City of cockburn
|
|  Yüklə 0.8 Mb.
|
Strategic Plan/Policy Implications The Corporate Strategic Plan Key Result Areas which apply to this item are:- 1. Managing Your City
Planning Policies which apply to this item are:- Nil Budget/Financial Implications Account No CW 4087 Bibra Lake café/kiosk has adequate funds for this purpose. Legal Implications N/A Community Consultation The community consultation has been limited to the survey conducted by Patterson Market Research in December 2001, together with an article in December 2001 issue of the Cockburn Soundings. Letters of advice were also sent to the Bibra Lake and North Lake Residents Association in April 2003. The required business plan will be advertised for public comment at the appropriate time in the process. Implications of Section 3.18(3) Local Government Act, 1995 Nil. 14.12
Background
The property described as Lot 120 (379) Rockingham Road is located in the “Packham” Structure Plan area of the City. In this area, 75% of the lots are to be developed for the purpose of single dwellings. The subject site is a 1960m² property which is nominated as a single dwelling lot notwithstanding the zoning being Residential R-30. Development of this lot is currently restricted by way of a restrictive covenant registered on the title. Restrictive Covenants have been applied to the Packham Urban Development area as the means by which the 75% single house requirement is enforced. This requirement has been applied since 1990. Submission Application has been received by the City for the construction of a second dwelling and an outbuilding on the subject land. A subdivision referral has also been received from the WAPC which proposes to create a 551m² lot around the proposed new dwelling. The site has an existing dwelling and a large shed located upon it, and although the plans show the existing dwelling is to be demolished, no application has been received to date for this to occur. As such, the proposal has been treated as a grouped dwelling development on the site. The proposed dwelling is designed to address and gain access from Zukova Place. The existing dwelling fronts onto Rockingham Road. A large outbuilding is to be demolished to accommodate room for the proposed new dwelling. Report Subject to the proposed dwelling being shifted slightly back to achieve an average front setback of 4m, the proposal would be deemed to comply with the R-Code development standards. Clause 5.5 (Restrictive Covenants) of the City’s Town Planning Scheme 3 states: “Subject to Clause 5.5.2, a restrictive covenant affecting any land in the Scheme Area by which, or the effect of which, is that the number of residential units which may be constructed on the land is limited or restricted to less than that permitted by the Scheme, is extinguished or varied to the extent that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Residential Design Codes which apply under the Scheme”. Clause 5.5.2 states: “Where Clause 5.5.1 operates to extinguish or vary a restrictive covenant to local government is not to grant planning approval to the development of the land, which would, but for the operation of Clause 5.5.1, have been prohibited unless the application has been dealt with as an ‘A’ use and has complied with the all of the advertising requirements of Clause 9.4” The area of the land is such that under the R-30 coding, the site has the potential density yield of 5 dwellings. Approval of a second dwelling is therefore well within the scope outlined in Clause 5.5.1 above. The application was advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the Scheme, whereupon one submission was received. The submission stated concerns about the potential for 5 additional dwellings to be constructed and impacts this level of development could have on property values, the owner’s wellbeing and lifestyle. The submitters seek the total development density for Lot 120 to be restricted to no more than two dwellings. In physical terms, it is clear that the subject land can easily accommodate the second dwelling for which consent is currently sought. At the same time, the current structure plan provisions prevent the construction of any additional dwellings on the land, notwithstanding the R30 coding of the site. In addition, adjoining owners have an expectation for the level of development afforded by the structure plan, which limits 75% of the lots in Development Area 1 to single dwelling lots. Although the subject land falls into this category of lot, the development of a second dwelling is not considered to be inappropriate given the area of the lot involved (1960m²) and is in fact considered to be an efficient use of the land. The proposal is well within the parameters outlined in Clause 5.5.1 of the Scheme. For the above reasons, approval to the application is recommended, subject to a restrictive covenant being amended to limit development on the Lot 120 to two dwellings. Strategic Plan/Policy Implications The Corporate Strategic Plan Key Result Areas which apply to this item are: - 1. Managing Your City
2. Planning Your City
3. Conserving and Improving Your Environment
The Planning Policies which apply to this item are:- Apd3 Packham Urban Development Area Apd17 Standard Development Conditions and Footnotes Budget/Financial Implications N/A Legal Implications N/A Community Consultation Application was advertised for submissions. Implications of Section 3.18(3) Local Government Act, 1995 Nil. 14.13
Explanation
Background Council at its meeting held on 16 July 2002 approved a local structure plan for the Frankland Springs Estate (Item 14.11). The Agenda report provided the following detail on the alignment of Russell Road; “Russell Road is an “Other Regional Road” in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and identified by Main Roads Western Australia as a designated freight route. The continued expansion of the Australian Marine Complex at Cockburn Sound and the future extensive industrialisation of Wattleup (FRIARS) will further reinforce the role of Russell Road as a critical component of the regional freight network. Russell Road will also be important in providing access between Kwinana Freeway and the future residential communities that will develop in Success and Hammond Park, including the Frankland Springs estate. The Southern Suburbs district Structure Plan reflects the MRS alignment for Russell Road. The Frankland Local Structure Plan Option 2 (Figure 11) also reflects the MRS alignment. This has previously been established as Council’s preferred alignment, whereas the proponent favours retaining Russell Road close to its constructed alignment as shown in Option 1 (Figure 9). The proponent and Officers of the City have, for some time, debated the comparative merits and problems with the two alignments. Officers of the City and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure recently met with Australand and its representatives, where a process to have the two alternative alignments reviewed and compared was agreed. This process has only just commenced and will be some time before being completed and it is possible the Metropolitan Region Scheme will have to be amended as a result. It is not reasonable to delay consideration of the Frankland Local Structure Plan until this review is completed and on the basis of the agreed process of review, the City consented to advertising and assessing the two plan options concurrently. It should be made clear to the proponent that in concurrently assessing both options, Council is not making a determination of the appropriateness of the road alignment, but rather the proposed layout and nature of abutting development. Furthermore, the proponent should be informed that subdivision proposals for development affected by either alignment option, will not be considered favourably until the road alignment issue is resolved.” The relevant portions of Councils resolution relating to Russell Road are as follows; “(1) noted that the proposed Frankland Local Structure Plan includes two options for the development of Lot 202 Russell Road. 6. Council’s acceptance of Option 1 (Figure 9) should not be construed as support for the Russell Road alignment proposed by this option, as this is a matter still to be resolved through the process agreed by the City of Cockburn, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and Australand and its representatives for determining the most appropriate alignment and land requirements for Russell Road and, if necessary, the progression of an amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme;” Submission Taylor Burrell, of behalf of Australand, has requested the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) to support an alternative alignment for the Russell Road through lot 202 between Hammond Road and Frankland Avenue to that currently included in the Metropolitan Region Scheme. A detailed report has been prepared in support of the proposal. Prior to formally considering the matter DPI has sought Councils comments as the proposal is unlikely to proceed without the City’s support. A copy of correspondence from DPI dated 9 June 2003 is included in the Agenda attachments. Report Russell Road is designated “Other Regional Road” in the Metropolitan Region Scheme and is a designated Primary Freight Route in Main Roads WA classification. It plays an extremely important role in the road network providing a direct connection between the Kwinana Freeway and the Australian Marine Complex, Henderson industrial area and access to the northern end of the Hope Valley - Wattleup industrial area. As a result it is expected that Russell Road will carry a high volume of trucks including B doubles that are permitted on designated Primary Freight Routes. Recent traffic studies prepared for Council by Uloth and Associates forecasts that traffic volumes on Russell Road will be in the order of 11,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day by 2026. This modelling was with the Roe Highway in the network and its possible deletion is likely to further increase traffic volumes and the number of trucks on Russell Road. The forecast traffic volumes confirm the need for Russell Road to be constructed as a high standard four lane median divided arterial road. The existing alignment of Russell Road does not meet the required design requirements for this standard of road. The Metropolitan Region Scheme provides for the realignment of Russell Road south of its current alignment between Frankland Avenue and a point to the east of existing Hammond Road. Consultants to Australand are promoting an alternative alignment to that in the MRS. The existing Russell Road, the current MRS reservation for its realignment and the alternative proposed by Taylor Burrell are shown on the plan included in the Agenda attachments. The proposal to realign Russell Road by Australand is not new. There have been discussions with City Officers for some 2-3 years and in each instance, City Officers have advised that the proposal was not supported given the strategic role of Russell Road in the road network and this should not be compromised to simply suit Australand’s’ marketing needs and requirements. The proposal has been primarily driven by financial and marketing considerations given that there was a small severed portion of the original land holding north of the current MRS alignment. However the current justification also includes matters of land use scenarios and amenity. The supporting report prepared by Taylor Burrell details the existing MRS and the alternative alignment for Russell Road, provides plans showing the resultant developments in respect to each and discusses their relative merits. Development proposals for the land adjacent to Russell Road for both the alternative promoted by Australand (Option 1) and the existing MRS alignment (Option 2) are included in the Agenda attachments. The supporting report prepared by Taylor Burrell sets out the relative advantages of the alternative alignment for Russell Road. These points are detailed in the following section together with the views of councils engineering and planning services and other agencies as appropriate. 1. Road requirements. Taylor Burrell Report “The existing alignment has been proposed on an efficient freight transport route. Acknowledge that Russell Road is a freight route but consider the road should be designed to suit the residential objectives as opposed to the design of the residential area acknowledging and responding to the road requirement. The consultant engineers have confirmed that the horizontal and vertical alignment of the revised road has been undertaken for an 80 kph design speed. It is noted that the intersection geometry was designed to 70 kph design standards. This affects the length of turning lanes which can be revised during the detail design phase. The report also includes a safety audit of the proposed alignment.” Officer comments. The safety audit was undertaken to address any road safety concerns, not to rate or compare the designs of the existing or alternative alignments. The design plans assessed in the safety audit only show the intersection of Russell Road with existing Hammond Road and the future Frankland Avenue. The plans did not include the proposed direct access points into the service station, fast food outlets and commercial sites shown on the alternative land use strategies Options 1 and 2. Councils engineering services do not support any direct access off Russell Road for safety reasons. Engineering Services are strongly of the view that Russell Road should be designed to the minimum design standards as per the alternative alignment (Option 1) given it is a strategic freight route which will have a high number and percentage of heavy and over length trucks which require increased stopping distances. The main difference between the existing and alternative alignment from a safety aspect is the reduced sight distances along Russell Road when approaching the Hammond Road intersection from the east and Ashendon Boulevard from the west. This reduced sight distance significantly increases the risk of accidents at these two intersections (It should be noted that the safety audit does not assess or take into consideration the potential for accidents). Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) comments The letter from the Department for Planning and Infrastructure dated 9 June 2003 states;
The above comments by DPI are consistent with the views and concerns expressed by Councils Engineering Services. Transport Forum WA In an article in the West Australian on August 25 2003 the Chief Executive of Transport Forum WA states the following in respect to freight routes;
It is clear that mistakes have been made in the past in the planning of freight routes and the lessons of the past should be recognised and new freight routes designed accordingly. It is considered that the alternative alignment and the proposed direct access from Russell Road to abutting development does not adequately reflect sound principles for the design of freight routes. 2. Noise, Buffers, land use interface and pedestrian movements Taylor Burrell Report “The report states that the proposed alignment (Option 1) provides a better land use solution with greater separation between residential uses and Russell Road and the provision of a main street pedestrian based neighbourhood centre. The preferred option is likely to result in less pedestrian cross movements at the Hammond Road/ Russell Road intersection than the existing alignment option.” Officer comments The extent of urban development adjacent to Russell Road between Frankland Avenue and the Kwinana Freeway is approximately 1.4 km. The section under consideration is only 0.5 km or 35% of the total length. With the exception of a small area on the southern side of Russell Road near the Freeway, this is the last area adjacent to Russell Road to be planned. The issue of the need for buffers has never been raised in any of the previous planning of the area adjacent to Russell Road by either Australand, Taylor Burrell or any other landowner or consultant. Option 2 shows 12 lots separated from Russell Road by a service road. This is exactly the same design solution Taylor Burrell used for land on the north side of Russell Road and east of Hammond Road where the projected traffic volumes are higher and hence potential impacts are greater than for the section that is under consideration. Option 2 shows 12 lots fronting the service road to the South of Russell Road. If there were significant impacts this could be reduced by reorientating the lots to front the side streets thus reducing the number of lots facing Russell Road to six. The land use plans for both the proposed alignment (Option 1) and the existing alignment (Option 2) include proposed main street pedestrian based neighbourhood centres. Accordingly neither plan has a distinct advantage in this regard. There is no guarantee that the neighbourhood centre will be developed on the basis of main street principles. There is still major market resistance to main street development with a strong preference by retailers for the conventional doughnut big box centres with the shopping centre located in the centre of the site surrounded by a sea of car parking. Unless there is a total commitment by Australand to the main street concept, and it can be secured by way of a legal agreement between Australand and Council, there is every likelihood that development of the neighbourhood centre will not be based on main street principles. The proposed intersection of Hammond Road and Russell Road is designed to be traffic light controlled under both scenarios. Traffic lights provide the highest level of pedestrian and cyclist safety. The potential neighbourhood centre catchment population to the north and south of Russell Road is not significantly different and accordingly there is no basis to the claim that the location of the neighbourhood centre as per the alternative alignment will result in less pedestrians crossing Russell Road. Notwithstanding that, both land use scenarios (Options 1 & 2) show the main street retail development south of the respective Russell Road alignments. Uses such as service station and fast foods are predominantly car based activities and accordingly are not a relevant consideration. 3. Severance, land requirements and costs. Taylor Burrell Report “The alternative alignment (Option 1) has significantly less impact of severance on lot 202 than the existing alignment. Australand advises that if the alternative alignment is adopted it will not seek compensation for the severed portion of the land (650m2). Development Engineering Services estimate that the differences in cost for the two options is as follows: Current MRS Proposed alt alignment Difference Severed area 1.6140 ha 0.0650 ha 1.5490 ha Road land area 2.3090 ha 1.3930 ha 0.9160 ha Road land value $ 578,408 $ 314,344 $264,064 Works $ 831,408 $ 711,558 $119,730 Total (excl GST) $1,409,816 $ 1,025,902 $383,794 The major savings incurred are in respect to the land and in particular any payment for severance. As would be expected savings in construction are relatively minor give the overall road lengths are similar.” Officer comments Australand purchased the land knowing that a portion of the land was severed by the MRS alignment for Russell Road. On this basis it is unlikely that payment for severance could be substantiated. The 1.6140 ha severed area associated with the existing MRS alignment is of sufficient area and dimension to enable it to be sensibly developed as demonstrated on the Option 2 plan. In early discussions with the previous General Manager of Australand, Mr Nick Perignon, the major issue was that the severed area would not be able to be developed and marketed as part of the Frankland Springs Estate. Subsequently Australand purchased land to the immediate north of the severed area and accordingly now can form a logical part of their total development and marketing strategy. The cost of providing land required for Russell Road and the construction of full earthworks, single carriageway and dual use path is a cost shared by all landowners to the north and south of Russell Road in accordance with the requirements of Development Contribution Areas 2 (Success Lakes) and 3 (Gaebler Road). Accordingly the savings will be to the landowners and has no implications for Council. The cost of construction for the alternative alignment may be under estimated given that very little if any of the current carriageway can be used due to changes in the horizontal curvature to the existing road, that the existing carriageway forms part of the ultimate east bound and west bound lanes and hence a significant portion ends up in the median area and that the tie in to the existing carriageway west of Frankland Avenue is likely to be much further west for the alternative alignment than for the current MRS alignment. 4. Other matters. Officer comments To the east of Hammond Road, the alternative alignment more adversely affects the property located on the north side of the road. In this respect the alternative alignment shifts some of the disbenefits of land adjacent to Russell Road from Australand's holding to that of another owner. East of Frankland Avenue the alternative alignment extends outside the existing MRS Reserve and will require a portion of the Thomsons Lake Nature Reserve to be required for road purposes. It should be noted that part of the existing Russell Road carriageway already traverses a portion of the Thomsons Lake Nature Reserve. CALM will need to be consulted on this matter. Council support of the alternative alignment could expose it to future claims for damages if, through the frequency and severity of road accidents, it is determined that the road has been developed to inappropriate standards when it was previously open to Council to have the road built to a higher standard, that is, on the current MRS alignment. 5. Conclusions Taylor Burrell report “Considers that the alternative alignment (Option 1) is superior on the basis of noise and buffers, land use and landscaping buffer, severance and land costs. It is difficult to justify the additional cost of some $383,794 (excl GST) for the current MRS alignment.” Officer comments Council officers concur with DPI comments that Russell Road is and will continue to be an important east – west regional road in the South West Corridor for regional traffic, particularly freight traffic and accordingly it is important that the long term planning of the road meets best practice and most desirable engineering standards rather than the minimum standards to reduce the cost to landowners. Further it is considered that the alternative alignment does not deliver any tangible land use benefits. The issue of buffers and setbacks of residential development from Russell Road has not been previously raised as a concern in other planning undertaken along Russell Road by either Taylor Burrell and Australand and both options provide the opportunity for the development of a main street retail centre on the south side of the Russell Road alignment. 6. Recommendation Based on the above assessment of the relative merits of the 2 alignments, it is recommended that Council advise the Department for Planning and Infrastructure that the proposed alternative alignment for Russell Road is not supported on the basis of reduced safety, the potential for increased accidents at proposed intersections with Russell Road and that there are no tangible land use or community benefits. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||