My Favorite Web sites
Angelfire Home Pages
Free Web Building Help
Back to Part 1
2.5.5 Limits to residential growth and development of the area Community discussions revealed several limits to residential growth which should be obvious. The relatively small area of land in the narrow coastal strip is the ultimate constraint to overall development. There are aesthetic and tourism reasons for defining eastern and western boundaries to development: there must be a coastal strip reserved for open-space/recreation where-ever possible and the current escarpment vegetation must be retained. These requirements will preserve the attractive look of the beaches from the lookouts and of the escarpment from the coastal plain.
In addition to these arguments, a well-vegetated escarpment is crucial to the stability of land, including the land further down-slope and already developed, and to the control of watercourse erosion and flooding. It is likely that future problems may be averted if further escarpment clearing is controlled, and areas that were one cleared may need to be revegetated with natural vegetation. Unfortunately, neither the State Government nor the Council has attempted a broad scale survey to define where current and potential problem areas are and just how development should be controlled (see below).
The escarpment has additional value as a corridor for wildlife movements. This is recognized in the plan of management for the State Recreation Area. However, the Council is risking the value of the area for wildlife by failing to secure the northern end of the escarpment. It is important that the escarpment vegetation links with Royal National Park.
Given the above comments about the importance of a well-vegetated escarpment, there is a very strongly and widely held belief that residential development has reached its western limit: in several places it has probably exceeded this limit.
2.5.6 Current deficiencies in the planning process
Council planners, in considering recommendations regarding development consents in escarpment areas, have paid inadequate attention to the issue of the broad development constraints of the area. These are set by geological, topographical and rainfall conditions and by environmental attributes.
Instead of engaging these issues directly, in a professional manner, there have been many instances when planning decisions have been based on peripheral issues such as "is water available?", "will the development require the removal of trees in contravention of the tree preservation order?"
These peripheral issues are, of course, relevant, but they must not be relied upon as a substitute for the more substantive, important and difficult issues of protecting the overall character of the northern suburbs and acknowledging the constraints to development.
An example of the problem is seen in a report of Council's LEP Review Sub Committee (26th April 1988):
It is evident that there is a need to tighten up the conditions under which development will be permitted in Environmental Protection zones.
The matter has become rather more urgent now that the Water Board has abandoned its stance of opposition to any development which did not have a piped water supply, thereby placing much more emphasis on the other planning arguments if development is to be restricted.
CANS fully supports the recommendations contained within this report regarding the requirements to be complied with in Environmental Protection zones. Many of the longer-running controversies regarding rezoning recommendations and development consents on land adjacent to the escarpment in the northern areas have festered on because Council refused to engage the broader range of development constraints when the matter first arose.
The reluctance of planners and Council to base planning decisions on this broader range of constraints is clearly evident in the consideration of a large-scale residential subdivision on the upper bench of the escarpment at Thirroul (see Appendix 4), where decisions on a development control plan were based solely upon the Council's perception of the availability of water supply. There are many unfortunate consequences of this approach:
* by the reduction of issues solely to water availability, the applicant for development consent is left with the incorrect perception that this factor is the only impediment to the proposal proceeding;
* community groups which are principally concerned with the broader issues of the proposal are left with the impression that the officers of Council are not interested in these issues, preferring to defer their decision;
* if the single constraint (in this example, water supply) is removed, for example by a change in Water Board regulations, it becomes very difficult indeed for Council to engage broader development constraints in a professional manner. If Council, at this later stage, does address additional constraints, the developer is left perceiving that Council has "given ground" to pressure from residents;
* this situation implies that the relative importance placed on various development constraints is at Council's discretion encourages both developers and community groups to believe that political pressure is more important than a professional approach to planning;
* proposals which could have been rejected of modified to an acceptable form at the outset, from a consideration of broader issues reflecting development constraints, are left unresolved for long periods. This imposes avoidable costs and uncertainty on the developer and produces suspicion within residents' groups, who believe that the battle will have to be fought again and again.
2.5.7 Opportunities for increased residential density
The general community feeling is that the northern suburbs is, and should continue to be, predominantly a region of private residences. There are many reasons for this.
* This is the environment current residents wish to have: for many, the juxtaposition of natural areas of escarpment and an urban or village area is the reason they moved here in the first place.
* There will be a demand for "higher income residential infill" in these areas with increasing pressure for expansion of Sydney. This will not occur if the nature of the area changes.
* It is inappropriate to encourage industry to the area except where it will not compromise the residential nature of an area. Moreover, transport is a problem and more centralized, industrial estates are being made available nearer Wollongong.
* There is little opportunity for appropriate resort-style tourist developments in the northern suburbs.
It is generally felt that the northern suburbs areas are already nearing the capacity for acceptable residential development. There are two components to increasing the population in a region:
(i) increasing the area available; and
(ii) increasing the density.
There is a strong opinion that the area that has already been made available for new residential development is excessive, especially at the western margin of the northern suburbs. Potential land instability problems and aesthetic arguments lend substance to these opinions. Increasing density therefore seems to be the sole mechanism for increased population.
The problem is perceived to be twofold. Firstly there is the need to plan for increased density before development applications are dealt with case-by-case. As described above (2.5.1, p.7), this scattergun approach to planning has produced the scattering of 3-storey "walk-ups" in the Thirroul-Austinmer area, which should never have been contemplated. "Incremental creep" is well illustrated in this area of planning, where each approved, individual development application may seem to have an insignificant impact, but many individual blocks scattered through an area will ruin the character of the whole area. Thus many people view Smith's Hill as a failure of proper planning which must never be allowed to occur in the northern suburbs. Council must be prepared to propose, and discuss with the community, possible areas in which higher-density housing can be confined.
Secondly, there must be (and be seen to be!) stringent controls over the style of developments permitted within higher density areas, especially near the northern beaches. Council's Residential Standards Control Plan (diagram on p. 36) contains a recommendation about building heights in relation to topographic features that is relevant for the northern suburbs beaches. "A control in terms of meters at any point above natural ground encourages buildings to follow topography."
Along these lines, the community response received by CANS indicates a strong desire to prohibit any further building of two-or-more storey structures on the beachfront (i.e. in the "first line" of dwellings) in any zoning. The fact that some already exist does not prevent an alteration in the regulations. In agreed high-density residential areas, taller buildings could be permitted as defined by the topography.
Design of units is especially important in the northern suburbs areas, because the future demand here will be for high quality, sensitively designed units. Important factors here include: adequate side-setbacks to ensure privacy and prevent overlooking; all parking to be off-street; imposition of a height limit related to topography.
2.5.8 Reducing community conflict
It is clear from the above discussions that a common concern is an apparent inability of Wollongong Council to resolve planning issues to the satisfaction of residents. We identify three components to this:
* inadequate involvement of a sufficient number of residents in the planning process sufficiently early for their views to be incorporated in a real way;
* constant change of Council's position in response to new development proposals such that residents are forced to fight repeatedly for a particular issue;
* a demonstrable inability of Council to enforce development controls of various sorts (i.e. tree preservation orders, development control plans), without local residents having to perceive the violations and agitate about them.
These points significantly determine the strength of community opposition to Council's zoning proposals, and will affect the community's response to a revised LEP 38. While the community perceives that it will have to fight again in the future to retain a zoning which contains agreed and appropriate objectives, there will be pressure to impose a more constraining and protective zoning in the first place. While the community perceives that the current planning process does not ensure adherence to regulations which are designed to constrain development within the agreed objectives of a zoning, there will be constant pressure to impose more restrictive zonings.
The Excelsior Colliery land between Thirroul and Austinmer provides a clear example of the first of these problems. Some of this land is considered by many local residents to be suitable for a variety of purposes. However, the belief that Council will entertain future proposals for what are considered unacceptable developments has forced residents to argue that a 7(e) Environmental Protection (escarpment) is necessary.
The proposed 7(c) Environmental Protection (Living Area) Zone provides a good example of the second problem. An objective of this zoning is "to cater for residential and village development in selected areas possessing special environmental qualities or which may be affected by environmental hazards; and to allow some diversity of activities which will not ... detrimentally affect the environmental quality or character of the locality..." Such zonings exist in the escarpment fringes, where tree cover is important, both aesthetically and as a means of binding surface soil against erosion and reducing soil moisture by transpiration. The creeks in this area, which run through current residential areas, and drain onto the flood-prone plain, are subject to severe erosion in high-rainfall events. Careful control of tree clearing, damage to creek margins during preparation of lots for building and diversion of subsequent runoff away from creek lines is clearly of great importance. Yet there are many instances of too-severe clearing unnoticed by Council, blockage of creeks during clearing and construction, and severe erosion and flooding downstream.
Reducing community conflict regarding development issues will clearly require changes in practise and attitude on the part of Wollongong City Council.
3. CANS RESPONSES TO DRAFT LEP 38
3.1 Introduction
During the set of community discussions held by CANS and the compilation of this report, Wollongong Council has been proceeding with the revision of the Local Environmental Plan. A draft plan is currently on display, accompanied by documents defining (i) residential standards and (ii) commercial and industrial development.
CANS members have had an opportunity to review these documents and relate them to the outcomes of community discussions described above and in Appendix 2. It should be noted that community consultation organized by CANS has taken about twelve months. Council has prepared a series of draft plans and placed the draft documents on exhibition within that time.
This timing must indicate that community input will be responsive to proposals formulated by Council, through comments on the draft plan, rather than formulative. CANS believes that there must be substantial community consultation about the limits to development and other issues before proposals have become firm. This is especially true of the northern suburbs sub-region, which has a unique social and industrial history and a special set of physical constraints.
For these reasons, and for others outlined below, CANS proposes that the Draft LEP 38, at least the sections of it relating to the northern suburbs, should not be enacted until substantial further work and community consultation can be conducted.
This submission by CANS regarding the LEP 38 is in three sections:
* General comments regarding the draft Plan.
* Detailed comments on some aspects of the Plan as proposed in Council's draft document.
* Comments on the supporting documents (i.e. Residential Standards).
3.2 General Comments
. The current draft LEP 38 should be withdrawn and revised to take into account the following deficiencies. If this is not practicable, the application of the proposed changes to northern suburbs areas must be delayed until further study of the northern suburbs is completed. Procedural matters requiring immediate attention are:
(i) discussion of limits to population growth in the northern suburbs;
(ii) adequate definition of "advertised development consent" with the legal implications for third party rights of appeal;
(iii) preparation and circulation for public discussion of comparisons of the past and proposed LEPs.
In addition, there is a need for a longer-term, detailed, environmental and development study of the northern suburbs, incorporating input from local residents, which should be commissioned or co-ordinated by Council.
2. There are serious problems with the rationale behind two zonings in particular: Zone 1 - Rural, and Zone 7(c) Environmental Protection (Living Area). Both of these zonings obscure the actual uses to which the Council proposes to put some of the land, namely residential. CANS proposes that land considered suitable and appropriate for residential development should receive a residential zoning (i.e. Zone 2), thus clearly distinguishing it from what should properly be reserved for rural activities or for environmental protection.
3. These problems are of such magnitude that Council should defer any action on these zonings until a study can be carried out, with community participation, with the aim of constructing rational zonings and deciding on the allocation of lands to new zonings.
. The Environmental Protection zonings should be revised to recognize the unique set of objectives for protection in each area and the unique set of constraints which define permissible developments in the light of the objectives. CANS proposes a revision to the 7 zonings, based on an hierarchy of levels of protection, as follows:
7(a) Environmental Protection (Preservation) provides the greatest protection;
7(b) Environmental Protection (Community Recreation) permits community access to and passive recreation in land with significant environmental attributes;
7(c) Environmental Protection (Special Uses) provides opportunities for appropriate recreational and tourist activities
5. The 7g (Living Area) (=proposed 7c) zoning should be abolished, and lands currently with this zoning should be reviewed.This review should incorporate resident input and would rezone 7(g) land in either a highly controlled 2 (residential) zoning or an appropriate environmental protection zoning.
6. In the light of the extreme importance and sensitivity of the escarpment areas and other environmentally sensitive areas, in the current climate of pressure for residential expansion and other development, any proposed development in any area zoned for Environmental Protection, or any proposed rezoning of an Environmental Protection area should be subjected to public exhibition.
7. The LEP must set in place a consistent and stringent set of controls over higher density residential development in the coastal fringe of the northern suburbs.
8. Council should incorporate in the LEP all recommendations put forward by various Total Catchment Management committees, including the Hacking River committee and the Lake Illawarra committee. Moreover, these Total Catchment Management committees illustrate the need to apply the same, broader-scale approach to all proposed new developments in the northern suburbs.
3.3 Detailed responses (page references relate to draft LEP of 20/10/88)
3.3.1 Aims, objectives and strategy (clause 5, p.2)
1. CANS supports the general aims of this LEP as stated. However, there is considerable doubt about whether these sorts of aims have been achieved in the past. Moreover, it is not clear who should make the subjective judgements about "social well-being and amenity of local residents" (clause 5.1(c), p.3).
2. Council should establish a mechanism for periodic evaluation of whether planning decisions in an area have indeed satisfied the aims stated here. Such a mechanism should deliberately seek community opinion; not solely through responses to documents prepared by Council but also by active soliciting of views through community groups and other avenues.
3. CANS supports strongly the Residential Standards accompanying the LEP. These clearly stipulate many stringent and appropriate controls over development, and CANS urges that Council develop a mechanism for policing these controls (clause 5.2(a), p.3). This is an area in which Council has been demonstrably ineffective in the past. Careful adherence to these standards will, in our opinion, reduce the amount of community conflict over proposed rezonings and proposed developments within existing zonings which could otherwise be considered appropriate or reasonable.
3.3.2 Interpretation (clause 6, p.3)
1. CANS expresses serious concern over the definition of "Camp or Caravan Sites" (clause 6, p.4). As stated, this category of development includes structures called "cabins". Cabins are not defined - they should be. Moreover, standards for cabins do not appear to have been set in Control Plan No. 9.
2. There are many places, especially in the northern suburbs, where cabins are completely inappropriate although a low-service camping ground may be acceptable. There is a history, especially in the Helensburgh area for "cabins" to be interpreted so loosely that proposed structures resemble large "dwelling houses".
3.3.3 Zone 1 (Rural Zone) (clause 9, p.15)
1. CANS takes issue with this zoning as presented in the plan. It appears to treat rural land as a reservoir for suburbs of the future - "to cater for planned natural urban growth... or environmental protection" (Zone 1, 1(a)(i)& (ii), p.15). These objectives make a mockery of the name of the Zoning. If the land is to be earmarked for residential development, then it should be proposed for rezoning to a 2 zoning, and community comment invited. In fact, many of the developments proposed to be permitted after advertised development consent are completely incompatible with retaining the rural character of an area.
2. CANS proposes that this zoning should be used to identify land that is most appropriate as rural! Wollongong must not be viewed as an ever-increasing sprawl, producing the crises of increasing costs of servicing and transport seen in so many Australian cities. However, the landscape surrounding Wollongong does contain rural areas which should have their character retained, as is the case with the Jamberoo valley (see National Trust listing quoted in section
2.5.2, p.9; see also Appendix 3).
3. In the light of the above comments, the proposed zoning of the eastern portion of the old Excelsior Coal Mine land as 1 Rural is completely inappropriate. More reasonable possibilities include: 6(a) Recreation (Open Space); 2(d) Residential (Controlled Development); 7(b) Environmental Protection (Community Recreation). [Note: these zoning use terminology suggested by CANS in this document]
3.3.4 Zone 2(b) (Residential "B" Zone) (clause 9, p17)
1. Under 1(b), the density - or range of densities - proposed here should be defined explicitly. Presumably this zoning represents medium density residential areas, and precise figures for the range to be permitted will reduce future misunderstandings and conflict between potential developers, the Council and local residents.
2. Similarly, scale and height [1(c)(i)] ought to be defined clearly. It is not acceptable to relate the height and scale of a proposed residential development to existing buildings for several reasons. Firstly, existing but completely inappropriate buildings now determine the characteristics of the locality but should not be duplicated or treated as an acceptable benchmark. Secondly, the proposed definition allows for "incremental creep" of inappropriate developments. It is relatively easy to "give in" to a single, isolated development application which is only slightly outside the acceptible scale and height. However, once built, this single building makes policing the objectives more difficult in the face of future development applications.
3. This zoning, and the Residential "C" Zone, should make a clear statement about the heights of buildings adjacent to the coast, especially in the northern suburbs. CANS proposes that the Residential Standards Control Plan should make careful stipulations about the heights and designs of buildings in coastal areas, in particular restricting all buildings in the "front line" (i.e. within 200 m of the coast - beach or cliff-top) to single-storey dwellings, regardless of the zoning.
3.3.5 Zone 2(c) (Residential "C" Zone) (clause 9, p.18)
1. Criticism "2" in 3.3.4 above relates also to this zoning.
2. It is inconsistent to expect to attract high-density, residential development [1(a)] with little increase in traffic generation [1(b)(ii)]. This should state clearly that increased traffic (including a need for off-street parking) will be generated and must be accommodated for by the developer.
3. In view of the problems outlined for these two residential zones, CANS proposes that size, scale and density thresholds be set such that any proposed developments exceeding the stated threshold should be advertised for public comment (Zone 2(c), 4, p.19). The serious long-term effects of bad development decisions in relation to high density housing makes it important for third-party rights-of-appeal to be preserved here.
3.3.6 Zone 6(a)(b)(c) (Open Space) (clause 9, pp.24-26)
1. With the trend towards more leisure time and the expansion of higher-density development, it is imperative that sufficient recreation and open space areas be put aside. In new developments, these areas should be identified as the areas most appropriate for open space/recreation, and not simply the remnant patches of land unsuitable for any other use.
2. If the 6(a) (Open Space - Recreation) zoning really has as its objective the provision of recreation facilities in the open, the objective of the zone should be "... to provide for passive recreation" and "... to promote the development of appropriate facilities for the benefit of nearby communities. One of the problems with existing Open Space - Recreation areas is that they have simply been identified, and provide no benefit to nearby communities.
3. Given that the aim of this zoning is the provision of recreation facilities in the open, many of the activities listed under 3 (only with development consent) belong more properly in other zonings. For example, if an area is to be used for agriculture, it should be zoned 1 (Rural). Entertainment facilities and registered clubs, as they are broadly defined in clause 6 (Interpretation) may well also be incompatible with an Open Space, especially if they are private clubs which do not benefit the whole community: 6(b) is an appropriate zoning for such activities.
4. Under Zone 6(b) 3 (Only with development consent), the following represents an incomprehensible piece of information: "...dwellings used in conjunction for a purpose [for?] which development consent is required and situated on the land on which the development for that purpose is carried out..."
5. Once again, it is hard to see how many of these activities under Zone 6(b) 3 can reasonably be viewed as "Open Space".
6. CANS suggests that the Open Space zonings be renamed "Recreation". Thus there would be: Zone 6(a) Recreation (Public Open Space); Zone 6(b) Recreation (Private Facilities); and Zone 6(c) Recreation (Tourism). Management plans should be prepared for all these zonings, especially Public Open Space, and placed on public exhibition for comment. Furthermore, all proposed development in the 6(a) zone, or any proposed rezoning from a 6(a) zone, should be advertised and placed on public exhibition.
Authorised - Kerrie Christian
Note - Angelfire has no responsibility for the content of this web page
Return to Kerrie's Main ACT Web Page
Thank you for visiting my page at Angelfire. Please come back and visit again!