Tomorrow evening, 13 June 2017, the Kingborough Council is expected to vote on DA-2016-442, what is sometimes called the ‘Kingston Beach Surf Lifesaving Club DA’.
Since this item was published on the Council agenda there’s been an article in The Mercury ($), comments on social media, and one state MP has even started an online petition. I’ve received 9 emails from people emphasising the importance of the surf club and their disappointment with the existing toilets.
There is some misunderstanding that this is a popularity competition; that applying pressure to the Councillors should influence their vote.
Land Use Planning
What is missing from this conversation is what is actually happening on Tuesday evening; the Council will be voting on whether to approve the Development Application.
When we vote on a DA we are ‘acting as a Planning Authority’. There is only one question we’re answering: Does this Development Application comply with the Planning Scheme?
Council does take into consideration what people in the community think about a development application. When this application was advertised, Council received 63 representations from the public. Some were in favour and some were opposed. All were read and responded to in the report written by the council staff. Advertising the application and having a fixed time for the public to respond makes the process fair. Anyone for or against the proposal can write in, and both have the same time to respond. By having a response from the planner in the report, the councillors understand whether this issue should affect their decision or not.
It doesn’t matter if Councillors think the development is good or bad. We should ignore any knowledge we have of the developer. It doesn’t matter if we know people in the surf lifesaving club, or if we know people who live near the development who are concerned about how it might affect their home, or if we have a relationship with any other affected business owner. All we’re voting on is whether the application meets The Scheme.
There’s a formal process when you, or I, or anyone else wants to undertake development. It’s laid out in the Land Use Planning Approval Act 1993. There’s a clue there in the website URL, ‘http://thelaw.tas.gov.au’. This is the law. Not some optional advice. Council has advertised the development application. The public have been given a chance to write representations either for or against the proposal. Council has received the representations and council staff have considered them in the report.
What do I think?
I may or may not think a surf lifesaving club for Kingston Beach is important. I may or may not think that Kingston Beach would benefit from more commercial development along the beach front. I certainly do think that the public toilets on Osborne Esplanade need replacing (which is why Council sought expressions of interest to replace them and propose other uses for the land at 25A Osborne Esplanade). None of this will matter on Tuesday evening (although I’m happy to discuss it in another forum).
How will I vote?
On Tuesday evening Council will be acting as a Planning Authority and will be deliberating on whether this application meets the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015. In making this decision we will take into account the qualified advice provided by Council staff who are planners employed by Council to provide professional advice.
I will be voting based upon the advice provided by staff in the report, answers to questions put to staff during the meeting, and the arguments put by my fellow councillors. I will be voting on whether this proposed development meets the planning scheme.
You can download the council agenda and find the report on page 13.
The recommended motion from the Council planning staff is:
That in accordance with Council Policy 1.1 – Delegated Authority Policy, the Planning Authority resolves that the report of the Manager Development Services be received and that the development application Kingston Beach Surf lifesaving (KBSLSC) clubhouse, restaurant and takeaway coffee and icecream bar and public toilets at 25A Osborne Esplanade, Osborne Esplanade and Adjacent Crown Land (CT216121/1) and 9 Albert Street (CT169748/1), Kingston Beach for Ireneinc Planning be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is not in accordance with Purpose Statement 10.1.1.2 of the General Residential zone which seeks to: To provide for compatible non-residential development that primarily serve the local community, in that the proposal seeks approval for non-residential uses which are not considered compatible with the General Residential zone of the site and surrounding residential uses. The uses proposed will not primarily serve the local community and the development as a whole is likely to lead to a significant loss of amenity for surrounding residential properties.
2. The proposal is not in accordance with Desired Future Character Statements 10.1.3(a) for Kingston Beach in the General Residential zone: Kingston Beach should retain its existing seaside village character, in that the proposed development is not in keeping to other development within the General Residential zone so far as scale of the building, its proposed external cladding materials, its bulk, its minimal setbacks and the extent of hard landscaping covering the site.
3. The proposal is not in accordance with Desired Future Character Statements 10.1.3(b) for Kingston Beach in the General Residential zone: Commercial use or development within residential areas should be limited to low impact uses, in that the proposed development cannot be considered in any way to contain ‘low impact uses’, and will have a detriment impact on the residential amenity of surrounding properties. Furthermore, the proposal fails to comply with building envelope, hours of operation, commercial vehicle movements, building setbacks, and minimum car parking requirements for development in the General Residential Zone, all of which are likely to exacerbate the impact on surrounding residential properties.
4. The proposal seeks approval for a use (Function centre) that involves the use of the premises for meeting, entertainment social occasions for a sporting club that reasonably constitute ‘functions’ which are a prohibited use in the General Residential zone. Additionally, it is considered that the design of the building enables the use of the building for such a prohibited use. Policing of the premises to ensure prohibited uses are not occurring would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Council.
5. The proposal fails to comply with the P1 Performance Criteria for Clause 10.3.1.A1 – Hours of Operation in that the proposal fails to demonstrate that it will not have an unreasonable impact upon the residential amenity through commercial vehicle movements, noise or other emissions that are unreasonable in their timing, duration or extent. It is considered that the uses proposed, the proposed hours of operation and the associated activity and traffic generation is likely to result in a significant loss of amenity for surrounding residential properties.
6. The proposal fails to provide sufficient documentation or details to demonstrate compliance with Clause 10.3.1.A3 – External Lighting for non-residential uses in the General Residential zone.
7. The proposal is not in accordance with Clause 10.3.1.P4 of the General Residential zone: Commercial vehicle movements (including loading and unloading and garbage removal) must not result in unreasonable adverse impact upon residential amenity, in that the proposed development will create significant unreasonably impact on the amenity of the surrounding area by way of pressure on existing on street parking, noise associated with traffic generation activity and the creation of safety hazards for pedestrians and motorists alike due to traffic generation. Additionally, the proposal fails to provide noise reducing structures between vehicle movements areas and neighbouring dwellings and will create significant levels of conflict with other traffic in Osborne Esplanade and particularly Albert Street.
8. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the P1 Performance Criteria for Clause 10.4.2 for 4.5m front boundary setbacks. The proposal fails to provide a front setback from the Osborne Esplanade frontage that is compatible with existing dwellings and additionally has not identified any topographical constraint as justification for the proposed setback of 2.6m.
9. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the P3 Performance Criteria for Clause 10.4.2 for building envelope and side and rear boundary setbacks, in that the proposed development will create a significant and unreasonable loss of amenity to neighbouring residences on an adjoining lot by overshadowing to habitable rooms as well as private open space and an unreasonable visual impact caused by the apparent scale, bulk and proportions of the building when viewed by neighbouring residences.
10. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the P1 Performance Criteria for Clause 10.4.3(c) for having a site area of which at least 25% in free from impervious surfaces. The proposal fails to provide reasonable space for the planting of landscaping which will exacerbate the impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties as well as the character of the surrounding area.
11. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the P1 Performance Criteria for Clause E13.8.1 Demolition in Heritage Precincts. The proposal will not result in a development that is more complimentary to the heritage values of Kingston Beach which includes an area characterised by large setbacks and generous landscaping, small dwellings constructed with external timber cladding and a strong beachside character with strong residential amenity and character.
12. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the P1 Performance Criteria for Clause E13.8.2 for Buildings and Works in Heritage Precincts. The proposal will cause a detriment to the historic cultural heritage significance of Kingston Beach due to the scale and intensity of the proposed building and uses proposed, the loss of green space and landscaping and the resulting unreasonable impact on the amenity of surrounding properties. Furthermore, the development fails to take into account or incorporate the characteristics that make Kingston Beach significant.
13. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the P3 Performance Criteria for Clause E5.5.1.A3 for Existing road accessed and junctions. The proposal will cause an adverse impact on the parking and traffic flow for residents of Osborne Esplanade and in particular Albert Street, resulting in declining road safety and traffic flow at respective accesses and associated road junctions.
14. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the P2 Performance Criteria for Clause E5.6.2 for Road accesses and junctions. The proposal will cause a detriment to traffic flow and road safety as the development will result in vehicles reversing onto roads. Additionally, the proposal does not demonstrate satisfactory internal truck manoeuvring within the property boundaries to enable such vehicles to leave the site in a forward direction.
15. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the P1 Performance Criteria for Clause E5.6.4 for Sight distances at accesses, junctions and level crossings. The proposal will cause a detriment to traffic flow and road safety as the development will result in vehicles reversing onto roads and thereby compromising safe sight distances.
16. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the P1 Performance Criteria for Clause E6.6.1 for Number of car parking spaces. The proposal does not provide a sufficient number of car parking spaces to meet the reasonable needs of users, resulting in unreasonable impacts to road safety and traffic flow in the surrounding area.
17. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the A1 Acceptable Solution for Clause E6.6.2 for parking spaces for people with a disability. The proposal does not provide sufficient and accessible car parking for people with a disability.
18. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the P1 Performance Criteria for Clause E6.7.2 for Design of vehicular accesses. The proposal fails to provide safe and efficient access for all users and is likely to result in an increase in the likelihood of conflicts between users as well as creating unreasonable interference with traffic flow in the surrounding area.
19. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the P1 Performance Criteria for Clause E6.7.3 for Vehicular passing areas along an access. The proposal will result in traffic being unable to pass in Albert Street, causing significant detriment to traffic flow and road safety.
20. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the P1 Performance Criteria for Clause E6.7.4 for On-site turning. The proposal fails to provide safe, efficient and convenient access and additionally fails to provide satisfactory on-site turning.
21. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the P1 Performance Criteria for Clause E6.7.5 for Layout of parking areas. The proposal fails to provide safe layout of parking areas with parking areas unable to provide convenient and safe access, ease of access and egress and convenient and safe manoeuvring.
22. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the P1 Performance Criteria for Clause E6.7.13 for Facilities for Commercial Vehicles. The proposal fails to provide adequate loading, unloading or manoeuvring for commercial vehicles and as a result, is likely to compromise the safety and convenience of all road traffic and users.
23. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the A1 Acceptable Solutions for Clause E6.7.14 for Access to a Road. The proposal fails to provide adequate access to the road network.
24. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the P1 Performance Criteria for Clause E7.7.1 for Stormwater Drainage and Disposal. The proposal fails to provide effective and satisfactory disposal of stormwater from the development.