HOLDFAST BAY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT PLAN GLENELG DISTRICT CENTRE (JETTY ROAD) AND RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONE REVIEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS REPORT FOR THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING BY THE DEVELOPMENT POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Page 1 of 11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Proposed amendments to development policy, processes and procedures contained in the Glenelg District Centre (Jetty Road) and Residential High Density Zone Policy Review Development Plan Amendment (DPA) have attracted a range of views, which are generally split between those expressing concerns about the negative implications of additional development opportunities, to land owners supporting the proposed changes, and in some instances seeking changes that would further support potential development opportunities on their properties. There was a particular focus in the public submissions on proposed changes to building heights and consequential potential impacts on adjacent land, as well as the implications of additional infill growth on the local traffic network together with related car parking matters. Other issues that were raised related to proposed zone expansions, changes to categories of public notification, and overall infrastructure provision. The above issues are discussed in the report and related Summary of Submissions table. In considering these issues, the Development Policy Advisory Committee (the Committee) has also had regard to how policy has been applied in similar mixed use multi storey infill zones already established in other parts of Adelaide, with a view to ensuring there is general consistency of related policy where relevant. It should also be noted that the Committee’s consideration of the DPA is in the context of the location’s designation in the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide (The Plan) as a transit oriented development area where mixed use infill development of a ‘high rise’ scale is envisaged, in proximity to public transport services. In this context, the Committee is of view that the policy in the DPA suitably balances the overriding strategic directions contained in the Plan tailored to local circumstances, subject to a number of amendments recommend in the report.

Page 2 of 11

1. INTRODUCTION This report provides an account of the consultation process and the matters raised during the Public Consultation period in respect to the draft Glenelg District Centre (Jetty Road) and Residential High Density Zone Review Development Plan Amendment (DPA).

2. CONSULTATION Consultation process Statutory consultation with State Government Agencies, the City of Holdfast Bay and the public was undertaken in accordance with the Development Plan Amendment Process B and in accordance with Section 26 of the Development Act 1993. The consultation period commenced on 3 December 2015 and concluded on 11 February 2016. A list of the agencies and persons who were advised of the DPA, are included in Attachment A. Two public information sessions conducted by the Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure (the Department) were also held at the St Peters Community Centre in Glenelg on Thursday 17th December 2105 and Wednesday 2nd February 2016, to provide an opportunity for interested persons to finds out more about the DPA. Approximately 100 people attended the sessions.

Public notification Notices were published in the Government Gazette and The Advertiser on 3 December 2015. Copies of statutory and other public notification documents are included in Attachment B. The DPA was placed on display at the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure’s office (North Terrace, Adelaide), the government website and was also made available at the offices of each of the City of Holdfast Bay.

3. SUBMISSIONS A total of 55 written submissions were received in relation to the DPA, from the public, council and agencies. Public submissions 50 public submissions were received. A summary of the submissions is contained in Attachment C. Public submissions were largely ‘split’ between land owner representations supporting the proposed changes and in some instances seeking additional policy scope to further enable potential development opportunities to occur, and community submissions generally raising concerns about the potential impacts of development as a result of the proposed policy changes.

Page 3 of 11

Council submission The City of Holdfast Bay provided a written response expressing a range of views (both concern and support) about the proposed changes. These issues include:

building heights in some locations such as along Jetty Road the proposed zone expansions categories of public notification off street car parking rates reflecting differences between council areas in terms of local development pressures

and conditions including parking availability, road congestion and community expectations.

A summary of the submission, including a number of other issues raised by the Council, is contained in Attachment C.

State Government Agency submissions A total of 4 responses were received from State Government Agencies. Issues raised by agencies are considered minor, and where relevant, are already addressed by existing policy in the Holdfast Bay Council Development Plan. A summary of each submission is contained in Attachment D.

Public access to submissions about the Development Plan Amendment Copies of all submissions were made available for public review from 12 February 2016 on the State Government website and at the Department’s Infrastructure’s offices.

4. PUBLIC MEETING A public meeting was held at The Pier Hotel, Promenade, Glenelg on 1 March 2016.

All the persons and organisations that requested to be heard were contacted by DPTI to confirm their attendance at the 1 March 2016 meeting. Of the 51 public and council submissions received, 16 requested to make a verbal representation at the public meeting, however, only 15 people spoke on the night. The DPAC Subcommittee members noted that matters raised at the meeting emphasised important aspects covered in the written submissions, with issues related to building scale and local traffic implications particularly represented.

5. DISCUSSION

The points of discussion under the headings ‘Zone boundary’ and ‘Building heights’ relate to issues raised during consultation regarding specific locations within the affected areas. To provide some context for these specific locations, Attachment A contains a map that provides an overview of the proposed building heights and zone boundaries as per the public consultation version of the DPA, as well as identifying the specific locations that are the subject of discussion in the following sections of this report. Attachment B contains the same map, but updated to incorporate the Committees recommendations.

Page 4 of 11

Zone boundary The DPA primarily relates to the review of policy in the District Centre Zone – Glenelg Policy Area 2 and the Residential High Density Zone. There are however, two locations where the zones are proposed to be expanded - one relating to land on the south western corner of August Street and Durham Street near Jetty Road into the District Centre Zone (see Map 1), and the other around Canning Street (west of Sturt Street) in Glenelg North into the Residential High Density Zone (see Map 2). The Committee supports these areas being rezoned to allow for additional infill capacity.

However, in relation to the Durham Street land, the Committee is of the view it is better placed in the Residential High Density Zone, so that land use is more residentially focused. This is considered appropriate given the site’s relative distance from Jetty Road and existing residential uses in between. Comparable built form policy can be maintained by applying Precinct 4 (5 storeys) over the location.

Two land owner submissions requested the inclusion of additional land within the Residential High Density Zone, at the rear of 19-20 and 22-23 Adelphi Terrace in North Glenelg respectively (see Map 3, areas identified in yellow).

Map 1 – Canning Street Zone Extension Area Map 2 – Durham Street Zone Extension Area

Page 5 of 11

The land to the rear of 19-20 Adelphi Terrace comprises the vacant rear yards of 9-15 Tod Street. Inclusion of this land within the zone would shift the interface into the current Residential Character Zone. However, the DPA includes new interface policy in the Residential High Density Zone that requires a transition in scale from the taller building elements, in this case fronting Adelphi Terrace, down to a two storey scale at the zone interface. Given two storey development could already be expected within the Residential Character Zone, and a two storey scale can be expected at the zone interface within the Residential High Density Zone, shifting the zone boundary will not result in a significant additional impact at the zone interface on directly affected properties, and is therefore supported in these circumstances.

The land to the rear of 22-23 Adelphi Terrace requested to be included in the zone affects 6 and 8 Macfarlane Street. Under the proposed policy in the draft DPA, two storey development could reasonably be anticipated on the subject land (as per the current Residential Character Zone) and in the Residential High Density Zone at the zone interface, while taller development could be expected closer to Adelphi Terrace. However, by including the subject land within the Residential High Density Zone, opportunity for taller built form would be extended further along Macfarlane Street including on 6 and 8 Macfarlane Street, resulting in potentially significantly increased impacts on these properties, and so is not supported. Building heights Residential High Density Zone The DPA investigations outlines the methodology by which proposed building heights have been established – i.e. in the context of the locations designation in the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide (The Plan) as a transit oriented development area, mixed use development of a ‘high rise’ scale is accommodated. While ‘high rise’, as defined in The Plan, contemplates development above 10 storeys, maintaining the current maximum height in Precinct 5 (12 storeys) of the Residential High Density Zone is supported in light of existing airport operations and current built form. The extent of the areas that are proposed to be

Map 3 – Adelphi Street Requested Zone Extension Areas

22-23 Adelphi Terrace

19-20 Adelphi Terrace19-20 Adelphi Terrace

22-23 Adelphi Terrace

Page 6 of 11

included in Precinct 5 are generally contained to those parts for the zone that already contain buildings in the order of 12 storeys, and are therefore supported. Areas north and south of Precinct 5 in the Residential High Density Zone are proposed to be included in Precinct 4 (5 storeys). This is regarded as a suitable maximum building height, except in relation to the part of the zone on the western side of the Patawalonga, which because of its relative isolation and limited vehicular access is recommended to remain in Precinct 3 (3 storeys) so that current development opportunities are generally maintained (see Map 4). In relation to the part of Precinct 4 at the southern extent of the zone (see Map 5, area identified in yellow), some capacity for additional height on land fronting the South Esplanade immediately adjacent Precinct 5 may be achieved without significant impact on adjoining land both within Precinct 4 and adjoining residential zones, and would provide a better transition down from 12 storeys to 5 storeys.

Map 4 – Patawalonga West Area

Map 5 – South Esplanade Precinct 4 Area

Page 7 of 11

In relation to the proposed rezoning of the area around Canning Street west of Sturt Street, a number expressed concern about proposed building heights, while one requested that land on the southern side of Canning Street west of Laycock Lane be included in Precinct 5 (see Map 6, area identified in yellow) so that a 12 storey maximum would apply. The Committee supports the Canning Street zone extension being located in Precinct 4 (5 storeys), given the existing part of the zone adjacent to Sturt Street (immediately south of the Zone expansion area) is in Precinct 4 so continuing this policy is a logical extension, and there is general capacity for the location to accommodate buildings of this scale. However, consistent with the approach applied more broadly along Adelphi Terrace where the zone policy seeks a transition in height down to a lower scale at the back of the zone, a 2 storey maximum is recommended for parts a development directly adjacent to Sturt Street (in the area currently zoned Residential Character that is proposed to be included in the Residential High Density Zone). In relation to the land west of Laycock Lane, allowing additional building height above the 5 storeys proposed in the draft DPA could result in significant additional impacts on adjoining properties and is therefore not supported. Maintaining a 5 storey maximum building height over this land is also consistent with the general methodology in the DPA of taller building elements fronting Adelphi Terrace, and lower scale buildings behind.

District Centre Zone – Glenelg Policy Area 2

The methodology for determining the maximum building height in the District Centre Zone along Jetty Road (based on building height being equally proportionate to the width of the public road space) resulting in a 5 storey maximum building height, is supported. However, the Bayside Village Shopping Centre site on at the eastern end of Jetty Road (see Map 7, area identified in yellow), which is bounded by roads on all sides, is sufficiently large to comfortably accommodate a maximum building height of 6 storeys (above which the ‘strategic development site’ may still apply) without any significant additional impacts on

Map 6 – Canning Street (West Of Laycock Lane) Area

Page 8 of 11

residential uses in adjoining zones. This will assist in activating the eastern end of Jetty Road, and is therefore supported. However, policy should seek to maintain a 5 storey building height for development elements directly adjacent to the Jetty Road frontage to maintain a consistent urban design outcome along the main street.

‘Strategic Development Site’ Policy Some submissions have requested application of the ‘Strategic Development Site’ policy in the Residential High Density Zone. The Committee considers that this policy should only apply in the District Centre Zone as proposed by the DPA, as a mechanism to further encourage mixed use development on large sites to activate the core commercial area.

New off street parking rates The DPA proposes to amend off street car parking rates in the Residential High Density Zone and District Centre Zone – Glenelg Policy Area 2 to be consistent with other medium-high density infill zones in metropolitan Adelaide (such as the Urban Corridor Zone). The off street parking rates that currently apply in the affected zones are generally comparable to those typically found in low density residential zones. The only exception to this is in regard to the rate applying to residential flat buildings above 2 storeys in height in the Residential High Density Zone, which is already lower. The Committee is of the view that lower vehicle parking rates compared to standard residential zone are warranted in infill locations, where a wider choice of more compact housing is anticipated. The proposed vehicle car parking rates are consistent with other established infill zones across Adelaide that are close to public transport and services, align with the government’s strategic directions for the area, and so are supported.

Map 7 – Bayside Village Shopping Centre Site

Page 9 of 11

It is also important to note that on site car parking requirements are a minimum, so additional spaces can be provided by a developer / proponent if they wish, or if it is considered necessary to meet market expectations at a given point in time. Categories of public notification Comments about changes to the categories of public notification are principally concerned with either maintaining Category 3 for proposed development that is above the prescribed maximum building height; or amending requirements so that development up to the maximum building height is Category 1 and development above this height is Category 2. The Committee notes that the categories of public notification proposed in the DPA are comparable to those that apply in many other already established infill zones that contemplate multi storey development. It is important that a consistent approach applies to public notification policy in comparable zones. The Committee therefore supports the categories of public notification as proposed in the DPA. Zone interface A number of community submissions raised concerns about potential interface issues as a result of potential new development on existing residential properties in adjoining residential zones. The DPA proposes to introduce new interface policies into the District Centre Zone – Glenelg Policy Area 2 and Residential High Density Zone. These policies, as already described earlier in this report, seek to ensure development transitions from taller built form at the front of the zone or main street focus, down to a low scale at the rear of the zone where it adjoins existing low scale residential development. These policies are similar to those that apply in many other already established infill zones in metropolitan Adelaide that contemplate multi storey development, and are supported. Some minor adjustments are recommended to this policy in the summary of submissions table (Attachment C). Infrastructure / local traffic network

A number of submissions commented that infrastructure upgrades will be necessary to support envisaged growth. The Committee agrees, and notes that draft DPA investigations identify that infrastructure upgrades may be necessary over time, depending on the extent and timing of new development. This is also reflected in agency comments received from infrastructure providers, which also add that developers may be required to contribute towards the augmentation of upstream infrastructure upgrades as well as for connection for their development. Concerns about local traffic network impacts were raised in many community submissions. The Committee notes that Glenelg is an identified location for infill growth in The Plan, is supported by an existing established commercial precinct and well serviced public transport, and already contains a number of high rise buildings in the area. The DPA therefore seeks to align planning policy, where relevant, with this strategic direction. However, implications on the local traffic network will still need to be carefully managed. The Committee notes that existing policy in the Holdfast Bay Council Development Plan can address issues associated with individual development proposals on a case by case basis in regard to access and function of the immediately adjacent road network, and in this context further consideration is not necessary in regard to Development Plan policy itself. However, Council, as the controlling body of the local road network, will have a key role of contributing to local road and traffic management in the area in the future. To support this

Page 10 of 11

important function the Committee is of the view that additional measures to support traffic management infrastructure and provision of additional vehicle parking in designated locations within the commercial precinct (similar to the already established car parking fund) could be beneficial, through contributions from proponents to help offset related infrastructure improvement costs. Such buildings should be adaptable so that transition to other uses can occur over time as car dependency reduces. General comment of existing Development Plan policy for multi-storey development A number of submissions variously raised a range of other matters such as environmental factors (for example wind tunnelling), heritage issues, design, interface impacts (for example visual impacts, overlooking and overshadowing) from potential new development. A range of existing policies in the Council Wide section of the Holdfast Bay Council Development Plan, including under the headings ‘Design and Appearance’ and ‘Medium and High Rise Development’, are designed to address these issues as they relate to multi storey development. These policies are based on version 6 of the South Australian Planning Policy Library and already apply to other multi storey zones in the Council area (such as the Minda Brighton Campus site); the same policies apply in other Council areas where multi storey infill zones are located. These policies sufficiently address these issues in a consistent manner across jurisdictions, and are not considered to require further consideration. A detailed summary is in the attached summary of submissions table (Attachment C).

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWING CONSULTATION

Based on a review of all the representations made in relation to the DPA, the Committee has resolved to recommend the following: (a) Extend the Residential High Density Zone to include land at the rear of 9-15 Tod

Street (currently in the Residential Character Zone) (b) Include 19-20 Durham Street, Glenelg in the Residential High Density Zone instead

of the District Centre Zone – Glenelg Policy Area 2. (c) In relation to Precinct 4 at the southern extent of the Residential High Density Zone,

allow for building height above 5 storeys on land fronting the South Esplanade and immediately adjacent to Precinct 5.

(d) Amend policy so that the maximum building height applying to parts of a

development directly fronting Sturt Street in the area currently zoned Residential Character that is proposed to be included in the Residential High Density Zone, is 2 storeys.

(e) Increase the maximum building height on the Bayside Village shopping centre site

(bounded by Jetty Road, Brighton Road, Augusta Street, and Rose Street) from 5 to 6 storeys, but maintain a 5 storey maximum for building elements directly adjacent to Jetty Road.

(f) Make other minor alterations to the DPA in accordance with those identified in the

Summary of Submissions tables.

Page 11 of 11

Further, whilst not a policy matter in itself, the Committees of the view that future infrastructure planning and coordination between Council and the State Government, for traffic, utilities and services will be crucial in supporting infill growth. …………………………………. Bryan Moulds PRESIDING MEMBER DEVELOPMENT POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Date: xx April 2016

Attachment A Map A – Public Consultation DPA: Proposed building heights and zone boundaries Attachment B Map B – Recommended building heights and zone boundaries Attachment C: List of State Government Agencies and persons who were advised of the Development Plan Amendment Attachment D: Copies of statutory and other public notification documents Attachment E: Summary of public and council submissions Attachment F: Summary of State Government Agency submissions

Attachment A Map A – Public Consultation DPA: Proposed building heights and zone boundaries

19-20 Adelphi Terrace

22–23 Adelphi Terrace

Bayview Village Shopping Centre

Patawalonga West Area

Canning Street, West of Laycock Lane Area

South Esplanade Precinct 4 Area

Attachment B Map B – Recommended building heights and zone boundaries

Attachment C: List of State Government Agencies and persons who were advised of the Development Plan Amendment

The following organisations and agencies were advised of the DPA:

Department for Communities and Social Inclusion

Department for Education and Child Development

Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources - Heritage SA

Department for Health and Ageing

Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure – Transport Services

Department of the Premier and Cabinet

Department of State Development

Renewal SA

State Emergency Service

South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service

South Australia Police

SA Water

SA Power Networks

Adelaide Airport Limited

The City of Holdfast Bay

State and Federal Members of Parliament

Urban Development Institute of Australia – SA Division

Housing Institute of Australia – SA Division

Attachment D: Copies of statutory and other public notification documents

Attachment E: Summary of public and council submissions

Attachment F: Summary of State Government Agency submissions