Docstoc

Dungog Landuse Strategy and Situation Analysis Consultation

Document Sample
Dungog Landuse Strategy and Situation Analysis Consultation Powered By Docstoc
					Dungog Landuse Strategy and Situation Analysis Consultation Comments

DUNGOG CONSULTATION – Tuesday 8th September, 2009
       Issue Raised                         Assessment Response                                                                    Recommendation
   1. Town centre’s should be               Noted – consideration will be given to recommendations made for rural lifestyle        No change.
       strengthened by encouraging in       development
       town development. Out of town
       development should not be
       encouraged.
   2. LUS requires a definition of rural    State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural lands) 2008 and the Standard                No change
       lands                                Planning Instrument (Local Government Plans) Order 2006 both provide
                                            adequate information on Rural Land and zoning objectives.
Residential Land
   3. Area 3 near “Melbee” should be        While David Winterbottom’s study identifies the land for possible rural lifestyle      No change
       residential                          it does not support this in terms of recommendation. This land is suitable
                                            recommended for residential.
   4. Sporting fields should be central     These lands have been identified as suitable by the department of Sport and            No change
       and not on the other side of the     Recreation. Suitable pedestrian access across the railway line will be
       railway line. Need to further        considered as a condition of consent.
       consider available flood prone
       lands and their suitability for this
       purpose
   5. What consideration has been given There is current opportunity under the existing Dungog LEP for land owners to              No change
       to infill residential opportunities. consider subdivision of existing blocks. The upgrade of rear lanes and providing
       There are many large blocks with     servicing would make it economically unlikely for the individual to proceed
       rear lane access suitable to         however there is opportunity for interested land owners to pool resources and
       subdivided if S94 didn’t make        master plan their proposal. There have been no applications to date.
       costs prohibitive

   6.   Need to consider the ramifications   State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009                  No change
        of infill opportunity created        provides opportunity for land owners to construct a “secondary dwelling”
        through SEPP – Affordable            without the subdivision of the existing lot if certain criteria, as outlined in the
        Accommodation                        SEPP can be met. This provides a local infill opportunity should landowners be
                                             interested in development.
Commercial Land
  7. Concern that the land between            The strategy supports in centre development and supports the need to reduce the     To edit the
     Hooke and Brown Streets is to be         risk of dissipating retail activity away from the “main street” of Dungog.          proposed zoning
     zoned 3(a) and not 4(a). The             Having reconsidered the recommended zoning based on consultation                    on this site to B4
     strategy specifically references out     discussions the following standards template zonings were discussed: B1, B2,        Mixed Use.
     of centre development and it was         B4, R3 and R2 and R1.
     the view of some present that this
     land is out of centre.

        Given the number of existing retail
        vacancies and marginal businesses
        in the main street, is more
        commercial land actually needed?

        Consideration should be given to
        tourism, seniors housing and car
        parking on the Hooke and Brown
        site
   8.   Why an additional town centre         The identified site provides an opportunity for Council to extend an existing       No change
        park? Council cannot afford to        green corridor and provide a formal Town Park. The decision to implement this
        maintain the existing parks.          decision is based on Councils ability to generate funds through the allocation of
                                              revenue or the rationalisation of existing parks to fund the infrastructure.
   9.  Dungog LGA needs a Tourism             A Tourism Plan has been undertaken and is currently on Public Exhibition            No change
       Plan.
   10. Intensifying the existing              The “Old Quarry” site has a contamination issue that limits future potential        No change
       employment lands would increase        without considerable remediation. The “old tip site (short street)” is limited
       traffic movements across town.         because of topography and has high visual amenity. There is a suitable buffer
       The employment zone is too close       between the high school and the Common Road Site and funding is being
       to the school. Has the “old dairy      sought to upgrade the Common Road intersection.
       site” and “old tip site” be
       considered. Why not use scattered
       sites and try to spread out the
       traffic issues
   11. How have we justified demand for        The existing availability of employment land is highly constrained. The future        No change
       an increase in employment land          approval of Tillegra Dam will provide local economic opportunity as outlined in
                                               the economic study for the situation analysis.
   12. Enterprise land has not been            Enterprise land is available in other parts of the LGA and there has been no take     Amalgamate areas
       successful in other parts of the        up. Review of proposed zoning on land on and adjacent to Common Road was              1,2 and 3as
       LGA. Why are we considering             undertaken.                                                                           identified in draft
       more of it?                                                                                                                   Figure 11 and
                                                                                                                                     change proposed
                                                                                                                                     zoning to IN1
                                                                                                                                     General Industrial.
  13. Existing green corridors even if         No formal complaint over the maintenance of the existing green corridor has           Expand width of
       developed as a condition of             been lodged with Council. Existing requirement of Dungog LEP are visual               recommended
       consent have not been                   impact assessment @DA stage, and the planting of semi mature foliage in four          environmental
       implemented or maintained               rows with maintenance in perpetuity.                                                  buffer
       satisfactorily, adjacent to the         The environmental buffer is considered appropriate however given the
       existing employment land. Why           recommendation of 12 above, expand the width of the corridor.
       would this green corridor be any
       more successful?
  14. Is the idea of having sports fields      Noted                                                                                 No change
       opposite industry workable? Are
       they not conflicting interests? Isn’t
       having industry close to the school
       also encouraging conflicts.
Rural Residential
  15. Mistake in figures within strategy.      Noted and changed                                                                     Amendment
       Tabbil Creek quotes both 45 and                                                                                               required
       115 yields.
  16. Concern the size of some of these        A scattering of rural residential opportunities provides for diversity in lifestyle   No change
       rural residential opportunities will    and the attraction of new residents. The proposed zoning is for rural lifestyle
       create satellite villages with no       and not a village zone
       infrastructure
        Owner of Tabbil Creek site
                                               Noted.                                                                                Tabbil creek
        strongly opposed to this
                                                                                                                                     proposed land use
        development type on his land.
                                                                                                                                     to be removed.
    17. The baby boom surge will ease in       Noted, dwelling demand is developer and market driven and the strategy             No change
        40 years when all the baby             suggests opportunity only.
        boomers have gone. What will
        happen to towns that have been
        focused in the accommodation of
        them?
    18. Council needs to release the land it   Noted                                                                              No change
        owns in order to deal with some of
        the issues in Dungog.
    19. Has the “common area” west of          This land is publicly owned 7(a) land with high scenic and amenity values. It is   No change
        Dungog, about 1,000 acres been         considered is not considered appropriate to future development.
        considered for redevelopment?
Tillegra District Comments
    20. Concern over the restriction of        Refer to Hunter Water                                                              No change
        power boats into the lower
        catchment – wouldn’t it be better
        to allow power boats in the lower
        catchment and restrict them in the
        upper catchment
    21. Why are there no noise restrictions    Refer to Hunter Water                                                              No change
        on the waterway.
    22. A view was expressed that the          Noted
        Tillegra District would not become
        a tourism attraction.
    23. Strong negative views on the idea      This view was expressed across all consultations.                                  Remove the
        of rural small holdings at the                                                                                            proposed RU4
        beginning of the dam precinct.                                                                                            zoning and leave
        Environmental, amenity and                                                                                                as RU1 Primary
        scenic values are too high in this                                                                                        Production.
        area for the land to be used as
        small holdings.
    24. Should consider lands up Myall         RU4 was not supported around the dam and land has been proposed across the         No change
        Creek Road for rural small             Dungog District for Rural Lifestyle. Land on Myall Road will be considered at
        holdings, less visual impact.          a future date is demand requires.
  25. Concern that areas zoned tourism        Noted
      are close to water but do not have
      any outlook (limited elevation)
  26. Suggested a more appropriate            Noted and investigated                                                          Amendment made
      tourist zone to the north east of the                                                                                   to include
      dam.                                                                                                                    proposed land as
                                                                                                                              Tourism
  27. Limit the availability of tourism on    In order to not oversupply land for tourism purposes remove the investigation   Investigation are
      the western side of the waterway.       area to the wester of the waterway.                                             removed
  28. RFS station has been moved. Need        Noted.                                                                          Site changed
      to make adjustment to the strategy.
  29. Can we include boat ramp                Not the role of the LUS. Refer to HWC ILUP.                                     No change.
      locations on the maps
  30. Who will manage the dam and the         Hunter Water                                                                    No change
      access points to the water.
  31. Will rural properties adjoining the     Noted, refer to Hunter Water and land owners                                    No change
      dam be fenced?


CLARENCE TOWN CONSULTATION– Wednesday, 9th September, 2009
      Issues Raised                        Assessment Response                                                                Recommendation
  32. Residential lands indentified in the Noted                                                                              Reword document to
      strategy require more appropriate                                                                                       reflect infill opportunity
      naming as investigative infill.
  33. Concern that all existing zoned      Noted                                                                              Change to
      land is in one ownership and that                                                                                       recommendations to
      there has been no interest in                                                                                           allow staged land
      development                                                                                                             release and to consider
                                                                                                                              existing sporting fields
                                                                                                                              once filed of dreams is
                                                                                                                              developed.
   34. “Field of Dreams” appears the         All zoned land in Clarence Town is highly constrained and there is no               Amend strategy to
       best possible site for future         identifiable unconstrained land adjacent to the town centre with good               include the attached
       residential development that will     residential potential. It is assumed that the availability of residential land is   discussion.
       provide a development                 more important than the development of sporting fields. As a result of
       opportunity, Shouldn’t flood          discussions the following path was considered appropriate for Clarence Town.
       affected land be used for sporting        1. Undertake the flood and drainage study incorporating all 6(a) land on
       fields when residential opportunity           Durham Street. Consider the suitability of this land for residential
       is so limited.                                purposes if flood (drainage) issues can be resolved. If residential
       Is there an opportunity to                    opportunity is suitable Council to consider
       consolidate sporting facilities in        2. redevelopment of “field of dreams” through sale of existing sporting
       town if the “Field of Dreams” goes            fields
       ahead                                     3. opportunities along the river for sporting fields or recreational links to
                                                     the town centre.
                                             In summary, Council sell existing sporting fields to fund “field of dreams”,
                                             town centre and river side improvements.

                                             If town centre parks can not be used for residential, Council negotiate
                                             opportunities with Crown Lands to consider “field of dreams” for residential
                                             opportunity the funds from which would fund existing sporting fields
                                             improvements, riverside upgrades and main street improvements.
    35. Change in strategy needed – no       Noted                                                                               Amendment recorded
        longer skate park adjacent to
        Clarence Town Road and Earl
        Street
Tillegra District
    36. Is there an increase in flooding     The Environmental Assessment (EA) as produced by Hunter Water has a                 No change
        potential in Clarence Town           detailed hydrology report.
        because of Tillegra Dam?
    37. Concern over the quality of          The Environmental Assessment (EA) as produced by Hunter Water has                   No change
        existing roads to cater for dam      outlined the effects on the existing road network and HW commitments in
        traffic, Tillegra potential as a     regard to improvements.
        tourist attraction and that water
        levels in the dam will not be
        sustained,
   38. The strategy needs to consider the   Noted                                            No change
       directional aspect of tourist land
       and not just access to waterway.
   39. In general attendees were not in     Noted, please see point 24 above                 Change as
       support of the RU4 zoning at the                                                      recommended above
       entranceway to the dam.
   40. Need to check a mistake in the       Noted                                            Amended
       document between E3
       Environmental management and
       E2 Environmental Corridor.

VACY CONSULTATION – Thursday, 10th September, 2009
      Issue Raised                         Assessment Response                                Recommendation
  41. Concern was raised over the          Noted                                              No change - see
      expansion of Vacy from the                                                              SAR.
      following angles:
       • People travelling from Vacy
           to work would create
           additional traffic pressures in
           Paterson
       • Paterson should be the focus
           of future growth, it is much
           more appropriate than Vacy
       • Need to apply more pressure
           to get access across the rail
           line, more likely to get new
           Paterson Railway crossing
           than new Vacy bridge
  42. The boundary proposed for village Noted and information to be supplied by land owner    Boundary to be
      expansion in Vacy is flood                                                              adjusted
      effected and needs to be
      reconsidered
  43. Need to consider staging the         Agreed                                             Staging added
      village expansion
44. Take up of smaller blocks in this       The strategy proposes possible options, take up is market and developer driven      No change
    district has been very slow. Need       based on their assessment of risk. Land use strategy only predicts possibility
    to consider need for urban or           based on population and demographic projections.
    village lots.
45. Should consider spreading the           Consideration has been given to Paterson ( constraints to high at this stage)       Amend strategy as
    development opportunity across          Martins Creek (land is currently available however development has been slow),      recommended
    each village to give some               Gresford and East Gresford( please see Gresford and East Gresford comments).
    opportunity to the local schools etc
    to stay open.
46. Locals consider the population          Noted. Landuse strategy predicts possibility and land is made available for        No change
    growth as reflected in the              investigation based on that possibility. Ultimately redevelopment is market driven
    document is over estimated and
    not reflective of interest and future
    need.
47. Any commercial development is           Noted                                                                               Amended
    really only viable on the western
    side of the road in Vacy
48. The land to the west of Paterson        Rezoning land without a plan for appropriate infrastructure raised expectation      No change
    should be zoned residential even if     that cannot be met. It is considered more important to hold the opportunity until
    it can’t be developed at this stage.    some of the existing limitations can be addressed and then consider rezoning
    A master plan, sewerage, access         opportunities.
    across the railway line and
    intersection upgrade will be too
    costly to developers if added to the
    cost of rezoning.
49. Transition Zone in Gresford has         Agreed. The Transition Zone identified within the study for at Gresford and east    Amendment made
    been previously identified as           Gresford for RU1 primary production be rezoned Village.
    future residential (opposite
    primary school) Gresford needs
    land for future expansion. There is
    an existing managed river access
    in Gresford
50. Vacy – potential to enhance             Noted however not practicable due to current land ownership.                        No change
    managed access to the river,
    current paper road.
   51. The projected decrease in under       The strategy is based on a high growth scenario.                                   No change
       19’s would imply it is important to
       stimulate growth in order to
       maintain the viability of schools.
   52. Mistake – scenic protection arrow     Noted                                                                              Amended
       is in the wrong place on the
       Gresford map.
   53. Martins Creek Transition Land –       Noted. There is currently an abundant supply of rural lifestyle opportunities in   No change
       shouldn’t we be considering some      Martins Creek and limited interest in village lots. Should demand exceed
       future growth for Martins Creek? –    expectations current Transition zone could be reconsidered for rural lifestyle
       land is not constrained or effected   opportunities however this is unlikely in the short term.
       by the quarry, has its own access
       road the trucks cannot use and the
       community needs some increase in
       numbers to support the school.

Tillegra District
    54. RU4 lands not supported              Noted                                                                              No change
    55. Concern over the effect of dam       Noted, refer to EA                                                                 No change
        traffic on existing roads
    56. Concern over the dependence on       Noted                                                                              No change
        the water level in the dam being
        high – if the water level is low
        tourism will suffer

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:59
posted:3/28/2010
language:English
pages:9
Description: Dungog Landuse Strategy and Situation Analysis Consultation