Agenda of Special City Planning Committee Meeting

Item No. 2.1.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Special City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 8

2/11/2017

REPORT TITLE: Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 - Planning Scheme Amendment PSA-17-3 -Central Business Zone Height Standards - Consideration of Representations

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Planning Policy & Heritage

Director City Planning

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to discuss the merits of the representations received during the public exhibition of Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (HIPS2015) amendment PSA-17-3 in relation to the height standards in the Central Business Zone.

1.2. Recommendations to the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) as to the merit of the representations and the need for any modifications to the amendment as a result of the representations received are considered.

1.3. The proposal benefits the community by helping to ensure that development in the Central Business Zone makes a positive contribution to the streetscape and townscape values and meets community expectations

2. Report Summary

2.1. This report considers the merit of the 178 statutory representations made in relation to planning scheme amendment PSA-17-3 and make recommendations to the TPC as to the need for modification of the draft amendment in the light of those representations.

2.2. The representations are summarised in the document provided in Attachment C along with a response as to the merit of the representations and a recommendation as to the need for any modification of the draft amendment in response to the representations. Each representation is given a reference number and discussed in relation to a number of common issues raised.

2.3. The key issues raised in the representations are:

2.3.1. Concern that the amendment is introducing a 75m height limit;

2.3.2. That maximum building height limits should be set;

2.3.3. Concern that the amendments do not address amenity issues including wind effects and solar access;

2.3.4. The amendment does not sufficiently address views across the city;

2.3.5. The amendment does not sufficiently address heritage issues;

2.3.6. Concerns about the Desired Future Character Statements (DFCS) include: the reference to the area of intensification, their clarity, reference to the Woolley Report and overlap with the performance criteria;

2.3.7. Concerns that the performance criteria are subjective and open to interpretation; and

2.3.8. The amendments have not considered wider issues such as traffic, parking, infrastructure, the City Vision process and community consultation was insufficient.

2.4. These issues are discussed in section 5 of this report.

2.5. The key modifications recommended in response to the representations received are summarised below. The revised amendments (shown in context) are provided in Attachment B.

2.6. It is recommended that the proposed DFCS be amended by:

2.6.1. Deletion of the reference to the intensification area in Precinctual scale (c);

2.6.2. Inclusion of 3 statements related to heritage;

2.6.3. Deletion of the reference to the report: Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 - Central Business Zone - Height Standards – Performance Criteria Review, Leigh Woolley, (2016).

2.7. It is recommended that definitions of some of the terms used in the DFCS be inserted in section 4.1 Planning Terms and Definitions.

2.8. It is recommended that the performance criteria in clause 22.4.1 P1 be modified by deletion of the criteria which duplicate the DFCS along with other editorial changes.

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-17-3 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-17-3 Amendment to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 be modified as shown in Attachment B prior to approval.

4. Background

4.1. At its meeting on 25 July 2016, the Council endorsed a project brief for the engagement of a consultant to undertake a review of the performance criteria and related objectives used in the height standards in the Central Business Zone in the HIPS2015. Mr Leigh Woolley – architect and urban design consultant was subsequently commissioned to undertake the review.

4.2. At its meeting on 3rd July 2017, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Central Business Zone Height Standards – Performance Criteria Review Report (Woolley 2016) and initiated the PSA-17-3 Amendments to the HIPS2015 to implement the recommendations of that report. The certified amendments are provided in Attachment A.

4.3. The PSA-17-3 Amendments completed public exhibition on 1 September 2017 and a total of 178 statutory representations were received. A copy of each representation is provided in Attachments D and E.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The proposal is to consider the merit of the 178 statutory representations made in relation to planning scheme amendment PSA-17-3 and make recommendations to the TPC as to the need for modification of the draft amendment in the light of those representations and any other modifications considered necessary.

5.2. The representations are summarised in the document provided in Attachment C along with a response as to the merit of the representations and a recommendation as to the need for any modification of the draft amendment in response to the representations. Each representation is given a reference number and discussed in relation to a number of common issues raised.

5.3. The key issues raised in the representations are outlined and discussed below:

75m height limit

5.4. A number of the representations were concerned that the amendment is introducing a 75m height limit. These concerns appear to stem from misleading reports published in the media and on a social media site.

5.5. The amendments do not propose to alter the current numerical standards in relation to height and do not have the effect of setting a maximum height limit of 75m.

5.6. The amendments however do reference the report titled: Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 - Central Business Zone - Height Standards – Performance Criteria Review, Leigh Woolley, (2016) (Woolley Report) which contains a footnote on page 49 suggesting that the maximum height of buildings in the potential zone of increased density is 75m.

5.7. It was not the intention that this footnote be interpreted in the way suggested in a number of the representations and in order to remove any doubt it is recommended that the reference to the Woolley Report be deleted from the amendments.

5.8. As discussed further in response to other representations below the benefits of referencing the Woolley Report can be replaced by defining some of the terms used in that report.

Maximum height limit

5.9. A number of representations suggest that maximum building height limits should be set. A variety of figures are suggested.

5.10. The HIPS2015 Central Business Zone does not currently specify an absolute maxim height and the amendments do not propose to alter the current numerical standards in relation to height.

5.11. Based on the work already undertaken by Leigh Woolley in relation to the townscape values it would be difficult to justify a single maximum height across the Central Business Zone. The Woolley Report recommends that there should be a transition in height from the centre of the CBD to the fringes. Council has already agreed that further analysis and modelling is necessary in order to establish appropriate maximum heights and the designation of height control planes.

5.12. Without detailed analysis and modelling of different buildings heights in the CBD and Sullivan Cove, it is difficult to justify an absolute maximum height limit and be consistent with the objectives of LUPAA, particularly in relation to facilitating economic development or be consistent with the activity centre policies in the Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy.

5.13. To include a maximum height limit is beyond the scope of these amendments.

Building height generally

5.14. A number of representations suggest that maximum building height limits should be set.

5.15. The amendments do not propose to alter the current numerical standards in relation to height and do not have the effect of setting or increasing maximum height limits.

5.16. The primary purpose of the amendments is to specify the townscape and streetscape considerations for buildings that do not meet the acceptable solutions in relation to height.

5.17. No changes to the amendments are considered necessary in response to the representations in relation to height generally.

Amenity

5.18. A number of representations raise issues related to amenity including wind effects and solar access.

5.19. The current development standards for buildings in the Central Business Zone in the HIPS2015 were formulated after a detailed review and analysis of land use and development patterns in the central city area. (These reports are available on the HCC web site.)

5.20. The development standards address building height, setbacks, design, passive surveillance, outdoor storage and pedestrian links.

5.21. The building height standards in the Central Business Zone include an 'Amenity Building Envelope' which has been developed with regard to heritage, streetscape and sense of scale, wind effects and solar penetration.

5.22. The performance criteria in clause 22.4.1 P1(b) provides that development outside the Amenity Building Envelope must only be approved if:

(i) It provides significant benefits in terms of civic amenities such as public space, pedestrian links, public art or public toilets, unless an extension to an existing building that already exceeds the Amenity Building Envelope; and

(ii) The siting, bulk and design does not significantly negatively impact on the streetscape and townscape of the surrounding area; and

(iii) The design demonstrates that it will minimise unacceptable wind conditions in adjacent streets; and

(iv) For city blocks with frontage to a Solar Penetration Priority Street in Figure 22.2, the overshadowing of the public footpath on the opposite side of the Solar Penetration Priority Street does not unreasonably impact on pedestrian amenity.

5.23. A number of the representations raise valid considerations in relation to amenity however these are already addressed in the Scheme standards and no further changes to these standards are considered necessary and are beyond the scope of these amendments.

Views

5.24. A number of representations consider that the amendment does not sufficiently address views across the city because only three view lines were considered.

5.25. The amendments include 3 important view lines identified on Figure 22.6. The identification of these view lines was based on analysis undertaken for earlier urban design studies.

5.26. It is agreed that there are likely to be additional important view lines that warrant identification in the Scheme however the detailed analysis has not been undertaken to identify and justify these.

5.27. Council has agreed to commission further work to identify additional important view lines and view protection planes in the central area of Hobart and Sullivans Cove for inclusion in the relevant Planning Scheme.

5.28. No changes to the amendments in response to the representations in relation to views are recommended.

Heritage

5.29. A number of representations are concerned that the amendment does not sufficiently address heritage issues because the proposed Desired Future Character Statement does not mention heritage buildings and maintenance of heritage character. Some suggest additional heritage precincts should be included.

5.30. The protection of heritage values in the Central Business Zone are specifically addressed in clauses 22.4.1 A4/P4 and A5/P5 and in the Historic Heritage Code (E13.0). There are 255 heritage listed places in the central area of Hobart as well as 2 heritage precincts.

5.31. Given these specific heritage provisions, the review of the performance criteria leading to these amendments did not specifically address the need for additional heritage provisions. It is also considered that the protection of heritage values are inherent in the proposed Desired Future Character Statements (DFCS).

5.32. Notwithstanding this however, heritage is an important element of townscape and streetscape considerations and it is considered that it warrants specific mention in the proposed DFCS.

5.33. The recommended modifications to the DFCS in relation to heritage values are provided in Attachment B.

5.34. It should also be noted that the townscape principles in the DFCS operate in addition to the heritage provisions in the scheme.

5.35. It is beyond the scope of these amendments to include additional heritage precincts in the Scheme.

Desired Future Character Statements

5.36. Issues raised in relation to the DFCS include concerns about the reference to the area of intensification, their clarity, reference to the Woolley Report and overlap with the performance criteria.

5.37. The DFCS does allow for an intensification of development within the area bounded by Murray, Macquarie, Argyle and Melville Streets. This is subject to meeting the relevant streetscape, townscape and amenity considerations as well as the heritage provisions and other relevant standards.

5.38. In relation to this issue, the Woolley Report notes that the scale, form and height within the potential area of increased built density will be an outcome of the principles, and that further modelling of proposed development intensity in this location is, however, recommended before a definitive position is reached on the appropriate maximum height.

5.39. Given the level of concern expressed in the representations about this area of intensification and the fact that further modelling of proposed development intensity has been proposed it is recommended that reference to the intensification area be deleted as shown in Attachment B.

5.40. Council has already agreed that further analysis and modelling is necessary in order to establish appropriate maximum heights and it would be appropriate to consider the likely outcomes of development in the ‘intensification area’ as part of that analysis.

5.41. The Woolley report does provide useful context and explanation of the concepts however many parts of the report are not necessarily relevant to the assessment of applications against the performance criteria.

5.42. It is considered that the implementation of the amendment can be simplified by defining some of the key terms used in the DFCS in the Scheme as shown in Attachment B.

5.43. It is agreed that there is overlap between the performance criteria and the statements in the DFCS. The amendment can be simplified by removing the duplication and it is sufficient to rely on the DFCS.

Performance criteria

5.44. Issues raised in relation to the performance criteria include that they are subjective and open to interpretation.

5.45. In relation to this issue it should be noted that the Planning Scheme is performance based as required by the format in Planning Directive No1. Performance criteria by their nature are subjective and open to interpretation. Additional definitions proposed will assist in interpretation and removal of duplication with the DFCS will simplify implementation.

Concerns about the amendment process

5.46. A number of representations are concerned that the amendments have not considered wider issues such as traffic, parking, infrastructure, the City Vision process and community consultation was insufficient.

5.47. The amendments do not act to increase building heights and therefore have no implications for issues such as infrastructure, services and traffic.

5.48. Council has commenced the Hobart City Vision Project which will lead to a vision for the city. Future amendments to the Planning Scheme can be considered if it is considered to be inconsistent with the new vision.

5.49. This amendments process has involved a significant level of community engagement as is evidenced by the attendance at the 2 public forums and the number of representations received.

5.50. Issues such as traffic and parking and provision of services are addressed elsewhere in the HIPS2015.

Recommended modifications

5.51. The modifications recommended in response to the representations received are summarised below. The revised amendments (shown in context) are provided in Attachment B.

5.52. It is recommended that the proposed DFCS be amended by:

5.52.1. Deletion of the reference to the intensification area in Precinctual scale (c);

5.52.2. Inclusion of 3 statements related to heritage;

5.52.3. Deletion of the reference to the report: Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 - Central Business Zone - Height Standards – Performance Criteria Review, Leigh Woolley, (2016); and

5.52.4. Other editorial changes to improve clarity.

5.53. It is recommended that definitions of some of the terms used in the DFCS be inserted in section 4.1 Planning terms and Definitions.

5.54. It is recommended that the performance criteria in clause 22.4.1 P1 be modified by deletion of the criteria which duplicate the DFCS along with other editorial changes.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The draft amendment is 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 draft planning scheme amendment, including the reporting process on representations which is the subject of this report, is subject to the usual amendment process under LUPAA.

9. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

9.1. This report considers the results of a 42 day public consultation process. These number of representations received indicate a significant level of community interest in the proposed amendment. This report gives Council the opportunity to recommend to the TPC modifications of 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

Manager Planning Policy & Heritage

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 27 October 2017

File Reference: F17/141776; PSA-17-3

Attachment a: Certified Amendment ⇩

Attachment b: Revised Amendments ⇩

Attachment c: Representations Summary and Response ⇩

Attachment d: Representations - Part A ⇩

Attachment e: Representations - Part B ⇩

Item No. 2.1.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Special City Planning Committee Meeting - 2/11/2017

Page 61

ATTACHMENT d

PDF Creator

Item No. 2.1.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Special City Planning Committee Meeting - 2/11/2017

Page 245

ATTACHMENT e

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.