Upper Kedron Local Plan, Brisbane City Plan 2000 Or Brisbane City Plan 2014
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY CONCERNS Objection: The proposed use of land in development application A003905687 is not consistent with outcomes sought by the current Ferny Grove Upper Kedron Local Plan, Brisbane City Plan 2000 or Brisbane City Plan 2014. The expansion of Brisbane’s western urban fringe from 59 hectares of land zoned for emerging communities to 219 represents a significant and unplanned departure from the above planning documents. The Ferny Grove / Upper Kedron Local Plan (2000) considers development of the land zoned Rural: “Land west of Ross Rd will not be developed until the land east of Ross Rd provides the water supply and sewerage connections, only under these circumstances will development in this Rural Area be assessed against the Emerging Communities Area provisions in Chapter 3 of the City Plan”. The approximately 73ha of Rural land is not greenspace, it is largely degraded farmland and is intended to be developed under the Emerging Community provisions (which includes a residential density of 15 dwellings per hectare). The preliminary approval demonstrates that the staging of development will ensure that all land to the east of Ross Rd will be developed and serviced prior to development of the land to the west of Ross Rd. Development of this land is subject to a future development application for subdivision of the land to be lodged and assessed by Council. The land in the south-east corner of the site is identified in the Local Plan to be constrained by habitat and ecological features (private ownership). The land is currently privately owned, and there is no requirements within the Local Plan (2000) or the updated Neighbourhood Plan (2014) that requires this land to be dedicated to Council, beyond ensuring the ongoing provision of “an ecological corridor adjacent to Mt Nebo Road and Brompton Roads will provide connectivity from Brisbane Forest park through Keperra Saddle to Enoggera Military Barracks. This corridor require protection and rehabilitation to ensure it fulfils its role as a regionally significant corridor”. The environmentally significant areas of the site have been ground truthed through detailed site investigations and reporting. This includes determination of the land required to ensure the width of the Keperra Saddle is protected to provide connectivity between Brisbane Forest Park and the Enoggera Military Barracks. The preliminary approval application has identified and demonstrated the ongoing protection of this corridor through the dedication of the ecologically significant area, described in the Local Plan, to Council as the first action to occur prior to the commencement of any development onsite. As such it is considered that the proposed master planned development of the site including the Rural Zoned land, and land identified to be environmentally constrained, is not a significant or unplanned departure from the Ferny Grove/Upper Kedron Local Plan (and Neighbourhood Plan) outcomes. Furthermore, the Local Plan provides for approximately 87ha of environmentally constrained land (possibly retained in private ownership), while the proposal provides 91ha of environmentally relevant land into public ownership. Objection: The timing of the application is a very significant issue given the different standards applied in the two plans. Notwithstanding that the application was submitted four days before the City 2014 commenced, there is ample precedent for the contemporary plan to apply. This objection urges Brisbane City Council when it is considering the application under the City Plan 2000 to have regard to and consider the more contemporary planning elements of the City Plan 2014. It is noted that the developer made the application on the 26 June 2014 (four days before the City Plan 2014 commenced). Brisbane City Council is not prevented from considering draft laws and policies through well-established planning principles such as the “Coty principle” (Coty (England) Pty Ltd v. Sydney City Council (1957) 2 LGRA 117). The PA application was lodged under the City Plan 2000 and as such the environmental offsets ratios that area applicable are those within that plan. The green space strategy for the site is demonstrating a far superior environmental and ecological outcome for the site that will result in the protection of areas of the site that will thrive with vegetation (both existing and rehabilitated), in comparison to protecting a large area of the site that is substantially cleared through historical farming practices, and assists in maintaining the function of only one of the identified corridors and connections of environmental areas on the site. Offsets and achieving good environmental outcomes for a site should not be limited to a calculated number. The value of the vegetation communities, the rarity of the species and prevalence within South East Queensland (and more specifically Brisbane) needs to be taken into consideration. These have been considered as part of the environmental response and proposed protection and enhancement (through rehabilitation of vegetation communities historical to the area) of the site. The compensatory package includes a mix of habitat measures (e.g., revegetation) and non-habitat measures (e.g., protected area fencing), with location of planting approved by Council. The proposed communities of vegetation to be revegetated are of high ecological significance and will result in more varied habitat, and therefore will achieve an outcome that will enhance and protect the natural environment of Upper Kedron, beyond the current land use, and Council mapping provisions. Objection: The purpose of the Ferny Grove— Upper Kedron Local Plan is to provide finer grained planning at a local level. Outcomes are to include the protection of land to maintain its character, natural and ecological significance. To support this goal residential development south of Cedar Creek (the development area in question) is to be “accessed through the potential development area to the north and not from Mt Nebo Road, Brompton Road or the unconstructed part of Ross Road.” Brisbane City Council should enforce the Ferny Grove - Upper Kedron Local Plan. The local plan states: “very-low density residential development south of Cedar Creek will be accessed through the potential development area to the north and not from Mt Nebo Road, Brompton Road or the unconstructed part of Ross Road.” In the same Local Plan they also identify a corridor investigation area for the potential Samford Valley sub-arterial corridor to connect between the Samford Valley and Brisbane. This investigation area crossed the subject site from the north-west to south-east corner connecting into the western end of The Gap. The investigation corridor for the sub-arterial route has now been removed from the Local Plan. The subject site has two existing gazetted road connections with Mount Nebo Road. The first being the identified unconstructed Ross Road, and the second located approximately 400m closer towards The Gap. The Local Plan is silent on whether either of these connections can be utilised for future development to access Mount Nebo Road. The assessment of the site as part of the proposed development has identified that in order to achieve good urban design and connectivity for the western suburbs of Brisbane, a connection to the wider transport network is needed via an intersection with Mount Nebo Road. Removing the ability to connect to Mt Nebo Road would result in continued fragmentation between Upper Kedron and the Gap suburbs, limits the ability to connect public transport and places an unnecessary burden on the transport network to the north. Although it has been clearly demonstrated that the transport network to the north is able to accommodate the traffic demand created by developing this site, it is considered an unnecessary burden, when an opportunity to open a southern connection into the wider transport network for the western suburbs of Brisbane is available, and will not impose an unreasonable impact on the arterial transport network to the South of the site. The overriding benefit of good urban design and planning merit should prevail in this instance. With a southern access to the site offering opportunities to increase traveller choice, whether driving or using public passenger transport. Objection: The development application’s use of land precludes any acreage property. This is not consistent with the character or zoning requirements of similar lots in The Gap that boarder Mount Coot-tha or Keperra Bushland Reserves. Property adjacent to National Parkland should be zoned in a similar fashion. The conservation areas proposed by the development application are not sufficient on their own to warrant the exclusion of further gradation of housing density for those properties closest to National Park. That Graduation should include acreage allotments similarly zoned to those in The Gap that boarder Mount Coo-tha Bushland Reserves. The proposed development application does not preclude “acreage” properties within the balance of the site. The current DA applications as over less steep terrain and as such the yield of development is in the order anticipated on emerging community land (being approximately 12 dwellings per hectare). The ‘Hilltop’ (light orange area in image below) precinct within the balance area of the site anticipates far lower yield, which is reflective of ‘acreage’ style allotments. It is anticipated that yield in this area will be in the order of 5-8 dwellings per hectare (1250-2000sqm per lot). It is considered that the proposed yield responds appropriately to the natural topography of the site and the surrounding natural environment. Objection: The proposed density of the development is not in keeping with (a) the City Plan 2000, or (b) the City Plan 2014, or (c) the Ferny Grove/Upper Kedron Local Plan land, or (d) generally for development on Brisbane’s most western urban fringe surrounded by National Park. With the Rural zoned portion of the site able to be assessed as Emerging Communities under the Local Plan, the overall site yield is permissible under the Local Plan, but locates in response to topography and actual environmental values.