Rezoning proposal hotly debated
1 Oct 10
The meeting organised by Shoalhaven City Council to conduct the second stage of the public consultation process for the proposal put forward by the Colys Group to rezone land in Marshall Street, was well attended with nearly 200 of the community present.
This meeting followed "drop in sessions" held on the preceding weekend. We now present summarised versions of the cases presented in support and in opposition to the proposal.
Council is yet to receive a comprehensive report from an independent consultant, hired to provide a critical analysis of the scheme and also a recommendation as to the merits of the scheme proposed, any deleterious effects on the valley lifestyle, community interests, commercial viability and the level of services and atmosphere currently enjoyed by Valley residents and business enterprises.
Carl Leddy
The case for
Presentation by David Laing from Cardno Forbes Rigby.
Colys has development interests over 24ha of land at Marshall Street, Kangaroo Valley. Plans to develop a mixed-use development comprising residential, seniors living and tourist uses.
Theme of ‘lifestyle living' synonymous with the Valley Planned to address current demand deficiencies that affect local businesses and service providers.
Provide the necessary investments to support the economy of Kangaroo Valley Site identified as a potential site for village extension in KV - Planning
Issues and Policy
DCP 66 identifies the site as part of the Village Environs and introduces a series of design guidelines. Both documents reinforce the southern boundary of the site as the limit to village expansion. Boundary reflects change in slope. Visual backdrop defining valley and the village. Development is consistent with Council policies regarding the development potential
Colys has made two submissions on the GMS back to early 2007 also requested the site be considered in Council's Comprehensive LEP
Council has delayed its exhibition of its GMS pending its comprehensive LEP
Council's focus is clearly on established urban areas. Both LEP and GMS are now significantly delayed. Not surprising given the scale of the exercise and state-wide approach by DoP. Could make a submission another submission on exhibited LEP but unlikely to be successful as LEP by its own design doesn't deal with long-term growth. Traditional planning mechanisms can't deal with issues affecting the Valley in required timeframe
Planning Proposal
Best alternative planning mechanism is "Planning Proposal" under Gateway
Guidelines introduced to streamline the LEP-making process and allow initial review without the need for extensive technical studies and reports
Recognition that many good proposals were getting caught up in red tape and need to have a system to sort the ‘wheat from the chaff'
De-bottlenecking NSW planning reforms
Current Planning Proposal is the result of about six months of investigations
Preliminary assessment of technical constraints
- Feasibility study into the scale and likely staging of the project
Process
Planning Proposal seeks Council's support to amend SLEP to allow mixed-use development on the subject site. Independent planning consultant (solely responsible to Council) is assessing the Planning Proposal and prepare
the requisite reports to Council. Consultant to supplement Council's own resources which can remain focussed on Comprehensive LEP and GMS. Consultant to prepare LEP should Council and DoP support the Draft LEP
Further studies undertaken following Council/DoP consideration incl. further community consultation. Similar process used for One Tree Bay which has worked well!
Shoalhaven City Council
GMS to identify the appropriate areas to support urban growth in the next 20 - 30 years. Site likely be included in the GMS, Believe that this is a long-term option. Consideration now is premature
Shoalhaven Water
Doesn't support inclusion of the development within the town scheme which has been designed to capacity and is not for new works
No objection ‘in principle' to possible ultimate ownership of the scheme but needs to be designed to Council's standards. Recognised would be a significant capital asset and a source of further rating income
Department of Planning
Didn't support the Site Compatibility Certificate wanted more information on support services. Need clearer direction from Council over the policy implications of the proposal.
Site Details
Adjacent to existing village centr. 200m south of the existing retail and community activities
Traditional and large lot residential developments adjoin the site. Largely cleared, vacant, some grazing.. Zoned rural and adjoins land zoned for urban purposes. Tourist is permissible but on its own is premature and doesn't consider adjoining lands or preferred land uses. Little chance of financing a tourist scheme in isolation of residential
Site Suitability
Site not affected by any prohibitive constraints (bushfire, ecology, slope, riparian, flooding etc.). Expansion of village to north and west affected by flooding, drainage or bushfire.
Expansion to east affected by gradient, bushfire and flooding/drainage. Expansion to south beyond site affected by slope and tree cover. Below the important visual backdrop to the village. Low scale and density of existing development also precludes substantial infill development. Would tend to change the character of the existing village which is essential for tourism. Close to the existing village and associated services. Readily accessible to the main road network and available transport services
- North facing for maximum solar gain
Social Issues
Population remain largely static but noted decline and ageing of its population over last two census periods
Household size is also reducing over same period. The existing housing type is dominated by detached houses on large lots providing little housing choice
One of the expensive localities within the LGA av. house price $471K (2009) , cf Berry $427,000, Nowra $215,000 av. $280,000
Highest rental yield and annualised 3 year price change (source: AFR Smart Investor January 2010)
Limited housing stock at an affordable price range to match low to moderate income earning households
Half of low to moderate income earning households would be in housing stress
Struggle to stay in home ownership market.
Could explain the shrinking population size in the Valley
Proposed Development
Residential - 50 x 3-4 bedroom dwellings and 85 x 2-3 bedroom dwellings
Seniors Living - 120 x 2 - 3 bedroom individual living units and high care facilities (community bus, medical support services)
Tourism Accommodation - 40 x hotel apartments and conference facilities
- Complement the existing rural setting
- Reflect the lifestyle attributes of the area
- Further analysis on the existing environmental assets on the site will inform detail design of the masterplan
Responds to needs of Valley for more medium sized dwellings with low maintenance requirements
Social Benefits
Less need to consider alternatives i.e. Infill/densities which would change the character of the village. Increase in resident population close to existing retail, community and public transport services (lower VKT).
Better aged services to meet local demand again with community bus and on-site medical and convenience store. Better housing choice through medium sized dwellings with low maintenance requirements.
Meet needs of existing and future demographic profile
Residents (including younger families) will have more choices to stay in the Valley.
More affordable housing stock than currently available. Better meet income level of low to moderate earners. Product will reflect the market's ability to pay.
Economic Benefits
Direct investment in the Valley and further activity through employment multipliers
Range of construction jobs over the 10 - 15 year duration.Better enable local tradespersons to better manage their workforce
F/T and P/T jobs in tourism, hospitality, aged care, professional services and management especially youth market to address local unemployment. Council ownership of a significant capital asset and additional income stream through water and sewer rates on new homes. Lower financial risk through staged delivery of different land uses over course of development.
Support local tourism industry by additional accommodation and conference facilities. Improve viability of local businesses and services through increased resident population. Increase in tourism accommodation available in the Valley which will complement the important tourism sector within the Valley.
Upgrade of physical and social services at the site and public domain through a Voluntary Planning Agreement with.Council/RTA.
Environmental Benefits
Development based on sustainability principles (water, waste, energy, passive solar, small footprint). Good urban design considerations including compact built form, modified grid using existing street networks and pedestrian access. Reclaimed water used as non-potable ‘third pipe' supply direct to the new development for outdoor use, toilet flushing and laundry (2/3 of uses). Modern on-site effluent disposal system designed to have minimal environmental impact on the site and adjoining areas. Negate need to consider other less suitable site for urban expansion of the Village. No significant site constraints that would prohibit development
Conclusions
Proposed development will contribute positively to the growth pattern, housing market and economic development of Kangaroo Valley.
Will provide housing choices, improve housing affordability, support the local economy and provide the opportunities for the existing residents to stay in the Valley.
Location can facilitate a sustainable growth pattern in Kangaroo Valley. Site free of major constraints and is capable of supporting the proposed development.
Development will be staged over 10 - 15 years to minimise the potential impact on the locality and the market.
Let the planning system operate and allow the proposal to be assessed properly via Gateway Process.
The case against
Address by Barbara Woodney President Kangaroo Valley Community Association
I am here to prove that this proposal is not based on identified need and is not a response to community wants, but simply reflects the wishes of one development company and its consultants to make a large profit from our town.
I will begin with a little history of the current guidelines covering development in Kangaroo Valley and how they impact on this proposal.
At the top of the hierarchy is the Local Environment Plan (LEP) which is currently being updated to meet new NSW State government regulation. Below that for Kangaroo Valley is Development Control Plan 66 covering the Village and its environs. This document does what its name says - controls development and all applicants in the area covered have - to date - had to comply with it. DCP 66 was developed as a partnership between Councillors, Council staff and a wide range of residents representing every organisation within the Valley. It is KV's key planning document.
The subject land for this planning proposal and rezoning sits within that DCP, yet this document is not even mentioned in all the material submitted to support the rezoning.
The group working on DCP 66 saw this land (and other agricultural land around the Village) as "never to be built on" - a green space barrier around, and protecting the Village. It was a way to "maintain the existing rural/country town character" of Kangaroo Valley village.
The proponent has made much of previous Council documents indicating that this site should be for possible future growth of KV, yet all those documents have been either archived or superseded by DCP 66. There is nothing to support any claim that this land is intended for village expansion.
When seeking a rezoning an applicant must meet certain criteria set down by Council. Any changes to the LEP will require appropriate justification from the applicant.
This "justification" is what Colys consultant has attempted to do in the Planning Proposal and I will argue that it does not succeed.
The "Social Appraisal" completed by Hassell Pty Ltd and on which Cardno Forbes Rigby (the consultant) has based its findings is deeply flawed and many of the conclusions drawn are - simply put - wrong!.
First let me explain how Mr Laing defended the Hassell report, "It's just a desktop assessment". Yes, a desktop assessment; no-one came to KV and counted the houses; no-one sought to speak to renters to find out what they were paying; no-one spoke to the Headmaster to find out the true picture of school enrollments; no-one thought it odd the Kangaroo Valley "lost" 86 houses between two census periods; and no-one followed up on the statistics that house prices were high and incomes low.
Poor, depressed Kangaroo Valley, needs a big development to fix it!
Hassell's findings are all used subsequently in a way to support a conclusion already drawn by the developer.
Statistics that 67% of the village's residents are one or two person households but that 82% of housing in the village is houses on large blocks is used to draw a conclusion that what is needed is more small houses to accommodate this section of the community. Does anyone believe village residents will want to move up the road to this development? We also have a community which has "inefficient servicing" because just 30% live in the village and all others must drive in or go outside the valley for "retail opportunities" (their term). How this development could improve this circumstance is not explained - it will greatly increase the number of people in the village needing services by doubling the number of houses in the Village but otherwise those outside remain exactly the same and they choose to live that way.
The whole justification for the variety of housing styles is that it will give "local residents" choice. "Residents can purchase their own homes" - with just 27 renters in KV (ABS 2008) it seems like the 135 houses is greatly in excess of need.
I find that no amount of justification can prove that the Seniors living component and high care facility is either needed for this community on this scale; viable without bringing in large numbers of elderly people (Hassell admits that it will bring 244 new residents over 55years) ; or allowable under State government legislation.
That this part of the proposal is not serious is demonstrated by the lack of inclusion of "low care" or hostel accommodation. We have been advised by a major operator of retirement accommodation that a mix of independent living, low care and high care is essential for such facilities to work. Council's own rules insist on such a mix.
This part of the proposal is the sweetener to get residents on side.
When Mr Colys tried previously to get State government approval for seniors living on this site without a zone change he was rejected in part because "The proposal would not provide adequate access to social, recreational, health or retail services" and "The site is not adequately serviced by public transport". This proposal - even with a zone change which made such development "allowable"- will still have to comply with State government Seniors Planning legislation which would again prove impossible to gain.
If the seniors component got knocked back what could be built? I am sorry to be so cynical, but by that time the zone change would have occurred and Mr Colys could simply build additional houses.
Let's go back to the high prices and low incomes I mentioned before.
Median house prices in KV in 2008 were $471590 - or higher than Berry. This is presented as some sort of problem in the document. Some sort of issue that needs more houses to fix. However in 2009 - and this is in their document - the median fell to $420,000, lower that Berry at $450,000. Over the period from 2005 to 2009 KV houses prices median fell by $110,000! And if house prices are falling so much why would they want to risk putting 255 more into this market?
These house prices are coupled in the justification with low incomes. Income figures for KV show that 55% earn less than $44,803 per annum. By taking this figure and the median house price and the percentage of income required to repay mortgages, the consultants have decided that 50% of valley residents are in mortgage stress. Their answer is to provide 10% or 13 houses as "affordable housing" with prices at $250,000. How could this have solved KV'c mortgage stress if such a thing had existed.
For what is being ignored here - is that KV has a higher percentage of fully owned houses - almost half of all housing stock - than is average in adjoining local government areas. We also have a lower rate of renting residents. If Hassell had left his desk and talked to people he may have discovered that as NSW's No 1 tree change destination people are content with less income and no mortgage.
The justification for the tourism development is that it will provide something that currently does not exist - again Hassell should have walked the downtown and seen the motel.
The Valley already has an oversupply of tourism accommodation according to KVTA President and Shoalhaven Tourism Board Chairperson, Chris Warren, who states -
"The KVTA has considered the Colys proposal in great depth and what the impacts would be to operators, visitors and the community.
We are not opposed to development - but it must be development which is sympathetic to the intrinsic value of our community and landscape, for these are the magnets that draw tourists and grow our economy.
Tourism delivers approx $35 million per annum to KV.
We are not a tiny tourism town.
We are a jewel of the South Coast and tourism is our economic lifeblood
People visit because of our quaint village and National Trust listed landscape.
These are our assets.
Development that seeks short term gain will negatively impact tourism and the economic heart of our community..
We are not a tiny tourist town but an international beacon of sustainable development balancing community, tourism and conservation of our natural heritage. Double the size of our village, permanently erode our landscape and you open the floodgates of unsustainable development which will destroy the assets which feed the families of the valley.
Not just the direct tourist operators but the tradespeople, shops and services.
This real estate project benefits one and threatens many. The KV Tourist Association says don't cut our economic lifeblood; don't destroy assets - NO TO REZONING".
I will not go into all the other matters of concern - the 1500 traffic movements per day; the lack of employment in KV; the lack of sewerage facilities available to the site; the 15 years now being quoted as the building period; the excess height and bulk of the buildings etc.
We do not feel any one of the parts is justified on what has been presented by the developer. The big risk to our town is if others don't agree and this plan gets its rezoning.
I acknowledge that there is some interest in the valley in small retirement houses, say 10 at most- let us decide what we want, where it should go by opening up DCP 66 and making those determinations, not allowing a developer to TELL us what we want!
We have confirmed with Council and the Dept of Planning that there is no legal obligation on the developer to build what he says he will in the planning proposal once a rezoning is through.
What do you think we will get - houses, houses and more houses.
WE MUST STOP THE REZONING!!!!