184

Agenda – Planning & Environment Committee 14/8/08 - #1783237

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

14 AUGUST 2008

14 RESOLUTION OF APPEAL - MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE (IMPACT ASSESSMENT) - RETIREMENT VILLAGE – ISABELLA ROAD EDMONTON – DIVISION 2 Paul Cohen : 8/8/809 : #1788711 PROPOSAL: RESOLUTION OF PLANNING AND

ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL 337 OF 2007 – RETIREMENT VILLAGE

APPLICANT: OASIS RETIREMENT PTY LTD C/- MURRAY AND ASSOCIATES PO BOX 246 NAMBOUR QLD 4560 LOCATION OF SITE: ISABELLA ROAD EDMONTON

PROPERTY: LOT 13 ON RP860977 PLANNING DISTRICT: WHITE ROCK EDMONTON PLANNING AREA: RESIDENTIAL 2 PLANNING SCHEME: CAIRNSPLAN 2005 REFERRAL AGENCIES: QUEENSLAND TRANSPORT NUMBER OF SUBMITTERS: TWO (2) STATUTORY ASSESSMENT DEADLINE: NOT APPLICABLE APPLICATION DATE: 21 JUNE 2006 DIVISION: 2 APPENDIX: 1. PLAN(S) & DOCUMENT(S) 2. SUPPORTING INFORMATION TO PLANNING REPORT

185

Agenda – Planning & Environment Committee 14/8/08 - #1783237

LOCALITY PLAN

RECOMMENDATION: A. That Council resolve to commence discussions with the appellant to settle

Planning and Environment Court Appeal 337 of 2007 (Oasis Retirement Pty Ltd v Cairns City Council) over a development application for a Material Change of Use for a Retirement Village over land described as Lot 3 on RP860977, located at Isabella Road, Edmonton.

B. That Council delegates authority to the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to

negotiate a set of finalised conditions with the appellant. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At its Planning and Environment Meeting on 8 November 2007, Council refused an application for a Material Change of Use over land described as Lot 13 on RP860977, located at Isabella Road, Edmonton.

Subject site

186

Agenda – Planning & Environment Committee 14/8/08 - #1783237

The proposal is located in the Residential 2 Planning Area. Although the land use was considered appropriate for the area, it did not provide an effective alternative to the planned intersuburban connection which traversed the site in accordance with Council’s Transport Network Plan. The proposed development was assessed by Officers and recommended for refusal on this basis. The applicants subsequently appealed Council’s decision to refuse the application. Through without prejudice meetings the appellant’s consulting traffic engineer provided a series of options which provided an alternative local road network that they believed facilitated intersuburban connections consistent with the outcomes sought by the Transport Network Plan (see Appendix 2). Council’s consulting traffic engineer agreed that these alternatives, through conclave, that these alternatives satisfied those terms and outcomes sought by the Transport Network Plan and thus the Desired Environmental Outcomes of CairnsPlan to which the refusal was based upon. It is therefore likely the appeal would be unsuccessful. It is therefore recommended that Council instruct its solicitors to commence resolution of the appeal and agree with the appellant over conditions for a development approval. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Proposal The development application is for a retirement village consisting of 143 units on land described as Lot 13 on RP860977, situated on Isabella Road, Edmonton. The site has an area of 5.822 ha and was formerly a plant nursery. It has approximately 410 metres of frontage to Isabella Road and side and rear boundaries of approximately 165 metres and 525 metres respectively. The eastern boundary adjoins existing dwellings on Millhouse Close and Isabella Road. The retirement village consists of attached and detached units. Those units that are attached are generally accommodated as dual occupancy style buildings. A proportion of units are also provided as a 4 unit “quadplex.” Several formations and designs of units are provided over the site and are connected by an internal driveway network. A communal building is located adjacent to the entrance. The purpose of the building is to provide communal amenities for residents. Planning Area Considerations The subject proposal is located in the Residential 2 Planning Area within the Whiterock - Edmonton Planning District. The Residential 2 Planning Area Code guides development in the Residential 2 Planning Area. There was no contention that the use of the subject land was inappropriate for the area. However, some moderate concern was raised that the development did not provide integration with the adjoining land in terms of amenity of surrounding and future adjoining residential development (i.e. not permitting long blank fences which cut off the large site from the developing area) along with encompassing planned minor roads which were previously to terminate or connect to an internal road network within the subject land. An approval would have included conditions relating to an amended design accommodating changes to satisfy these concerns.

187

Agenda – Planning & Environment Committee 14/8/08 - #1783237

Transport Network Plan Considerations The Transport Network Plan (TNP) forms part of the Trunk Infrastructure Contributions Planning Scheme Policy. The TNP provides for a Future Intersuburban Connector road which is to transect the site and meet at an intersection at Whereat Road and Isabella Road. The alignment for the road was chosen on the basis of approvals granted for the residential subdivisions of the locality. It is considered that the provision of the intersuburban connection is necessary infrastructure which is to be provided by the developer of the land (see Figure 8.8). The TNP states (page 38):

Collector streets and access streets are generally provided as “internal roads” within an urban development. Collector streets and in some case access streets provide connectivity to adjacent development to eventually form part of the road hierarchy for the suburb or precinct… The guiding principle for these connectors is to provide fluency of movement through the developments, connectivity to adjacent developments and provide safe and efficient movement of public transport through the site and the provision of seamless network connection to adjacent urban areas. These connectors may be access streets or collector streets and will require a minimum pavement width of 10 metres to provide for future public transport provision. The required inter-suburban connectors are shown on Figures 7.1 to 7.9 (Figure 7.8 in this instance). The geometry and locations are indicative only. Road layouts prepared for infill development will be subject to approval by Council and must facilitate future public transport provision and connectivity to adjacent development.

It is acknowledged that the locations for the intersuburban connection is indicative only. However, as mentioned above, the alignment for the road was chosen on the basis of approvals granted for the residential subdivisions in the locality. The applicant previously provided an alternative layout for the intersuburban road connections However, it was considered that the alternative option did not provide “fluency of movement through developments.” For this reason, the development was refused.

188

Agenda – Planning & Environment Committee 14/8/08 - #1783237

Reasons for Refusal The recommendation for refusal of the original proposal contained the following reasons for refusal: 1. The proposal does not facilitate the development of the necessary Intersuburban

Connector road over the site, in accordance with the Transport Network Plan of Council’s Trunk Infrastructure Contributions Planning Scheme Policy. The failure to provide for an appropriate Intersuburban Connector road prevents efficient and integrated planning for public transport linkages as required by CairnsPlan and its Planning Scheme Policies.

Furthermore, this development application cannot facilitate a change to an existing

approval on the adjoining site for which the proposed alternative Intersuburban Connection route relies for such connectivity.

Resolution Process Through without prejudice meetings the appellant’s consulting traffic engineer provided a series of options which provided an alternative local road network that they believed facilitated intersuburban connections consistent with the outcomes sought by the Transport Network Plan. Council’s engaged expert agreed, through conclave, that these alternatives satisfied those terms and outcomes sought by the Transport Network Plan and thus the Desired Environmental Outcomes of CairnsPlan to which the refusal was based upon (for the initial failed alternative presented to Council prior to its decision). It is now likely that the appellant would be arguing that the development provides an Alternative Acceptable Measure that meets the objectives of CairnsPlan, to which our expert would agree. Short of any other matters that would present through cross-examination, and which could not be resolved through conditions of approval, Council is likely to incur significant expenditure in pursuing this appeal with doubt in the ability to reach the preferred outcome. It is therefore recommended that Council resolve to settle the appeal with a view of negotiating with the appellant to transcribe the following considerations into conditions: • The south-west and north-west corners of the site be truncated in accordance with

a design of the alternative road being provided; • Cul-de-sacs or T-head junctions be provided within the site terminating the two

roads which were previously planned over the site with connection into the adjacent development. These works must be bonded and protected by easement until such time as they are completed in conjunction with the adjoining residential development is completed.

• The entrance to the Retirement Village must provide appropriate queuing and

visitor parking if to be gated.

189

Agenda – Planning & Environment Committee 14/8/08 - #1783237

• Fencing and landscaping must promote permeability of the site for airflow and

view lines to address the street and not result in long blank walls as fences on the street frontages.

It is possible that the appellant may not agree with these aspects in relation to the development and an appeal over conditions may eventuate during the hearing set to commence on 26 August 2008 for this appeal. Conclusion It is Officers recommendation that the appeal cannot be sustained as it is apparent that arguments over whether an alternative road network could be provided without compromising the outcomes sought by the Transport Network Plan are likely to be lost. Paul Cohen Senior Strategic Planner Action Officer Simon Clarke Manager Development Assessment

190

Agenda – Planning & Environment Committee 14/8/08 - #1783237

APPENDIX 1 PROPOSAL PLAN(S) & DOCUMENT(S)

191

Agenda – Planning & Environment Committee 14/8/08 - #1783237

APPENDIX 2 SUPPORTING INFORMATION TO PLANNING REPORT Options for alternative intersuburban connections

192

Agenda – Planning & Environment Committee 14/8/08 - #1783237

193

Agenda – Planning & Environment Committee 14/8/08 - #1783237