s policy (adopted in 2010) nor its strategy (adopted in 2012) are primarily land use planning documents. They mostly focus on the wider needs of an ageing community and how Council deals with this demographic in Byron Shire. In relation to housing the strategy includes:
Objective: Advocate for suitable housing development that meets the changing needs of seniors and consider ‘ageing in place’
Strategic Action: Advocate and facilitate the development of appropriately designed and located housing and residential care facilities and services.
The planning proposal will result in a purpose built housing development that is focussed on the needs of seniors and if it proceeds as envisaged it would allow a resident to begin in the self-contained section of the development and eventually end up in the high care section. However, this depends on the actual DA that is lodged and composition of the types of seniors housing and aged care facilities proposed. Although it is not clear where future residents will come from (perhaps from Ewingsdale rural residential when they can no longer maintain a large lot) it is not possible to be certain that the planning proposal is inconsistent with Council’s strategy and policy as suggested by some submissions.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
16. Need more time to make a submission and inadequate consultation
Some submissions questioned if they had enough time to make a submission and others also suggested consultation with them was inadequate.
Planning comment
This planning proposal was exhibited consistent with the DPE gateway determination for a period of not less than 28 days (15th July until 12th August 2014). Letters were sent by Council to approx. 210 ratepayers of the Ewingsdale area to ensure they were aware the exhibition had commenced. The 28 day exhibition period complies with the statutory requirements and is typical of the exhibition time for a planning proposal of this type and size. Some submissions have been received by Council after the exhibition period closed and are considered as part of this submissions review.
Three community information briefings were held at the Ewingsdale hall on the 29th July to explain what was proposed on the subject site by the proponents and were attended by Council staff. These meetings were well attended by the community and have been referred to in a range of submissions. It is not reasonable to say that there has been insufficient time or inadequate consultation in relation to this planning proposal.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
17. Heritage impacts
The Ewingsdale Church, hall and associated avenue of fig trees plus the Higgins homestead are important heritage items that together give a lot of character to the Ewingsdale precinct. This planning proposal is inappropriate and unsympathetic to the heritage character of the locality.
Planning Comment
The Higgins homestead is located on the eastern part of the subject site and this part of the land is mooted for seniors housing. Concept plans supplied by the applicant indicate they would retain the homestead and associated trees and keep new housing behind the frontage of this dwelling to Ewingsdale Road. Council cannot be sure that this is the application that will be lodged should the LEP amendment proceed. However, the homestead is heritage listed under LEP 2014 and the listing includes the ‘detached kitchen wing and mature Moreton Bay Fig trees’ with Clause 5.10 of LEP 2014 also applying. Council will expect that the homestead and associated trees are retained in any application and the impact on the vista from Ewingsdale Road will also be assessed.
The western part of the subject site is mooted for a mix of commercial and retail development as well as seniors housing. It is directly opposite the hall and church and adjacent to the fig trees along William Flick Lane. In LEP 2014 the St Columbus Church group is listed as a heritage item and includes the church, hall and former school site as well as the trees. Design of the proposed development on this site will have to carefully consider the visual impact on the heritage buildings and trees. The trees will provide a visual buffer to the buildings but the neighbourhood will be a lot busier than it currently is and traffic may impact the currently quiet precinct.
Impacts on heritage items in the locality will need careful consideration at the development application stage but are matters that can be addressed through design, layout, buffers and consideration of noise and light impacts.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
18. No buffer to neighbouring land
Submissions on this included concern about the relatively high density seniors development being located ‘on the fence line’ of rural residential lots along Avocado Crescent and Parkway Drive. It was also raised by Essential Energy in relation to its depot and substation. It was also raised by DPI in relation to agricultural land north of Ewingsdale Road.
Planning comment
Buffers are important to reduce conflict between incompatible land uses as well as general friction between land uses. Council has raised this issue before with the applicants in relation to the batching plant and electricity depot to the north of the site.
Buffers in this case are best dealt with at the site design and layout level and that is a matter for a future DA. The concerns are valid, but this planning proposal is listing additional uses that can take place on the site rather than changing the zone of the land so it can’t address the buffer issue specifically.
Recommendation
That a landscape buffer approx 20m wide be provided on the site adjacent to the rural/ residential lots generally to the south of the site as was required with the hospital. This should be incorporated in the site specific DCP prepared for the site prior to any applications for development being lodged.
19. Negative impact on other retail centres
The existing Bayshore Drive shopping centre is just five minutes down the road and it will be negatively impacted by this new shopping centre.
Planning Comment
Competition between retail centres is considered by organisations such as IPART to be a good outcome. The key factors as to whether this shopping centre will impact in a negative way on any other shopping centre is its size, its location, its key traders and where its customers come from. The only factors that Council can influence through its LEP is the size and location of a new retail centre.
Normally a commercial strategy would address the issue of supply and demand for retail space across the LGA and consider how demand can be met to the benefit of residents as well as retail centre developers and owners. Ideally this commercial strategy would be consistent with a LGMS for the LGA.
The FNCRS (page 36) ‘promotes a clear hierarchy of commercial centres consistent in scale and centrally located within each community…. Other commercial development which relates to the scale of the adjoining urban areas, will be located within the boundaries of towns and villages, utilising existing commercial centres where possible’. Typically, a new retail centre should not be located outside of an existing urban area (as in this planning proposal) unless it is small enough that its purpose is to service only the locality in which it is proposed.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the combined maximum commercial /retail uses floor area be limited to 1200m2 to ensure that its size reflects its purpose, which is to service the Byron Hospital, proposed seniors living precinct (if it proceeds) and existing residents within the immediate locality.
20. Profit as a motivation for the development
Some submissions expressed the view that the planning proposal was simply about maximising the profit of the current owner and not of benefit to anyone else.
Planning comment
Most development is undertaken by private operators as a business that is required to make a profit to remain viable. Development companies that don’t make a profit don’t last very long. It is likely that any future development of this site will be undertaken by private development companies.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
21. Location requirements for retail development
Several submissions questioned whether the location of the hospital itself should influence the subsequent location of a new retail centre or whether the existence of significant future population areas should be a greater influence. A further comment is whether the planning proposal for retail now before either the hospital or the seniors housing is built is appropriate.
Planning comment
The retail development has been mooted as both an adjunct to the hospital as well as the seniors housing. The FNCRS suggests (page 36) that new commercial development should relate to the scale of adjoining urban areas and ‘will be located within the boundaries of towns and villages utilising existing commercial centres where possible and integrated with the initial planning of new release areas.’
In this case the site is not located within a FNCRS town and village boundary and is larger (3000m2) than the nearest retail centre at the Sunrise shopping centre. It does not meet the locational requirements of the FNCRS and is not proportional to the estimated future seniors development with a projected population of about 400 persons.
A planning proposal that includes a new commercial centre of this size at an ‘out of town’ location would normally be accompanied by a detailed net community benefit test. In this case the net community benefit test is superficial and does not justify the planning proposal in relation to its proposed retail development.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the combined maximum commercial /retail uses floor area be limited to 1200m2 to ensure that its size reflects its purpose, which is to service the Byron Hospital and proposed seniors living precinct (if it proceeds).
22. Inconsistent with the Far North Coast Regional Strategy
A small number of submissions state that the planning proposal is not consistent with the FNCRS and therefore should not proceed.
Planning comment
One of the functions of the FNCRS is to identify proposed future urban release areas on town and village growth boundary maps. The map for Byron Shire does not indicate that the subject land is within a future urban release area. The FNCRS states ‘in the coastal area only land within a town and village growth boundary may be released for urban purposes’. The coastal area is defined in the FNCRS for Byron Shire as being that land that is east of the 2006 Pacific Highway alignment. On this basis the FNCRS does not identify the subject land for future urban use.
Although the site is not within the FNCRS for future growth, the proposal was reviewed by the Gateway Panel and granted approval to proceed to public exhibition phase given its proximity to the future hospital site.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
23. Conflict with Ewingsdale hall events
A few submissions nominated conflict between hall events (eg music related) and the nearby seniors housing as a possible issue that will result in the hall losing income.
Planning Comment
Preliminary sketches put forward by the applicant may not represent the DA that is eventually submitted for this site. They show a 20 metre (approximately) buffer between William Flick Drive and proposed seniors housing. If the planning proposal proceeds the issue of a setback from the Ewingsdale hall and related acoustic impacts on seniors dwellings is an issue that Council will have to a consider as part of the DA assessment.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
24. Not enough high care beds
Detail supplied with the planning proposal suggests that there will be 160 seniors dwellings and a 65 bed aged care hostel (high care beds). This is not enough high care beds and more should be provided.
Planning Comment
A few submissions questioned the details of draft concepts provide by the applicant in support of the planning proposal. However, no development application has been lodged and the planning proposal will not restrict the current or any future applicant to the concepts provided. Accordingly a future application may include more or less high care beds or none at all. The planning proposal (if approved) will permit ‘seniors housing’ which is defined in LEP 2014 as:
seniors housing means a building or place that is:
(a) a residential care facility, or
(b) a hostel within the meaning of clause 12 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, or
(c) a group of self-contained dwellings, or
(d) a combination of any of the buildings or places referred to in paragraphs (a)–(c), and that is, or is intended to be, used permanently for:
(e) seniors or people who have a disability, or
(f) people who live in the same household with seniors or people who have a disability, or
(g) staff employed to assist in the administration of the building or place or in the provision of services to persons living in the building or place, but does not include a hospital.”
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
25. Site and design issues
A couple of submissions raised site and design issues that reflect individuals’ response to the draft site plans put forward by the proponents of the planning proposal. These included comments about shared paths and access points, opposition to fast food outlets and service stations, etc.
Planning Comment
Preliminary sketches put forward by the applicant may not represent the DA that is eventually submitted for this site. The comments are useful for a future applicant in terms of gauging public opinion but are not matters that can be considered at the planning proposal stage.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
26. Location requirements for medical centres
A couple submissions suggested that a full time doctor at a medical centre would need about 1400 patients to be viable. Since the seniors development is only likely to accommodate about 400 persons there is not going to be sufficient patients for the medical centre to proceed. If it does not proceed then the site is clearly not within 400m of an important seniors housing related piece of infrastructure. It should not be assumed the hospital emergency ward is a substitute for a medical centre.
Planning Comment
This is a difficult issue to deal with at the planning proposal stage. On balance the new hospital will proceed in its Ewingsdale location and this will generate an opportunity for co-location of medical services which may include GP’s and specialist services. Most hospitals (for example Lismore) generate private medical facilities in the adjacent locality. However, market forces will dictate what sort of services are provided and the timing for them. It is logical that medical centres be a use permitted on land immediately adjacent to a new hospital.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
27. Support for the Planning Proposal
Two submissions indicated support for the planning proposal.
Planning Comment
Support is noted
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
28. Aboriginal archaeology not adequately addressed
One submission suggests there is an Aboriginal burial ground on the subject land.
Planning Comment
An Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment was undertaken in February 2014 by a qualified archaeologist in conjunction with Tweed Byron LALC and an Arakwal Corporation representative. It included a desk top analysis and a field visit over most of the site. No objects or artefacts ere found, no potential subsurface deposit areas were located and no further investigation is recommended. This work meets the requirements of the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal objects in NSW. If during any future site works an Aboriginal burial ground is located then work will be required to stop immediately. All such sites are protected under legislation.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.
29. Use of schedule instead of a zone to amend the LEP
One submission questioned the use of a schedule to add land uses to permit the proposed development instead of a standard zone available under the new LEP.
Planning Comment
Council considered using different zones to achieve the suggested outcome for this land but all options would have permitted a suite of uses that are not likely to be acceptable to the wider community. The schedule permits a limited number of uses that can then be dealt with through a DA process. The underlying zone remains as it currently is, but this could be reviewed in a future general review of the LEP in the long term.
Recommendation
No change is recommended to the planning proposal.