schedule of submissions - shire of serpentine · pdf fileschedule of submissions amendment...

PA0632 - BYFORD DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENT ADVERTISING (FIRST ROUND)

SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS

Amendment 168 - Byford Development Contribution Arrangement - Schedule of Submissions.DOC

No SUBMITTER, ADDRESS AND AFFECTED PROPERTY (IF APPL.)

NATURE AND SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION PLANNING COMMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1

Urban Development Institute of Australia (WA)

1. Unable to support in the current format and recommends that further consideration be given to the issues raised in the submission. Appreciates the complexities of the document but stresses the lack of correlation to SPP3.6 in a number of areas.

Noted.

Need and the Nexus 2. The benefit of new and upgraded infrastructure

serves more than just the immediate community and new residence, therefore the burden of infrastructure should not fall upon solely new residences. New residences should only be funding that proportion of the infrastructure or facility that relates to the additional population. Where existing rate payers benefit a proportional contribution should be made.

3. The documentation does not make clear how the Shire will account for any grant funding achieved within the contribution area.

Existing infrastructure (pre-development) within the Byford DCP area would have only been maintained in accordance with standard improvement and road maintenance procedures should the urbanisation not have occurred. Existing residences subdividing their properties within the DCP area will be levied at their respective rates for the infrastructure as outlined within the DCP. Grant funding applications will be accounted for as an additional contribution to the area outside of DCP funds. Any additional DCP funds available as a result of grants will be utilised within the DCP area to account for any short falls or under provision of infrastructure.

Maintain the cost appointment methodology as identified under the Byford DCP. Provide provision within the DCP delineating the method of accounting for grant funding achieved within the Byford DCP area.

Equity 4. The proposal for bridle trails should be removed

from the DCP. The need for bridle trails is not generated by development of the DCP area and therefore should not be included.

Noted. The extension of the bridle network forms part of a strategic road network the facilitate the orderly development of the trotting complex in due course. The trails also provide a medium term buffer where semi rural development and a trotting

SCM017.1/06/12

PA0632 - BYFORD DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION ARRANAGMENT ADVERTISING





complex front urbanisation.

Method for Calculating Contributions 5. The per lot calculation being based on an

estimation of lot yield does not accord with the principle of need nexus. For the original subdivider to pay based on ultimate development potential places an inequitable burden, when the ultimate development potential may never be realized.

A significant portion of the Byford Structure Plan has been subject to detailed Local Structure Planning and subdivision. On this basis accurate dwelling and yield estimates have been undertaken and utilised. A schedule delineating the computation and source of yields is contained within section 3.2 of the Byford DCP.

Proposed Road Upgrades 6. UDIA challenges the intent of the Shire to charge

only new residents for the costs of these road upgrades as the future extension of Tonkin Highway will produce an increase in the number of vehicles per day. A proportional amount to upgrade the roads should be included in the DCP based on a proportional demand.

Timeframe 7. The 15 year timeframe is unacceptable to UDIA

as it is well outside maximum 10 year timeframe.

2 Porter Consulting Engineers for Aspen Group (Lot 2 Nettleton Road)

1. The Byford area covered by the DCP is developing at a faster rate then infrastructure can be provided and/or upgraded by the Council. The range of items that are covered by the DCP are considered to be appropriate and are local to the development area. However, the Shire should give due regard to the issues raised in this submission.

SCM017.1/06/12






Per Dwelling Methodology for Lifestyle/Aged Persons Type Development

2. The proposed lifestyle village already provides internal public open space that would normally be provided as part of the DCP. Given that the Aspen development is a lifestyle village we believe that contributions should be levied at a R20 equivalent regardless of the higher unit yield.

Bridle Paths 3. Are not applicable to the Aspen development

area. They are considered to be a local item and not part of the essential infrastructure that should be contributed to by a wider range of developers. These paths should be developed as part of the local subdivision network and by those developers.

Proposed Road Upgrade Rates 4. The rates applied to roads are considered to be

well above current market value. A number of the items are not costed with certainty and provisional sums have been provided. This is particularly evident with regard to utility providers, these costs should be revalued on a regular basis.

Lot Yield Apportioning Methodology 5. Given the range of infrastructure included within

the DCP we consider that a lot yield apportionment is an appropriate measure.

SCM017.1/06/12






3 Main Roads Western Australia

1. Main Roads Western Australia supports the establishment of a Development Contribution Arrangement and subsequent Plan, particularly for the upgrading of Thomas Road.

4 Gray & Lewis for Byford Central Pty Ltd (Lots 1 & 2 Thomas / Larsen Road)

1. The subdivision and development within the Byford Central landholding commenced in 2005 before finalization of the DCP, these early stages saw lots sold for around $90,000. In total 562 lots have been created in a series of stages with only the final stages in the south west corner yet to be developed. The total estimated lot yield for the site is anticipated to be 713 lots. Given the 5 year history associated with the development, certain assumptions and legal agreements were made against previously advertised Development Contribution Arrangements (namely the DCP complied by Worley Parsons in 2005). It is important that the Shire take into consideration the context to which Byford Central sits within the greater history for the Byford DCA.

Summary Against Current Proposed Development Contribution Arrangement

2. Assuming a total lot yield of 713 lots the contribution liability will be $9.07 million.

3. Based upon the proposed DCP the only items of credit which can be claimed are:

Land acquisition for POS/Drainage; Road Widening for Thomas Road and all

road construction for one carriage way (excluding interim intersections); and

Land acquisition (above 20m reservation)

SCM017.1/06/12






for San Simeon Boulevard together with full road construction.

4. Given that Byford Central do not plan on constructing any of the above cost items based on the above scenario the credits due back for land acquisition based on $550,000 per/ha would be as follows:

POS & Drainage @ 6.31ha = $3.47million;

Thomas Road @ 1.3ha = $715,00 San Simeon Boulevard @ 0.5ha =

$275,000 Total Credits: $4.46million Total Liability: $9.07million Required Cash Contribution:

$4.61million

Specific Concerns with the Development Contribution Arrangement

5. The Worley Parsons DCP allowed for a $4.7m total contribution in respect to Byford Central. This equated to a per lot levy of around $6,819.50 per lot. This levy consisted of the following types of infrastructure:

Land, earthworks, landscaping and 5 yrs maintenance of the Multiple Use Corridors;

Land, earthworks, landscaping and 5 yrs maintenance of District Open Space;

Acquisition of road reserves and construction of certain roads within the

SCM017.1/06/12






district road system; and Administrative and management costs.

6. The Worley Parsons DCP was vague with regard to specific costs and the inclusion of certain items. Some assumptions were made from the information available which included the assumed inclusion of the following:

Thomas Road, Larsen Road and Alexander Road;

The DOS located in the centre of the estate; and

The MUC running through Byford Central.

7. It is very difficult to accurately estimate the credits available to Byford Central, however taking all the previously estimated credits into account it was assumed that Byford Central would come very place to canceling out any required Development Contribution Costs.

8. The marketing and sale of lots from day 1 factored in such amounts. The proposed levy of $12.728 per lot cannot be absorbed particularly in respect to lots sold in the early stages.

9. In recognition that development of Byford Central was commenced some 5 years ago potentially a 50% or less contribution to current figures for previous lots can be agreed and is a matter to be progressed with the proponent and the Shire.

10. Current proposal is that only the width of San Simeon Blvd over a 20 m reservation is to be acquired through the DCP. Given that portions are 30m wide, only 10m will be accounted for

SCM017.1/06/12






through the DCP. Given that Byford Central have not direct lot frontage to this road and is not required for access to the estate it believes the full reservation should be resumed through the DCP.

11. There are a number of other neighborhood connector roads within Byford Central that have been created as 20m wide roads and also one being the main entry off Thomas Road which is 25m wide (namely Plaistowe Blvd). These roads were designed in accordance with the Byford Structure Plan and upon advice from the Shire at that point in time. It is our opinion that any roads above a 15m reservation that provide a district level function be included.

12. Thomas Road is defined as a road included within the DCP. The Shire has been unable to provide road design specifications for Thomas Road whilst at the same time insisting that an interim intersection be constructed at Plaistowe by Byford Central. The cost of cost of interim intersections has been excluded from the DCP and is considered unreasonable. Interim and ultimate intersection of Thomas Road should be included within the DCP

13. Landscaping and betterment works to DOS should be included within the DCP.

14. MUC and district level drainage works should be included within the DCP. Particularly those adjacent to Thomas Road.

5 Gray & Lewis on behalf of Paul & Nino

1. The draft Development Contribution Arrangement is not acceptable to the owners of Lot 15

SCM017.1/06/12






Gangemi (Lot 15 Abernethy Road)

Abernethy Road.

Land Acquisition for POS, Drainage and Abernethy Road 2. The DCA proposes an englobo land value for

land acquisition. This is unreasonable for land that has been identified as Town Centre Commercial under the Byford Structure Plan. In respect to Lot 15, the whole of the land is identified under the current Byford District Structure Plan as Town Centre Commercial.

3. The Valuer Generals Office has put a value on the land of $5.2 million. It is therefore recommended that land within the Town Centre should be acquired at current commercial values.

Abernethy Road 4. Abernethy Road is identified to be widened from

20m to 30m. The whole of this widening pursuant to the Shire’s Town Centre Local Structure Plan is exercised from the southern portion. There is no reason why the Abernethy Road widening should not be 5m from each side.

POS/Drainage 5. The Shire’s Town Centre Local Structure Plan

depicts almost on-third of Lot 15 as public open space. This was initially proposed when the subject portion of Lot 15 was classified as a ‘Conservation Category Wetland’. The DEC have now downgraded this to a ‘Resource Enhancement’ wetland which means there is no statutory requirement to set the land aside as

SCM017.1/06/12






POS. Assuming this land will be acquired through land for POS/Drainage it should be acquired based on full commercial value.

6 Gray & Lewis on behalf Thomas Road Developments Ltd

1. In principle, most of the DCA is acceptable to Thomas Road Developments Ltd including the full acquisition of land for POS and drainage. Thomas Road Developments Ltd generally supports Amendment No. 168 and the subsequent DCP. However, the Shire should give due regard to the issues raised in this submission. The one fundamental objection is in relation to the retrospective imposition of a significantly higher per lot contribution rates than anticipated when early stages of subdivision were created and subsequently sold against assumption provided to Thomas Road Developments Ltd by the Shire.

Summary Against Proposed Development Contribution Arrangement

2. Assuming a total lot yield of 700 lots the contribution liability will be $8.9 million.

3. Based upon the proposed DCP the items of credit which can be claimed by Redgum Brook are:

Land required for POS and Drainage; Road Widening for Thomas Rd and full

road construction for one carriage way; Road Widening for Kardan Boulevard

and full construction; Widening for San Simeon Boulevard and

full construction; and

SCM017.1/06/12






Bridle Trails. 4. The credits due back to Thomas Road

Developments Ltd for land acquisition alone based on $550,000 per/ha would be as follows:

POS & Drainage @ 10.77ha = $5.92million;

Thomas Road @ 0ha = Acquired by the WAPC

Kardan Boulevard @ 0.65ha = $375,000 San Simeon Boulevard @0.03ha =

$16,500 Total Credits (land): $7.02

million Total Liability: $8.9million

5. In addition to the land acquisition costs, the costs in relation to the construction of San Simeon Boulevard, Kardan Boulevard, Thomas Road and bridle trails will be refunded through the DCP. It is to be noted that only Kardan Boulevard and portions of the bridle trails have been constructed to date. The full costs of these items have been documented and all costs should be credited back under the DCP. With regard to Kardan Boulevard this should include the interim intersection and undersized culverts at the bridge crossing.


6. At the time the first stages of subdivision were being undertaken at Redgum Brook Estate the Shire issued the Draft Development Contribution

SCM017.1/06/12






Arrangement prepared by Worley Parsons (July 2005). This DCP allowed for a $4.2million dollar estimated contribution from lot 9000 Thomas Road. This equated to a per lot levy of around $7,572.28 per lot. This levy consisted of the following types of infrastructure:

Land, earthworks, landscaping and 5 yrs maintenance of the Multiple Use Corridors;

Land, earthworks, landscaping and 5 yrs maintenance of District Open Space;

Acquisition of road reserves and construction of certain roads within the district road system; and

Administrative and management costs.

7. The Worley Parsons DCP was vague with regard to specific costs and the inclusion of certain items. Some assumptions were made from the information available which included the assumed inclusion of the following:

Thomas Road, Kardan Boulevard and San Simeon Boulevard; and

The MUC running through the Redgum Brook Estate.

8. It is very difficult to accurately estimate the credits

available to Thomas Road Developments Ltd, however taking all the previously estimated credits into account it was assumed that Thomas Road Developments Ltd would come very close

SCM017.1/06/12






to canceling out any required Development Contribution Costs.

9. The marketing and sale of lots from day 1

factored in such amounts. The proposed levy of $12.728 per lot cannot be absorbed particularly in respect to lots sold in the early stages.

10. The current proposal that only the additional

width over and above a 20m road reservation is to be acquired through the DCP for Kardan Boulevard and San Simeon Boulevard,. Given the road hierarchy classification of these roads is Integrator B and that no direct lot frontage is permitted they provide little benefit to the development of Redgum Brook Estate. All lots within the Redgum Brook Estate abutting Kardan Boulevard have direct lot access via a rear laneway which is an additional cost and land requirement. The road simply provides a thoroughfare for district traffic between Thomas Road, Abernethy Road and the proposed Town Centre. The whole of the 30m wide land acquisition should be included for these roads.

11. Thomas Road is apart of the DCP, for many

years the Shire has been unable to provide specific road design or specifications for Thomas Road whilst at the same time insisting that an interim intersection be constructed at Kardan Boulevard. Significant cost has been incurred in relation to the construction of the interim intersection as requested by the Shire to satisfy

SCM017.1/06/12






WAPC subdivision conditions. Any costs in relation to the construction of interim intersections with Thomas Road (or any other road identified within the DCP) should eb included in the DCP.

Interim Development Contribution Arrangement 12. At the time of subdivision in all stages up to and

including stage 7 Thomas Road Developments Ltd entered into legal agreements with the Shire which permitted an initial cost contribution payment and provided provision for the eventual adjustment of cost contributions when the DCA is approved.

13. The adjusting provision outlined that the Shire had provided estimated contribution rates as per Worley Parsons DCP and that the Shire must act reasonably and in good faith when making the adjustment. In recognition that the development of Redgum Brook occurred some 5 years ago, potentially a 50% or less contribution of current figures for previous lots can be agreed and is a matter to be progressed with the proponent and the Shire.

7 Roberts Day on behalf of Australand Holdings Limited (Lot 220 Abernethy Road)

1. Supports the Shire’s commitment to progressing the provision of new and upgrades to existing infrastructure in the Byford area.

2. Particularly supports the upgrade of Abernethy Road and quests that it be elevated as a priority. The condition of the road is substandard for the projected traffic volumes that will be generated by

SCM017.1/06/12






the Kalimna Estate. 3.


4. There appears to be no nexus between the development of Kalimna and Orton Road New and San Simeon boulevard. The acknowledgement of the balance of roads and other district facilities is understood. However, the development is unlikely to generate any significant traffic on the roads of contention as Thomas and Abernethy Roads provide a more direct link to the proposed Tonkin Hwy and Byford Town Centre.

5. The cost estimate from Telstra as part of the upgrades appear to be high.

8 RPS Group on behalf of Goldtune Investments Pty Ltd (Lot 3 Larsen & Alexander Road)

1. Generally welcomes the DCP. However, due regard should be given to the issues raised in this submission. Particularly supports the inclusion of land for POS and drainage.


2. The exclusion of landscaping for the MUCs is inequitable given the significant regional function played by the MUCs traversing the land holding. The corridors form an integral part of the regional drainage network, rather than serving any local function. Any new storm water imposed by new development must be contained on site and out

SCM017.1/06/12






of the MUC drainage network. Landscaping and construction costs of the MUC should be included within the DCP.

3. The proposed bridle trail network whilst providing benefit to the existing Trotting Complex (which fall outside of the DCP area) will not provide any benefit to the future urban development and are not necessitated to meet the demands of urbanization. The inclusion of bridle trails should not be offered as a sweetener to soften the arrival of urban development to the existing rural community.

9 Development Planning Strategies on behalf of Peet Ltd (Lot 1 Abernethy Road)

1. Generally support the DCP and see this as a positive step in facilitating the continued development of the Byford area and management of coordinated regional infrastructure.


2. The current design variations being undertaken for the Byford Town Centre LSP make it likely that a four way intersection will be located within the Peet land holding on San Simeon Boulevard. The proposed DCP does not highlight this intersection and it is likely that a round-a-bout will be required to facilitate district level vehicle movements. This intersection should be included as part of the construction costs of San Simeon Boulevard.

3. Would like clarification on the method by which the land identified for POS and drainage within

Noted. LWMS was prepared as part of the LSP process and informed the LSP. The LWMS has DoW approval. A review of the LWMS will be undertaken in light of submissions.

Review LWMS

SCM017.1/06/12






the Byford Town Centre LSP will be distributed given the fragmentation of land owners within this precinct.

4. Clarification of how POS/Drainage requirements for individual landholdings within the Byford Town Centre LSP will be dealt with through the DCP to account for any required increases. The DCP should be amended at the earliest available opportunity to account for any potential increases in POS/Drainage.

5. The exclusion of landscaping and earth works within the MUCs needs to be included within the DCP. This has been done for other neighboring authorities that have similar drainage challenges. Landscaping and construction costs of the MUC should be included within the DCP.

6. The inclusion of bridle trails is not supported. Residential development does not necessitate the demand from this item. The inclusion of such items is inappropriate and is to be removed from the DCP.

10 G&G Corp Pty Ltd landowner and developer (Lot 7 Briggs Road / Lot 9500 Thomas Road)

1. Support the majority of proposed Scheme Amendment No.168 and the subsequent DCP. However, the Shire should give due regard to the issues raised in this submission particularly with regard to the cost contribution methodology being based on a per dwelling basis.

SCM017.1/06/12







2. Strongly objects to the proposed contribution methodology being based on a per lot basis. The Byford area will make up a variety of housing types including lifestyle villages. The number of dwellings bears no correlation to the costs to deliver infrastructure, it is the land area that necessitates the demand. The costs of infrastructure do not rise if a land owner develops 20 lots we hectare or 40 lots per hectare.

3. Proposing contributions on a per lot basis encourages developers to develop larger lots rather than a variety of housing types, including smaller lots.

4. Lifestyle villages also provide internal facilitates for its residence thus reducing the demand on district level infrastructure such as drainage.

5. Should the lifestyle village at the end of its lease life period be redeveloped there is always potential to levy cost contributions at the time.

6. The financial feasibility of these types of projects will not uphold should contributions be levied on a per lot methodology.

7. Recommends that lifestyle villages be levied on a R20 equivalent, similar to how commercial or mixed use development is levied under the draft DCP.

8. Concerned about the authority responsible for land acquisition reimbursement for the proposed Thomas Road widening.

9. Expects that San Simeon Boulevard mains apart

SCM017.1/06/12






of the DCP. 10. Suggests that the full cost on construction of the

MUCs be included as part of the DCP. 11. Given that a portion of the subject site has

already been developed (namely the semi-rural lots) and as part of this subdivision approval G&G Corp were expected to provide bridle trails (land and construction) as included within the DCP. G&G Corp expects complete reimbursement for these costs.

12. The DCP as advertised does not accurately outline all items associated with bridle trails, namely revegetation. It is also to be noted that the land requirement for these paths is greater than a 10m road reserve. The DCP should be amended to reflect this. G&G Corp are currently compiling an itemized schedule outlining the full costs associated with this cost item.

13. Considers the estimation of administration costs to be in accurate and would prefer actual costs to be worked out on a yearly basis, that similar to other arrangement within the City of Wanaroo.

14. Understands the use of a interim englobo land value however, will be undertaking an independent land valuation to ensure a fair and consistent outcome is reached.

11

Coralsea Investments Pty Ltd land owner and developer (L6 & L27 Abernethy Road)

1. Recognises the need for a DCP however, its content, management and deployment warrants constant scrutiny. The Shire should give due regard to the issues raised in this submission.

SCM017.1/06/12







2. The cost of public utilities seems to be exorbitant and lacking any realism or managed outcome, particularly with regard to Telstra. Thought should be given to common trenching. The major concern is that if the DCP is approved with irresponsible and careless estimates, contributions will be levied utilising these estimates with no mechanism for refund should the costs be lower.

3. The Shire should immediately initiate conceptual drawing of all its roads proposed for redevelopment to accurately estimate utility relocation costs.

12 Mitra Mottahedian land owner (#1367 Orton Road)

1. The submission relates to the Glades Local Structure Plan and the alignment of Orton Road not the particulars of the Byford Development Contribution Arrangement.

13 Oyster Reef Holdings Pty Ltd land owner and developer (Lots 59, 60, 61 and 62 Briggs / Thomas Road)

1. Recognises the need for a DCP however, its content, management and deployment warrants constant scrutiny. The Shire should give due regard to the issues raised in this submission.

SCM017.1/06/12







2. The contribution methodology used to establish costs on a per lot basis are of concern. The subject site has been rezoned for the purposes of a retirement village with some 200 units being established.

3. The aged residents will not burden the external infrastructure to the same extent as typical R20 development. The imposition of contributions will not meet a commercial outcome and the development of a retirement village will not proceed.

4. It is recommended that a net yield of a R20 equivalent development of the land be applied after allowances for road reserves, drainage and POS.

5. The cost of public utilities seems to be exorbitant and lacking any realism or managed outcome, particularly with regard to Telstra. Thought should be given to common trenching. The major concern is that if the DCP is approved with irresponsible and careless estimates, contributions will be levied utilising these estimates with no mechanism for refund should the costs be lower.

6. The Shire should immediately initiate conceptual drawing of all its roads proposed for redevelopment to accurately estimate utility relocation costs.

SCM017.1/06/12






13 David & Eleanor Hutchenson landowner (Lot 126 Orton Road)

1. Requests that the DCP be reviewed annually to ensure that sufficient funds are available to faily compensate landowners when purchasing land for road widening etc.

2. When the establishment of road widenings occurs on private land sufficient funds should be available in the DCP to ensure the; replacement of existing fences, reinstatement of landscaping, driveways and all services.

3. Suggests that a masonry wall be included to ensure privacy to residences.

14 Mr & Mrs Kelly landowner (Lot 201 Orton / Doley Road)

1. Requests that the DCP be reviewed annually to ensure that sufficient funds are available to faily compensate landowners when purchasing land for road widening etc.

2. When the establishment of road widenings occurs on private land sufficient funds should be available in the DCP to ensure the; replacement of existing fences, reinstatement of landscaping, driveways and all services.

3. Suggests that a masonry wall be included to ensure privacy to residences.

SCM017.1/06/12






15 Taylor Burrell Barnett Town Planning & Design on behalf of LWP Property Group (The Glades Estate)

SCM017.1/06/12






SCM017.1/06/12

schedule of submissions - shire of serpentine · pdf fileschedule of submissions amendment...

Documents