What are residents asking for?

MORELAND PLANNNG SCHEME: PROPOSED AMENDMENT C92

SUBMISSION BY LARCOMBE, DALLY AND LANSDOWNE

SUMMARY

The whole submission (6Mb) can be downloaded here.

1. It is unfair to remove third party rights through the application of a DPO to this site, when the community has not had a real opportunity to consider and comment on an agreed development proposal (pages 1-6).
2. We discuss ten examples of issues that remain unresolved and give rise to a high level of concern and uncertainty about the development and the application of a DPO (pages 6-10) as follows:
   • The nature of “Main Street” (page 6-7)
   • Traffic volumes on John and Albert Streets (pages 7-8)
   • Protection of the John and Albert Streets bike paths (page 8)
   • On street resident parking in John and Albert Streets (page 8)
   • Reliance and impact on public transport (page 8)
   • Economic justification for the proposed retail floor space (page 9)
   • Meaning of “local convenience shopping” (page 9)
   • Landscaping (pages 9-10)
   • Car parking (page 10)
   • Density and scale of development (page 10)
3. The information available to the public through the consultations for the Draft Structure Plan has not been sufficiently detailed or certain with respect to the form and scope of development around the Nicholson/Glenlyon intersection for it to be relied on as justification for removing third party notice, decision and review rights (pages 11-20).
4. We do not support the Amendment’s designation of a new urban village at the intersection of Glenlyon and Nicholson at this time. An “urban village” and an “activity centre” are not the same and it appears that Council has not applied its own policy in relation to planning and community consultation for this particular “urban village” (pages 20-22).
5. What is needed at this time is not further ‘corridor’ planning such as would take place for designation of an “urban village” on Glenlyon/Nicholson. Rather, as demonstrated by the traffic evidence presented at these hearings, what is needed at this time is a detailed and comprehensive structure plan (developed with appropriate community consultation) for use, movement and amenity in the block bounded by Glenlyon, Nicholson, Lygon and Blyth and centring on Fleming Park, as the open space heart for this area (page 23).
6. We recommend that:

The provisions to amend clauses 21.04-2 and 21.05-1 and designate Nicholson/Glenlyon as an Urban Village be removed from the Amendment

• The Schedule to the Business 1 Zone is amended to stipulate 3,000 sqm for shops

And EITHER:

• Rezoning proceed at the current time using an overlay that retains full third party notice, decision and review rights; OR
• Council and the Proponent reach agreement about the preferred development, in consultation with residents and occupiers within a 4-800m radius of the Tontine precinct, and considering the cumulative impacts of development in the wider Fleming Park precinct, and present that proposal to the general community through re-exhibition of the Amendment with the revised DPO schedule negotiated through this hearing and an agreed Concept Plan that conforms more closely to the Brunswick Structure Plan.

1. If the Panel recommends to Council that the rezoning proceed at this time with a DPO Schedule, we oppose any form of the Proponents’ Concept Plan being ‘dropped into’ Schedule 11.

We would ask the Panel instead to incorporate into an Overlay the following plans from the Brunswick Structure Plan: Map 3.4 ‘Precinct 3B’, Figure 3.1 ‘Nicholson Street Central’, and Figure 15 ‘Built Form Framework’ (vol 1).

In addition we would request insertion of provisions as sought by us in our submission to Council (attachment A) as supplemented by the matters that have emerged in these hearings (attachment B).

Wendy Larcombe

Kath Dally

Robyn Lansdowne

22 December 2009

PROVISIONS SOUGHT IN SUBMISSION TO COUNCIL

1. Minimum sustainability targets or performance standards be included as a condition of any permit for development of the site, including: 6 star energy ratings, green roofs, rainwater collection and use, and greywater reuse.

2. Enforcement and accountability mechanisms be developed and applied to any failure to meet or maintain agreed sustainability targets or performance standards.

3. The development plan should ensure that the ability of existing and future local residents to access sunlight for gardening and solar power generation is not adversely affected by built form and layout within the precinct.

4. Uses within the development should be selected and designed so as to minimize the need for car and truck access to the site and so as to discourage use of private vehicles to travel to the site.

5. Car and truck access to the centre of the site should be provided only from Nicholson Street: there should be no vehicle access through the site from John St (ie the Structure Plan should be adhered to)

6. Any new connections between Nicholson Street and John Street, and between Rickard St, Gamble St, Elm Grove, other laneways and a new ‘Centre Court’ should provide for pedestrian, cycle and disabled access only. If vehicle access is to be provided on any of these connections it should be for emergency vehicles only.

7. Council should undertake the necessary steps to ensure that public transport services are increased on Nicholson St and Glenlyon Road, and that the John Street bike path is protected and enhanced.

8. The Development Plan be required to detail how it will deliver an inviting ‘central town square’ or significant public space emphasizing pedestrian and recreational use and creating a focal point for Nicholson Street.

9. The Development Plan should be required to detail how it will deliver studio spaces and live/work dwellings and other facilities that would support the local arts and creative industries by creating a distinctive focal point or ‘Arts Hub’.

10. The Business 2 Zone, which is proposed for the ‘periphery of the precinct to act as a buffer between existing and future residential use’ (Explanatory Report p5), should be applied to the entire John Street edge of the precinct to act as a buffer between the existing residences and industrial uses on John Street and the new residential development within the site.

11. The proposed ‘Main Street’ creating vehicle traffic between John St and Nicholson St should be replaced by a ‘Centre Court’ providing vehicle access from Nicholson St only (as described above).

12. The development should support and integrate the existing John St bike path, and provide for its separation from traffic by the installation of new barriers and plantings.

13. The development should provide for ‘active frontages’ and a ‘high level of pedestrian amenity’ to John Street, Gamble St and Elm Grove (in addition to Glenlyon Rd, Nicholson St, Albert St, and Rickard St as currently provided).

14. The building heights on the north, south and west edges of the precinct (street frontages) should be limited to a maximum of 2 storeys (consistent with current maximum heights). We accept that building heights then gradually increase to a maximum of 6 storeys in the centre of the development. In any event, where current buildings are adjacent to existing houses and it is proposed to replace the current buildings, then the new building height should not exceed former building heights.

15. The development plan should stipulate building heights and building design so as to prevent or minimize any increase in overshadowing and overlooking of existing houses.

16. Limits on the number and type of licensed premises in the development should be detailed in the development plan and site design should ensure that all such premises are entered and exited by patrons via Nicholson St or the new Centre Court only.

17. Opening hours for commercial and retail businesses in the precinct should be restricted to ‘normal’ business hours. Specifically, there should be no 24-hour businesses, and cafes and restaurants should be closed by midnight.

18. The Development Plan be required to consider how impacts from proposed use of the site can be minimized for existing residents in Gamble St, Rickard St, John St, Elm Grove, Glenlyon Road, Nicholson Street and Albert Street in terms of increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic, noise and light pollution, privacy and security, overshadowing and overlooking.

19. If a supermarket is included in the development, it should not be a ‘drive-to’ supermarket with associated public car-parking.

20. Restaurants and food and drink retail outlets in the development should adopt environmentally sustainable practices by sourcing local produce (for example, from the CERES farmers’ market), promoting vegetarian food, limiting packaging and minimizing energy use in the production, storage and distribution of food.

21. Businesses seeking to rent office and retail premises in the development be required to demonstrate that they adopt ‘environmental’ best practice in energy and resources use.

22. Community facilities and services should be required in the development, such as a library, meeting room, active recreational areas, passive recreational areas.

23. The development plan should detail how the facilities and services provided in the precinct cater to the interests and needs of people of all ages, incomes and abilities.

24. The provisions in Schedule 11 regarding ‘Open Space and Landscape’ should stipulate that existing open space provisions must be supplemented. The development plan should detail how the open spaces and recreational areas within the development, including the central square, complement current open space uses in the area.

25. Businesses seeking to rent office and retail premises in the development be required to demonstrate that they adopt ‘socially inclusive’ employment practices.

This is ATTACHMENT A from the LARCOMBE, DALLY, LANSDOWNE SUBMISSION to the Planning Panel. The whole submission (6Mb) can be downloaded here.

ADDITIONAL MATTERS SOUGHT

1. Limit maximum supermarket size to 2,000 sqm for local residents only i.e. without car parking (so as not to encourage out of catchment shoppers and the consequential traffic)

2. Reduce total floorspace for shop (retail) across the precinct to 4,000 sqm (to reflect the fact that the intent is to provide ‘local, convenience’ shopping only, not a sub-regional shopping centre). If applications are submitted to exceed the maximum retail floorspace of 4,000 sqm, then third party rights are revived in full.

3. Limit the number of new dwellings within the precinct to ensure that on-site car parking can be provided for all residents and visitors

4. Ensure that new residents in any development (Tontine or Sires) are not eligible for on-street residential permit parking in John and Albert Streets (current resident permit parking in John St must be retained and added for Albert St)

5. Permits for any licensed premises (including supermarket) to stipulate 11pm closing

6. Decision making guidelines to include neighbourhood consultation

7. A provision for contributions from owners to cover the cost of establishing and maintaining landscaping and street upgrades throughout the precinct and its bordering streets (Albert, John, Glenlyon and Nicholson)

8. Existing open space provisions in the area to be supplemented by new open spaces in the precinct

9. Re-use of existing warehouse walls to the south of the Tontine site to create medium density warehouse style (2-3 storeys) residential dwellings providing an appropriate interface to the existing single/double storey residential development

10. A provision that removes the exemption from notice and review with respect to any planning or permit application that relates to: roads and access in and through the precinct; licensing the sale of alcohol or permitting the consumption of alcohol in public areas of the precinct; hours of retail or commercial operation that fall outside 7am and 10pm.

11. Specific provision to ensure that the street layouts are as provided in the Brunswick Structure Plan, including the pedestrian only nature of the E-W connection between Gamble and Nicholson

12. Provision of on-site car parking that complies with levels recommended in the Moreland Planning Scheme.

This is ATTACHMENT B from the LARCOMBE, DALLY, LANSDOWNE SUBMISSION to the Planning Panel. The whole submission (6Mb) can be downloaded here.