Julie Matheson

Subiaco Councillor | Certified Financial Planner | DAP Expert

Reasons for Residential R80

It is regrettable that local planning has become the domain of the State Government and not Local Government as was legislated by Sir Charles Court with the help of Dr Tom Dadour.

I refer to Agenda Item D28 page 178, on the Development Service Committee for Tuesday 12 September 2013.  This Motion was put up by the planning staff of the City of Subiaco and seems to ignore two resolutions made by Council to zone the site at 125-135 Railway Road, Subiaco ‘Residential R80’.

http://subiaco.wa.gov.au/fileuploads/12_02_2013_a_1.pdf

I have put forward the following amendment to the staff Motion:

Please amend the D28 resolution

  •  point 2(a) to read:

Rezone Lots 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 412 Railway Road, Subiaco from the ‘Public Purposes – Hospital’ reserve to the ‘Residential’ zone with an R coding of R80, and the abutting portion of Railway Road from the ‘Public Purposes – Hospital’ reserve to ‘Access Road’ reservation; and

  • Delete point 5.

Reasons:

  1. See Council Minutes dated 20 December 2011, DSC minutes 11 September 2012, and Council minutes on 25 September 2012
  2. We have already resolved to zone this site Residential R80 twice before
  3. This will be the second time that the staff have recommended changing the zoning to something else other than what Council has resolved previously having regard to orderly and proper planning on 20 December 2011 and again on 25 September 2012
  4. During the advertising period submissions from Subiaco residents were sent to the WAPC to both support of the change from Public Use – Hospital to Urban, and Council’s resolution to rezone the site Residential R80.
  5. Council considers Residential R80 zoning to reflect orderly and proper planning of the locality, and considered extensive information before making a decision in December 2011.
  6. The locality has been RESIDENTIAL since the original properties were constructed.  A residential zoning matches the residential use and amenity in the adjacent part of Bagot Rd and Railway Rd (south, adjacent to the MRS hospital reservation).
  7. All other parcels of land adjacent or even nearby the MRS hospital reservation are residential, outside the Town Centre Zone.
  8. Council has been consistent in its decision-making to maximise residential development in Subiaco over many years, particularly in areas close to railway stations and activity centres, and a Residential R80 zoning in this locality is consistent with this intention and previous decisions.
  9. If the King Edward Memorial hospital closes down, the residential zoning from this site can be properly carried forward to include the entire site, reflective of our long term orderly and proper planning to provide more residential housing in the City of Subiaco.
  10. This Council should not be lecturing the Dept of Planning or the Minister about orderly and proper planning.  This Council should URGENTLY seek a procedural challenge in the supreme court to find out whether or not the DAP can be properly constituted to reconsider a DAP application in private, ignoring its own regulations, in particular Reg 40(2) Any DAP meeting to determine a development application is to be open to the public

Background information:

  1. On 28 September 2011 the City of Subiaco received correspondence from the WAPC requesting comments on the MRS Rezoning application.
  2. On 11 October 2011 the Council resolved to advise the WAPC of its support for the MRS Rezoning application.
  3. On 8 November 2011 the Development Services Committee (DSC) received a notice of a late item “Proposed Amendment No.17 to Town Planning Scheme No.4 – Rezoning of lots 2,3,4,7 & 412 Railway Road, Subiaco”.  A report from the Senior Strategic Planning Officer dated 20 October 2011 which recommended zoning as Commercial/Residential with an additional use number of A22 to allow for added uses of consulting rooms, restaurant and shop and a plot ratio maximum of 3.2 and additional maximum wall heights (the TPS rezoning report).  The Committee decided report lie on the table whilst Councillors consider the site further.
  4. On 22 November 2011 the Council met.  The TPS rezoning report was not placed on the agenda whilst Councillors continued to  considered the site further
  5. On 6 December 2011 the Acting Coordinator Statutory Planning presented a report to the DSC regarding the Development application as amended (the DA report).  The DA was presented to Council and it voted to lie on the Table for the following reasons:

i.            The Committee is not in a position to provide a recommendation on this application as the site is not yet appropriately zoned under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Town Planning Scheme No. 4. The Committee resolved to advise the WAPC that it would be desirable to defer the determination of this application until the proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Town Planning Scheme No. 4 have been finalised.

ii.            Later in the meeting the Committee decided to lift the item from the table so that its Resolution to REFUSE the development application could be submitted to the WA Planning Commission on the basis of:

1)The proposed bulk and scale of the development would unreasonably impact upon the adjoining residential amenity of the adjacent residential properties on Bagot Road, and the streetscape amenity of Railway Road.

2)  The intensity of the proposed land use could potentially result in adverse impacts to traffic movement on Railway Road and Bagot Road.

3)The lack of street activation to the Railway Road and Bagot Road frontages would not result in a positive contribution to the amenity of the locality, ref. p.203

  1. On 20 December 2011 the TPS rezoning report (previously before the DSC on 8 November 2012) was considered by Council.  The zoning recommendation was rejected and the Council resolved to initiate TPS zoning of Residential R80 (the Council’s TPS rezoning decision).   Cr Matheson gave the following reasons:

i.             the proposed rezoning by Bagot Developments encourages bulk and scale that would unreasonably impact upon the adjoining residential amenity of the adjacent residential properties on Bagot Road, and the streetscapes of Railway Road;

ii.            The intensity of the proposed rezoning by Bagot Developments could potentially result in adverse impacts to traffic movement on Railway and Bagot Road;

iii.             the proposed rezoning by Bagot Development could result in the potential loss of street activation to the Railway Road and Bagot Road frontages would not result in a positive contribution to the amenity of the locality;

iv.            to change the existing use from non-conforming to conforming use as residential with the appropriate rezoning referenced under TPS4;

v.            the site is an entry point to Subiaco’s existing character and amenity in living, shopping and entertainment so any redevelopment should reflect the development pattern, scale, character, details and materials of the predominant building types; and

vi.            the site’s proximity and setback of the King Edward Memorial Hospital, and surrounding heritage buildings.

  1. On 19 April 2012 the WAPC wrote to Subiaco council advising of the plans to advertise change from reserve to urban.   The WAPC advertised the MRS Rezoning application for public comment between 24 April and 29 June 2012
  2. During the advertising period submissions from Subiaco residents were sent to the WAPC to both support of the change from Public Use – Hospital, and Council’s resolution to rezone the site Residential R80.
  3. On 28 June 2012, Ms Kathy Bonus wrote to the DoP regarding the proposed amendment No. 17 to rezone the site Residential R80
  4. Prior to the cut off date of 29 June 2012 for submissions for change to Urban, the WAPC received submissions stating support for the zoning Residential R80.
  5. On 20 July 2012, the DoP Planning Director Mat Selby sent a letter to Ms Bonus explaining that the DAP had legally approved a commercial building (undated) and it would be non-conforming use if the site was zoned Residential R80.  The content of this letter is intended to persuade the planning staff that Council’s Resolution is not considered to be reflective of orderly and proper planning.
  6. On 4 September 2012, Councillors were advised of the letter from Mat Selby and the Staff’s Recommendation to rescind the resolution by Council on 20 December 2011 and rezone the site Commercial/Residential in order to meet the requests made in this letter.
  7. On 11 September 2012, Council resolved to reaffirm its 20 December 2011 decision
  8. On 25 January 2013, Neil Thomson of the WAPC wrote to residents confirming the change to Urban with a report that includes all the submissions made.  None were against the zoning resolved by Council on 20 December 2011.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on February 10, 2013 by in DAP, Hospitals, Planning, Residential, Town Planning Scheme and tagged .
%d bloggers like this: