Subject: Public exhibition of the options report for the
Springwood Town Centre Project
The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the results and
analysis of submissions made on the public exhibition of the "Springwood Town
Centre Options Report" (Options Report).
The Options Report presents a preferred option, selected from a range of six
options, for the Council to seek expressions of interest from the private sector
to redevelop one or more of three public owned sites within Springwood Town
Centre. The Options Report outlines the background to the project and key issues
surrounding the operation of Springwood Town Centre. It also sets out a planning
framework for the project, including a draft Vision; economic, social and
environmental outcomes. An overview of Community facilities and parking issues
is provided, and a number of supporting studies are summarised in the
Appendices. Option 2 is the preferred option determined by the Council and
proposes that the Civic Centre and the Northern and Southern Car Parks
(together) are offered to the market accompanied by Council identified
opportunities and suggestions.
The Options Report was placed on public exhibition from 13 August to Friday
21 September, 2007 and submissions were received up to 9am Monday 24 September.
Overall 145 submissions were received during this period. Comments presented
ranged from full support to part support or opposition to some or all of the
options and concepts presented in the Options Report. A large number of comments
were received on a range of issues. These are summarised in this report and a
number of amendments to the EoI documentation and process are proposed in
response to the submissions received.
An electronic copy of all submissions has previously been supplied to the
Councillors for their information. A copy of all submissions has also been made
available for public viewing at the Council offices and public libraries, and an
electronic copy is available for viewing on a Springwood Project page on the
Council website. The copy of submissions made available to the public has been
amended to remove personal information regarding the submitters.
The "Springwood Town Centre Options Report" as placed on public exhibition
presents a broad range of options for proceeding to an open EoI process for the
potential redevelopment of public land located at three sites within Springwood
Town Centre. The EoI process needs to conform to applicable legislation and
policy and is proposed to be undertaken within the requirements of the Tendering
Policy of the Council.
The "Springwood Town Centre Options Report" was presented to the Council at
its meeting of 7 August 2007. The Council resolved:
(Minute No. 210, 07/08/2007)
The Options Report was placed on public exhibition for a period of six (6)
weeks. Copies of the Options Report were placed on display at Council offices in
Katoomba and Springwood and in Council Libraries across the city. It was also
made available for viewing and download from the Council website. Printed copies
of the Options Report and a summary document were distributed on request from
the Council offices in Katoomba and Springwood.
On Saturday 25 August 2007 a public information session and a public forum
were conducted at Springwood Bowling Club. Approximately 50 to 60 people
attended each session. A broad transcript of the public forum was made available
on the Council website for the information of the public during the remainder of
the public exhibition period.
Written submissions were requested on the Options Report. One hundred and
forty five (145) submissions were lodged with the Council by Monday 24 September
2007. These submissions have been analysed and a summary of the issues contained
in the submissions is presented in this report.
One submission was received from Sydney West Area Health Service, and nine
(9) submissions were received from community organisations being:
One hundred and nine (109) submissions were received from Springwood district
from local residents and/ or business operators. The location of submitters is
summarised in table 1 below. Map 1 shows the location of the five geographic
catchment or planning areas within the City: Areas 1 to 5.
A summary table of the issues raised and numbers in support or otherwise is
provided as Attachment 1. The main issues raised are outlined below.
Although not stated as succinctly, the majority of submissions appear to
support Option 5 of the Options Report: i.e. that no sites are offered to the
market. While acknowledging this sentiment this report continues to support the
proposed Option 2 as this is consistent with the Council's adopted position and
it provides the Council with the opportunity to test the market. Consequently
this report presents suggested amendments to the Call for Expressions of
Interest process or documentation in response to the issues raised in the
submissions.
The major issue raised by the submissions related to the introduction of a
multinational supermarket and/or major chain stores and shopping mall to
Springwood. Concerns surrounded the perceived impact of this style of
development on the existing village atmosphere and on the viability of the local
traders currently operating in the village.
A majority of submissions did not support the inclusion of one or more of the
site options. Concern was also expressed around the sale or lease of public land
for the purpose of increased commercial or retail development within the town
centre. Comments related especially to the loss of public control and access to
the land and existing facilities.
A number of submissions commented on the planning process used and the EoI
process especially related to the timetable and the extent of community
consultation undertaken.
Many submissions commented on various aspects of the provision or upgrade of
community amenities and facilities. Thirty two submissions supported
refurbishment of community facilities and a number argued that as this would be
more affordable than provision of new facilities and subsequently could make the
sale or lease of public land unnecessary. Many submissions opposed relocation of
the Early Childhood Centre and/or children's playground from the Northern Car
Park or to Buckland Park. In particular the various community organisations that
use the War Memorial in Buckland Park during the year were opposed to relocation
of the Early Childhood Centre to the park as it may interfere with the capacity
of the Memorial on ceremonial occasions. The Western Sydney Area Health Service
made comments as to the considerations necessary for any relocation of the
facility and nominated preferred locations. Retention or enlargement of the Town
Square was proposed in many submissions.
Retention of safe and accessible at-level parking, public toilets and open
space in the centre of the town centre were major issues raised. The importance
of retaining views to the bushland from the Town Square and adjoining public
areas was also raised in a number of submissions.
Table 2 below lists the various matters and issues raised. Responses to the
issues raised are provided in Table 2 and amendments to the EoI documentation or
process are recommended.
Although not specifically stated by many, the submissions supported the
social, environmental and economic outcomes stated in the Options Report.
However many opposed specific suggestions and opportunities for the different
sites as detailed within the Options Report. Amendments to these are proposed in
Table 2.
A review of the parking requirements within Springwood Town Centre and an
update of the Springwood Town Centre Master Plan were also suggested by a number
of submissions. This report makes recommendations that the Council consider
allocation of resources to undertake this work.
Table 2 provides a summary of key issues raised in submissions, responses to
these issues, and recommends amendments to the Call for Expressions of Interest.
| Issue raised in submissions |
Response |
Recommended amendments to the call for expressions of interest |
1. Planning Framework
|
| There is already a "Vision" statement in the newly gazetted LEP
2005. LEP 2005 was generated after a significant amount of community
consultation. What is wrong with that Vision statement and why does it
need to be changed? It would appear that the Vision has been created
because the LEP does not support the process the Council is now
undertaking. |
A Vision statement for the project was developed in response to
requests made at the stakeholder workshop in March 2007. The Options
Report complies with LEP 2005 and the wording echoes the LEP2005.
E.g.:
Objectives of the Village-Town Centre zone include:
"To promote economic viability of the towns and villages.
"To focus large scale retailing and other higher order uses
in appropriate locations within the district centres of Katoomba and
Springwood. " The precinct statement in LEP 2005 outlines in detail
the considerations and precinct character with which new development
must comply. |
The Vision statement is maintained to guide EoI |
2. Consultation and opportunity for public comment
|
| The project should use consultation techniques designed to include
people of all ages, backgrounds and education levels |
This is noted. The timetable of the project did not permit extensive
community consultation. |
No change |
| There was inadequate notification of the consultation process and
inadequate levels of consultation |
Normal Council practices were used to publicise the opportunities
for consultation which were the public forum and the exhibition of the
Options Report within the time frame of the project. |
No change |
3. Expressions of Interest process
|
| Request/ demand opportunity to comment on specific proposal during EoI assessment process |
The proposed EoI assessment process follows the Council Tendering Policy. This has strict requirements for
confidentiality. There may be the opportunity for the Council to consult with the
community on specific issues or components of proposals between stages 1
and 2 of the EoI process if considered appropriate. |
No change |
| Time for EoI submission is inadequate for proponents to compile
adequate proposals: request that this be extended to late March 2008 |
The process proposed is a 2 stage process: this is to allow time for
a general proposal to be prepared within the 6 week advertising period
of stage 1 and then, subject to invitation to participate in the second
stage of the project, for preparation of a more detailed proposal over a
longer time period. |
No change |
4. Supporting research
|
| Requests were received for copies of supporting reports such as the
"Springwood Town Centre Economic Advice- Stage 1: Market Assessment and
Identification of Uses". By HillPDA; and "Springwood Town Centre
Revitalisation Stage 2 Traffic and Transport Advice" by GHD. |
Copies of reports were made available on request during the
exhibition period. Copies will also be made available to accompany the
EoI. |
No change |
| Components of the Economic report were questioned. E.g. the
estimated retail escape expenditure |
HillPDA Report was commissioned to examine strategic implications of
redevelopment within the Springwood Town Centre (Study Area). The report
is considered to be adequate for the purposes of the project. |
No change |
| Preparation of a social needs and cultural assessment is essential
before Council proceeds with this project |
An initial report on community facilities and services informed the
Options Report. However this did not provide details of future requirements for community
facilities and services. It is proposed to undertake a Comprehensive
Social and Cultural Assessment to support Springwood Town Centre Project
by March 2008. This report would then inform stage 2 of the EoI process. |
No change to Stage 1 EoI. That a comprehensive social and cultural assessment report is undertaken by
March 2008 and that this informs Stage 2 of the EoI. |
5. Civic Centre Site Option
|
| Don't redevelop parking areas as there is not enough parking for
special events as it is. |
See parking matters below |
No change |
| Request retention or replacement of community facilities on site |
Options Report already suggests "Retain, enhance or replace
existing community buildings and services" |
No change |
| Ensure that Council maintains control of these facilities: we do not
want private developers charging for use of the Civic Centre or library
services |
The Council already charges for use of public halls on a sliding
rate which offers community group concessions. Regarding library
access, NSW Legislation requires that "any person who is a resident of the area of the local
authority or a ratepayer of the local authority is entitled to free
membership of the Library free of charge." And that "Any person (whether
or not a member of the library) is entitled free of charge to access to
any book of the library and to any information forming part of the
information service of the library (other than information excepted from
free access by guidelines issued by the Council) for use on the library
premises." |
No change |
| Suggestions were given regarding shifting of certain facilities to
other sites e.g. Library and Neighbourhood Centre with a new Tourism
Information office on the Northern or Southern Car Park. |
The Options Report does allow and encourage lateral solutions to
relocation of facilities provided that they meet community needs and
demonstrate public benefit. |
No change |
| Support decked parking and support for residential development. |
The opportunity exists for this to be included in a proposal for the
EoI |
No change |
| Support for extending the existing supermarket |
The opportunity exists for this to be included in a proposal for the
EoI should the owners or operators of the existing supermarkets wish to
expand |
No change |
| Suggestions for various changes to traffic circulation |
The Options report does recognise that consideration of traffic
circulation changes may be of advantage |
No change |
| Do not relocate pedestrian crossing as this would cause traffic
problems |
The GHD report states that the pedestrian desire lines coincide with
the location of the existing crossing and suggests that were the
pedestrian crossing to move that an additional pedestrian crossing would
be required across the wide intersection of Greenway Lane. |
Remove reference to relocation of pedestrian crossing in the EoI |
| Use the same developer for the Civic centre site as the other sites |
Subject to appropriate proposals being received this is permitted
within the EoI. |
No change |
| Consider relocation of Early Childhood Centre to the Civic Centre
site not Buckland Park |
Valid concerns have been highlighted about relocation to Buckland
Park |
Amend the EoI to suggest consideration incorporation of Early Childhood Centre in future development on the Civic Centre site, the Northern Car Park or Southern Car Park |
6. Southern Car Park
|
| Comments on the concepts for this site are included elsewhere in
this table |
See responses elsewhere within the table |
See elsewhere within the table |
7. Northern Car Park
|
| Comments on the concepts for this site are included elsewhere in
this table |
See responses elsewhere within the table |
See elsewhere within the table |
8. Traffic
|
| Congestion of Hawkesbury Road roundabout at peak afternoon times
is a problem and this would reduce potential for any increase in trade. |
This was noted in the Options Report. There needs to be a whole of
government approach taken to resolve current traffic congestion issues.
The Options Report recommends that the Council continues to lobby the
RTA on this matter. |
No change |
| Further development will result in increased traffic and
congestion within the town centre. |
Council's consultant has advised that new retail uses would function
along side existing retail provision and that most trips are already
occurring. Peak traffic generation periods for retail would be the
weekday evenings and Saturday lunch time. |
No change |
| Semi trailer traffic would increase with additional supermarket and
shops and this needs to be considered. |
The EoI is a staged process and the detailed proposals would be
required to identify potential traffic impact and how it will be
addressed. Traffic considerations would also be considered during
development assessment prior to any actual development. |
Traffic assessment should be required as part of stage 2 of the EoI |
| The Town Square pedestrian crossing should be converted to traffic
lights |
This is noted. The impact of any proposal on pedestrian needs would
also need to be assessed with any detailed proposal. |
Traffic assessment should be required as part of stage 2 of the EoI |
| Macquarie Road and Greenway Lane should be made one way roads. |
This suggestion is noted for consideration within any future traffic
assessment. However the recent GHD report on traffic does not indicate
the need for major changes such as this.. |
No change |
| For whole of Area 4 - install more footpaths, Highway crossings,
local traffic calming measures. |
This is noted but is outside the study area and the scope of the
project. The request will be conveyed to Council's traffic section for
consideration. |
No change |
9. Parking
|
| Loss of any public parking is unacceptable. |
As mentioned in the Options Report, any parking removed must be
replaced. |
No change |
| The existing at-level parking in the Northern Car Park is most
desirable and heavily used. Do not remove it. |
The point is acknowledged however the Options Report does indicate
that although parking must be replaced consideration could be given for
relocation from the Northern car park to the Southern car park. It will
have to be developed in accordance with current standards required under
the Better Living DCP. |
No change to stage 1. Stage 2 should require provision of detail on
any proposal for public parking. |
| Decked parking - visual appearance |
LEP 2005 controls the building appearance, and these matters will be
considered within the EoI assessment process. |
No change |
Underground parking - visibility, security, accessibility,
replacement of
parking lost, paid parking |
Control over access to parking and conditions of provision will be
incorporated into the EoI particularly for Stage 2. |
No change |
| Signage and lighting for existing parking could be improved. |
This is included in the Options report as an important consideration
to amenity of the centre. |
No change |
| A review of the Car Parking Code is overdue. |
This is acknowledged and has been incorporated into a recommendation
of this report. |
No change. A recommendation is provided in this report for the
Council to consider allocation of resources to undertake a city wide
parking strategy including Springwood Town Centre. |
10. Sale of public land
|
| Opposed to loss of community asset: not justified for the
improvement of community facilities |
The sentiments are acknowledged. Sale is one of 3 different options
available as part of the proposed EoI process and proponents will be
asked to outline the benefits to the Council and the community
associated with their proposal. |
No change |
11. Lease of public land
|
| Lease land rather than sell |
The sentiments are acknowledged. Lease is one of the options
available as part of the EoI process and proponents will be asked to
outline the benefits to the Council and the community associated with
their proposal |
No change |
12. Public Private Partnership (PPP)
|
| Reference to failures of PPP development projects across the state;
and the need to stop until results of government investigations have
been released |
The sentiments are acknowledged. PPP guidelines are provided by
the NSW Government. PPP offers the potential advantages of continued
asset ownership while providing resources for public benefit such as
community facilities. Proponents will be asked to outline the benefits
to the Council and the community associated with their proposal |
No change. |
13. Amenity/ Urban design of public streetscape
|
| A number of submissions made suggestions to improve the amenity of
the town centre through urban design measures |
These suggestions will be referred to relevant sections of the
Council. Major town centre works were completed in 1996 with reasonable
success. |
No change |
| Large commercial development will destroy the village character
and street appeal |
Urban design is an important consideration for stage 2 of the EoI in
particular. The precinct controls within LEP 2005 control design and
scale of building. |
No change |
14. Sustainable Design/ Environmental Conservation
|
| Need energy efficient design |
EoI requires use of energy sustainable design principles |
No change |
| Do not increase stormwater impacts from Southern car park site on
Magdala Creek catchment |
EoI requires water sensitive urban design and energy sustainable
design principles in new development and refurbishment of community
facilities. As each site has impervious cover already development it is
possible that new development would reduce stormwater impacts. |
No change |
| Install rain tanks around the Library so that gardens can be
established and maintained to beautify the area |
EoI requires use of water sensitive urban design and energy
sustainable design principles in new development and refurbishment of
public facilities. |
No change |
15. Introduction of a Major Chain/Multi-national Supermarket/Shopping Centre
|
| Will increase traffic congestion. |
See traffic section. |
No change |
| Will result in increased vandalism and graffiti. |
This is an existing problem that requires solutions generated
outside of this project. The EoI can require that new development can be
designed to minimise the potential for this to be a problem. |
Include reference to new development use safer by design principles
and seek to reduce potential for graffiti and vandalism. |
| Will have negative impact upon local/established traders. |
It is likely that any new development would have both positive and
negative impacts upon existing traders. The short term and long term
implications need to be considered by the Council. The EoI does provide
the opportunity for the growth of existing shops including existing
supermarkets. |
No change. |
| Profits will go overseas. |
This is not an issue for the Council to determine. The EoI would
require financial information on the capacity of the proponent and the
benefits provided to both the Council and the community. |
No change. |
| Local traders support local community groups. |
Many larger chains as well as local traders have community support
programs. Proponents will need to outline benefits to the Council and
the community from their proposals. |
No change |
| There is no need for additional retailing. Shops are available at
Winmalee and Penrith. |
A concern raised by some Springwood traders relates to recent loss
of customers to Winmalee and elsewhere. HillPDA has advised that the
Springwood market has the potential to support additional supermarket
floor space of 2050m2. |
No change |
| Supermarkets are not in keeping with a World Heritage Area and the
slow food movement. |
The World Heritage Listing applies to areas of National Park and not
any urban area. Supermarkets already exist in the Blue Mountains LGA and
are a permissible land use within the project area. |
No change |
| Design concerns related to common development form of large
supermarkets. |
LEP 2005 governs the design of all new town centre development and
sufficiently controls this issue. |
No change. |
| Large scale development. |
LEP 2005 provides controls over the scale and appearance of
development including the height; street frontage; built form and
finish; site coverage; setback; pedestrian safety and parking and
vehicle access. |
No change |
| A new supermarket will bring more customers, modernise the area and
provide better choice. |
The Project vision and outcomes seek to realise increased economic
activity for Springwood. |
No change |
| Would prefer expansion of the existing supermarkets. |
The opportunity exists for this to be included in a proposal for the
EoI should the owners or operators of the existing supermarkets wish to
expand. |
No change |
16. Retail/Commercial/ Residential Development
|
| High rents are the cause of shop vacancies. |
The Economic Report prepared for the Council by HillPDA notes this
comment from a local real estate agent and their initial investigations
do support this observation. This project seeks to improve the economic
viability of the Town centre. |
No change |
| Land uses such as offices and/ or residential above shops should
be
encouraged |
LEP 2005 does permit a mix of uses to be developed within the town
centre and the Options Report and EoI support this |
No change |
| Provide additional office space |
LEP 2005 does permit a mix of uses to be developed within the town
centre and the Options Report and EoI support this |
No change |
| Provide Shops fronting Macquarie Road |
LEP 2005 supports this |
No change |
17. Residential development
|
| Shop top housing could be converted to office without the requisite
parking being provided |
This is an enforcement issue which is outside of the scope of this
project. |
No change |
18. Retention of views to bushland
|
| Council must retain views from Macquarie Road and the Town Square |
This can be a formal requirement on the redevelopment of the
Southern carpark |
That retention of views of the bushland from the Town Square and
Macquarie Road is part of the EoI requirements and any subsequent
property negotiations of views of the bushland from the Town Square and
Macquarie Road is part of the EoI requirements and any subsequent
property negotiations |
| We need to retain views (from our property) as this was part of
our understanding during the process involving dedication of the land to
the Council for car parking. |
The Council will need to consider this situation. |
Investigate requirements and proceed to ensure any substantiated requirements are indicated on documentation and any subsequent property negotiations. |
19. Retention of Parks and open space
|
| Retain or enlarge the Town Square |
The Options Report suggests this happen. |
No change |
| An important element of the village atmosphere is the open space
within the town centre |
The Option Report proposed relocation of the Early Childhood Centre
to Buckland Park. This would reduce open space available. |
Remove reference to the relocation of Buckland Park from the EoI
documentation |
| The use of native plants within the parks is important |
Although an important consideration the planting policy for parks is
outside of the scope of the project. |
No change |
20. Protection of capacity of Buckland Park to accommodate services
at the War Memorial.
|
| The relocation of the Early Childhood Centre to Buckland Park would
threaten the capacity of the park to accommodate regular Memorial
ceremonies |
The proposal for relocation of the ECC and playground to Buckland
Park is not integral to the EoI as other opportunities exist for
relocation of the ECC within new development of the northern car park,
Southern Car park, or Civic Centre site |
Remove reference to the relocation of ECC to Buckland Park from the
EoI documentation. |
21. Relocation of the early Childhood centre and or the Children's
Playground
|
| Oppose relocation of Early Childhood Centre and Children's Play
ground from town centre |
This proposal is not integral to the EoI as other opportunities
exist for relocation of the ECC within new development of the northern
car park, Southern Car park, or Civic Centre site |
Remove reference to the relocation of Buckland Park from the EoI
documentation. |
22. Public amenities/ toilets
|
| There is a need for continued provision of public toilets in the
central area of town. The toilets need to be highly visible and offer
security for use. |
The need for security and visibility of public toilets can be a
requirement in any redevelopment proposal. |
That the EoI includes as an outcome for the Northern or Southern car
park of provision of visible and secure public toilet in the central
section of the town centre |
23. [Missing]
|
24. Community facilities are inadequate and need upgrading
|
| A study is needed to indicate what is required to meet future
population needs. Engage a consultant to examine the
feasibility of upgrading the existing facilities in the Springwood
Civic Centre and neighbourhood Centre..... |
An initial report on community facilities and services informed the
Options Report. However this is not sufficient to provide details of
future requirements for community facilities and services. It is
proposed to undertake a Comprehensive Social and Cultural Assessment by
March 2008. This report would then inform |
No change to Stage 1 EoI. That a comprehensive social and cultural
assessment report is undertaken by March 2008 to inform Stage 2 of the
EoI. |
| Investigate energy efficient methods to upgrade the Civic centre |
stage 2 of the EoI process. |
|
| A developer is unlikely to wish to pay for adequate provision of new
community facilities |
The EoI proposes to test the capacity of the market |
No change |
Different suggestions were offered as to how to relocate or provide
new facilities e.g. move the Library and Early Childhood Centre to the
Southern Car Park in conjunction with tiered car parking; detailed
proposal for a
Performing Arts Centre |
As part of the documentation of this Council report the suggestions
can be made available for consideration by proponents of the EoI |
The content of the submissions is available in support of this
Council report and can be made available to support the EoI |
| Refurbishment of existing facilities is all that is required |
Either refurbishment or replacement of the community facilities
within the study area would be a major cost for the Council. That is one
of the reasons for commencing this project. |
No change |
| Fund maintenance and refurbishment or replacement of community
facilities by means other than sale or lease of public land |
As the annual rates income of the Council is not increasing in line
with the commitments for asset maintenance and replacement the Council
has identified a need for pursuit of additional funding sources. The
Council already actively pursues funding through Federal and State
government sources. This project investigates a potential alternative
funding source and the benefits will be assessed within the EoI process. |
No change |
25. Existing access over public land from adjoining properties: this relates to all 3 sites
|
| A number of existing developments currently require access over
public land for a number of reasons such as parking, loading dock access
or emergency exit; or retention of views to bushland. |
Retention of this access is proposed where supported by relevant
development approvals or other legal agreements recognised by the
Council and/ or Crown |
Provide details of easements with the EoI as survey documentation
for consideration within proposals. |
26. Increase tourism in the town centre
|
| Improve promotion and signage from the Highway |
In order increase tourism there is a need to develop attractions.
The existing Highway signage to the town centre meets RTA standards
however for the RTA to permit specific tourism signage this requires
tourism attractions to meet a number of base line criteria such as
opening hours; and level of attractions. |
No change |
| Suggestions were made for development of a range of tourism
attractions to revitalise the centre such as overflow exhibition space
for the Art Gallery of NSW, Australian Museum or other organisation
willing to participate; Performing Arts Centre; reference facility for
ex- Prime Ministers papers; promote assets like the Railway Station and
Library; etc |
Where permitted by planning policy opportunities are possible for
any of these proposals within the EoI. They are however unlikely to be
economically sustainable by the private sector and may need
consideration through the proposed social and cultural assessment. |
No change |
| Increase opening hours of food outlets |
This is a matter for business operators not the Council |
No change |
27. Bridge linking Northern car park to train station
|
| This may be desirable however it would be expensive and unlikely to
happen. |
This is acknowledged however mention within the EoI would indicate
the potential to proponents who may consider it beneficial to their
proposal. |
No change |
28. Construction of tunnel from Northern to Southern car park
|
| This may be desirable however it would be expensive and unlikely to
happen. |
This is acknowledged however mention within the EoI would indicate
the potential to proponents who may consider it beneficial to their
proposal. |
No change |
29. Heritage
|
|
Protect Braemar.....
Protect other items and streetscape/precinct elements.
Protect the Civic Centre as it is an important example of 1960s development. |
This has been incorporated into the Options Report in accordance
with the current and draft heritage listings in Springwood (LEP 2005).
Legislation is in place to conserve the heritage listed items. |
No change necessary. |
30. Include other Council land in Options Report and EoI
|
Why haven't other Council owned sites also been included in the
Options Report?
There is a large parcel of operational land which
includes Greenway Lane that runs from the Telstra owned land to the edge
of Buckland Park which would lend itself to double storey development
with the Greenway Lane and existing car parking facilities integrated
into the development. This would encourage integration of existing
retail outlets and arcades. It would allow for a double storey development that would not impinge on
the aesthetics of Macquarie Road. A development on this site would be
less disruptive to retailers. It would clean up what is an unsightly
view from the Great Western Highway. |
The proposed site is smaller and narrower than the other 3 sites.
Some of the land appears to be classified as community land. Greenway
Lane access is to be maintained.
Development of this site would present difficulties associated with integration with existing adjoining development. Whilst connection to the two existing
arcades would be desirable, this would require building alterations to
both these in order for good connections to be made. There are a number
of requirements under the Building Code of Australia that would need to
be satisfied including egress from buildings, fire separation at the
boundaries, light and ventilation amongst others.
Many of the other existing shops (such as Curves) have on site
parking at their rear. This would need to be maintained as it is on
private land. Extensions could be built over the top of this private parking
however additional on site parking would also need to be provided and
there is little opportunity for this to occur. All existing entrance
points for vehicles and pedestrians would need to be maintained or
alternatives negotiated.
If existing shops were to extend towards a new development most
would still need to be separate entities unless they could negotiate
cross boundary entrances and possible modifications to internal floor
plans of the new rear development.
This current project offers an opportunity to test the market for
this site. An objective of the project is to increase the economic
viability of the town centre and this site has potential to provide
various benefits including an improvement to the views from the Highway
and improving existing dead end arcades.
However additional property investigations would be required
before this land could be included in the EoI so that four (4) sites are
offered to the market generally in accordance with Option 2.Adequate property investigations would not be able to be conducted
within the current timetable for the project, and additional time would
be required should the Council wish to include the additional site in the EoI. |
No change |
31. The classification of public land is questioned
|
| Braemar should be classified community land |
The current classification is as operational land however the
Council could reconsider this classification. |
No change to the EoI. The Council may wish to reconsider the
classification of the land parcel separate to this project. |
| The land within the Southern Car Park should be classified community
land |
The classifications contained within the Options Report have been
checked and are considered to be valid. |
No change |
32. Other matters
|
| Include adjoining privately owned parcel of land in the Project |
This request is not within the scope of the project, and the
suggestions is not consistent with the zoning of the land. |
No change |
The Call for Expressions of Interest process will ask each proponent to
detail how their proposal would address triple bottom line considerations.
This report represents one step within the overall Springwood Town Centre
Project which seeks to provide a catalyst to assist revitalisation of the town
centre. The Council has approved a budget allocation of $160,000 over 2006-2008
to undertake the Springwood Town Centre Project.
This report presents results and analysis of submissions presented to the
Council on the Options Report. There are no legal requirements for the Council
to undertake public consultation in this project; however the Council has
decided to seek community comment at this critical stage of the project.
The Call for Expressions of Interest will be based around the planning
framework and the preferred option as outlined in the Options Report. This
report recommends amendments to the suggested opportunities for redevelopment of
the three sites in response to the submissions. These will provide opportunities
and suggestions for consideration by proponents for the EoI.
The Call for Expressions of Interest process is proposed to follow the
Council's tendering policy.
This report recommends that the Council receive and note the submissions made
on the Springwood Town Centre Options Report as publicly exhibited over the
period 13 August to 22 September 2007.
It is recommended that the Council receive a report presenting the
documentation and process proposed to be followed for the Call for Expressions
of Interest (EoI) on three specified Council owned or managed sites within
Springwood Town Centre being the Northern Car Park, the Southern Car Park and
the Civic Centre Site.
It is recommended that the opportunities and suggestions for consideration in
proposals are amended in response to the submissions received and are included
in the documentation for the EoI to inform and guide proposals.
Criteria are proposed to guide the assessment of proposals lodged in Stage 1
of the EoI. These recognise the issues raised by the public submissions. The
criteria for assessment are to include where practical but are not to be limited
to:
The report also recommends that consideration is given in the preparation of
the 4 year Management Plan 2008-2012 for resources to undertake a review of
relevant strategic plans and policies including: Springwood Town Centre Master
Plan; Springwood Town Centre Parking requirements; and preparation of a city
wide parking strategy.