Agenda of City Planning Committee Meeting

Item No. 7.1.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 8

14/2/2017

REPORT TITLE: Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 - Planning Scheme Amendment PSA-16-9 - 125 Swanston Street, New Town - consideration of representations

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Planning Policy and Heritage

Director City Planning

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to discuss the merits of five representations received during the public exhibition of Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 amendment PSA-16-9 (Attachment B).

1.2. The proposed amendment is to rezone part of 125 Swanston Street from Inner Residential to Urban Mixed Use (Attachment A).

1.3. Recommendations to the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) regarding the need for any modifications to the amendment as a result of the representations are considered.

1.4. The proposal benefits the community by ensuring that land is appropriately zoned, that development is undertaken in a fair and orderly manner, and that public consultation has been considered.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The purpose of the report is to consider five representations received in relation to the exhibition of a planning scheme amendment to rezone part of 125 Swanston Street (excluding the strata titled unit known as 12/125 Swanston Street) from Inner Residential to Urban Mixed Use.

2.2. One representation supporting the amendment on behalf of the strata title owner of the land to be rezoned states that the amendment allows for more efficient use of a site constrained by high voltage transmission towers and associated wayleave easement, while retaining sufficient amenity protection measures for adjoining landowners.

2.3. Three of the representations submitted against the proposal support the perspective of the strata title owner of 12/125 Swanston Street (Mr Mitchell), and state that the amenity impact on this landowner as a result of the rezoning would be unacceptable.

2.4. A further representation from another adjoining landowner raises concerns about visual impact and overshadowing that may result from potential development on the site after a rezoning.

2.5. Each concern is responded to in detail. It is noted that the two landowners of the strata titled 125 Swanston Street have very opposing views in relation to the merits of the rezoning. These views are acknowledged, and consideration of them is weighed in relation to the optimal planning outcome in this instance.

2.6. It is concluded, on balance, that Council recommend to the TPC that the planning scheme amendment be approved as certified.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. Pursuant to Section 39(2) of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, the Council endorse this report as the formal statement of its opinion as to the merit of the representations received during the exhibition of the draft PSA-16-9 Amendment.

2. Pursuant to Section 39(2) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, the Council recommend to the Tasmanian Planning Commission that the PSA-16-9 Amendment to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 be approved as certified.

4. Background

4.1. At its meeting of 7 November 2016, Council considered a proposed amendment under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) to rezone 125 Swanston Street (excluding the strata titled area known as 12/125 Swanston Street) from Inner Residential to Urban Mixed Use (report and attachments in Attachment C).

4.2. The planning scheme amendment was certified and placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days, from 17 November to 15 December 2016.

4.3. The exhibition process resulted in five representations being received within the statutory period. Copies of the representations are provided in Attachment B.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The proposal is to consider five representations made in relation to planning scheme amendment PSA-16-9.

5.2. Four of the representations were against the proposal, and one was in support of the proposal.

5.3. A summary of the issues raised in the representations, along with relevant responses, are detailed as follows:

Issue raised	Response
Representation 1
The amendment will affect the property to the south of the subject site by allowing the existing business, which is already an eyesore and anomaly in the immediate area, to expand its visual impact.	It is accepted that the existing business (Duo Trading, which sells automotive oils) is not characteristic of the immediate vicinity, which is primarily residential. The site is, however, in close proximity to land in the Urban Mixed Use Zone (UMUZ) along New Town Road, including a large shopping complex (New Town Plaza).
The 7m height of the ‘proposed business structure’, combined with the slope, will impact the view and efficiency of the solar heating hot water system of the property to the south. The property is already shaded by the Duo Trading building in late afternoon during winter and the ‘new structure’ would be just as high and due north, thus casting a shadow on solar heat collectors a the worst time during the months with the least sunshine. It would also inhibit enjoyment of winter sunshine.	There has been no application yet for a building to be constructed on the site. The current proposal is for rezoning only. The reference to a 7m high building is contained in the withdrawn report originally submitted by the owners of the site, and this was an indication of initial plans for what could occur on the site. At the point that a development application is lodged, overshadowing concerns can be addressed if any discretions are invoked. It is noted that regardless of the zoning, a 7m high structure/structures could be built on the vacant space. The permitted height in the Inner Residential Zone (IRZ) is 9.5m.
Any future subdivision or development of the property to the south (which is lower density compared to surroundings and ideal for subdivision) would undoubtedly put new residences closer to a ‘looming’ structure blocking the northern aspect (exacerbated by the steep slope). This would negatively affect property values and the quality of life for future residents.	It is noted again that no structure is applied for at this point. The rezoning allows for uses that are more conducive to a single large building, however the Inner Residential Zone (IRZ) is also encouraging of high density residential development, which could take the form of a single large block of flats. It is difficult to make any comment on the effect of a development that is not yet proposed on another development that is not yet proposed. In a broad planning sense, property values are not seen to be a planning matter.
Representation 2
Opposed to the rezoning as the owner of Unit 12/125 Swanston Street for 25 years, who lives alone and whose sole income is a disability support pension. The prospect of the proposed rezoning has caused considerable stress. The consequences of the rezoning if approved and subsequent building of a warehouse adjacent to the unit would have a personal detrimental impact.	This potential impact on Mr Mitchell is acknowledged.
An additional 650m² of turning area is planned at the entrance to the unit to cater for heavy vehicles turning. Each time I am driving or walking through the site I will be traversing through an operating business, including the movement of a forklift between the existing building and proposed warehouse.	Currently there is no development application proposed, so it is difficult to comment on the turning area issue. This is an issue that would be reviewed at development application stage. It is acknowledged, however, that the rezoning and subsequent development would invariably change the nature of the common thoroughfare used to access Mr Mitchell’s property.
There has been no acknowledgement whatsoever by the owner as to how the rezoning will affect my amenity and quiet enjoyment of my property.	This is noted.
Representation 3
While on paper the rezoning of the land appears to some parties to be a sensible and simple thing to do as they deem further residential development to be undesirable, the perspective of the owner of 12/125 Swanston Street (Mr Mitchell) is entirely different.	The individual effect of the rezoning on Mr Mitchell is noted.
The claim in the amendment report that Mr Mitchell ‘wishes to retain inner residential zoning’ for his property is a misrepresentation and oversimplification as there is no benefit to having the unit as a little island of IRZ in what could become a commercial precinct or even light industrial estate. In fact it may even be marginally more detrimental than having the whole area rezoned and was never the intent of Mr Mitchell’s objection to the proposal.	Discussions have been held with Mr Mitchell and his family relating to his preferences for the zoning of 12/125 Swanston Street, were a rezoning of some form to occur. Mr Mitchell has concerns that retention of his property in the IRZ, surrounded by UMUZ, would isolate him and could render his property unsaleable. Similarly, he has concerns that if his property were to be zoned UMUZ, the amenity protections specified in the zone where development is adjacent to residentially zoned land would not apply. This would mean any subsequent application for a warehouse development (or similar) would not need to have any specific amenity considerations in relation to Mr Mitchell’s land. Mr Mitchell has concluded that, while his preference is still very firmly that no rezoning occur, that if it were to occur, he wishes his land to remain in the IRZ. Mr Mitchell feels, however, that this is still an unappealing option given the isolation and change in character and operation surrounding his land that would occur.
Mr Mitchell’s expectation when purchasing his property from the current site owners in 1991 was that residential development would probably continue on the vacant land between the existing units. This would be a desirable outcome for Mr Mitchell as he would have neighbours and be part of a residential community, rather than being increasingly physically and socially isolated.	It has been noted that the land is largely undesirable for residential development. It is evident that residential development has in fact occurred on the site, and that it appears fully occupied which would indicate there is some demand for housing on the site. It would certainly be possible to further develop the land for residential use (possibly lower cost housing). However, it is considered that on balance this is an unlikely scenario and the more likely outcome is for the land as currently zoned to remain underutilised. From a planning perspective, allowing the land to be efficiently utilised is a positive outcome, although it is acknowledged that this is not without impact on Mr Mitchell.
The Council’s Mission and Values Statement says ‘we’re about people – we value people – our community, customers and colleagues’ and that Council aims to ‘build strong and healthy communities through diversity, participation and empathy’ and ‘we respect diversity in people and ideas’. There is a divergence of opinion on this issue and empathy is being able to look at something from the perspective of another person. It is important to do that in this situation rather than simply reflect values that see business imperatives take precedence over the human dimension, rights of the individual and natural justice.	It is noted that very divergent views are held by the two landowners of the strata site. Mr Mitchell’s views are acknowledged and respected, and are not without basis. The recommendations of this report attempts to determine the best outcome for the land in a planning sense, although it is noted that a rezoning on this site would likely not be without impact on adjoining land.
The business imperatives driving the rezoning are understood, but it has become a ‘winner takes all’ situation and there will only be negative implications for Mr Mitchell, including noise, reduced access, lower property value, visual impact and a less liveable environment. It seems to date this has not been a solution focussed process, and if the rezoning is approved, it will definitely be a win/lose scenario with no compensation for Mr Mitchell.	This view is acknowledged. While Council would be supportive of a resolution that could accommodate both landowners, it appears to be a circumstance where either a rezoning occurs or it does not, and in either case one of the two landowners will consider themselves negatively impacted. Other than one landowner purchasing the land from the other landowner, mediation options for a mutually agreeable outcome appear limited.
There has been a lack of consideration of Mr Mitchell’s perspective and while the proposal looks straightforward on paper, it should be asked if you would be happy with the proposed change adjacent to your home, resulting in a large warehouse and possibly other unknown developments. The significant negative effects on Mr Michael’s amenity, lifestyle and financial situation should be considered, as should whether he is receiving natural justice. The rezoning should be rejected.	Noted, as above.
Representation 4
Expresses strong opposition to the proposal. In the early stages there was consultation but then no correspondence from the landowner subject to the rezoning.	Noted.
The City Planning committee meeting of 1/11/2016 resolved to oppose the rezoning, with comments that there was ‘an inherent unfairness to the Mitchells’ resulting in ‘the effective isolation of the unit in an otherwise isolated area anyway’. Asks that this opposition is supported now.	It is noted that there was support for Mr Mitchell’s views at this meeting (which was held on 31/10/2016 rather than 1/11/2016 as stated in the representation).
There is a small access road which is the only access to 12/125 Swanston Street (which is at the end of the road). There is already damage from heavy traffic servicing Duo Trading and there will be a flow of activity between the existing and any new building across the access road.	It is acknowledged that the nature of the access to Mr Mitchell’s property will likely increase in intensity of activity if the rezoning occurs and further commercial development is pursued on the site.
Letters received from planning consultants employed by Duo Trading and Council indicate the writers believe the rezoning is reasonable, it gives options to use 12/125 Swanston Street in different ways that may be desirable, it will not result in a substantial impact on residential amenity to neighbouring dwellings or surrounding residential uses. These views are refuted and are the views only of those supporting the rezoning. As the most affected landowner, Mr Mitchell was not asked how the proposal would affect his amenity, and there is no desire from him to use it for anything other than residential use. He is very concerned about the possibility of a warehouse with associated traffic, noise and visual impact being built next to his house.	As above, these concerns are acknowledged.
Advice from an estate agent is that the property value of 12/125 Swanston Street could be significantly devalued to the point of being almost unsaleable.	While property values are not strictly a planning consideration, this concern is noted.
A truck turning circle is proposed for the area immediately adjacent to the boundary of 12/125 Swanston Street and the road was not designed for such activity.	A development application has not yet been received. Access issues would be addressed if a development were to be proposed.
There was an expectation that the vacant area of the site would be used for residential development, and it is causing great stress to think of 12/125 Swanston Street becoming a little island of inner residential zoning in what may become similar to a light industrial estate. While the business reasons behind the proposal are understood, there does not seem to be a way it could be done to maintain the value, access and quiet enjoyment of the unit in a residential area, and rejection of the proposal is urged.	As above, this concern is noted and acknowledged.
Representation 5
The owner of the land to be rezoned is in support of the amendment as strategically the rezoning would be a more efficient use of land resources, without resulting in diminution of residential amenity.	It is considered that, on balance, the rezoning would support more efficient use of this particular site, given its constraints for residential use. However, as evidenced by other representations received, there is concern that the rezoning would result in a diminution of residential amenity, particularly for 12/125 Swanston Street.
Without the rezoning, the landowner (DuoTrading) will no longer be able to operate on the site and would most likely need to consider relocating outside of the Hobart Municipality. The business contributes to the municipality as the regional centre for employment and commercial activity by employing 11 staff.	This is noted, however it is unlikely the site would remain vacant if the current owner were to relocate.
The site is not attractive for residential development due to proximity to high voltage power lines and the rail line. The current zone doesn’t recognise the existing uses which have been established for nearly 40 years and it would be an inefficient use of land resources for the site to remain undeveloped.	It is considered that, on balance, the rezoning has planning merit in that it allows for well serviced and well located land to be utilised more effectively than would likely occur with the current zoning.
The UMUZ is appropriate as it provides for a range of non-residential uses while also containing provisions to maintain an appropriate level of residential amenity. The circumstances created by the amendment (IRZ neighbouring the UMUZ) are not unique in Hobart, and the provisions of the zones have been established with respect to one another.	The zone does provide some amenity protection where development is adjacent to a residential zone boundary in relation to setback, height, landscaping and fencing. The zone also, however, allows for greater intensity of non-residential use, and while it is true that many UMUZ areas are surrounded by IRZ, in this case the proposal is not an expansion of an existing UMUZ area, but creation of a new UMUZ area.
During the process of preparing an amendment, consultation was undertaken with the owner of strata Unit 12 (Mr Mitchell). Rezoning the entire site was preferred as it would deliver improved opportunities for use and development on the entire site, however subsequent discussions found Mr Mitchell preferred to retain Inner Residential zoning to preserve residential amenity. This is why strata Unit 12 is excluded from the rezoning – intended to preserve Mr Mitchell’s residential amenity while allowing for the continued operation of Duo Trading.	Following discussions with Mr Mitchell, it appears that he does not feel adequate consultation occurred, and that it is a misrepresentation to state that he desired to remain in the IRZ while the remainder of the property is rezoned. Mr Mitchell has expressed that his desire was only ever to retain Inner Residential zoning for the entire site, not just his strata area in isolation. Subsequent council officer consultation with Mr Mitchell discussed whether inclusion of 12/125 Swanston Street into the UMUZ, or retention in the IRZ, would be more favourable if a rezoning does occur. Mr Mitchell concluded that while neither option was desirable to him, he wished to retain some level of residential amenity (as specified in the UMUZ development standards) by remaining in the IRZ. If 12/125 Swanston Street were to also be zoned UMUZ, there would be no provisions specifically requiring protection of his residential amenity.
The Urban Mixed Use Zone has a number of means of ensuring Mr Mitchell and other surrounding Inner Residential Zoned land does not result in unreasonable loss of residential amenity.	As noted above, there are some protective measures for amenity where development is adjacent to a residential zone.
The rezoning is of a scale consistent with the zone’s purpose, surrounding land uses, and pre-existing use of the site.	The rezoning is consistent with the existing mixed use of the site, however it is noted that the surrounding uses are primarily residential.
The zone purpose statements provide controls for discretionary development and are consistent with existing development on the site. Most commercial uses in the UMUZ are discretionary, and of those that are permitted, most have qualifications. All commercial uses must meet use standards.	This is true.
The development standards of the UMUZ have greater separation between buildings and controls to protect residential amenity where development is near the boundary of a residential zone than under the IRZ currently. The UMUZ controls for building height, setback and landscaping along residential zone boundaries, with more prescriptive standards for overshadowing, privacy and height than the IRZ.	The comparison in the representation between the building envelope provisions of the Inner Residential Zone (11.4.2 A3) and the provisions of the UMUZ in relation to proximity to a residential zone is not accurate. Given the site is strata titled, the strata boundary between Mr Mitchell’s land and the area occupied by Duo Trading is not in fact a ‘property boundary’. Therefore, the building envelope under this clause applies only to the property boundaries of 125 Swanston Street as a whole. The more relevant standard in this instance is 11.4.4 which addresses sunlight and overshadowing in relation to dwellings on the same site, although this is unlikely to apply to any development on the rezoned land as it is unlikely to be to the north of 12/125 Swanston Street. This means that there would be little in the way of setback requirements in relation to unit 12 under the current IRZ zoning, and the UMUZ offers a 3m setback or half the height of the wall (whichever is greater), with requisite landscaping within this setback to avoid visual amenity issues. The IRZ includes other provisions relating to residential amenity, however, that the UMUZ does not, such as maximum site coverage and site area per dwelling specifications. Notably, the privacy provisions of the UMUZ do not extend to dwellings on the same site, whereas they do under the IRZ. There are also provisions relating to privacy from shared driveways under the IRZ that are not present under the UMUZ. In a practical sense, while the building envelope standards of the IRZ may allow for closer and higher development to 12/125 Swanston Street compared to the provisions under the UMUZ (and this is only true if unit 12 remains IRZ), the allowable uses, extended hours of operation, and fewer categories of amenity considerations under the UMUZ may conversely allow for greater potential for amenity impacts on unit 12.
The amendment is considered highly consistent with the Objectives of the Act.	The amendment is considered to be generally consistent with the Objectives of the Act.

Discussion:

5.4. As considered above, there are two very opposing views of the rezoning from the two strata landowners at 125 Swanston Street.

5.5. While the owner of Duo Trading wishes to proceed with the rezoning to allow for some expansion of a long-term business, the owner of unit 12/125 Swanston Street (Mr Mitchell) is concerned that the rezoning would isolate his property and have a detrimental effect on his amenity.

5.6. A third landowner holds concerns primarily regarding the impact on sunlight from any development that may occur on the site, however these concerns are more difficult to address as they are based on built form and no development application has been received as yet.

5.7. It is noted and acknowledged that the proposal is effectively a ‘spot’ rezoning for a single site which will be almost entirely surrounded by residential land and uses. It is not unreasonable that adjacent landowners (in particular Mr Mitchell) had an expectation that the area would remain residential, and that the existing business on the site would operate as a non-conforming use (i.e. with limited opportunity for expansion).

5.8. Given the obvious disparity in views, both perspectives are weighed with ultimate reference to the planning outcome.

5.9. From one perspective, the outcome of the rezoning could be seen as increasing potential for land use conflict in an area that has traditionally been residential (with the one exception of Duo Trading as a non-conforming use).

5.10. On the other hand, not rezoning the land is likely to result in it remaining underutilised despite it being a well-located site for more intense development.

5.11. In a practical sense, the high transmission wayleave easement running through the site makes it undesirable for residential development. The site is also adjacent to a rail corridor, which currently makes it less desirable for residential development. However were this corridor eventually be used for light rail transit it would in fact increase the desirability of the site for residential use. It is noted, though, that rezoning to UMUZ would not restrict potential future residential development, and in fact would allow for a greater density of development than the IRZ, as there is no minimum site area per dwelling in the UMUZ.

5.12. Rezoning the site is supported by the policies of the Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy which encourages infill development (including mixed use development) on well located and serviced land. Achievement of residential densification on this site is currently unlikely due to its specific constraints. It is considered that the most likely zoning to encourage efficient land use on this particular site is the Urban Mixed Use Zone.

5.13. On balance, it is recommended the rezoning be supported as certified.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The proposal is considered overall to be consistent with the objectives of the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 in regard to Strategic Objective 2.3 – ‘City and regional planning ensures quality design, meets community needs and maintains residential amenity’.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. The proposal should not result in any additional significant Council expenditure.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. The proposed planning scheme amendment, including the reporting process on representations which is the purpose of this report, will be subject to the usual amendment process under LUPAA.

9. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

9.1. This report considers the results of a 28 day public consultation process. The five representations (four in opposition) indicate some level of community concern about the proposed amendment. This report gives Council the opportunity to recommend to the TPC modifications or refusal of the amendment in response to community feedback.

10. Delegation

10.1. Delegation rests with the Council.

As signatory to this report, I certify that, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, I hold no interest, as referred to in Section 49 of the Local Government Act 1993, in matters contained in this report.

James McIlhenny Signature

James McIlhenny

Manager Planning Policy and Heritage

Neil Noye Signature

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 7 February 2017

File Reference: F16/141361

Attachment a: Attachment A - Amendment Document ⇩

Attachment b: Attachment B - Representations ⇩

Attachment c: Attachment C - S35 Council Report and Attachments ⇩

Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 125

14/2/2017

REPORT TITLE: Glenorchy to Hobart Public Transit Corridor Project - Consultants Report

REPORT PROVIDED BY: General Manager

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the outcomes of Glenorchy to Hobart Public Transit Corridor Project.

1.2. The project has the potential to act as a catalyst to support urban renewal and generate significant economic and social benefits for the community.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The GHD report; Glenorchy to Hobart Public Transit Corridor Study, October 2016 (Attachment B) has concluded that the Glenorchy to Hobart Public Transit Corridor has potential to play a role as a catalyst for urban renewal due to a number of intrinsic advantages including:

2.1.1. The corridor is already in public ownership;

2.1.2. It provides an opportunity for diversifying public transport modes;

2.1.3. Increased community resilience by reducing car dependency;

2.1.4. Delivering social equity improvements.

2.2. Urban renewal along the corridor will depend on delivery of high quality transit, and facilities associated with stations or stops, but the success of these areas is founded on:

2.2.1. Positive perceptions of quality of life;

2.2.2. Walkability and pedestrian priority;

2.2.3. Connectivity and wayfinding;

2.2.4. Successful mixing of uses in higher density forms;

2.2.5. Economic viability; and

2.2.6. High frequency transit.

2.3. These elements are the building blocks of precinct place making and successful transit oriented developments capitalise on the opportunities presented by each location and respond to local context.

2.4. The rezoning of land and associated amendments to the planning schemes within the corridor precincts has the potential to result in an up-lift of capital values in the immediate vicinity to reflect these higher and best uses. However, this will only occur if there is sufficient confidence that the transit way will be delivered by state and local governments.

2.5. Value capture funding analysis shows that the quantum of funds returned by any one value capture mechanism, with the exception of the visitor tax, will not be enough of itself to fund the required infrastructure without imposing the tax on the community at what is likely to be seen as an unacceptable rate.

2.6. The implementation of any value capture mechanism as well as who will ultimately be targeted (i.e. rate and applicable safety nets) is a matter of public policy and therefore a decision of government. Further analysis is likely to be required to support implementation of any proposed mechanism.

2.7. It is noted that the challenge of facilitating urban regeneration and increased residential density infill development is significant. Such development is often complex (multiple land owners, zonings, land use conflict), lengthy (approval processes) and costlier to the developer than greenfield development. This is evidenced by the housing market in Tasmania which is geared to greenfield with 85% of new dwellings in greenfield locations.

2.8. To tilt this growth to support urban regeneration projects, such as identified for the transit corridor, it is widely recognised that some form of government intervention is required to change existing policies and practices.

2.9. There are a number of strategies that can be implemented to make infill development and urban renewal more attractive. These include demand and supply incentives, planning and governance initiatives such as a land development authority.

2.10. Implementation will involve both local and state governments, infrastructure agencies and the private sector and without state government support and commitment is unlikely to eventuate.

2.11. A Hobart to Glenorchy light rail project could be a key project within a City Deal proposal.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Glenorchy to Hobart Public Transit Corridor Study (GHD Oct 2016) be received and noted.

2. The Glenorchy to Hobart Public Transit Corridor Study Reports (GHD Oct 2016) be provided to the State Government.

3. The Council engage with State Government in relation to process and opportunities for governance change to help drive urban renewal projects such as proposed with the Glenorchy to Hobart Public Transit Corridor Project.

4. The Glenorchy to Hobart Public Transit Corridor Study outcomes (GHD Oct 2016) be considered as part of a future City Deal proposal.

4. Background

4.1. At its meeting on 9th February 2016 Council considered a report in relation to the utilisation of the Glenorchy to Hobart public transit corridor (former rail corridor) and the economic benefits that could flow from greater utilisation of the land along the corridor.

4.2. At that meeting Council resolved to initiate a Public Transit Corridor Urban Utilisation and Economic Benefit project for the rail corridor in partnership with the Glenorchy City Council.

4.3. At its meeting on 25 January 2016 the Glenorchy City Council agreed to participate in the project. A Memorandum of Agreement was subsequently exchanged between both Councils in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed by the respective General Managers.

4.4. The Project Steering Committee comprised of HCC Alderman Thomas, and Reynolds and GCC Aldermen Branch-Allen and Quick, considered the Project Brief at its meeting on 4th March 2016 and following a quotation process GHD Pty Ltd were subsequently engaged to undertake the work in accordance with the project specification. The Project Brief is provided in Attachment A.

4.5. The key objectives of the Project Brief were as follows:

4.5.1. Examine the potential for urban regeneration in Hobart and Glenorchy capitalising on public transit corridor use;

4.5.2. Identify a Vision for urban regeneration in Hobart and Glenorchy arising from use of the public transit corridor, including visualisations to assist with communications;

4.5.3. Understand planning changes required to facilitate urban regeneration along the public transit corridor;

4.5.4. Focussed engagement to understand potential private sector investment interest along the public transit corridor;

4.5.5. Identify economic development opportunities arising from urban regeneration along the public transit corridor.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that Council consider the outcomes of Glenorchy to Hobart Public Transit Corridor Project and engage with the State Government in relation to process and opportunities for governance change to help drive urban renewal projects such as proposed with the Glenorchy to Hobart Public Transit Corridor Project. It is also proposed that the project outcomes be considered as part of any future ‘City Deals’ proposal.

5.2. The GHD report; Glenorchy to Hobart Public Transit Corridor Study, October 2016 (Attachment B) provides a summary of the land use and strategic context for the Transit Corridor, the report methodology, an outline of the developed Structure Plans for each key precinct station and projected growth for residential and employment. It is structured in 9 sections, as follows:

5.2.1. Section 1 presents the project rationale and objectives; report purpose and methodology;

5.2.2. Section 2 Background - summarises the key relevant findings from previous transit corridor studies between 2009 and the present, the land use planning context along with a brief synopsis of Transit Corridor’s historical timeline.

5.2.3. Section 3 Site Context - Identifies the study area location, demographic characteristics including housing growth forecasts to 2036 taking into account scenarios for regional population growth distribution inclusive of potential induced effects of a public transit system along the corridor, and preliminary local market analysis.

5.2.4. Section 4: Transit Corridor Infrastructure Analysis - provides a constraints and opportunities analysis for urban regeneration in terms of transport and movement, utilities and infrastructure and identifies the infrastructure required to support projected growth. This includes comments on the potential synergies between the rail corridor and main road.

5.2.5. Section 5: Precincts Urban Renewal Strategies - identifies a vision for urban regeneration arising from use of the public transit corridor, and the unique attributes of each key precinct station. The places created along the corridor will allow a range of experiences, conditioned by a focus on origin and destination (and a combination of both in the major activity centres) and a mix of activities including residential, commercial, retail and leisure.

5.2.6. Section 6: Urban Design and Planning Strategy - provides a high level structure plan for the public transit corridor which is designed to identify key precincts for urban infill development; identifies the existing characteristics, opportunities and constraints for each of these precincts; and provides visualisations of what the corridor might look like if developed.

5.2.7. Section 7: Economic Analysis: Key Findings - provides a preliminary assessment of how Local Government and the State Government might capture some of the value increases (via land and property based taxes) to contribute to the financing of a public transit project including identification of the capacity for land value uplift and opportunities that may lead to uplift. The detailed Value Capture Funding Analysis is provided in a separate report (Attachment C).

5.2.8. Section 8: Market Demand Analysis - outlines Knight Frank’s market demand knowledge and private investor feedback on the identified urban renewal opportunities along the transit corridor for residential, commercial and mixed use development as well as specific comments on key precincts and sites.

5.2.9. Section 9: Implementation Plan - considers the planning policy and statutory changes that may be required to facilitate urban regeneration along the public transit corridor such as approvals processes, governance (i.e. land development authority) and market interventions.

5.3. The Value Capture Funding Analysis Report (Attachment C) presents a range of alternative mechanisms that either the Local and/or State Government could implement to meet the funding requirements of the project. It also provides a strategic assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each mechanism and the alternative rates/tax values that would have to be applied to support government to meet the overall funding requirement of the project.

5.4. The key conclusions of the GHD Glenorchy to Hobart Transit Corridor Study are outlined below:

· Urban Renewal

5.4.1. The role that the Glenorchy to Hobart Public Transit Corridor will play as a catalyst for urban renewal to the region should not be underestimated. The Corridor has some intrinsic advantages that will enhance the prospects of attracting higher density forms of development. By improving connectivity with the CBD, the transit way has the potential to also deliver significant economic benefits to the area as well as promoting urban renewal in the areas surrounding the stations. It will be a significant catalyst for the revitalisation of centres such as Albert Road, Moonah and Glenorchy Central.

5.4.2. The improved connectivity that will be realised through the provision of new transport infrastructure could provide the stimulus to strengthen the critical mass of commercial, retail and residential activity in each of the nodes, and facilitate the development of a series of transit precincts along the corridor.

5.4.3. Urban renewal along the Corridor will be dependent on the delivery of high quality transit and facilities such as the stations or stops, but the success of these areas as places is founded on the positive perception of quality of life, walkability and pedestrian priority, connectivity and wayfinding, the successful mixing of uses in higher density forms and high frequency transit.

· Vision

5.4.4. The Vision for the Corridor was produced to provide a planning framework to achieve the quality of the public realm and the standard of development needed to attract people to want to live in these precincts. Creating a strong sense of place, producing a human scale, and ensuring safety are all essential ingredients in the creation of attractive urban renewal communities.

5.4.5. The Corridor features a number of activity centres with five distinctive community types – residential, urban, retail, cultural and sporting villages. These typologies invite similar future land uses and strengthen neighbourhood character, attracting more people to these precincts to work, live and play. These typologies feature a range of attractions and facilitate new forms of development and higher density along the corridor.

5.4.6. The Corridor will be a major transport infrastructure facility that will be used by the public on a daily basis. Getting the right look and feel for public transport is considered to be a critical part of not only encouraging people to support and use public transport, but also to live in close proximity to public transit.

· Planning Schemes - Zoning

5.4.7. The up zoning of land uses and amendments to the planning scheme within the Corridor precincts has the potential to result in an up-lift of capital values in the immediate vicinity to reflect these higher and best uses, but this will only occur if there is sufficient confidence that the transit way will be delivered by the federal, state and local governments.

5.4.8. Rezoning within these communities would allow for a variety of unique residential offerings to take advantage of precinct characteristics.

· Value Uplift and funding

5.4.9. The proposed development of the Hobart rapid transit could bring a range of economic and social amenity and benefits to the neighbouring communities. These benefits have the potential to directly result in an increase in the demand for property in close proximity to the stations, as a result of improving the amenity of the local area as well as improving the ease and time to access main centres.

5.4.10. Regardless of the financing and commercial model applied to support the delivery of an infrastructure project such as the Glenorchy to Hobart public transit corridor, funding from external sources will be required to support its feasibility. Historically this investment has been provided by general Government funding sources.

5.4.11. A range of Value Capture and other funding mechanisms have been analysed and it is recommended that government assess the equity and efficiency; community acceptance; stability of funding stream and quantum of funds accessible from each alternative.

5.4.12. The initial assessment of the opportunities available to the Hobart to Glenorchy Corridor concluded that value uplift was a potentially suitable funding stream. The corridor could potentially enable accelerated residential and commercial activity both along the corridor, and at each end. Due to the urban density along the corridor, however, it is likely that any value uplift methodology will need to be shared across a wide economic area (incorporating residential, developer and commercial participants), rather than being contained locally, to stabilise the funding stream for the life of the project financing.

5.4.13. This analysis has assumed that the total cost of the project should be equitably shared between all beneficiaries, including various levels of government (incremental taxes), the wider community (contributing through general taxes) and those that directly benefit (users and local residents through value capture). Therefore only a proportion of the total cost should be assigned to those local residents that realise increased land values.

5.4.14. It has been estimated that the total cost of the project, including costs associated with urban renewal, would represent a project cost of approximately $200 million.

5.4.15. If it is assumed that each level of government equally benefits from the project, then they should equally contribute to the projects overall costs. If this is the case, then the Hobart and Glenorchy City Councils would each need to find approximately $30 to $35 million in funding and/or benefit in kind to support the development for this project.

5.4.16. Further analysis is likely to be required to support implementation of any proposed funding mechanism, and should include:

5.4.16.1. Detailed analysis of the links between beneficiaries and those that will pay;

5.4.16.2. Detailed analysis of the potential returns and uptake of the development opportunities along the Corridor;

5.4.16.3. Socio-economic analysis of people’s ability to pay and the impact on living standards;

5.4.16.4. Detailed analysis of the most effective implementation of a proposed value capture mechanism to optimise returns and reduce the risk to government.

· Implementation

5.4.17. It is noted that the challenge of facilitating urban regeneration and increased residential density infill development is significant. Such development is often complex (multiple land owners, zonings, land use conflict), lengthy (approval processes) and costlier to the developer than greenfield development. This is evidenced by the housing market in Tasmania which is geared to greenfield with 85% of new dwellings in greenfield locations.

5.4.18. To tilt this growth to support urban regeneration projects, such as identified for the transit corridor, it is widely recognised that some form of government intervention is required to change existing policies and practices.

5.4.19. There are a number of strategies that can be implemented to make infill development and urban renewal more attractive. These include demand and supply incentives, planning and governance initiatives such as a land development authority.

5.4.20. Implementation will involve both local and state governments, infrastructure agencies and the private sector.

· Peer review

5.5. Following completion of the GHD Report LUTI Consulting (Transport Economists) was commissioned to conduct a peer review of the GHD Economic and Value Capture Funding Analysis and also to review the suitability of the project outcomes as an input into any future City Deal proposal. The peer review brief and LUTI Report is provided in Attachment D.

5.6. The key conclusions of the peer review are as follows:

5.6.1. GHD’s analysis of the Value Capture potential for the Glenorchy to Hobart Public Transit Corridor was comprehensive.

5.6.2. The main area for improvement is delineating the benefit attributable to urban renewal components of the project and the design of the value capture mechanism to share in the value created for these beneficiaries.

5.7. In response to this it should be noted that the GHD report did identify that further detailed analysis was required to support implementation of any proposed funding mechanism. This would include detailed analysis of the most effective implementation of a proposed value capture mechanism to optimise returns and reduce the risk to government.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. This project would further Strategic Objective: 1.1 of the City of Hobart’s Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 which provides for partnerships to create city growth and Strategic Objective: 2.1 which provides for a fully accessible and connected city environment.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. At its meeting on 9th February 2016 Council resolved to make a budget allocation of $75,000 for the consultancy project. This amount was allocated in the 2016/17 Budget.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. This would be a matter for more detailed consideration at a later date, depending upon how the project might be implemented.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. None at this stage.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. Elements of the implementation plan could require legislative change.

9. Social and Customer Considerations

9.1. The GHD Report has identified that the transit corridor project has the potential to act as a catalyst to support urban renewal and generate significant economic and social benefits for the community.

10. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

10.1. The Department of State Growth – Infrastructure Tasmania has been kept informed in relation to this project. GHD have undertaken targeted engagement with the investment industry.

11. Delegation

11.1. Council.

N.D Heath

General Manager

Date: 7 February 2017

File Reference: F16/123899; 36-20-1

Attachment a: Attachment A - Project Brief ⇩

Attachment b: Attachment B - GHD Transit Corridor Report ⇩

Attachment c: Attachment C - GHD Value Capture Funding Analysis ⇩

Attachment d: Attachment D - LUTI Consulting Peer Review Report ⇩

Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 14/2/2017

Page 144

ATTACHMENT b

PDF Creator

about people	We value people – our community, our customers and colleagues.
professional	We take pride in our work.
enterprising	We look for ways to create value.
responsive	We’re accessible and focused on service.
inclusive	We respect diversity in people and ideas.
making a difference	We recognise that everything we do shapes Hobart’s future.