Alyssa Burford
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Heather Prider <heatherprider@yahoo.com.au>
Thursday, 2 July 2015 4:14 PM
Walkerville at Walkerville Council
EM201513428 - 3.71.7.2 - Draft Town Centre Development Plan Amendment (DPA)
To whom it may concern I dropped by the Civic and Community Centre today in order to view the Draft Town Centre Development Plan Amendment (DPA) however it was not readily set up for viewing but rather in an A4 document that I needed to request as it was not on display. The lass at the front desk did her best to be helpful however given the significant ramifications of such a proposal and the timeframe for public comment by Monday 24th of August it would seem appropriate to have the proposal on easy public view. I am very disappointed that our house is on display in a public document when neither my husband or I were notified that our home is directly affected by this proposal. I happened across our home on your proposal when perusing the amendment plan online. Are the other home owners along Warwick and Alfred Street also unaware? Why were we not directly notified of this? It is unjust that our home could potentially become part of a shopping development site which we could not have envisaged when we purchased this home. I am concerned that it would appear from the document that the council will not approve any improvement applications. We want to go on improving our property and wish to stay here. Where does this proposal sit in the 30 year plan?  We do not agree with replacing the existing Neighbourhood Centre Zone with a new Town Centre Zone. There is much that can be done with the existing shopping strip that is not being done, it is under utilised.  The most appealing feature of Walkerville has been its ‘village feel’. The construction of any building greater than two stories destroys this feature. We do not agree with the construction of buildings greater than two stories in the Walkerville area.  We do not agree with Alfred Street being re‐zoned from residential to an “active precinct with small scale restaurants”. Utilise the existing shopping strip and make use of the number of vacant premises.  We see on a daily basis the excellent utilisation of the tennis courts and playground and do not under any circumstances agree with these being moved.  We do not agree with the currently recognised contributory heritage properties being reclassified. Our property is not one of them but it is rich in local history and is our home. I have taken the opportunity today to speak with some local businesses who were shocked by the details of the proposal and were of the opinion that more could be done to enhance what is already in place. We will be reviewing the document in more detail over the coming weeks, seeking professional advice and making others in the area aware of what is potentially a degradation of the village atmosphere, lack of respect for local history and the affected residents. Yours sincerely Heather Prider Right-click here to download
pictures. To help protect y our
priv acy , Outlook prev ented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.
A v ast logo
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 1
Dear Ms Magro
I have read the DPA with great concern. The first thing that struck me was that it is out of
date. The economic situation in South Australia is very different from 2010 when it seems
this plan was first mooted. Now, there are empty shops, e.g. the much-missed IGA. The
suggestion of restaurants also seems odd when the two proposed ones on the NE and SE
corners of Walkerville Terrace and Warwick Street remain empty. Also of concern are:
P.5
The re-zoning of Alfred Street. It mentions the “various existing contributory items”
in Warwick Street, but there is no mention of Nos. 27, 29 and 31. Alfred Street, in
fact, receives an appalling drubbing throughout the entire document. It says it is to be
re-zoned but how can heritage listings be removed at the stroke of a pen? This would
set an irresponsible precedent. Is the developer or the Council going to compensate
owners for the devaluation of their houses? These buildings are people’s properties,
their lives and their assets; not something to be disposed of because the Council finds
them “non-contributory”.
P.8
2.2 mentions an increase in retail space. Again I point out that some shops are lying
empty so how is this relevant now?
P.12
Supports commercial activity around the oval. I live on the corner of Warwick and
Clarke Street and the “activity” now is unpalatable. I am constantly removing drink
cans, lunch wraps, used condoms etc so we hardly need to invite the rest of the world
to litter Walkerville. Warwick Street is far too narrow to support the ambitious plans
that are proposed. A family moved from Gawler to Warwick Street. They left their
car in their garden and it was ransacked. The thieves grabbed everything in it then
sorted out the haul before disposing of whatever was no use to them. I found a child’s
school bag stashed behind the climbing geraniums outside my fence in Clarke Street.
Fortunately there was a name on the bag so I was able to track down the owner whose
mother said sadly that they had not become used to city ways and the need to lock
their car at all times. Is this the sort of area we want?
P.13
IGA is mentioned again so perhaps the plan should be brought up to date.
P.25
No 4: says again that “local heritage places (be) removed”. How casually the rules
can be changed.
P.29
No 5: Relaxing provisions sets a dangerous precedent.
Another worrying thing is that the Council made so many mistakes in the relatively small
project of the Council offices that one shudders to think how many could be made here. We
all know that the acoustics in the Town Hall were hopelessly amateurish, the toilets were put
downstairs when the average age in Walkerville does not allow its inhabitants to skip lightly
round the building, while the sun in people’s eyes when using the computers is a continuing
nightmare. Unfortunately not all mistakes are reversible which is an even greater worry.
Yours faithfully,
Judith M.Brown
Chief Executive Officer
Corporation Town of Walkerville
Walkerville Tce
Walkerville 5081
16th August 2015
Dear Ms Magro,
Representation: Town Centre Development Plan Amendment.
I wish to lodge my objection to the Town Centre Development Plan Amendment.
I don’t support expanding the commercial areas east of Smith St thereby losing the
community YMCA site.
Walkerville has a small shopping area which in my opinion already struggles
financially and can’t see how any further shops would be viable.
Alfred St is a narrow residential street with cottages which should be retained from an
architectural and heritage perspective.
I would like Walkerville to retain its village atmosphere and this Town Centre Plan
would destroy that.
Yours Sincerely
Sue Minson
2 View Rd
Walkerville 5081
RETURNED AND SERVICES LEAGUE
WALKERVILLE SUB-BRANCH INCORPORATED
19 August 2015
Ms K Magro
Chief Executive Officer
Town of Walkerville
PO Box 55
WALKERVILLE SA 5081
Dear Ms Magro
Submission- Town Centre DPA
Our Club has a significant interest in the proposed DPA, as the owner of prominent premises within the
area affected, as well as operating a substantial community resource and facility from those premises.
Accordingly, we have a vital concern regarding the proposed DPA, and we would be grateful if you
would note our interest.
On the whole, we are supportive of Council’s intention to revitalise and activate the Walkerville Terrace
precinct, with a view to benefiting the local community as well as traders and service providers.
As operators of a facility which is used broadly by the local community, we are keen to see further
opportunities to enhance our outreach to the community, and encourage the use of our facilities.
Hence, in the broad context, we are supportive of the intention of the DPA.
Nonetheless, we do have concerns, which we request that Council take into account in making its further
deliberations:

We would like Council to take into account the potential for the expansion of usage and possibly
redevelopment of the site where our premises are located.
Lest We Forget
98 Walkerville Terrace (PO Box 71) Walkerville South Australia 5081
Telephone 08 8269 7679
E-mail walkervillersl@bigpond.com
ABN 80 367 795 707 SA Incorporated Association No. A829
2

For example, car parking within the Walkerville Terrace precinct already is at a premium, and we
could foreshadow redevelopment of our site (possibly in cooperation with our neighbour the local
shopping centre) to incorporate parking facilities to meet the future needs of visitors to the
precinct.

Also, it is foreseeable that the site could be redeveloped in a manner which contemplates more
intensive usage than currently is feasible within the existing buildings on the site. In future years,
this could be an issue as we consider ways in which we can fund our ongoing membership and
community activities.
Such potential uses could include retail specialty shops, community facilities, professional offices
and possibly residential accommodation, in a multiple storey mixed use development.
Hence, we would like Council to include consideration of our concerns, and in particular, to allow for
flexibility in relation to the potential future use of our site, so that it is possible to conduct appropriate and
harmonious redevelopment, which will enhance the amenity of the area as well as supporting the fostering
of a vibrant and lively local Town Centre, for the overall benefit of the community.
I am happy to talk with you further regarding our submission at your convenience.
Yours sincerely
Norm Coleman
President
Walkerville Town Plan Submission from Robert Ashby, 6 View Rd., Walkerville. Phone 82691033 Mob 0408855960 I wish to comment on various aspects of the proposed new Town Plan as I understand it. YMCA/ Council depot precinct The proposed changes should not incorporate this area and if the land use is to be changed this and any other area north of Smith Street should only have a residential classification attached to it. I believe that the YMCA has a continuing right to use this facility and I do not think this should change, particularly as I believe substantial improvements are proposed. I would agree that an upgrade is desirable Relocation of the depot would facilitate the redevelopment of this area if a suitable alternative became available. Alfred Street precinct Current integrity should be retained and not subject to commercial or retail development. While this area does not have the same history as the Gilbert/Torrens St Heritage zone it would seem somewhat hypocritical to subject this very characteristic and picturesque area within the council to become subject to a commercial regime. Walkerville Oval precinct This area should remain the hub of sporting, town and general activities. It has served this purpose admirably in the past and should continue to do so for years to come. The bowling club would appear to be under financial duress and this situation requires attention. No significant changes should be considered under any circumstances to the park and War Memorial section adjoining Church Terrace and Warwick Street. Any upgrades, renovations and improvements to all facilities would be welcome by residents and sporting clubs. While not a simple objective a long term plan to incorporate social, catering and clubroom facilities should be considered. Conclusion The Town of Walkerville is not a commercial location. It is primarily a residential area and incorporates much of Adelaide’s most prestigious and historic real estate. The retention of this small council area was robustly argued during the campaign against council amalgamations. The purpose being to maintain a small efficient residentially orientated administration in a village type environment, 20 August 2015
SAW Ref: 01/03980
Your Ref: 3.71.7.2
SA Water House
250 Victoria Square / Tarntanyangga
Adelaide South Australia 5000
GPO Box 1751
Adelaide South Australia 500
Telephone +61 8 1300 650 950
ABN 69 336 525 019
Kiki Magro
Chief Executive Officer
Town of Walkerville
PO Box 55
WALKERVILLE SA 5081
Dear Kiki,
Re: Draft Town Centre Development Plan Amendment (DPA)
I refer to your letter dated 26 June 2015 seeking our comments on the above DPA.
SA Water provides water and sewer services to the subject area. The following general
comments apply to new developments or redevelopments.
SA Water Planning

SA Water undertakes water security and infrastructure planning that considers the longer
term strategic direction for a system. That planning seeks to develop a framework that
ensures resources and infrastructure are managed efficiently and have the capacity to
meet customer requirements into the future. The information contained in the DPA
document regarding future re-zoning and land development will be incorporated in
SA Water’s planning process.
Protection of Source Water

Development/s shall have no deleterious effects on the quality or quantity of source water,
or the natural environments that rely on this water. In particular, the following conditions
shall apply:
Landfill shall be outside of Water Protection Zones;
Landfill area to include leachate collection facilities;
Effluent disposal systems (including leach drains) to be designed and located to
prevent contamination of groundwater; and
- Industry to be located in appropriate areas, with safeguards to ensure wastewater can
be satisfactorily treated or removed from the site
Development shall avoid or minimise erosion.
-



Development shall not dam, interfere or obstruct a watercourse
The Natural Resources Management Act 2004 includes wide ranging powers over source
water quantity issues. The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources
should be consulted, if in doubt, over compliance with this Act. Source water quality
issues are addressed by the Environment Protection Authority through the Environment
Protection Act 1993.
Provision of Infrastructure

All applications for connections needing an extension to SA Water’s water/wastewater
networks will be assessed on their individual commercial merits. Where more than one
development is involved, one option may be for SA Water to establish an augmentation
charge for that area which will also be assessed on commercial merits
Trade Waste Discharge Agreements

Any proposed industrial or commercial developments that are connected to SA Water’s
wastewater infrastructure will be required to seek authorisation to permit the discharge of
trade waste to the wastewater network. Industrial and large dischargers may be liable for
quality and quantity loading charges. The link to SA Water’s Trade Waste Overview
website page is attached for your information: Trade Waste Overview
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Town of Walkerville’s Town Centre DPA.
Please contact Peter Iliescu, Engineer, Treatment and Network Planning on telephone (08)
7424 1130 in the first instance should you have further queries regarding the above matter.
Yours sincerely
per Paul Feronas
Senior Manager, Treatment and Network Planning
250 Victoria Square, Adelaide, 5000
Ph 08 7424 1881
Fax 08 7003 1881
Email paul.feronas@sawater.com.au
Alyssa Burford
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Peter Walker <peter@peterwalker.com.au>
Friday, 21 August 2015 11:20 AM
Walkerville at Walkerville Council
EM201515601 - 3.20.3.7 - Submission - town centre DPA
I would like to put forward a general agreement to the proposals out lined in the Draft Town Centre
Development Plan Amendment to replace the Neighbourhood Centre Zone with a Town Centre Zone.
My only comment would be that any building height increase limits should be consistent across both sides
of the street up to three / four stories ( road width as is would not influence shadow overhang of buildings in
winter and in summer the sun is practically straight above the buidings so no shadow)
Peter Walker
Director
PETER WALKER FINE ART
101 Walkerville Terrace
Walkerville
South Australia, 5081
Australia
Postal:
PO Box 3160
Norwood
South Australia, 5067
Tel: 08 8344 4607
Fax: 08 8364 5817
Mob: 0418 552 548
1
Alyssa Burford
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Nikki King <nikki-king@ozemail.com.au>
Friday, 21 August 2015 10:45 AM
Walkerville at Walkerville Council
EM201515596 - 3.20.3.7 - Atten: Chief Executive Officer
Dear Kiki Magro After further reading of the Explanatory Statement and Analysis document which contains Council’s reasons and recommendations for the proposed changes to the existing Town Centre Zone, I am increasingly concerned at how this plan has come into existence and been allowed to progressed this far. Council intends to expand the existing town centre commercial area to also include the Walkerville Oval Precinct up to Church Terrace, the Albert Street residential area, and the land now occupied by the YMCA and the Works Depot between Smith and Fuller Streets. There are many positive initiatives and Council is encouraged to provide a viable framework for development, however it appears that one of the major underlying reasons for this amendment is to free up the Community Owned land between Smith and Fuller Streets so it can be sold to a developer. A 5 story residential complex with commercial uses at street level is clearly described and deemed financially viable in Council’s report. To provide for the sale of this important community asset, I note that Council continues to push for the YMCA to be moved to the Bowling Club site and for the bowling greens to be relocated to the Memorial Gardens/Park precinct. An unfortunate aspect of Council’s thinking appears to be its low regard for the increasing importance of community open space. At a time when all levels of government are promoting increased urban density, this Development Plan Amendment is structure to allow for the sale of limited community land for private development and to downgrade public open space. The plan actively encourages more commercial development in the Oval Precinct not associated with recreational uses, and recommends more car parking around the oval to service increased demand from the town centre. Also the Albert Street residential area with its narrow street access and small land titles is to be zoned for multi‐story commercial/residential development. This commercial development is recommending with minimal car parking requirements, as increased demand is to be serviced by additional parking on adjacent open space. There are a lot of issues to consider, however at this stage I would like to concentrate on the above for my submission as to the following: 1. The Walkerville Oval Precinct not be included in the Town Centre Development Zone. That specific planning objectives/requirements be adopted to protect this important Open Space from the type of commercial development recommended in Council’s report. 2. The Memorial Garden/Park Precinct bounded by Church Terrace and Warwick Street be protected to retain its status as the most important and actively used area of Public Open Space in the Local Government Area. 3. That proposed commercial/residential development in the Albert Street Area be in keeping with the physical limitations described in the report. Planning to use Public Open Space to provide car parking for nearby commercial development is not supported. 4. The YMCA and Works Depot land not to be included in the Town Centre Develop Zone. This land will increasingly become more important for Active and Passive recreation, and provide a necessary pedestrian link between areas of increasing residential density and the town centre. Yours faithfully Nicola King 8a Warwick Street Walkerville 1
84a Lansdowne Terrace
Walkerville SA 5081
21st August 2015
Chief Executive Officer
Town of Walkerville
PO Box 55
WALKERVILLE SA 5081
sent via email – walkerville@walkerville.sa.gov.au
Submission - Town Centre Development Plan Amendment (DPA)
I raise no objection to the Development Plan Amendment (DPA) with the intent to introduce
more diversity to the Town Centre. It will provide opportunity for rejuvenation of the existing
area, notably the link between Alfred Street, Walkerville Terrace and the Oval through the
activation of Alfred Street.
Walkerville has a unique character different to recent ‘High Street’ regeneration projects
such as Melbourne Street or Prospect Road and whilst it is important to bring activity into the
area, the fundamental “village character” and “social mix” of the area should not be
compromised through an over prescriptive approach.
The focus on the DPA should be more on reinforcing the established character and
commercial activities linking Walkerville Terrace, the Oval and the Parks. Alfred Street does
not necessarily need to be a formal commercial strip (limited to only commercial activities),
but rather accommodate various mixed residential and commercial uses already found along
Walkerville Terrace. There is also a good opportunity to connect and link the southern side
Sussex Hotel / Yiros Shop Corner to the nearby apartments to create a unified activity node.
Simply commercial activities alone, along any street may not sufficiently activate a zone, for
example shops or offices with restricted retail hours noted already on Walkerville Terrace.
Although a Town Centre is nominated in the DPA, Town Centre appears in name only,
where there is no apparent location that would frame a Town Centre. The DPA does not
appear to have been properly considered by the proponents, and therefore risks significant
change to the fundamental character of the area.
There is limited design guidelines nominated in the DPA - a lack of design guidance could
produce inconsistent built form outcomes. Although consolidating into one Town Centre
Zone is a good idea, there are four distinct different precincts nominated in the design
character statement with quite diverse requirements, for example 2 to 5 storey applications
in a relatively small geographic area. It would be more appropriate to allow flexibility on the
prescribed land uses providing there are good design principles and guidelines within the
development plan. Instead, this DPA fragments different built form outcomes for the north
and south side of the strip including arbitrary height limits and building forms on selective
sites (eg) Sussex Hotel, IGA corner Smith Street / Walkerville Terrace, YMCA and Depot
Sites. This uneven approach differentiates the YMCA and Depot Sites compared to other
sites, favouring commercial advantage above community needs. This will likely affect the
delivery of “existing services” and will change the unique fabric and “village character” of the
area. At first glance this seems to be a calculated attempt to manufacture an outcome that
could otherwise evolve naturally with greater input from the community in keeping with the
Master Plan.
The childcare centre at the end of Alfred Walkerville is nominated for removal from heritage
listing (listed as a non contributory item with no heritage value ?). Therefore the likelihood is
the building is to be demolished to make way for car parking or some other use.
Consequently, there will no longer be any facilities for child care in the immediate area. A
childcare centre is conducive to families. There appears to be a lack of thought of the
necessary “social mix” that is absolutely vital for a vibrant town centre.
An increase in built form will also necessitate a greater reliance on public open space and
activities that should be promoted through consolidating sporting ovals, parks and Council
owned buildings such as the Council Hall. Centralising sporting activities to the Walkerville
Oval draws customers to the retail precinct, which will in-turn support local business and will
liven up the area. To further expand on this idea, imagine a community Garden located near
the Levi Park Caravan Park Reserve if sporting activities are re-scheduled and re-located to
Walkerville Oval. The sporting activities are in now in close proximity of cafes and shops
and a new usable space is created; the community garden will bring ‘enjoyment’ and ‘well
being’ further engaging the community. With the intent of higher density living (confining
residents to smaller spaces), these ideas start to make more sense. The point is the DPA
should go further so as to consider all things including preservation of the existing character
of Walkerville, built form, commercial viability as well policies that will encourage and
stimulate community spaces and community type activities for long-lasting public benefit.
Population growth and commercial development by itself is not sustainable and for a small
Council this is a finite solution. Perhaps, it would be better to use the Master Plan to inform
a DPA as your reference point, involve and consult residents to identify common points of
strongly held views as your basis of any proposed changes; this may also frame up new
initiatives and opportunities outside usual avenues for setting the future direction. I also
believe that the plan should consider the broader commercial catchment area on main
arterial roads, including impacts of traffic flows etc.
In summary the reason why Walkerville has remained a special place to reside is simply that
it is different to other areas. We live in a community, a “village” with a feeling of neighbourly
belonging; residents support each other and support the local business community. This is
worth building as well as preserving. A Town Centre is built upon many factors, which
include appropriate built form and infrastructure, commercial viability, community spirit and
Council on a whole range of levels.
I believe the DPA needs further work to address a balanced and measured approach to
achieve a good population mix and cultural diversity necessary for vibrancy and vitality of our
“Village / Town Centre”. I believe the DPA can be improved to include this.
Yours faithfully
Tony Albanese
Alyssa Burford
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Greg Trengove <greg.trengove@internode.on.net>
Sunday, 23 August 2015 10:42 PM
Raymond Grigg; MaryLou Bishop; Gianni Busato; Elizabeth Fricker; Margaret
Graham-King; David Shetliffe; Graham Webster; David Whiting; Walkerville at
Walkerville Council
EM201515663 - 3.20.3.7 - Submission to the Walkerville Development Plan
amendments public consultation
(Sent by email to Councillors and CEO and signed copy delivered to Council Chambers) Submission to the Walkerville Development Plan amendments public consultation from Greg Trengove and Carolyn Jones 11 Dyson Road Walkerville SA 5081 23 August 2015 To Walkerville Council, As residents of Walkerville for 18 years, with a young family of 3 children, we have come to appreciate the community amenity of the area. In a nutshell: We wed in the rose garden and held our wedding reception in the bowling clubrooms. Our son plays football for Walkerville Cats on the oval. Our children attend Walkerville Primary and we walk or cycle with them to school each day, travelling along Walkerville Terrace, up Alfred Street and across the oval, sometimes stopping to play in the playground beside the pre‐kindy. Our children also attend vacation care and Stunt Monkeys at the YMCA as well as numerous birthday parties held there. From our perspective, that common area bordered by Church, Smith, Alfred and Warwick Street is the community and social centrepiece of Walkerville. We believe that the proposed amendments reflect the wrong mindset where commercial development (which we are happy to see contained along the strip of Walkerville Terrace between Stephens Terrace and Smith Street) puts at risk the community and communal assets we have come to use and rely upon. For example, we do not know why Council will not renew the YMCA’s lease when this association has proven itself as a valuable community asset, for young and old. An undercover basket‐ball court, squash courts, indoor athletics and a much valued vacation care program are not likely to be replaced once gone. Yes, we may be able to go to a commercial gym and pump weights to firm up ageing muscles, but what about the amenity for our kids? The notion that the bowls club might be displaced to free up land for a new YMCA, (a proposal buried deep in the fine print of the plan) beggars belief and betrays a callous “pawns on the chessboard” approach to dealing with community groups. If this mad scheme were to go ahead the open space on the corner of Church and Warwick Street would be swallowed up – a loss to the community in a suburb with precious little open space beyond the linear park. 1
We agree that increasing building heights along the commercial strip will be beneficial for commerce but are aghast that it comes at a cost to the existing residents in Alfred Street and at the loss of the pre‐kindy facility and adjoining playground to be given over to car parks. The motivation appears to be for Council to convert its land assets to earn money rather than based on a proper evaluation of the community amenity currently provided. Why is Council in this position of being prepared to convert community assets into money making ones? We cannot help but believe that debt resulting from the extravagant expenditure on the Council chambers and Library redevelopment is behind this misguided thinking. If this is the root cause of the proposed amendments, then Council should be more honest in its communications with residents who are already faced with above inflation rate increases. We believe the most precious asset of Walkerville is the common between Walkerville Terrace and Church Street, incorporating the Oval, the bowling greens, rose garden, tennis courts, playground and pre‐kindy. Encroaching on these assets and the voluntary associations that run them with additional car parking and rezoning premises from residential to commercial is unwarranted when there is no pressure from the existing commercial precinct for additional space. There is no compelling need to expand the commercial precinct beyond Walkerville Terrace, and certainly nothing that would justify carving into precious community land, which, once lost, is gone forever. Our vision for Walkerville places much greater value on what makes it distinctive; a common which is used by much of the community, old and young, with many purposes and activities in a relaxed, green setting. Letting commercial activity bleed into this precinct will destroy the community fabric of the area. Council is presenting us with a vision which is foreign to our values, one of high density apartments, lots of cars and even more congestion on our roads, community areas inaccessible because of on‐street car parking, roads made unsafe for our children to cycle along, commercial development spreading beyond Walkerville Terrace into the perimeter of the common area and contaminating it. It appears to us that the price we are being asked to pay for “a more vibrant Walkerville” is one where ever increasing pressure is put on roads that are already incapable of coping with the traffic load. It is insane to allow commercial development up narrow Warwick Street, a linking carriageway between the primary school and oval to Walkerville Terrace. This area is already dangerous for people like us, trying to get our children to and from school safely. We have lived long enough in Walkerville to have witnessed the hubris of one Mayor trying to be a ‘development guru’, which left an unsightly hole in the ground for many years. Incoming Councillors determined to remedy the situation (including Councillor Whiting as Mayor) faced the threat of litigation by the Holcon development group, with Council itself having to settle a lawsuit. Such a folly cannot be allowed again. We are profoundly disappointed at the direction chosen by the present Councillors and Mayor. They appear to have largely succumbed to the wrong‐
headed agenda of the current overpaid CEO who is completely out of step with the needs of residents. Finally, we strongly object to the way in which the public consultation has been conducted. Whilst the Council has advertised and called for responses, much of the detail in the amendments is not clearly articulated. It is almost as though some of the “devil in the detail” has been deliberately submerged so as to be missed. Even trying to find the amendments online has required a time‐consuming level of detective work – why aren’t these amendments (which impact on every Walkerville resident) prominent and easily accessible on the Council’s website? The secrecy and subterfuge surrounding these amendments does not build confidence that Council is being transparent and open in its communications about them and is thus highly offensive. It is offensive because it appears Council are gambling on this slipping through unnoticed. This is a community we live in and participate in, and we see our values and community assets under attack from much of what is proposed. We don’t support this amended development plan, and will fight against it with other residents who are equally appalled. Greg Trengove and Carolyn Jones 2
6 Margaret St
Walkerville SA 5081
Walkerville Council
66 Walkerville Tce
Gilberton SA 5081
23 August 2015
To whom it may concern,
We are writing to express strong objection to the proposal of a five story complex located at the current
site of the Walkerville YMCA and the council work’s department. As direct neighbors to the site we feel
the development will adversely affect the value of our property and its visual appearance and magnitude
will be unattractive and not keep in character with the suburb. We are not against developing the land, but
feel a five story complex is not appropriate for the location.
The building will be looking directly into our premises and as parents of young children we feel this is an
invasion of our privacy and a safety concern. In addition to this the building will block out light and our
view of the hills and cause a shadowing effect on our property. It will increase traffic through the side
streets affecting parking and pose a danger for children and elderly persons in our area.
Our family is amongst hundreds of others that regularly utilize the facilities of the YMCA and feel its
removal will be detrimental to the community of Walkerville.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss this further and look forward to hearing a response from you at
your earliest convenience. If you would like to contact us by phone please call us on 0417080496.
Kind regards,
Phillip and Anna Dodd
Alyssa Burford
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cynthia Curtis <cbcurtis@internode.on.net>
Sunday, 23 August 2015 8:22 PM
Walkerville at Walkerville Council
EM201515661 - 3.20.3.7 - Submission - Town Centre DPA
To The Chief Executive Officer
re: The Draft DPA
As a concerned resident of Margaret Street in Walkerville I wish to express my opposition to many of the
proposals outlined in the DPA.
Firstly, re-zoning of the Neighbourhood Centre to Town Centre Zone would have significant impacts. I live
on Margaret street and my residence backs onto the Council Works Depot, I am extremely concerned
about the proposal to allow five storey development adjacent to my house. The issues are 'overlooking',
overshadowing, potential conflict which could exist between the 'tight' planning, development and heritage
facade restrictions on Margaret street - ie. single storey, single dwelling, juxtaposed against five storey
dwellings. Not only would the change of scale be imposing it would lead to increases in traffic and parking.
In case you are unaware Margaret street and Fuller street are narrow and with cars parked on either side it
only allows for one car to pass at a time, also our street is constantly full of cars parked from people
attending sporting events at the oval and now staff from Woolworths, which is inconvenient enough let
alone having to deal with all associated with a five storey development.
Another issue is housing value, I certainly would not have purchased my house in this location if there was
a five storey development behind it and I imagine a lot of people think similarly, hence it would make my
house undesirable and the value would go down - who would compensate me?
Of course the whole issue begs the question of how this could possibly fit in with the 'village feel' of
Walkerville. As we have seen from the recent Woolworths development it is very difficult to assimilate a
large scale building into a village successfully, and that was on the main street not in a residential area.
Then there is the issue of community areas such as the YMCA being shut down or re-zoned, the gym and
facilities are utilised extensively by the community and indeed my family and I can not imagine it being
removed, agreed a possible face lift is in order but the infrastructure, parking etc is there, it would seem a
waste of resources and rate payers money to relocate it. The concept of amalgamation with the football
club horrifies me, as the oval is so over utilised already, it is almost impossible for me to take my dog for a
run on there or kick the football with my son on the weekend - let alone the issue of parking down our street
again.
I'm not sure why we would encourage consulting rooms/hub where the YMCA is, in my opinion we need
more restaurants, cafés community areas, shops/retail etc, encouraging a vibrant lively feel, and the park
behind the Council depot has already been shrunk resulting in less community space and of course the
proposed development plan could lead to total removal. Consulting rooms fit nicely into the heritage
buildings surrounding and on the Main Street so it seems an obvious solution to encourage that.
Encouraging building height increases on Walkerville terrace seems pointless, and will ruin the village feel,
increase traffic and create a dark, imposing street scape. The current scale is sufficient.
The re-zoning of Alfred street is pointless, it is narrow and has people living in it! Why as a Council
representing the Community would you be up-rooting people from their family homes?
Businesses would not be able to get delivery trucks down there, imagine the congestion every morning.
One positive on the DPA, I see is the Mary Harris Reserve concept as it would be great to see a Sunday
market or exhibition in the Main Street and would make the area leading down to the river alive!
1
Removal of Heritage items from Warwick street and Alfred street seems incredulous, and makes one
question why they were perceived to be of heritage significance in the first place? And how can they be of
less significance now than when they were first listed?
The idea about defining the intersection and corners on Walkerville and Stephen's terrace is an interesting
concept however once again I question the need for it to be of so many stories high, definition and impact
can be achieved in other ways.
I feel this DPA is opening the door to potential problems, and disregarding all the ideas and work that has
gone before it, as a resident of Walkerville I would rather err on the conservative side and allow heights of
only two stories, and then if a significant proposal of greater height is put forth consider it individually on
merit rather than give a blanket maximum permissible height limit which is then hard to disallow due to
impact.
I appreciate urban consolidation is necessary to sustain the infrastructure etc of Walkerville however the
plan seems inconsistent - on our street we were not allow to build two stories yet behind us someone could
potentially build five? Urban consolidation is certainly not encouraged when our house is so limited in how
many residents it can house on a small block, given we are limited to single dwelling, single storey,
maintaining plot ratio rules and adhering to heritage facade guidelines? As for encouraging mixed use (?)
should not mean redevelopment but integrating within the fabric we have. Mixed use would be appropriate
in an industrial area to attract residents and retail, not in an already residential area that is has clearly a
quaint village character. Let's draw on our history here instead of forgetting it and de-listing it. Few resident
know of the significance of the immediate area of Margaret street and The Mews relationship to the old
Tram, the original facade of the Chennai Restaurant with its grand verandah - let's showcase Walkerville's
heritage as a priority instead of bury it in the shadow of high buildings.
As a rate payer I can not understand how any of this can be justified when there are other areas that
should be priority, such as maintaining the Bowls Club and the Memorial Gardens, the river precinct,
developing the 'ugly' carpark across from the Watson and more importantly putting forward a plan to entice
business to lease the numerous empty shops and offices already vacant on Walkerville Terrace.
Given the debt and outcry generated from the last debate regarding heights ie. the Woolworths site, I'm not
sure why it would be proposed again particularly in a residential areas.
I don't feel this DPA represents the resident of Walkerville and how we would like to see the future, it's
seems to be formulated by people removed from the Village, not residents.
Kind Regards
Cynthia Curtis
8 Margaret Street
Walkerville
Sent from my iPad
2
Alyssa Burford
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Angela Niscioli <angelaniscioli@gmail.com>
Sunday, 23 August 2015 5:10 PM
Walkerville at Walkerville Council
EM201515659 - 3.20.3.7 - Submission - Town Centre DPA
Dear Chief Executive Officer,
thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on the Draft Town Centre Development Plan
Amendment (DPA).
I am a resident of Walkerville and reside at 145 Stephen Terrace, Walkerville.
I have two objections/concerns regarding the proposal and these are listed below.
1. Gateway Sites - Height Limits
It is proposed that buildings on the corner sites at the intersection between Walkerville Tce and Stephen Tce
will be up to three storeys and potentially four storeys.
I object to this proposal as these building heights are excessive. There should be a maximum height limit of
2 storeys. This is consistent with the maximum building height with surrounding buildings (ie Council
Chambers) as well as being in line with limits in the plan that are set to a maximum of 2 stories. It will also
avoid the issue of overlooking onto neighbouring properties.
2. Commercial/Residential Boundary
My property under the new proposal would be on the boundary between the Town Centre and the
Residential Zone. Currently there is a residential property (143 Stephen Tce) between myself and the
commercial properties on Walkerville Tce, I would this like to remain.
The proposal shows the neighbouring property (143 Stephen Tce) within the Town Centre zone. However,
this should be excluded from The Town Centre zone and instead be zoned residential. This is consistent
with the fact that it does not face Walkerville Tce and that Stephen Tce is not a retail/commercial zone.
In addition, there is a lane on this property that I am legally entitled to free and unrestricted right of way and
this would complicate any commercial use in the future. This is an issue that has already been
acknowledged by the Council.
I do not require to be heard at a meeting as I believe my comments above are suffice however should you
require any further information please contact me on 0400 605 639.
Regards
Angela Niscioli
1
Talia Calitz
Unit 2, 6 Warwick Street
Walkerville SA 5081
23 August 2015
Chief Executive Officer
Town of Walkerville
RE: SUBMISSION – Town Centre DPA
I write to you to raise concerns regarding the proposed Development Plan Amendment. Details of these
concerns are outlined below:

The combination of four existing zones to create the new Town Centre Zone allows excessive and
inappropriate development in areas which should be preserved for the residential and recreational
activities. The current four zones should be maintained as they deal with very different conditions.

Regulations within the “Business Core Policy Area 2” should be amended to activate and invigorate
“dead spots” along Walkerville Terrace, with height restrictions limited to a maximum of two storeys.
All commercial activities should be limited to Walkerville Terrace and the lower end of Smith Street
up to the current YMCA. No business or commercial activities should be allowed in other areas.

“Residential Fringe Policy Area 3” should remain as residential and no commercial activities should
occur along Alfred Street and height restrictions should be limited to a maximum of two storeys.
Contributory items should not be removed. Vehicular traffic in Alfred Street could be minimized by
access from Warwick Street only and a portion of Alfred Street could be pedestrianized to improve
the link to the Oval. Café activities should be limited to the corner of Alfred Street and Walkerville
Terrace. Landscaping upgrades to the link between the Oval and Walkerville Terrace could vastly
improve the relationships.

“Walkerville Oval Policy Area 4” should remain as recreational facilities with the childcare and the
playground maintained. The current relationship between the tennis courts, playground, cricket nets,
oval and childcare works extremely well and the established trees in the playground and childcare
offer shade in summer and a level of “nature play” all year round. The childcare benefits from the
visual expanse of space of the oval and the adjacent park. Current open spaces along Church Terrace
are also well utilized by residents and should remain as open spaces. The facilities could be upgraded
(Including new oval and bowling club facilities) but development should be limited to a maximum of 2
storeys and focussed on underutilized areas. Increased parking around the oval is concerning, this
should be limited to very small numbers in carefully selected underutilized areas and ensure that the
oval is not alienated from surrounding residences or facilities.

“Policy Area 6 – Central” which includes the YMCA site and Council Depot is predominantly a
community recreational facility and should remain as such. The site could be redeveloped and
upgraded, but should always remain a community facility. Development in this area should be
limited to two storeys maximum - I strongly oppose the scale and use of the intended developments
– a five storey development in this area is out of scale with the context and will increase traffic
congestion in an already congested area.

A core concern relates to the inappropriate scale of development (4 or 5 storey developments) and to
maintain the integrity and appeal of Walkerville area, the maximum building height should not
exceed two storeys with no exceptions.

Medium to high density housing is inappropriate on the northern side of Walkerville Terrace, but
medium density housing could be considered in undeveloped areas of “Warwick Street Policy Area 5”
if limited to two storey height restrictions.

Proposals for land use of an entertainment venue or convention centre are also inappropriate given
that these facilities are used only on certain occasions and often result in alienating street
relationships (internalized building types and functions). Interaction at street level should always be
encouraged.
In summary, I strongly oppose the Development Plan Amendment and urge consideration of the above
mentioned concerns.
Kind regards,
Talia Calitz
Tel. 0402 346 942
Alyssa Burford
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Robert Vowles <rmvowles@internode.on.net>
Sunday, 23 August 2015 7:27 AM
Walkerville at Walkerville Council
Fred Meyer; Amye Matthews; Margot Vowles
EM201515657 - 3.20.3.7 - Submission in Relation to the DCA from Margot and
Robert Vowles
We have a number of serious concerns with the Amendments proposed.
The 52 page document (undated?), read in conjunction with the Plan of 28th of August, 223 pages,
includes statements and information which appear to be repetitive and convoluted. They contain planning
jargon, unsupported opinion and other confusing material. The net result is something that makes us, and
perhaps other residents, unable to understand possible outcomes and how they will affect us if the
Amended Plan is implemented.
Consequently we can only raise our concerns at this stage in regard to clearly stated, planned outcomes,
and what we perceive as other likely outcomes.
Accordingly we advise that we are strongly opposed to the following:
a) expansion of the area defined by the original Town Centre Plan to take in the Oval and it's precincts up
to Church Terrace to the North, and to Fuller Street to the East.
The Oval demands particular attention since its prime reason for being is to service residents and school
children and NOT to be a highly commercialised facility. Future construction of a large structure to include
the sort of amenity currently provided by the YMCA on this site would, in our opinion, be out of character
for this location and would demand more commercialisation on economic grounds.
Improvement of the current YMCA in conjunction with residential or office development there and also on
the Works Depot site, (but NOT to five storeys ) should be seriously studied.
b) relocation of the Bowling Club facilities from its present location. We could support some reduction in the
area to provide for some additional off-street parking but NOT this expensive and unnecessary action.
Some combining and sharing of the hospitality features ( bars, kitchens and so on) between the Sports
Club and the Bowling Club should be studied.
c)re-zoning of Alfred Street to facilitate more Commercial development when the agreed focus is for this to
happen on the Walkerville Terrace where there are already numerous buildings/offices/shops still
undeveloped or vacant.
Please note that we register our desire to address the meeting on these points.
Margot and Robert Vowles
22 Warwick Street.
1
Alyssa Burford
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Andrew Cudmore <acudmore@internode.on.net>
Sunday, 23 August 2015 5:57 AM
Walkerville at Walkerville Council
Sally Cudmore
EM201515656 - 3.20.3.7 - Submission - Town Centre DPA
Submission – Town Centre DPA Chief Executive Officer Town of Walkerville PO Box 55 Walkerville SA 5081 Dear Kiki, We object to the proposed DPA because it appears to us that our Pre‐Kindergarten at some stage in the future could be used for a more intensive commercial use. The current zoning insures that the property will be used for recreational or community based facilities which seem to us could change under the proposed DPA. Therefore we or our nominated representative wish to be heard at the forthcoming public hearing please.
Yours sincerely Sally & Andrew Cudmore 10 Ettrick Avenue Medindie SA 5081 Tel +61 (0)488 577 382 1
SUBMISSION REGARDING TOWN OF WALKERVILLE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
23RD August 2015
To;
Chief Executive Officer
Town of Walkerville
PO Box 55
Walkerville SA 5081
From :
Paul Wilkins
Unit 3 74 Gilbert Street
Gilberton SA 5081
Thank you for seeking my views on the Draft PDA and the changes proposed to the Development Plan.
I would like to speak please at the public hearings.
Walkerville Terrace proposals
We have gained more choice on the Terrace as a result of the Watson/Woolworths development. At present
this is combined with the quite unique village character of the town. This character is partly a result of the
scale and local heritage nature of the built environment and the social and community nature of facilities like
the RSL, the Post Office and community consulting services for health and well being and also a remarkable
element of residential frontage for example in the Rusk Cottages and the Housing Trust estate. It is my
strongly held view that the directions for the Terrace of the current Development Plan should not be at the ..
price of this amendment to demolish specified local heritage buildings or outlaw so called non active
frontages in the interests of a more exclusively commercial retail strip. No imperative has been explicitly
established for this unless it is tacitly to provide a greater commercial anchor role for Woolworths in the town
centre. If so, as I suspect, this should be rejected as a determinative factor for a whole further commercial
development area in the Warwick Street-Alfred Street parcel. If the imperative is State pressures then it is a
fact that Walkerville through the Watson and Park Terrace developments have reached their State urban
population growth targets. Walkerville also continues to participate in more intensive infill development. I do
not find in the Council plans a clear concept of the limits to growth. This is particularly an issue in respect to
traffic and parking. Cannibalisation of the Oval fringe for parking as proposed in the amendment I do not
consider acceptable. IF the Council had a real appetite for improving the traffic and parking situation there are
opportunities - such as the IGA site. It is also my view that development policies on Walkerville Terrace
contribute to a circle of degradation – the heritage buildings lend themselves better to services and consulting
, or residence (witness the Rusk Cottages), than retail. The Council plan determines these as inappropriate use
and thereby creates a development vacuum. While I do not agree with the outlawing of “non active”
frontages and the demolition of local heritage which stands in the way, and while I strongly support
preservation of the low skyline of the northern side of the Terrace there can be acceptable two storey
residential development to the rear of the frontages as is the case adjacent to the Housing Trust parcel.
YMCA and Council Depot proposals
The change of use to residential and consulting rooms across these parcels is not in my view justified in the
proposals as the highest and best use for what is substantially currently community land on the YMCA part of
the parcel. My view is that the site should remain community land and preferably be redeveloped/enhanced
with the YMCA or other provider as a recreational and preventative health local and wider community facility
including the after hour child care services. This is a range of facilities for which the demand in my view will
increase. The combination with the Council Depot parcel (for which alternative or cooperative facilities should
be pursued) would allow provision of extended facilities which are needed on current demand alone
according to YMCA information when previous Council was considering the future of the facility. Part of the
purpose of the proposal seems to be the consolidation of consulting services offered on the Terrace and a
step towards greater commercialisation of the Terrace which I have criticised above.
Walkerville Oval
The amendments as I read them place the oval into the town centre development envelope. My view is that
our development plan should continue to limit any commercial construction to the present recreational
buildings footprint and no increase in height. The current Council may be innocent of any development
intentions on the Oval but this is Plan Amendment which unacceptably relaxes commercial potential on the
Oval.
South Side of Walkerville Terrace
The South side of the Terrace is something of a lesson in unsympathetic development over time. The
unsympathetic development around the Rusk Cottages and the loss of the original Sussex Annexe is a lesson
to be learned in regard to the proposals for demolition of local heritage on the southern side. Remaining local
heritage becomes anomalous and a vicious circle of compliant heritage advice on their incongruity can be
expected. Future possible three storey frontage on the southern side of the Terrace will accentuate
incongruity and should be kept back of the frontage if greater than two storeys.
Alfred/Warwick street proposals
There is some in principle possibility for the Town Centre in this proposal but not , in my view, at the expense
of the local heritage item on the Terrace corner and with reservation and uncertainty about the potential
scale and degree of impingement on the oval and the loss of the child care establishment. The Development
Plan amendment is in general an over commercial proposition with little recognition of provisions for such
community services.
24 August 2015
The Chief Executive Officer
Town of Walkerville
PO Box 55
WALKERVILLE SA 5081
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF WALKERVILLE SOCIETY INC –
Re: WALKERVILLE TOWN CENTRE DPA
1. Treatment of the Y (YMCA) 




2. 
3. 
Currently, the Y is located within the Neighbourhood Centre Zone and is classified as community land pursuant to the Local Government Act. This Community land is not taken into account in the DPA The Y land is designated for recreational purposes . The draft DPA does not address the social & recreational services for the local community nor the economic benefit that flow to the town by inner regional users. The draft DPA does not propose the retention of the Y at its current site. A valuation decision (commercial) has been applied to this are to permit residential and mixed use development to 5 stories, including offices and consulting rooms on Smith Street frontage, presumably to enable the Council to reduce its debt. The argument for redevelopment is based on lack of streetscape appeal and not land use. It is proposed that the Y sit in the Town Centre Zone and does not address the recreational needs of the community nor does it address the need for redevelopment on its existing site or on the depot land . Margaret Street residences (adjacent to the Y) The interface between the historic cottages (single story ) and a future 5 storey development on the Y site and Walkerville Depot site has not been addressed in the draft DPA. Treatment of residential properties on Alfred Street precinct The process proposed under the draft DPA for the treatment of development applications by residents in Alfred Street (and any other residential dwelling proposed in the Town Centre Zone) for alterations and additions which are treated as non complying developments. The DPA proposes a significant change to the processing of applications for dwellings within the proposed Town Centre Zone, which is not in any way part of the current policy of the Neighbourhood Centre Zone. There are separate processes for treatment of non complying residential development applications in the proposed Town Centre Zone and 4. 
5. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. residential development applications as currently exist under the Walkerville Development Plan. The chief difference is that there is no right of appeal from a refusal decision of the Development Assessment Panel (DAP)to the EDR Court on a non complying development application as proposed in the Town Centre Zone in the draft DPA. Council depot site Redevelopment of the Council depot site should include provision in part for redevelopment needs of the Y. Summary of some issues raised by the residents to the Walkerville Society Inc.at its public meeting on 11 August 2015 Take the oval precinct out of the Town Centre Zone. Define the actual boundaries of the oval and sporting facilities precinct. Take proposed developments east of Smith Street out of the proposed Town Centre Zone Traffic issues such as future parking needs, congestion due to proposed developments not adequately considered. Delivery trucks in the Alfred Street precinct not ideal. Congestion issues. Treatment of heritage issues in the Alfred Street precinct by Council’s heritage advisor smacks of convenience. No clarity on what sporting facilities and playground facilities will be retained in the proposed oval parking adjacent Alfred Street precinct and lack of definition of actual new parking area. Traffic management not addressed. Proposed removal of heritage listings by stroke of a pen. Gateways Sites at the intersection between Walkerville Tce and Stephen Tce should be limited to a maximum of 2 stories and not up to 4 as per the new proposal. Current residential properties (eg 143 Stephen Tce) facing Stephen Tce should be in the residential zone and not be zoned Town Centre. The Walkerville Society Inc would like to be heard at the Public Hearing on 24 September 2015. Rosemary Craddock Secretary Walkerville Society Inc PO Box 139 Walkerville SA 5081 Chief Executive Officer, Town of Walkerville PO Box 55 WALKERVILLE SA 5081 SUBMISSION – TOWN CENTRE DPA WE WISH TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OF 24TH SEPTEMBER This submission responds to Council’s introduction to the proposed changes only, as the DPA document wouldn’t download or open. I/we strongly suggest that the Council ‐ 1. abandons the change to a Town Centre Zone and keep the village atmosphere. 2. does not permit undercroft parking on corner sites as it is an impractical idea for vehicles entering and exiting on busy corners. 3. does ensure a buffer zone is kept between residences and any multi‐level development. 4. reduces the height limit on the Depot land fronting Fuller Street from 5 to 3 stories, plus maintains setback for upper levels both from the street and side boundaries to reduce the impact on neighbouring properties. 5. leaves the YMCA where it is, with permission to improve its facilities to cater for future increase in demand by an aging population. 6. keep the heritage zone in Alfred Street and Warwick Street to maintain the village ambiance but permit small commercial activity provided consideration is given to traffic management for customers, delivery vans and waste removal trucks and safe pedestrian access. We would not like to see contemporary multilevel constructions in Alfred Street. 7. should remove the Oval and accompanying sports facilities (bowls, tennis, cricket nets, playground) from the proposed Town Centre Zone / neighbourhood centre zone. It is a recreational open space not commercial zone? 8. should not remove local heritage items from the list, a violation of the reason for which they were considered significant to our local history in the first place. 9. not create a compact mixed use retail and commercial precinct on Walkerville Terrace, but maintain the present village atmosphere which is what we love about Walkerville. 10. Keep the Bowls Club in Walkerville as it is needed in our aging society. 11. Leave the Memorial Gardens where it is 12. Keep the playground on the edge of the Oval so parents can see the game played whilst minding younger children in the playground. 13. Remove any reference to a town square (this was John Rich’s idea at a community forum) a concept not embraced by any other council that I know of. We heartily support Council’s decision to  Maintain open space at Mary Harris / Bundilla Reserve  create extra parking on Smith Street ‐ as long as it doesn’t impact on the current or future use of the sports oval  increase the open space provision – however, unfortunately, the proposed DPA reduces open space by increasing building levels and compact development ‐ so what are the plans to increase open space? In addition, we feel that instead of creating a pedestrian walkway, café strip to the Oval along Alfred Street, the Council should concentrate on leading pedestrian/cyclists from the Linear Park to the main street. This was a agreed proposed outcome at a previous community consultation. The following explains our thoughts for these points: Council proposes to:
Replace existing Neighbourhood Centre Zone with a new Town Centre
Zone, focusing on activating Walkerville Terrace with shops/cafes at ground
floor and offices/consulting rooms and dwellings occurring at upper floor levels
or to rear of sites
We are against the change - a Neighbourhood Centre Zone allows for the
retention of the village atmosphere that we all love. Shops and cafes can
still utilize the existing structures along the main street and as many of
them have a setback, ideal for outdoor tables or even trading tables on
special sale days.
Increase building heights along southern side of Walkerville Terrace to three
stories,
Whilst 3 stories would be the upper limit on the southern side of the
Terrace, we would not want to dwarf heritage properties like the pioneer
cottages with 3 stories as an immediate neighbour.
There should be a buffer zone between such residences and any multilevel developments. A buffer = open space, roadway or a single/double
storey commercial property between the residence boundary and the
edge of the multi-level development. It is also desirous to have a setback
of the upper levels so as not to tower over boundaries or footpaths and
create a canyon effect.
Woolworths had the option of building 2-3 levels on their retail
development and obviously their market research ruled it as
uneconomical in this area.
three stories on key corner sites and a provision for four stories if car parking
is undercroft
This would be a concern for many reasons. The current blocks on those
key corner sites do not appear to be large enough to permit undercrofting, nor would it be practical to have entry and exits on such busy
corner sites. Under-crofting should not be an option on corner sites.
Also if the immediate neighbour is a single storey residence, there should
be a buffer between the multi-level structure and the residence in a side
street.
up to five stories on the Council works Depot and adjoining recreational
‘building’ site.
We reject this as an option. We strongly believe the YMCA facility should
be retained in the town as it will continue to be an important facility in
the active life of the townspeople. With increased density development
and smaller building blocks, recreational facilities will become an
important factor for the local population from the very young to the
elderly. If anything, the facilities should be enlarged and improved to
permit more people accessing the classes and activities for all ages. The
money spent on the YMCA should be as much if not more that what is
spent on the Oval Sport Club as more locals use the YMCA than the sports
club.
In addition, we are concerned that the council would consider a five story
development of any kind on this site, for a number of reasons:–





there should be a buffer between single storey residences and
any multistory development.
consider the impact this type of development would have on the
heritage properties in Margaret Street whose boundary it would
share.
consider the impact a five story complex would have on the
streetscape and residences facing Fuller Street
The excessive traffic movements from such a development on the
narrow Fuller Street which houses many elderly citizens, and on
the busy thoroughfare of Smith Street.
The height on the depot site should be no more than 3 stories
with setbacks so as not to tower over neighbours backyards or
the narrow street.
Development occurring on Council Works Depot and adjoining recreation sites
will be for either aged care, consulting rooms or offices
Whether the up to five storey development on this site is
consulting rooms, offices or aged care, there would be an
increased requirement for car parking and traffic access to and
from the site. It would be better sited on North East Road.
Mary Harris Reserve to remain as open space, while also accommodating
temporary activities and structures, such as pop up food stalls, markets and
the like
We fully support Mary Harris Reserve remaining as open space. We have
very little of it in this town and this particular site allows the commuter
through the town’s only main street a glimpse at the Torrens and a
reminder of its natural beauty – a peep hole as it were.
Alfred Street to be re-zoned from residential to an active precinct with small
scale restaurants/cafes and shops that will enhance it as a destination
Before rezoning Alfred Street should go ahead, we feel careful
consideration is given to the following.





Alfred Street is very narrow with a narrow footpath only on one
side of the street.
an active precinct would create some issues for traffic flow,
pedestrian safety, access for delivery vans/trucks of food stuffs,
waste removal trucks etc.
Safety for the youngsters accessing the playground, pre-kindy and
Oval.
A pedestrian walkway to the Oval was mooted in previous plans we cannot see the attraction for shoppers on Walkerville Terrace to
want to wander to the Oval.
The playground should remain on the perimeter of the Oval invaluable to parents on match days as they are able to mind a
small one in the playground whilst still watching another child
playing on the oval etc. The relocation of the playground would
mean that it would not receive as much use.
An alternative to Alfred Street, we should encourage pedestrians and
cyclists up off the linear park to our main street – entice them to visit our
cafes and shops etc for a rest break and discover what Walkerville has to
offer.
Smith Street, Victoria Terrace and Warrick Street between Walkerville Tce
and the Hotel is the area which should be rezoned. As the main walking
paths are on the opposite side of the river, connecting walkways should
be enhanced to entice people across.
Creation of shared parking around edge of Walkerville Oval to assist with
parking demand
A narrowing of the boundaries of the Sports Oval may have an unwanted
impact in that football/cricket balls landing on the vehicles parked there
on match days. In the past, shrubbery was used as a barrier between the
oval and the street. It may be feasible to increase parking with the
introduction of angle parking. However, Warrick Street seems too narrow
to permit parking on both sides of the street. Perhaps parking on the
oval side only would permit more car parking spaces.
Various Contributory Heritage Items to be removed from Warwick Street and
Alfred Street, and two Local Heritage Items to be removed from Walkerville
Terrace
The removal of contributing and local heritage places should not be
permitted. They were considered at the time to be of heritage
significance and that they made a valued contribution to the heritage of
our town.
The removal of heritage items should never be allowed for the reason the
Council has given: greater opportunities for more activated land uses and
development. What is to stop other owners of local heritage properties
request delisting for a similar reasons. Ridiculous!
Walkerville does not have a large number of heritage properties and the
ones that have been identified should be retained. These properties
contribute to the village atmosphere and streetscape. It reflects the
vision of the founding traders of the main street and provides a window
into a bygone era when villagers mattered. We do not wish to have our
main street turned into a canyon of glass and concrete tiltups, nor to be
turned into an unidentifiable shopping street. We should retain our
uniqueness.
If a review of the heritage properties has identified unsympathetic
development, a closer look at Council’s procedures should be done. How
is it that Council has permitted this to happen. Any unsympathetic
improvements can be and should be reversed.
Reinvigoration of the Town Centre creating a compact mixed-use retail and
commercial precinct
This is not what we want. We wish to maintain the current village
atmosphere and ambiance.
Open space improvements and an increase in open space provision
Yes to improvements to open space and to an increase in its provisions.
However, we cannot find what was proposed to meet this aim.
If anything the current open space between the buildings on the Terrace
and the space above them is being provisioned to be built space which is
a huge loss of open space. Also the open space around the Oval is
planned for extra car parking. Where is the increase in open space
proposed?
The Mary Harris Reserve has recently lost its rose garden, is that an
improvement? The garden was sometimes a feature for local brides and
grooms to have their official photos taken there on the park bench.
Improved streetscapes including storm-water collection, amenity and
biodiversity
What is the provision for this outcome? As the DPA wouldn’t download,
we couldn’t look into this provision.
Creation of a dynamic urban realm that is focussed on a sustainable wellconnected community
Sustainable? Are there directives for each new development to be
sustainable in the DPA? If higher levels on the southern side of
Walkerville Terrace is permitted, then they should not have large glass
windows without overhang or shading provisions because they face the
hot summer sun and subsequently rely on air-conditioning. Should only
locally sourced building materials be used? Actually, the act of demolition
of buildings is counter-productive in the sustainable debate - remodelling
current structures is the best sustainable option.
A well-connected community has a community centre which is open when
people need it, on weekends and evenings. A well-connected community
has recreational facilities and active clubs and organisations in the area.
I remember the centre on Smith Street which was like a drop-in centre
providing information on local traders so we could support them and
what group activities were available. I remember the centre on
Walkerville Terrace with meeting rooms, playgroup, art classes and
bridge club etc.
What does a ‘dynamic urban realm’ really mean?
The report lists a recommendation the Walkerville bowling club
should be moved to a different area on the site? Council has undertaken
some work in relation to the Walkerville Sporting Hub Master plan (Walkerville
Oval precinct). The final Master plan report flags a potential relocation of the
bowling club to either an alternate location on the site or to a different site.
The Town Centre DPA background analysis report provides rationale as to the
proposed policy change only. It does not dictate or require a relocation of the
bowling club if the Town Centre DPA is supported, nor does the policy
proposed mention this specifically. The location of the bowling club is a
decision for Council and the Community.
We would not approve the relocation of the bowls club to a location outside
of Walkerville. With an aging population and an ever increasing reduction
in open space and smaller gardens, there will be a heightened need for
facilities such as these at our doorstep. Keep the bowls club and YMCA in
our town.
Moving the memorial garden is also unwarranted.
The Walkerville oval/bowls club/memorial gardens precinct should be
removed from the proposed town centre zone and maintained as open
space, recreational facilities.
Dwellings and additions and alterations to a dwelling in the proposed
Town Centre Zone would be Non-Complying? Any development which is
non-complying does not mean an application cannot be lodged or approved.
Whilst non-complying development is not desired, a planning application
would be assessed on its merits and referred to Council’s Development
Assessment Panel for deliberation.
Does this mean that Council would not support the retention of properties
as a residence in the town centre? Walkerville Council would make it
impossible for people to stay in their house as any improvement would be
denied? Yes, we think Council could manage appropriate additions so as to
enhance the streetscape but not to a point where they would not permit a
person from staying in their residence if that is their wish because Council
prefers commercial owners.
Any reference to a ‘Town Square’ should be removed from all documents.
It isn’t feasible to suggest that a town square would work in Walkerville or
any suburb. There is no example of a town square anywhere that I know.
Our Oval, as many of us remember, was used for the wonderful Village Fairs
held biennially – anything smaller would not be viable.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DPA. Lyn O’Grady & Francis O’Grady 5 Exmouth Street Walkerville. Alyssa Burford
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
David Travel Prospects <travelprospects@internode.on.net>
Monday, 24 August 2015 10:14 AM
Walkerville at Walkerville Council
'Margaret Graham-King'
EM201515667 - 3.20.3.7 - FW: Submission - Town Centre DPA
Subject: Submission - Town Centre DPA
To The Chief Executive Officer
The Draft DPA
As both a local resident and local business I wish to express my opposition to many of the proposals
outlined in the DPA.
I am extremely concerned that the council or portions of the councellors are doing what they want and not
what the community want.
With the Walkerville Residents / Walkerville Heritage / Walkerville Society all seeming to have the same
thoughts as the local residents and business I am not sure where the council get the vision of 5 stories from –
except large developers who just want to build at any cost.
The YMCA was another issued raised on the night – and the whole agenda of the plans seems to be tainted
with the idea that as council were blocked by community back lash on the amalgamation of the YMCA
being moved into a super sports complex with the football club – then the council will just change the rules
on the positioning of the YMCA land – thus allow council to then redevelop the land and then have to
amalgamate the Y with the football club area.
The Y just needs a good facelift and front façade to blend in more – maybe allowing some small
redevelopment along the side of the building to take in a lane way to some artist shop area etc?
At a recent meeting held on the DPA matter it was discussed about the re-zoning of Alfred street, this seems
a stupid option as the street is a back street , narrow and would be a large and long delay to the houses on
the street for any planned shops and businesses that would have to be built on the oval / community land (
even though the tone set seems to go towards council re setting the zone to allow the park area to be re built.
Apart from the councellors that must reside in the area and thus potentially be thinking of the area they live
in – I seem to feel the staff at the council are just in it for the Grand Picture to be able to say they were part
of the grand building etc – then go home to the area that they may not want effected with a five stirey
building next to them or have their parks and ovals re developed.
One positive on the DPA, I see is the Mary Harris Reserve concept as it would be great to see a Sunday
market or exhibition in the Main Street and would make the area leading down to the river alive!
Removal of Heritage items from Warwick street and Alfred street seems incredulous, and makes one
question why they were perceived to be of heritage significance in the first place? And how can they be of
less significance now than when they were first listed?
The idea about defining the intersection and corners on Walkerville and Stephen's terrace is an interesting
concept however once again I question the need for it to be of so many stories high, definition and impact
can be achieved in other ways.
I feel this DPA is opening the door to potential problems, and disregarding all the ideas and work that has
1
gone before it, as a resident of Walkerville I would rather err on the conservative side and allow heights of
only two stories, and then if a significant proposal of greater height is put forth consider it individually on
merit rather than give a blanket maximum permissible height limit which is then hard to disallow due to
impact.
I understand we may need to grow to accommodate population and thus bring in more rate payers to
accommodate services to the area – but in moderation.
At a recent breakfast at the Chennai Restaurant I noticed the photo’s of the older building – it would be
good if the building could have the old grand verandah re built – even with council / heritage assistance to
showcase Walkerville's heritage frontage.
We have such a quaint and picturesque village feel to the town and in one breath the council talk about the
community and “ village “ town etc and the next breath you want to build 5 stories every where possible.
I think the council is confused on what they portray and what they underlying really want. – And again bad
decisions only leave it to the locals to wear.
As a Travel Agent – I visit some beautiful towns and cities and some real disasters – where does council
plans have Walkerville – my preference is one of the quaint picturesque towns you see in New Zealand –
that attracts people to the are both to reside and to spend due to the town image. We should be building on
from this, incorporating our Bowls / Memorial Gardens and country looking football club.
Why can council not negotiate with the council that I believe covers the car parking facilities opposite the
Watson – to be a more prominent car park for the shoppers and shop staff compared to trying to find a park
in the side streets.?
Where was the forsight with the building of Woolworths not to have the zebra crossing completed at the
same time – instead of having the street effect on two occasions?
With the previous council debacles on the hole and court cases – I would have though council would this
time be a lot more conscious of local concerns and interests and not the “ Grand Plans “ attitude that could
go pear shaped and leave the residents and businesses to handle – when a staff member at council can just
resign and walk away.
If the Council wanted to be doing something creative with the community / shopping precinct – maybe have
a submission from residents on what we may want to see in smaller boutique scale that would add
ambiance to the area.
My first suggestion – the steps that run down to the river just behind the reserve / adjacent Nest Café – are a
shambles – why not get some Government assist and build the steps upto a wider walk way step way so
easier to access in general and potentially inviting walkers to pop up to the town area for a coffee / meal etc
– make our strip along the river the best strip overall and thus inviting to be in our area.
I don't feel this DPA and current council thoughts represents the resident and businesses of Walkerville.
Regards
David Wright | Managing Director
TRAVEL PROSPECTS
A: 2/80 Walkerville Terrace, Walkerville, SA 5081 Australia | T: +61 8 8344 9030 | F: +61 8
8344 9008
Corporate and Personal Travel | Footy Booking Centre - Sports & Events | Battlelines 2
Graham Webster – Submission Town Centre DPA – 24/8/15
Graham Webster
Post Office Box 37
WALKERVILLE SA 5081
Chief Executive Officer
Corporation Town of Walkerville
WALKERVILLE SA 5081
24th August 2015
Dear Ms Magro,
Submission: Town Centre Development Plan Amendment (DPA).
My submission is as follows. I wish to be heard at the public meeting in
September.
Currently the Walkerville Neighbourhood Centre Zone supports a delightful
village ambiance that allows residents living in detached dwellings to co-exist
alongside shops, professional offices, Woolworths and the new Watson Hotel.
This DPA if accepted by the Minister in its current form will needlessly cause
loss of amenity, dislocation and legal challenges when with logical reasoning
and subsequent amendments, it could facilitate orderly development along
Walkerville Tce., which I believe was the original intention.
This draft DPA was developed for consultation during the term of the previous
Council. It should have been presented to the new Council in a formal manner
and as such the document in its current form could have been tested to
determine whether it had the support of the majority of elected
representatives.
Clearly there are aspects that would have been corrected by the new Council
before needlessly alarming the community.
The following are concerns that must be addressed:
1. This DPA is flawed and too clumsy in that it seeks to merge the Business
Core Policy Area 2, the Residential Fringe Policy Area 3, the Walkerville Oval
Policy Area 4 and the Warwick St Policy Area 5 into a single Town Centre
Zone. These Zones were established for good reasons. This area currently
reflects small businesses coexisting alongside detached residential living
adjacent to active community spaces.
2. Planning for adequate car parking and safe traffic management should
have been better considered in this DPA. It is poor planning to force more car
parking into our recreational spaces around the oval precinct.
3. This document has taken a quantum leap from the original changes
envisaged by Strategic Directions Report. The Statement of Intent did not
suggest that the policies as listed above would be removed; e.g. p12 of Item
1
Graham Webster – Submission Town Centre DPA – 24/8/15
7.1, from the Agenda of the Strategic Planning Development and Policy
Committee set out areas for investigation including “2. A review of the extent
of the Neighbourhood Centre Zone with the view to achieving a closer
alignment with the Council’s Strategic Plan and Urban Master Plan”. This
quantum leap possibly came about because of a few agenda’s that needed to
be satisfied?
4. The existing Development Plan’s section on Interface between Land Uses
is there for good reasons. It states:
“Development should not detrimentally affect the amenity of the locality or
cause unreasonable interference through:
(a) the emission of ….odour….dust…fumes
(b) noise
(c) vibration
(d) electrical interference
(e) light spill
(f) glare
(g) hours of operation
(h) traffic impacts
This important section has been ignored. There are basic planning flaws in
attempting to merge the Walkerville Oval Policy Area 4, Residential Fringe
Policy Area 3 and Warwick St Policy Area 5 into the policies and principles of
the proposed new Town Centre Zone.
Its like trying to merge an Industrial Zone and a Residential Zone; one set of
policies and principles (and amenity) has to lose out to the other.
5. The structure of the DPA does not accord with the S A Planning Policy
Library Version 6. The heading refers to Proposed New Town Centre Zone
yet the library version 6 is titled Neighbourhood Centre Zone.
6. It erroneously contains a declaration by the Minister that is signed by the
Council’s CEO, not the Minister!
7. The Minister’s Declaration states that this DPA is to come into operation on
an interim basis pursuant to Section 28 of the Development Act 1993’ yet it
states on page 6 under the heading Interim Operation ‘that Interim operation
pursuant to section 28(1) of the Development Act 1993 is not being sought
for this DPA’.
8. The proposed DPA is heavy handed in trying to force owners/occupiers out
of their detached houses. The effect of forcing owners of detached dwellings
to sell out by imposing non complying restrictions over additions and
alterations to their housing is a significant concern to many. Such a proposal
will result in a loss of property value and dislocation. In fact this proposal will
have to be legally challenged as it seeks to take away an individual’s common
law rights.
2
Graham Webster – Submission Town Centre DPA – 24/8/15
9. It is misleading to suggest removing all heritage contributory items out of a
Historic Conservation Zone yet leaving that zone in the Development Plan.
Seven houses are classed as historic contributory items in the Historic
Conservation Area between Alfred St and Warwick St . Both The Greater
Adelaide 30 Year Plan and The Inner Metropolitan Rim Structure Plan
highlight the need to preserve Historic Conservation Areas which is perhaps
the reason why the shell of the wording remains?
10. The Heritage Report (Attachment B) in the DPA is misleading. No
reference is made regarding contributory properties 27, 29 and 31 Warwick
St yet someone made the decision to delete these as contributory items in
the Amendment Instructions Table thereby causing confusion.
There is a way out of this.
We can still take the opportunity to bring the Development Plan up to date and
facilitate orderly mixed use development along Walkerville Tce, bounded
between Smith St and Stephen Tce.
The 'Background' section of the DPA acknowledges that much of the reason
why we need to change the Development Plan was due to the Watson Hotel
(the old DTEI site) and the Woolworths Shopping Centre which have both now
been fully developed (as well as deleting the reference to the failed concept of
a Town Square).
Given that the old DTEI site has now been redeveloped, it makes good
planning sense to concentrate medium rise development along the southern
side of Walkerville Tce bounded by Smith St and Stephens Tce.
There are most appropriate sites such as the RSL site and I support the
RSL’s expressed interest in pursuing this opportunity. Such a development
could complement similar medium rise developments near the corner of Smith
St and near the corner of Stephen Tce.
But that’s where it should end. The Walkerville Oval Precinct, the
YMCA/Depot Precinct and the Alfred St Precinct should remain as they
are.
The Walkerville Oval Precinct
The Oval Precinct Plan referred to in the DPA clearly lacked support from the
Walkerville community and accordingly the new Council consequently refused
to give further consideration to the proposals in that plan including shifting the
Bowling Club and rinks to the corner of Warwick St and Church Tce.
To suggest expanding commercial activities beyond existing recreational club
centres around the oval is concerning. It may be construed as an attempt to
sell off our community’s free access rights to a few with vested commercial
interests.
3
Graham Webster – Submission Town Centre DPA – 24/8/15
Its also poor planning to force more car parking into this recreational space.
Many children access the area of Warwick St, Alfred St, the playground, the
tennis courts and the prekindy. It is dangerous to encourage more traffic into
this zone.
The current Walkerville Oval Policy Area objectives are:
1.
A focus for community and recreational facilities without affecting the
residential amenity of adjoining areas
2.
Land within the policy area developed for a range of passive and active
outdoor recreation activities in landscaped surroundings.
3.
Development that contributes to the desired character of the policy
area.
Under this DPA what’s to stop an inept Council allowing the tennis courts and
playground area to be redeveloped for a ‘recreational’ (commercial) multi
storey building housing a yoga centre, pilates centre and shop.
The YMCA/Depot Precinct
The Urban Masterplan didn't recommend redeveloping (selling) these sites
but merely improving the YMCA frontage from the Smith St perspective. The
YMCA has offered to do this. The Proposal to sell the YMCA site and Council
depot site seems to have come from a developer led initiative rather than for
the betterment of the community.
The fact that the YMCA is a great community building enterprise seems to
have been lost in this process given that they built and paid for the original
building and have directly contributed to the healthy development of many of
us and our children over the past 50 years at this site.
Their wish to continue their operations at this site and pay for upgrading the
building must be supported.
The impact of a multi storey development on neighbouring houses can only
negatively impact those ratepayers. This proposal of redeveloping (selling) 2
Council land parcels that includes the Council depot is seen by many as short
sighted and self serving.
Every effort must be made to preserve our limited Community Land.
The Alfred St/Warwick St Precinct
The proposal to convert this well maintained and highly valued housing area
into a commercial area is not supported by me nor would I believe, the
majority of residents. The suggested ‘economic benefit’ of converting Alfred St
properties to commercial uses is highly questionable. It is a well accepted fact
that retail activity in back streets struggle to survive.
4
Graham Webster – Submission Town Centre DPA – 24/8/15
Alfred St is such a narrow street. Enticing commercial activity in Alfred St is
poorly conceived particularly with a lack of parking in this street and the
impact of mixing trucks with people.
The heavy handed attempt to force this change by considering future
additions and alterations of existing residences as non complying is
confrontational to who have invested and live in Alfred St and Warwick St.
Conclusion
It seems that over time this process has been subjected to individual interests
and agendas that have now resulted in a confusing document in need of
significant review.
The original intention of this DPA was to rectify now out of date references to
a Government Building, a Town Square, and up to 5 storey development
which is now the Woolworths complex.
Most of the existing Principles and Objectives of the Neighbourhood Centre
and its supporting zones still remain relevant and simply warrant some
amendments to meet the orderly growth needs of Walkerville Tce. supported
by recreational activities and residential living co-existing alongside this
vibrant commercial centre.
The Minister must be advised that the Council wishes to re draft this DPA.
Yours Faithfully
Graham Webster
5
Shane Flowers
17 Alfred Street Walkerville
Adelaide SA 5081
23 August 2015
Kiki Magro
Chief Executive Officer
Town of Walkerville
BY EMAIL walkerville@walkerville.sa.gov.au
RE: Submission – Town Centre DPA
Dear Kiki,
I am writing on behalf of a group of current residents of Alfred Street and Warwick Street (the
“Residents”1).
It recently came to our attention that parts of a Development Plan Amendment (“DPA”) by the Council
dated 26 June 2015 had some serious implications for our local area and our streets in particular.
The Residents strongly object to the DPA in its current form, see it as a deeply flawed document,
particularly with respect to Alfred Street and Warwick Street, and have commissioned a professional
Town Planner (MasterPlan Town and Country Planners) to review the DPA in further detail, in order to
consider the appropriateness of the DPA.
In summary the Residents:
1. request that the following representatives be allowed to speak at the DPA public hearing of
the 24 September, namely Kate Flowers, Heather Prider and Greg Vincent (of MasterPlan
Town and Country Planners)
2. consider that while some elements of the intent of the DPA may be supportable, the manner
in which the DPA seeks to achieve this, by way of an extreme variation in the longstanding
land use policies for Alfred Street and Warwick Street will inhibit the opportunities for existing
residents to upgrade and maintain their dwellings, and does not accord with content of the
strategic reports that inform it and, will do little to achieve the intent of either the Urban
Masterplan or the Strategic Directions Report, and as such the Residents request that the
DPA should be either:
a. withdrawn in its entirety and, failing that,
b. be amended to ensure that the objections and recommendations noted below (and in
the attached report) are reflected in a revised DPA
3. strongly disagree with the lack of open-ness and transparency with which the Council have
released a revised Heritage Report for the DPA in the final week of the consultation period,
and would request confirmation from the Council that this approach has been subject to legal
review.
I cannot stress enough how seriously our group takes this matter, and I would further note that initial
advice has indicated that there a number of points in the DPA that could be open to litigation, should
the Council proceed further with the DPA in its current form.
1
Names, addresses and signatures of the residents are appended to this letter
Objections
Appendix A includes some planning advice from MasterPlan Town and Country Planners in respect of
the DPA, which was commissioned by the Residents in response to their initial concerns.
The objections raised by MasterPlan are summarised below, with their view being the DPA:
1. “departs significantly from existing land use policies and the longstanding expectations of land
owners within the proposed Town Centre Zone;
2. does not accord with the land use policies envisaged in the Walkerville Urban Masterplan and
Strategic Directions Report;
3. significantly prejudices existing residential development and the reasonable expectations of
owners and occupiers of land within the existing Residential Fringe Policy Area having regard to
the long established history of policies seeking to encourage and protect residential development
with limited potential benefits for commercial development;
4. is at odds with established case law principles relating to existing use rights and impedes the
rights of residential owners seeking to continue to routinely improve their existing residential
properties by undertaking alterations and additions which we would recommended be the subject
of legal review;
5. does not adequately support the existing character present throughout the entirety of the
proposed Town Centre Zone;
6. does not contain policies to adequately balance and protect the amenity of existing residents and
must consider the impacts of parking, noise and other commercial impacts that may result from
the dramatic shift to commercial land uses envisaged along Alfred Street;
7. contains a deeply contradictory and unsatisfactory heritage assessment that will result in
conflicting land use policies; and
8. is of an inappropriate format and content to warrant endorsement in its current form.”
In addition the Residents have also raised a number of further objections:
9. The Residents contend that the re-zoning of Alfred Street to ‘commercial’ is unnecessary, as it will
have limited practical impact on development and the Council’s own commercial assessment
(included in the DPA) also came to the same conclusion
10. The re-zoning of Alfred Street will have an immediate adverse impact on the value of property in
Alfred Street to the detriment of the families currently living there.
Discussion
The objections raised by MasterPlan having been explored in detail in the attached report, and we
would request that this document is given due consideration by the Council. As far as the final two
objections raised by the Residents, I would add the following:
It is difficult to see an immediate requirement for additional commercial space outside of the
Walkerville Terrace main strip given current vacancy rates and anecdotal evidence of a tough trading
environment for existing businesses.
In this context, re-zoning Alfred Street and extending the area in Walkerville which is zoned to
‘Commercial’ is likely to have no short or medium-term (and possibly longer term) impact on
development prospects in the area although, and this point is elaborated further below, it will result in
an immediate deterioration in residential value for current residents.
The Council have acknowledged that commercial use of Alfred and Warwick Street is, at best, only
likely to be possible in the long term, noting:



“The likelihood of this type of investment (restaurant dining) occurring organically in the short
to medium term is considered low”
“New Retail shop enquiries are generally very low in Walkerville at present”
“There will be some short term difficulties in establishing non-residential uses, given the lack
of exposure to foot traffic , set up costs and ability to satisfy the requisite provision of car
parking.”
Appendix A: Planning advice from MasterPlan Town and Country Planners in respect of the
DPA.
21 August 2015
Heather and Mark Prider
25 Warwick Street,
Walkerville SA 5081
Shane and Kate Flowers
17 Alfred Street,
Walkerville SA 5081
Terry and Deb Michael
15 Alfred Street
Walkerville SA 5081
Attention: Heather and Mark Prider, Shane and Kate Flowers and Terry and Deb Michael
Dear Heather, Mark, Shane, Kate, Terry and Deb,
Re: Walkerville Town Centre Development Plan Amendment
Submission to Public Consultation Period
Thank you for requesting the professional services of MasterPlan SA Pty Ltd for the provision of advice on
the Walkerville Town Centre Development Plan Amendment. We have conducted a thorough review of
the proposed Development Plan Amendment (DPA) as released for consultation, particularly with regards
to the detached dwellings that you own and occupy at 25 Warwick Street, 15 Alfred Street and
17 Alfred Street, Walkerville respectively.
We confirm that you have sought our professional opinion regarding the potential impact of the
proposed DPA policies on your reasonable expectations of future residential enjoyment of your dwellings,
as owners and occupiers of land currently located within the Residential Fringe Policy Area 3 of the
Neighbourhood Centre Zone.
In reviewing the proposed Walkerville Town Centre DPA, we have:
•
inspected the subject land and locality;
•
reviewed the Explanatory Statement and Analysis of the DPA;
14696LET02
•
reviewed the content of the Amendment;
•
reviewed the Heritage Report prepared by Andreea Jeleascu in support of the investigation for
the DPA;
•
reviewed the Town of Walkerville Urban Masterplan; and
•
reviewed the Town of Walkerville’s Strategic Directions Report.
From our review, we conclude that the key issues as they relate to your land are:
•
detached dwellings, including alterations and additions to existing detached dwellings, are to be
deemed non-complying forms of development within the Town Centre Zone;
•
a range of commercial land uses are envisaged along Alfred Street, with offices, consulting rooms
and dwellings only to be encouraged above ground level;
•
the Contributory Item status is to be removed from seven properties along Alfred Street and
Warwick Street;
•
shared use parking is to be encouraged around Walkerville Oval to accommodate an expansion of
commercial land uses; and
•
Alfred Street is to continue to be encouraged to be developed as a link between
Walkerville Terrace and Walkerville Oval.
1.0
Subject Land
We note that the land owned by Mark and Heather Prider is located at 25 Warwick Street, Walkerville. The
land owned by Terry and Deb Michael is located at 15 Alfred Street. The land owned by Shane and Kate
Flowers is located at 17 Alfred Street, Walkerville.
•
The land at 25 Warwick Street is formally described as Allotment 7 in Deposited Plan 758,
Hundred of Yatala in Certificate of Title Volume 5292 Folio 680.
•
The land at 15 Alfred Street is formally described as Allotment 1 in Filed Plan 138021, Hundred of
Yatala in Certificate of Title Volume 5264 Folio 394.
•
The land at 17 Alfred Street is formally described as Allotment 75 in Filed Plan 137226, Hundred
of Yatala in Certificate of Title Volume 5335 Folio 361.
These allotments presently accommodate detached dwellings with ancillary outbuildings for vehicle
garaging, which you respectively own and occupy.
14696LET02
2
Both of these allotments are within a Heritage Conservation Area. The land owned by Terry and Deb
Michael at 15 Alfred Street and Shane and Kate Flowers at 17 Alfred Street are currently listed as a
Contributory Items as outlined on Overlay Map Walk/3 – Heritage, in the Walkerville Development Plan.
2.0
Background and Current Zoning
As a background to the zoning changes proposed by the Walkerville Town Centre DPA, we note that your
properties are currently within the Residential Fringe Policy Area 3 of the Neighbourhood Centre Zone of
the Walkerville Development Plan (consolidated version 28 August 2014). This zoning came into effect
under the Better Development Plan General and Residential Zones DPA, which was gazetted and
consolidated on 4 November 2010.
Prior to this, your land was contained within the:
•
Residential Fringe Historic (Conservation) Policy Area 18 of the Town Centre Zone (consolidated
from the Town Centre Zone PAR on 27 July 2006);
•
Residential Fringe Historic (Conservation) Policy Area 12 of the Town Centre Zone (consolidated
from the Heritage Places and Areas PAR (Interim) on 9 February 2006); and
•
Residential Fringe Policy Area 18 of the Town Centre Zone (consolidated from the Town Centre
Zone PAR on 4 July 2002).
From this review of the historical zoning of your land and surrounding allotments in the locality of
Alfred Street and Warwick Street, it is evident that the land has been held within Residential Fringe Policy
Areas for just over 13 years. It is noted that prior to this, the policies of the Neighbourhood Centre Zone
dating back at least to December 1996 did not preclude the development of detached dwellings.
Historically, the content of these Residential Fringe Policy Areas has prioritised the protection of existing
residential development. Under the provisions of the currently enforceable Development Plan, the
Residential Fringe Policy Area 3 of the Neighbourhood Centre Zone contains overarching Objectives for
the preservation of existing patterns of development, land use and built form. This is outlined in
Objective 1 of the currently operative Residential Fringe Policy Area 3 provisions, which seeks:
Objective 1
The conservation of established residential density created by single storey
detached dwellings on individual allotments in the policy area.
14696LET02
3
This is further confirmed by the Desired Character Statement for the Residential Fringe Policy Area 3
which states that ‘non-residential land uses will be converted back to residential if discontinued’ and
Principle of Development Control (PDC) 1, which outlines envisaged forms of development as:
1
The following forms of development are envisaged in the policy area:
▪
minor alterations and single storey additions to existing buildings
▪
the replacement of non-contributory items with single-storey detached
dwellings on existing allotments
▪
additions in the form of garages or carports will be of single width and located
to the rear of sites or otherwise set-back behind the principal façade of the
dwelling.
Under the current Neighbourhood Centre Zone Provisions, shops, consulting rooms and offices, including
dwellings combined with these uses, are classified as non-complying development within the
Residential Fringe Policy Area 3.
On the basis of these longstanding land use policies applicable to your land and other properties in
proximity of Alfred Street and Warwick Street, it is evident that the land has historically been managed as
a residential area within a Neighbourhood Centre or Town Centre Zone. On this basis, the owners and
residents of properties within the Residential Fringe Policy Area have had the reasonable expectation that
their residential properties would continue to be prioritised by land use policies for the area, protecting
the amenity and residential development potential of their land in the future.
As outlined in the following sections, the Walkerville Town Centre DPA makes significant changes to these
longstanding land use policies that encouraged and established expectations that residential land uses
would be protected in your area. The DPA policies now treat the present patterns of development as
undesirable and, in many instances, as non-complying forms of development. This has been done by
listing the inherent form of residential development together with alterations and additions to the existing
dwellings as non-complying.
14696LET02
4
3.0
Proposed Zoning
From our review of the Walkerville Town Centre DPA, we can confirm that your land is proposed to be
rezoned to fall within the Town Centre and therefore the relevant policies of that zone would apply,
including, and more specifically, the deletion of the Residential Fringe Policy Area provisions.
Contrastingly to the current provisions of the Development Plan, the provisions of the Town Centre Zone
as proposed under the DPA contain overarching Objectives for residential development only in
association with non-residential development. The Desired Character Statement and Principles of
Development Control for Walkerville Oval and Alfred Street seeks shared use car parking around the edge
of the Oval to cater for parking demand associated with non-residential uses in the area and increased
pedestrian traffic along Alfred Street. Alfred Street is envisaged to contain small-scale restaurants and
shops, with dwellings, offices or consulting rooms to be accommodated on the upper levels of new
buildings or to the rear of mixed use development sites where fronting a rear car parking area. On-site car
parking is not to be required of shops and restaurants fronting Alfred Street to encourage pedestrian use.
In order to facilitate these changes in built form and land use under the proposed DPA policies, detached
dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and row dwellings, including alterations and additions to existing
dwellings of this nature are listed as non-complying forms of development within the Town Centre Zone.
Your land is currently within a Historic Conservation Area under the current Development Plan provisions
and the boundary of this Historic Conservation Area is not subject to change under the proposed
Development Plan Amendment.
However, under the current Development Plan, seven land parcels within this Heritage Conservation Area,
including the land at 15 Alfred Street and 17 Alfred Street, are identified as Contributory Items of heritage
value. The Contributory Item status of all of these seven properties is to be removed by the proposed
Development Plan Amendment.
The implications of these proposed DPA policy changes on your reasonable expectations as owners and
occupiers of dwellings are:
•
any future alterations and additions that you may wish to make on your existing detached
dwellings will be treated as non-complying forms of development, subjecting any applications to
a more rigorous and expensive application process which removes any right of appeal from you
as an applicant;
•
increased impacts upon the amenity of existing dwellings within the locality, which is primarily
occupied by single-storey dwellings, through an expansion of non-residential uses and building
heights along Alfred Street and off-street car parking adjacent Walkerville Oval; and
14696LET02
5
•
the potential for change to the streetscape of the locality through the removal of the
Contributory Item status of seven properties.
The content of the amendment as it relates your land will be scrutinised in the following sections.
4.0
Land Use
4.1
Longstanding Existing Use Rights
Under the current zoning and policy areas, areas of differing character are able to be recognised with
varied forms of development encouraged throughout the Neighbourhood Centre Zone. This is evidenced
in the Procedural Matters section of the current Neighbourhood Centre Zone, which enables commercial
forms of development such as shops to be encouraged in the content of the Business Core Policy Area 2
yet be deemed non-complying in the Residential Fringe Policy Area 3.
By contrast, the Town Centre Zone proposed under the DPA does not provide guidance on the varied
character of areas within the Town Centre Zone, other than in the Desired Character Statement. The
Desired Character Statement makes reference to particular areas, such as ‘Walkerville Oval and
Alfred Street’ and ‘Gateway Sites’, however, these areas are not linked to any proposed policy areas or
concept plans that are able to accurately define the extent of these areas, leaving these areas open for
broad interpretation.
Furthermore, due to the lack of definition of these character areas, exemptions to non-complying forms of
development are not contained within the Procedural Matters section of the proposed Town Centre Zone,
inhibiting a more fine grained approach to land use policies within the zone. As a result, the existing
patterns of residential development exhibited throughout the zone and alterations and additions to this
existing pattern of development are to be non-complying forms of development throughout the entire
Town Centre Zone.
The justification for the change in classification that now makes detached dwellings, semi-detached
dwellings and row dwellings, as well as alterations and additions to these forms of residential
development non-complying forms of development, is provided on page 13 of the Analysis section, which
states:
“In considering activation, it is decided that non-active street fronting residential uses
fronting Walkerville Terrace and in the zone generally will be ‘non-complying’
(i.e. detached, semi-detached and row dwellings).”
14696LET02
6
It is evident from this justification that non-active street fronting residential uses are primarily not desired
along Walkerville Terrace, however, due to the broad brush approach of the DPA, residential uses are
deemed to be non-complying forms of development throughout the entirety of the Town Centre Zone. As
displayed on the Locality Plan attached, there are currently 31 existing residential dwellings within the
proposed area of the Town Centre Zone. Only four of these dwellings have a frontage to
Walkerville Terrace.
We are of the opinion that the proposed policies to make detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings
and row dwellings along with alterations and additions to these forms of development non-complying
within the Town Centre Zone are inappropriate given the aforementioned longstanding policies to
encourage and protect these residential forms of development throughout portions of the existing
Neighbourhood Centre Zone and accordingly, the level of expectation that these policies established for
owners and occupiers of land in this area of the Neighbourhood Centre Zone.
Furthermore, the proposed DPA policies seek to override established principles of law
(the Mercedes principle) associated with the reasonable alterations, additions and expansions of existing
uses. As outlined by Kourakis CJ in Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd v City of Holdfast Bay [2004]
SASCFC 59 (at paragraph 44),
“The existing non-complying use principle holds that in the absence of a contrary
indication, a Development Plan’s designation of a use as non-complying does not apply to
a development which is a reasonable development, or a continuation of, an existing noncomplying use”.
The proposed DPA policies seek to displace this non-complying use principle through specifically
contemplating that alteration and additions to existing dwellings are non-complying within the
Town Centre Zone. Therefore, this is at odds with principles of natural justice, as the rights of residential
owners seeking to continue to routinely improve their property by undertaking alterations and additions
are not able to take advantage of their existing use rights under the established principle of law.
Whilst dwellings may not be desired along Walkerville Terrace, residential development is a key
component of the existing built form throughout the proposed Town Centre Zone and the policies
proposed by the DPA need to enable the maintenance of these forms of development and recognise the
importance of small scale residential uses to the existing character and operation of the Walkerville
Town Centre.
14696LET02
7
The listing of ‘detached dwelling, including alterations and additions to an existing detached dwelling’ as a
non-complying form of development within the Town Centre Zone has the implications of requiring a
more rigorous and expensive application process for any future alterations or additions that you may seek
to make to your existing detached dwellings. Further, you will not be entitled to any rights of appeal if the
application is refused Development Plan Consent at any stage in the process. This will constrain the ability
of owners of residential properties within the Town Centre Zone to maintain and upgrade their properties
in contravention of existing legal principles.
Accordingly we would recommend that the listing of alterations and additions to existing detached and
semidetached dwellings be removed from or be made an exemption in the list of non-complying
development for this area of the proposed Town Centre Zone.
4.2
Impacts of Commercial Development
The Analysis section on pages 16 and 17 of the Town Centre DPA provides somewhat conflicting
justification for the establishment of commercial land uses along Alfred Street. The summary of the
investigations state that:
“New retail shop enquiries are generally very low in Walkerville at present. The ideal
offering for the market is one with, a competitive rent, Walkerville Terrace exposure and
good off-street parking.”
We note that Alfred Street, as an area where commercial tenancies are sought by the DPA, fails to provide
either Walkerville Terrace exposure or off-street parking, significantly hampering this precinct for
commercial development. The DPA recognised this, stating that:
“It may be possible to create a strip of restaurant dining in a side street like Alfred Street
where there is pedestrian exposure, however it would take a combined commitment and
investment in public realm improvements to create a destination strip. The likelihood of this
type of investment occurring organically in the short to medium term is considered low.”
Whilst transitional changes in the land uses along Alfred Street may be appropriate along Alfred Street,
this should be facilitated by upgrades to the public realm and not be at the expense of the reasonable
expectations of existing residents.
14696LET02
8
The DPA recognises that the likelihood of shops and restaurants becoming established along Alfred Street
in the short to medium term is ‘low’. This is further reinforced in the statement of investigations that
recognises the fact that exposure is a significant ingredient to the success of shops, cafes and restaurants.
The volume of pedestrian traffic along Alfred Street, not-withstanding the designation as a key pedestrian
link does not in our opinion support sufficient exposure to properties along Alfred Street The proposed
land use policies that will inhibit the opportunities for residents to maintain their existing dwellings
throughout the entirety of the Town Centre Zone is highly unlikely to result in changes to the composition
of land uses along Alfred Street, due to the limited volume of pedestrian traffic to support such uses.
Council needs to realise that any zoning changes are being imposed over an existing state of
development and it cannot be expected that there will be instantaneous change from the existing
residential character to one of commercial activity. Accordingly, the need to balance and protect the
amenity of existing residents with a transitional change must consider the impacts of parking, noise and
other commercial impacts.
A transitional change in the land uses in the Walkerville Town Centre may occur, however, the heavy
handed approach taken by the DPA, which imposes these land use changes on existing residents within
the zone by making alterations and additions to their existing dwellings non-complying, will have little
impact in achieving the desired land use mix. It is our respectful position that any land use policies to
enhance the precinct should focus on Walkerville Terrace with public works to facilitate additional
linkages, as envisaged by Council’s Urban Masterplan, along Alfred Street, particularly given we note that
there are high commercial vacancy rates along Walkerville Terrace which should be the primary focus for
the establishment of commercial land uses.
4.3
Pedestrian Link
As outlined in the Analysis section of the Walkerville Town Centre DPA, the DPA has been informed by the
Walkerville Urban Masterplan and Living in the Town of Walkerville – A Strategic Plan for the Town of
Walkerville (referred to in the DPA as the Strategic Directions Report). The Explanatory Statement for the
DPA outlines its purpose ‘to ensure alignment with Council’s Urban Masterplan and Strategic Directions
Report which are both new and endorsed Council documents’.
Accordingly, one of the key aims of the DPA is the ‘activation’ of Alfred Street as a pedestrian link
between Walkerville Terrace and Walkerville Oval. We note that a pedestrian link with ‘feature pavement’
on Alfred Street has been identified in the Town Centre Concept Plan within the Walkerville Development
Plan since 2002.
14696LET02
9
In the Walkerville Urban Masterplan, the activation of Alfred Street is sought to be achieved through the
following upgrades that are outlined on page 81 of the Urban Masterplan:
1.
Establishment of boulevard connection between Walkerville Terrace &
Walkerville Reserve for pedestrian and cycling use
2.
New street tree planting as a visual cue along Alfred Street
3.
Relocation and upgrade of play equipment
4.
New street lighting and unique street furniture
5.
Establishment of commercial frontage to oval; opportunity for café & service focussed
commercial along laneway.
The first four of these tasks, which are supported by concept illustrations in the Urban Masterplan, relate
to public realm upgrades that are to be undertaken by the Town of Walkerville. Currently, approximately
five years after the Urban Masterplan was endorsed by Walkerville Council (we note that the
Urban Masterplan is not formally dated), none of these public works have been undertaken. Furthermore,
this is some 13 years after the pedestrian link was identified in the Zone policies.
As part of the justification for the DPA, on page 16 of the Analysis section it is stated that:
“It is presently envisaged that Alfred Street be maintained as an important pedestrian link
between the Oval and shopping strip (Walkerville Terrace). However, there is little physical
evidence of this important pedestrian link at present.”
The current provisions of the Residential Fringe Policy Area 3 support the development of the public
realm of Alfred Street as a pedestrian link, with the Desired Character Statement for the policy area stating
that:
“Alfred Street will be maintained as an important pedestrian link between the shopping
strip and the Oval with appropriate signage.”
The justification for the DPA that ‘there is little physical evidence of this important pedestrian link at
present’ is reflective of the fact that the public realm upgrades that are to underpin the development of
Alfred Street as a pedestrian link have not yet been undertaken. As will be outlined in the following
section, the proposed changes in land use policy will do little to achieve the creation of a pedestrian link
where the current built form of the public realm of Alfred Street priorities the movement of vehicles with
on-street parking and loading bays and limited footpath space to facilitate safe pedestrian movement.
14696LET02
10
Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the content of the DPA does not accord with either the
Walkerville Urban Masterplan or the Strategic Directions Report in the manner in which these documents
seek to achieve the activation of Alfred Street. In the tasks identified for ‘Creating a Centre & Connecting
the Community (2015-2025), the Urban Masterplan (on page 52) alludes to the potential for “changes to
Council’s Development Plan’ with land use changes envisaged in the form of ‘offices and consulting rooms
(commercial) populating the side streets of Alfred and Warwick Street”. These land use changes are only
envisaged following the “catalyst for change provided by the streetscape upgrade” and to result “in the
progressive redevelopment of the commercial and retail precinct”.
Notwithstanding that the streetscape upgrade has not yet occurred, the office and consulting room land
uses envisaged by the Urban Masterplan are only encouraged in the Town Centre Zone in multi-story
buildings in the levels above ground. Neither the Urban Masterplan or Strategic Directions Report
encourage the development of these commercial uses at the expense of residential development or
through policies such as those sought by the Town Centre DPA to make detached, semi-detached and
row dwellings with alterations and additions to these existing dwellings non-complying forms of
development.
The public works to Alfred Street envisaged by the Walkerville Urban Masterplan have the potential to
create a safer and more inviting link between Walkerville Terrace and Walkerville Oval. However, the land
use policies sought to be implemented by the Walkerville Town Centre DPA are not contemplated by
these strategic documents and will not achieve this desired outcomes without the catalyst public realm
upgrades.
5.0
Heritage Considerations
The Walkerville Town Centre DPA seeks to remove the ‘Contributory Item’ heritage status of seven
residential properties located at 27, 29 and 31 Warwick Street and 4, 6, 15 and 17 Alfred Street.
The Heritage Report prepared by Andreea Jeleascu justifies the removal of this Contributory Item status
by stating that:
“the inconsistent built form is at odds with the implied definition of a historic locality worthy
of retention.
…the term contributory implies that the subject built form contributes to an established
character that is worthy of retention.
… The established pattern of development is not consistent with a historical snapshot in the
history of the development of Walkerville Terrace as a precinct, but rather it is an
inconsistent account of ad-hoc development over time.
14696LET02
11
… Should the character of Alfred Street be considered historically significant by virtue of its
diversity and progression of development at the time of Heritage Survey, the surrounding
odd assortment of the dwellings that exist in addition to the current 7 Contributory Items
ought to have also been nominated as Contributory Items”.
However, in direct contradiction to this argument against the retention of Contributory Item status on the
basis of a lack of a consistent historical snapshot, the entire Alfred Street and Warwick Street locality is
proposed to continue to remain within a designated Historic Conservation Area as defined on Overlay
Map Walk/3 – Heritage of the Amendment. The provisions of the General – Historic Conservation Area of
the Development Plan, which are not proposed to change under the DPA, would therefore still be
operative. These provisions, in contrast to those of the Town Centre Zone proposed under the DPA, seek
to limit development to a single storey in height and the conservation of places that contribute positively
to the historic character of the area. Adding to this contradiction, six properties located along Walkerville
Terrace are to continue to be classified as Local Heritage Places, although all of these properties fall
outside of this Heritage Conservation Area.
Furthermore, the removal of the Contributory Item status of properties along Alfred Street is justified on
page 12 of the Analysis section on the grounds that:
“These have the potential to also inhibit development opportunities in the Alfred Street
precinct… and in an Activity Centre should be removed”.
Contrastingly, the commercial forms of development envisaged along Alfred Street are outlined on
page 16 of the Analysis section as:
“If the policy changes were less restrictive and allowed a broader range of land uses to
occupy the precinct then the likely change in use that would occur organically in the
existing houses is likely to be:
•
Semi retail service industries with less reliance on exposure and reliant on lower rents.
•
Destination type businesses.
•
Businesses that rely on low setup/conversion costs.
•
Businesses that benefit from parking available nearby.”
14696LET02
12
Given that the built form of the existing houses is envisaged to be maintained in accommodating
commercial development, the Contributory Item status of properties in no way inhibits commercial
development in the forms envisaged for Alfred Street. This is exhibited in the current use of a
Contributory Item at 29 Warwick Street for consulting rooms. Furthermore, a number of Local Heritage
Places along Walkerville Terrace are currently used for shops, offices and consulting rooms and exhibit
active street frontages, which are sought for Alfred Street.
We are of the opinion that the justification for the removal of the Contributory Item status applicable to
dwellings along Alfred Street and Warwick Street is flawed, with the resulting land use policies advancing
contrasting viewpoints on the heritage value and potential development envisaged in the Alfred Street
locality.
6.0
Procedural Issues
As an aside to the aforementioned issues, we have noted a number of deficiencies in the formatting of the
DPA, which make the DPA in its current form inappropriate for approval. The DPA is not dated and does
not contain a version number. Furthermore, in the content of the Amendment, the title of the zone as
‘PROPOSED NEW Town Centre Zone’ must remove the words ‘PROPOSED NEW’ from this title. The
heading on each page of the amendment states:
“South Australian Public Policy Library
Version 6
Zone Section
Neighbourhood Centre Zone”
This must be amended before the Amendment can be approved to:
•
remove the words “South Australian Public Policy Library Version 6”; and
•
change “Neighbourhood Centre Zone” to “Town Centre Zone” to correctly reference the name of
the zone that is proposed.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether the DPA is sought for interim operations from conflicting statements in
the DPA. On page 6 of the Explanatory Statement it is stated that “Interim operation pursuant to section
28(1) of the Development Act 1993 is not being sought for this DPA”. However, on the title page for
The Amendment the DPA is stated to be “declared by the Minister responsible for the administration of the
Development Act 1993 to come into operation on an interim basis pursuant to Section 28. Of the
Development Act 199”’.
14696LET02
13
We also note that the Town Centre Zone proposed in the DPA varies greatly from the provisions of the
Town Centre Zone as contained in Version 6 of the South Australian Planning Policy Library. The proposed
zoning rather resembles a hybrid of the Neighbourhood Centre Zone, Town Centre Zone and a majority
of Council specific additions. To this end, we would question whether the proposed DPA can be
considered to accord with the South Australian Planning Policy Library Version 6 to warrant the
acceptance of the endorsement of the DPA in its current form.
We note that the proposed removal of the Contributory Item status at 15 Alfred Street and 17 Alfred
Street is of concern and that a revised Heritage Report for consideration with the DPA has been released
on Council’s website this week. Council’s website states:
“The proposed policy change in relation to heritage includes the removal of seven
contributory items and two local heritage places. However, the report that was attached to
the consultation copy only lists four contributory items.
In response to this issue, the heritage report has been updated and Council is undertaking
targeted consultation that is above the minimum legislated process.
Should you wish to make comment on this updated heritage report or the proposed
heritage policy changes, you can do so up until 24 September 2015 (the date of the public
meeting for the Town Centre DPA)”.
We are of the opinion that, to ensure all parties who may be interested in the DPA are aware of the error
made relating to the heritage report in the DPA, an amended notice should be placed in
Government Gazette and The Advertiser to at least notify the general public of the extended
public consultation period.
Given the DPA has such significant implications for your land and other land owners within the proposed
Town Centre Zone, it would be appropriate for the Council to reconsider the policy framework of the DPA
in a more open and transparent manner, redraft the DPA and re-release the DPA for public consultation
again.
14696LET02
14
7.0
Conclusion
From our review of the Walkerville Town Centre Development Plan Amendment and the supporting
documents, we are of the opinion that the proposed amendment is deficient in its content, justification
and formatting to warrant its endorsement by Council in its current form. Some elements of the intent of
the DPA may be supportable, particularly those informed by the Walkerville Urban Masterplan and the
Strategic Directions Report, to enhance the public realm and connectivity of Alfred Street to
Walkerville Terrace and Walkerville Oval. However, the manner in which the DPA seeks to achieve this, by
way of an extreme variation in the longstanding land use policies for the area that will inhibit the
opportunities for existing residents to upgrade and maintain their dwellings, does not accord with content
of the strategic reports that inform it and will do little to achieve the intent of either the Urban Masterplan
or the Strategic Directions Report.
We conclude that the Walkerville Town Centre Development Plan Amendment:
•
departs significantly from existing land use policies and the longstanding expectations of land
owners within the proposed Town Centre Zone;
•
does not accord with the land use policies envisaged in the Walkerville Urban Masterplan and
Strategic Directions Report;
•
significantly prejudices existing residential development and the reasonable expectations of
owners and occupiers of land within the existing Residential Fringe Policy Area having regard to
the long established history of policies seeking to encourage and protect residential development
with limited potential benefits for commercial development;
•
is at odds with established case law principles relating to existing use rights and impedes the
rights of residential owners seeking to continue to routinely improve their existing residential
properties by undertaking alterations and additions which we would recommended be the
subject of legal review;
•
does not adequately support the existing character present throughout the entirety of the
proposed Town Centre Zone;
•
does not contain policies to adequately balance and protect the amenity of existing residents and
must consider the impacts of parking, noise and other commercial impacts that may result from
the dramatic shift to commercial land uses envisaged along Alfred Street;
•
contains a deeply contradictory and unsatisfactory heritage assessment that will result in
conflicting land use policies; and
•
is of an inappropriate format and content to warrant endorsement in its current form.
14696LET02
15
We recommend that the proposed DPA be amended to:
•
remove reference to alterations and additions to all existing forms of dwellings within the
Town Centre Zone from the list of non-complying forms of development;
•
reinstate the Contributory Item status of all existing Contributory Items along Alfred Street and
Warwick Street;
•
recognise the role of existing residential land uses within the proposed Town Centre Zone and
introduce policies to protect the residential amenity of these existing dwellings;
•
provide greater emphasis on Walkerville Terrace as the subject of the expansion of commercial
land uses, with upgrades to smaller side streets, such as Alfred Street, to primarily be in the form
of upgrades to the public realm;
•
clearly identify precincts discussed in the Desired Character Statement; and
•
properly address the formatting requirements for Development Plan Amendments.
Given release of a revised Heritage Report for the DPA in the final week of the consultation period, it is
our professional opinion that an amended notice should at least have be placed in Government Gazette
and The Advertiser and that it would be appropriate for the Council to reconsider the policy framework of
the DPA in an open and transparent manner, redraft the DPA and re-release the DPA for public
consultation.
It is our opinion that you should request to attend and be heard at the DPA public hearing scheduled for
24 September 2015. MasterPlan would be pleased to attend and make this verbal presentation on the
DPA on your behalf.
Yours sincerely
Greg Vincent
MasterPlan SA Pty Ltd
enc:
cc:
Heather and Mark Prider;
Shane and Kate Flowers; and
Terry and Deb Michael.
14696LET02
16
F
U
L
L
E
R
S
R
T
R
M
E
E
S
T
A
R
C
E
T
H
R
H
E
IT
S
H
T
C
U
C
R
E
W
E
R
T
A
W
IC
K
S
T
R
R
E
E
T
T
T
E
E
L
R
D
S
T
A
F
E
S
E
P
H
E
L
E
R
IL
R
A
E
E
N
T
A
VICTORI
T
W
A
K
V
L
E
R
C
R
C
STREE T
A
R I V E R
E
E N
T O R R
R
S
E
Locality Plan
Proposed Town Centre Zone
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
WITHIN THE PROPOSED
TOWN CENTRE ZONE
Residential properties
WALKERVILLE
1:3000
@ A4
0
50m
BA GV VG
© 20 AUG 2015 14696_1.0
33 Carrington Street
Adelaide SA 5000
P: (08) 8221 6000
masterplan.com.au
SUBMISSION re WALKERVILLE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Dear Sirs As residents and home owners in Walkerville we submit our opinion in the Consultation on the Development Plan. We have great concerns over the proposals having viewed the plan and listened to the explanations of a senior member of the Council at The Walkerville Society meeting held on August 11th 2015. These concerns fall into two categories:‐ 1) The general thrust of the plan 2) The potential environmental and health effects of specific proposals First, the concept, put forward in an article published in The Messenger, for Walkerville to be developed to become more like Norwood or Prospect, is the wrong vision. Walkerville is a special place and community. At the meeting on 11th August many speakers called it, ‘The Village’ and emphasised the associated quality of life. While future development is desirable, it needs to enhance not destroy the special ambiance and the heritage environment. The recent Town Hall/Library development is a pleasing and exciting development that enhances Walkerville; the modern low‐level extension compliments the original historic building, adding both to the appearance and facilities of Walkerville. That is the pattern to follow. Second, concerning specific proposals:‐ a) Planning for 4 and 5 story developments will have major detrimental effects on the environment of existing residents over considerable areas surrounding them b) Such developments will also damage the heritage ambiance of the surrounding areas. c) The roads around the Oval, the YMCA and the adjacent council property are not suitable for an increase in traffic. d) The marked increase in traffic, including heavy goods vehicles, associated with the implementation of the proposals would both damage the environment and bring increased risks to residents. There are schools and many senior residents in the vicinity: for both there would be greater risks on the roads and increased risks of health damage from air pollution. Such problems would not only be present during construction but would remain long term. Yours faithfully Prof Alan Brook and Mrs Brenda Brook 127a Walkerville Terrace Alyssa Burford
To:
Subject:
Walkerville at Walkerville Council
RE: EM201515723 - 3.20.3.7 - submission DPA Walkerville Town Centre
From: Rhonda Avard [mailto:rhondaavard@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 24 August 2015 3:54 PM
To: Walkerville at Walkerville Council
Subject: EM201515723 - 3.20.3.7 - submission DPA Walkerville Town Centre
I refer to the draft Walkerville Town Centre (DPA) and strongly object to the proposed increase to building
heights and the proposed removal of heritage status on Local Heritage Places and Contributory Items in
order to facilitate future development.
Regards
Rhonda Avard
44 Walkerville Terrace
Gilberton 5081
1
Ms Barbara Parish
14 Edwin Terrace, Gilberton 5081
PO Box 665, Walkerville SA 5081
b.parish@bigpond.com
0418821927
24th August, 2015 Ms Kiki Magro, Chief Executive Officer, Town of Walkerville, c/‐ PO Box 55, Walkerville SA 5081 Dear Ms Magro, RE : Town of Walkerville ‐ Town Centre Development Plan Amendment I wish to lodge an objection to the above plan Parts 3.2.2, 3.2.3 and 3.2.5. In addition, I wish to be heard at a public meeting. Yours faithfully, Barbara Parish
Alyssa Burford
To:
Subject:
Walkerville at Walkerville Council
RE: EM201515725 - 3.20.3.7 - Town Centre DPA Submission – Bruno Sergi - 1/147
Stephen Terrace Walkerville
From: bruno sergi [mailto:brunosergi@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 24 August 2015 4:50 PM
To: Walkerville at Walkerville Council
Subject: EM201515725 - 3.20.3.7 - Town Centre DPA Submission – Bruno Sergi - 1/147 Stephen Terrace Walkerville
Hi, I currently live and own unit 1/147 Stephen terrace Walkerville and I would like make a submission that the unit complex located at 147 Stephen terrace be included in the Town Centre Development zone. The basis of the submission is the following; ‐ Given the area doesn’t contain residential character homes, there is no impact to the heritage of the area. ‐ If a multi‐storey development was to be erected, given on one side there would be new multi‐storey development and residential character housing on the other, the existing building would not fit the street scape. ‐ The area and current building at 147 and 147 Stephen terrace do not have optimal use of land, both buildings are set back, the carports at 147 take a lot of valuable land, the common areas are not private thus providing no value to each unit, the building itself is dated. A new development would see increased revenue from council rates with greater housing density and increase in the value of the parcel of land. Options may include a 4 level town house, the bottom level to be the garage then 3 storeys of living area. Alternatively move to high density residential apartments with the bottom level becoming a car park and followed by four to five levels of mixed use buildings. The Watson apratments have set a precedent and have added value to the area, however it is fair to say the apartments are seen as short term accomodation as opposed to high/med density residential building. ‐ The site is ideally located for mixed use given it is off from the Walkerville high street and a safe distance from the stop lights. In addition Stephen Terrace which has greater amount of traffic and the site provides high visibility, limited risk of traffic congestion, safe off street parking thus allowing greater use of space. ‐ If parcel of land at 145 & 147 Stephen terrace were to be combined this will provide a large parcel of land for developers with rear lane access from Queen street, important existing infrastructure because of the current unit complex at 147 Stephen Terrace Thanks you for your time and hope to hear a positive outcome. Bruno Sergi, 0407 928 672 1
Alyssa Burford
To:
Subject:
Walkerville at Walkerville Council
RE: EM201515726 - 3.20.3.7 - Town Centre DPA Submission - Rosanne Brookes - 9
Jeffery Road Vale Park
From: Rosanne Brookes [mailto:rosannebrookes@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 24 August 2015 4:55 PM
To: Walkerville at Walkerville Council
Subject: EM201515726 - 3.20.3.7 - Town Centre DPA Submission - Rosanne Brookes - 9 Jeffery Road Vale Park
Dear CEO of the Town of Walkerville, I wish to voice my opposition to any proposed changes to the Alfred St playground. The playground is already perfectly located to provide a village feel, alongside the Pre Kindy, tennis courts and oval. Parents can safely monitor their children in the playground whilst older children play sports on the oval. The giant tree gives the playground a charming ambience and countless parents of toddlers purchase refreshments at the nearby shops and have get togethers in this playground. Children at the Walkerville Pre Kindy also benefit considerably from the green open space and extra opportunities afforded by the adjacent playground and oval. Don't change something that so obviously works well. Yours sincerely, Rosanne Brookes. 9 Jeffery Rd, Vale Park. SA 5081 1
Alyssa Burford
To:
Subject:
Walkerville at Walkerville Council
RE: EM201515727 - 3.20.3.7 - Town Centre DPA Submission - Goran Mladenovic
From: Dr. Goran - Walkerville Chiropractic [mailto:drgoran@walkervillechiropractic.com.au]
Sent: Monday, 24 August 2015 4:57 PM
To: Walkerville at Walkerville Council
Subject: EM201515727 - 3.20.3.7 - Town Centre DPA Submission - Goran Mladenovic
Please accept the following submission with regard to the development plans that the deadline for submissions is today. Collection of Rubbish is an issue that has not been raised adequately with respect to higher density along Walkerville Tce. We have 10 townhouses behind our clinic and two cottages next door to us. On rubbish collection morning that makes 26 bins all lined up on the kerb, some of which remain there most of the day. We took issue with this originally because as a business that tries to add to the aesthetic value of Walkerville, we were being sabotaged by the complete lack of council planning in this situation. They originally instructed the residents of the townhouses to line the bins up along our common driveway right against my shopfront window and in the walkway from the car park to the front door. Disgusting. When I objected, they arranged for someone to move the bins off of the street after collection but have since decided that this is too costly. The next idea was to have the rubbish truck drive up the driveway for collection. When the strata insisted that the council or the waste collection company accept liability for any damage to the driveway pavers during this process they refused and have since effectively washed their hands of the situation. We are making do but my concerns with the proposals of much higher densities along the Terrace is that Walkerville terrace will become one long line of wheelie bins if this is not considered and handled appropriately. What is the council’s plan to deal with the inevitably greater number of bins needing to be collected each week? Our experience has been that once the Council has given the development approval and the developers have taken the money and run, no one with authority is interested in these problems after the fact and it gets thrown into the too hard basket. Kind Regards Dr Goran Mladenovic
Chiropractor
Ph: 08 8344 7105
82 Walkerville Tce
1
Submission - Town Centre DPA
I am opposed to the height of the development of the council depot site
on Fuller St being zoned to accommodate a five story structure which
would not only dominate the neighbourhood but devalue their properties
and destroy lack of privacy.
I would however support a structure of no more than three story's and
designed to maximise privacy with reasonable distances from
neighbouring property boundaries as outlined in the proposal.
The DPA suggests the site would be suited to aged care accommodation
but in reality when the site is marketed developers will see this as an
opportunity for higher end apartments for sale to the general public.
This being the case parking would be an issue and a solution could be to
have parking underground and three floors above.
Indeed developers would want to utilise the site to their advantage and the
Town of Walkerville would want to gain the maximum price to offset
cost of preparing the site for sale and debt the council has occurred over
the past few years as an opportunity to reduce that debt.
For that reason I cannot accept that council would commercially restrict
it's use to aged care type accommodation only.
At a previous planning meeting, some eighteen months ago it was stated
unequivocally that the Town of Walkerville had met and significantly
exceeded density levels set by metropolitan councils and there would be
no pressure to increase building heights.
In relation to density of population to support town centre businesses
growth, the number of single allotments that have been subdivided with
two or more residents built and in the planning stages to be built should
not be underestimated.
L.G. Burton
P. O. Box 421
Walkerville 5081
tel 0408539620
PO Box 31 Walkerville SA 5081 23 August 2015 Chief Executive Officer Town Of Walkerville PO Box 55 Walkerville SA 5081 Dear Madam Re: Submission ‐ Town Centre DPA We are writing to you in response to the proposed new Development Plan. Our concerns cover three main aspects. They are: 1. Proposed development of the council depot and YMCA site Although we appreciate the economics involved in developing this site especially when additional costs will be involved in decontamination of the site, we are strongly opposed to the proposed height of five stories. As you are well aware, the maximum height of existing buildings generally within Walkerville is only two stories and in order to preserve the overall ambience of the area, any future development needs to be limited to two stories. The only current development excluding the old Highways building higher than this is the three story townhouse development on the southern side of Walkerville Terrace.(which are set back off the road) Ratepayers investment in their property should also be protected. Any development over two stories will have a significant effect on surrounding property values which we would not wish to be a party to. In essence, a five story development will be completely out of character. Property owners who live nearby to this site especially in Fuller Street, Margaret Street, Smith Street and Walkerville Terrace need to be protected. Assuming as per the proposal, this site contains either aged care, offices or consulting rooms or a combination of all these, increased traffic would also need to be considered. This would not be limited to residents, but allowance would need to be allowed for visitors/clients. Therefore, consideration needs to be given to underground parking. In summary, any future development on this site must be restricted to ideally two storeys above ground level but as a compromise we would accept three stories to assist with the economics of such a development. However, if three stories was allowed, any building of three stories must be in the middle of the site or towards Smith Street to protect current property owners privacy. All steps must be taken to ensure their privacy is protected. It should be remembered as to the reasons why people decide to live in Walkerville. I think we all know what they are. None of those have changed. Council does not have the right to make any decisions that will materially affect ratepayers and councillors were not voted to make a change of such magnitude which has the potential to affect so many people. Let’s not make a decision to build five stories simply to balance the budget! Let’s ensure that any development on this site is limited to a maximum of three stories above ground level. 2. Walkerville Oval Any development of this site must ensure that the openness of the site is maintained and does not become a concrete jungle. If the Bowling Club was to be relocated to the Warwick Street side, any development on the existing Bowling Club site must preserve the current openness. To assist, any new development, eg YMCA, must be well set back from both Church Terrace and Smith Street. Any car parking in that vicinity should be also set back with an abundance of vegetation screening. Car park entrances must also be well away from the roundabout for safety reasons. In general, this whole site helps define Walkerville so any new development must not come over as being over the top. We need to remember, who is really going to benefit. 3. Alfred Street We understand that any development both here and along Walkerville Terrace requires custom from the public and hence an increase in the overall population of Walkerville will be great in this regard. Limiting the development on the Council Depot and YMCA site will have the opposite effect. However, the recent completion of The Watsons will assist in increasing the population. The population density is naturally increasing through current and ongoing building development within the Town. In addition, there is the current development of 38 apartments opposite the ABC and potentially the future redevelopment of the ABC building into apartments. As you know, there is nowhere that side of North East Road for those people to go so Walkerville Centre including Alfred Street will be the major beneficiaries of those developments. In general, we do not have any issues with the proposal but obviously it will take a long, long time to eventuate if ever. Should you wish to discuss any of the above, please feel free to ring us on Ph 0415‐679602. Yours faithfully Garry & Mary Turner 1 Belt Street Walkerville SA 5081 6 August 2015
Kiki Magro
Chief Executive Officer
Town of Walkerville
PO Box 55
Walkerville SA 5081
Dear Ms Magro,
Re: Walkerville Town Centre Development Plan Amendment
MasterPlan SA Pty Ltd write on behalf of the YMCA of the Inner North East of Adelaide Incorporated
(the YMCA) in relation to the implications of the Walkerville Town Centre Development Plan Amendment
(the DPA) on the property at 39 Smith Street, Walkerville.
The YMCA are extremely concerned that the policy direction proposed by the DPA does not envisage the
retention of its significant indoor recreational facilities. It is our respectful submission that:
•
The DPA does not adequately recognise the YMCA property is classified as community land
pursuant to the Local Government Act, 1999.
•
The DPA does not facilitate the retention or redevelopment of the important social, community
and recreational functions and services provided by the YMCA
•
There is no provision made in the DPA for the retention or redevelopment of the YMCA
•
Redevelopment of the YMCA site without the existing facilities, will significantly impact on the
recreational facilities available to the people of Walkerville and the wider community.
•
The emphasis of the DPA is the economic development potential rather than the importance of
the YMCA facility to the community and in this regard, fails to appropriately address the provision
of social infrastructure for the Council area.
•
The result of the DPA is that it effectively removes the YMCA as an envisaged land use on its
existing site and makes no provision for it within a redevelopment of the YMCA/Depot site or
within the Walkerville Oval Precinct or within the Council area generally.
14697LET02
On behalf of the YMCA, we respectfully request a review of the proposed Town Centre Zone and its
policies so that provision is made for an indoor recreation centre to honour the objective of the current
community land classification, that is, to provide a sports facility to be available for use by members of the
community.
The Subject Land
The YMCA are lessees’ of 39 Smith Street, Walkerville. The land which is owned freehold by Council
comprises the following properties:
•
Allotment 82 in File Plan 137233, Hundred of Yatala in Certificate of Title Volume 5728 Folio 637;
•
Allotment 95 in Filed Plan 137246, Hundred of Yatala in Certificate of Title Volume 5838 Folio 95;
and
•
Portion of Allotment 103 in Deposited Plan 17006, Hundred of Yatala in Certificate of Title
Volume 5796 Folio 887. Portion of this site also contains the Council depot.
Although not identified by the DPA, the YMCA property is classified as community land.
Council’s Community Land Management Plans identifies the YMCA as Asset Number 3, with the land
excluding the Council depot being classified pursuant to the Local Government Act, 1999 as
Community Land. This Community Land Management Plan indicates that “the land has been specifically
modified or adapted for the benefit or enjoyment of the community by the provision of a YMCA and car
park”. The objective for management of the property is “to provide a sports facility to be either operated by
Council or a lessee and to be available for use by members of the community”.
Background
The YMCA have been established on the subject land for in excess of 50 years, providing important
recreational services to the community of Walkerville and wider metropolitan Adelaide since that time.
Currently the YMCA provide recreational facilities for people from kindergarten to mature aged, including:
•
gymnastics;
•
kindergym;
•
gymnasium and fitness classes including for targeted populations;
•
sports including basketball, squash and martial arts; and
•
birthday parties.
14697LET02
2
The centre employs approximately 30 staff in full and part-time positions covering a range of activity
areas including gymnastics, vacation care, fitness, centre administration and attendants.
On a weekly basis, the YMCA provide services to approximately 1,200 people. People utilising the services
at the YMCA include those from Walkerville and surrounding north eastern suburbs, but often extend to
wider metropolitan Adelaide, particularly for birthday parties and specialist gymnastic programs.
Current Zoning
Currently the YMCA properties are located within the Neighbourhood Centre Zone – Business Core Policy
Area 2 (Walkerville Council Development Plan consolidated 28 August 2014). The recreational facilities
contained in the YMCA are clearly envisaged by the current zoning. The Zone Desired Character
Statement reads, “the zone has a multi-purpose nature encompassing a range of small-scale commercial,
residential, retail, recreational, community and civic activities”. The Desired Character Statement of the
Business Core Policy Area 2 is more specific, stating the “mixed use nature of the policy area created by
convenience and specialty shopping, medical facilities, cafes, offices, the YMCA Fitness and Recreation Centre
on Smith Street and the library that provides the foundation for a vibrant Neighbourhood Centre”.
The importance of the YMCA property is identified as part of the zone. It is also noted that Principle of
Development Control (PDC) 5 of the Policy Area identifies that opportunities exist for future residential
development on the YMCA site.
Proposed Zoning
As recommended in the Town Centre DPA, the YMCA site would be located in the proposed Town Centre
Zone.
It is noted that Objective 1 of the Town Centre Zone supports a range of activities, including “recreational
facilities”. Within the Zone, Principle of Development Control 1 specifically envisages “indoor recreation
centre” and “recreation areas”, along with a “community centre”. There is a disconnect between the
envisaged land uses and the desired character statement of the proposed Town Centre Zone. The Desired
Character Statement clearly seeks the redevelopment of the existing recreation site, without reference to
envisaged recreational land uses.
14697LET02
3
The Desired Character Statement of the proposed Town Centre Zone includes the following statement:
“Council Works Depot and Adjoining Recreation Site
The Council Works Depot and the adjoining recreation building site on the eastern edge of
the Zone will contain residential development up to 5 stories in height, including potential
aged care development, after any necessary site remediation has occurred. This will result in
housing choice for a greater number of residents living in the Zone, further enhancing the
vibrancy of this activity centre. This land may also contain consulting rooms and offices at
the frontage to Smith Street. “
Other than this paragraph in the desired character statement and Principle of Development Control 10(b)
which relates to building height, the DPA does not adequately or appropriately guide future development
on the YMCA site.
In relation to recreational facilities, the DPA includes the following discussion in the Desired Character
Statement.
“Walkerville Oval and Alfred Street
Development occurring within the Walkerville Oval site will complement its primary focus
as a community and recreational hub. Shared-use car parking around the edge of the Oval
will assist with parking demand for recreation and other non-residential activities in the
Zone,…”
The DPA does not adequately define either by precinct or concept plan the boundaries of the Walkerville
Oval site and does not identify envisaged land uses. In framing the Town Centre policies in this manner,
the DPA focuses recreational facilities in the Council area to outdoor recreation, without reference to
indoor recreation centres.
Strategic Setting
In Section 2 of the DPA Analysis, there is discussion about the South Australian Strategic Plan, the 30 Year
Plan for Greater Adelaide and the Town of Walkerville’s Strategic Directions Report and Urban Masterplan.
The DPA focuses on achieving the growth outcomes of The 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide and
particularly the opportunities for mixed use development, active street frontages and increased housing
density. To achieve these strategic targets, the DPA focuses on the redevelopment opportunities of the
Council Depot and YMCA site.
14697LET02
4
It is our respectful submission that the DPA investigations have failed to adequately and appropriately
address policy of the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide relating to sporting facilities. Appendix A –
Assessment of the Planning Strategy in the DPA contains the following commentary:
The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide – Policy
How the policy will be implemented
Investigations for the DPA will review open space
16. Provide organised sporting facilities in transit
provision and the potential for establishment of
corridors, transit-orientated developments and higher-
multi-purpose facilities, and consider the roles of
order centres.
Walkerville Oval and the YMCA building. Policies in
the DPA will reflect the outcomes of the investigations.
The DPA does not investigate the role of the YMCA and certainly does not address the establishment of a
multi-purpose facility.
Investigations in relation to the YMCA site revolve around its future development potential and not its
importance to the community of Walkerville and wider area for the provision of sporting, recreational and
social services.
The Town of Walkerville Urban Masterplan prepared by Council to guide development over the next 30 to
60 years provides a balanced assessment of the YMCA site, which is not sufficiently placed in context by
the DPA.
In relation to the YMCA, the Urban Masterplan states:
•
YMCA is an important community sports facility – needs to increase street presence and connection
to Walkerville Reserve (page 31)
•
The YMCA is located on the east side of Smith Street, and as a built form does not contribute greatly
to the character of the township, due to its dated appearance (est. 1960’s- 1970’s), its significant
setback from the street front and the low amenity of the centre’s car park.
•
The YMCA is a popular community activity centre, also offering out of hours school care, and hence
its connection to local schools is also considered to be important (page 34)
•
As with the Civic Centre/Library site, significant improvements to the function and appearance of
this site and its surrounds can only be achieved through a redevelopment of the sites. In the case of
the Depot, expansion of the operations to incorporate community inclusive services (nursery,
compost, resource/ demonstration centre for environmental initiatives) would make better use of
this site and assist with the integration of this facility into the broader community (page 34)
14697LET02
5
•
Creating a Centre & Connecting the Community (2015-2025): Building on the strong community
themes set by the first five years of the structure plan, recreational land uses are modified and
improved including facilities at the YMCA, expansion of the Bowls and Sports Clubs at Walkerville
Oval and the possible relocation of the RSL adjacent to the Memorial Gardens. Other recreational
redevelopment includes the Caravan Park with improved connections between Linear Park and
Levi Park as well as the continued development of the Walkerville Lawn Tennis Club (page 52)
•
Changes to the Council’s Development Plan and the catalyst for change provided by the streetscape
upgrade results in the progressive redevelopment of the commercial and retail precinct (the town
centre). The centre expands north and south contained by Stephen Terrace and Smith Street. To the
north, the existing urban fabric is retained with retail dominating the Walkerville Terrace frontage
and offices and consulting rooms (commercial) populating the side streets of Alfred and
Warwick Street. The interface between the town centre and Walkerville Oval creates opportunities
for outdoor dining, cafes and businesses that can capitalise on the open aspect and landscape
amenity of the area, creating a mixed use precinct. The potential for double-storey development
adjacent to the Oval is also considered (page 52)
•
Walkerville- A Place to Live (2025-2040) With an increased demand for retail and the
redevelopment of the Council Depot and YMCA it is anticipated that a small pocket of commercial
development will extent east along Walkerville Terrace (page 54)
It is evident from the discussions with the Urban Masterplan that redevelopment of the YMCA site are
anticipated, particularly to improve the streetscape appearance and activation and linkages with the
Walkerville Oval precinct and adjacent schools. The importance of the recreational facilities and
community functions of the YMCA are clearly recognised by the Urban Masterplan.
The Development Plan is considered a tool to achieve the strategic intent of the Urban Masterplan, but in
our view it does not provide a strategic direction to remove the land use and its associated facilities and
functions entirely from the site and locality.
The Strategic Plan for the Town of Walkerville contains a variety of objectives regarding community
participation, a liveable city and an economically successful community. The Strategic Plan states that,
“An economically successful community is one that offers a variety of experiences. It allows business
entrepreneurs to flourish and promotes opportunities to meander, shop, eat, drink, play and work”. In the
context of the Strategic Plan, it is our submission that the functions and facilities offered by the YMCA
enhance community participation, contribute to a lively and liveable city, and provide opportunities for
“play” as part of an economically successful community.
14697LET02
6
The Walkerville Oval Precinct Master Plan is a strategic report informing the future recreational needs in
Walkerville. The DPA, which has been considered by Council to be suitable for public consultation in
June 2015, does not adequately discuss or account for the resolutions made in the Walkerville Oval
Precinct Master Plan – Feasibility Options (Draft Report Version 3 – January 2014 by One Eighty Sports
Leisure Solutions, which is the most recent version of this report available on the Council website).
The Walkerville Oval Precinct Master Plan report examined a number of options to relocate the indoor
sporting facilities currently contained in the YMCA to the Walkerville Oval Precinct. Page 31 of this report
states that Council in December 2013 considered the concepts of the Master Plan and concluded that
“there was general agreement that the development of a new recreation centre on the site is not a preferred
option but consideration could be given to this in the future should the need arise”.
In terms of the strategic setting of the DPA, it is our respectful position that the DPA Analysis and
subsequent policy does not adequately examine the role of the YMCA or its importance to achieve the
recreational and liveable city objectives for the Town of Walkerville. It is acknowledged that the YMCA
building does not achieve the strategic intent for streetscape presentation and activation, however this is
a question of urban design rather than land use.
DPA Analysis of YMCA site
As previously stated, the analysis and justification for inclusion of the YMCA and Council Depot site into
the Town Centre Zone is one based on an economic analysis of the highest and best use. The analysis
does not adequately take account or make provision for the continuation, even in a redeveloped form, of
the important role that the YMCA plays in the provision of recreational and community services to the
community of Walkerville and the wider community.
It is understood the YMCA and Council Depot site is considered suitable for residential development with
an aged care focus, with consulting rooms and offices adjacent Smith Street. There is no market analysis
to support consulting rooms/offices over the co-location or integration of an indoor recreation function.
Recent place making studies of apartment developments highlight that the top reasons for living in an
apartment are location, public transport, affordability and lifestyle. Integration of pool and gym facilities
increase cost of apartments and many developments now find that access and availability of these
facilities in proximity of apartment developments are highly sought after. The subject land provides
opportunity to retain and incorporate sought after recreational facilities which are highly accessible to the
market.
The DPA does not include discussion of the integration of an indoor recreation centre within a
redeveloped scheme on the YMCA/Council depot site. Should this opportunity be lost in the planning
policy and no provision be made for integrated recreational facilities within the Walkerville Oval Precinct,
the YMCA and its important social and community functions will be lost to the community of Walkerville.
14697LET02
7
Proposed Town Centre Zone
In the further consideration of the DPA, it is our respectful submission that the proposed Town Centre
Zone for the YMCA site and the adjoining Council Depot site be reviewed.
•
The appropriateness of the Town Centre Zone be reviewed and consideration be given to a
Community Zone – Recreational Policy Area over part of the YMCA site and Walkerville Oval
Precinct.
•
Specific policies be included to support the retention and redevelopment of the YMCA as an
important indoor recreation facility for the community
Should Council not support the rezoning of part of the site to a Community Zone, it is respectfully
requested that the following amendments to the Town Centre Zone are considered in relation to the
YMCA/Council depot site:
•
•
the land be adequately defined by way of a precinct;
the desired character statement be rewritten and expanded to include the option for a mixed use
development on the subject land that includes an indoor recreation centre;
•
a concept plan be included to assist in the future development of the subject land including site
coverage, access, linkages, car parking, size and location of non-residential land uses; and
•
land uses envisaged on the subject land are clearly and specifically stated.
Summary
On behalf of the YMCA of the Inner North East of Adelaide Incorporated, it is our respectful submission
that the proposed Town Centre Zone and policies included in the Town Centre DPA:
•
inadequately considers the diverse and inclusive nature of the services provided by the YMCA
•
do not consider the importance of the recreational, social and community services provided by
the YMCA
•
does not address the current and future demand for indoor recreational facilities in addition to
outdoor recreational facilities to service the needs of the anticipated increased population of
Walkerville; and
•
fails to provide options and opportunities for the retention and redevelopment of the YMCA
within the YMCA/Council depot land.
14697LET02
8
A representative of the YMCA will be in attendance at the DPA public hearing, scheduled for
24 September 2015 to make a verbal presentation on the DPA and this submission.
Yours sincerely
Julie Jansen
MasterPlan SA Pty Ltd
cc:
Mr David Clayton, President, YMCA INEA
14697LET02
9
24 August 2015
Kiki Magro
Chief Executive Officer
Town of Walkerville
PO Box 55
Walkerville SA 5081
Dear Ms Magro,
Re: Walkerville Town Centre Development Plan Amendment
Supplementary Submission on behalf of YMCA INEA
MasterPlan SA Pty Ltd write on behalf of the YMCA of the Inner North East of Adelaide Incorporated
(the YMCA) to provide this supplementary submission to its letter dated 6 August 2015.
As stated in the previous submission, the YMCA are extremely concerned that the policy direction of the
proposed by the Walkerville Town Centre Development Plan Amendment (the DPA) does not envisage the
retention of its significant indoor recreational facilities.
In addition to the concerns relating to the policies of the DPA, the YMCA is also concerned that the
Council has not adequately considered the DPA as being suitable for public consultation.
It is understood that the DPA was formally considered by Council’s Strategic Planning and Development
Policy Committee at a meeting on 23 June 2014. The DPA was considered in confidence at this meeting.
Given the consideration and resolution of this meeting is in confidence, members of the public are unable
to:
•
determine which version of the DPA was considered at that meeting;
•
know whether there have been changes to the DPA in the lengthy period between its formal
consideration in June 2014 and the public consultation period commencing in June 2015; or
•
know whether the Council resolved that the DPA was considered suitable for public consultation.
It is noted that the DPA was the subject of a workshop in February 2015, there does not appear to be any
minutes of the meeting publicly available or any resolution to the Council from this workshop.
14697LET03
Whilst the Development Act 1993 does not formally require a Council to resolve that a DPA is suitable for
public consultation, it is good and common practice. Section 25 (10) of the Development Act 1993 does
however require that the Chief Executive Officer issue a Schedule 4a certificate stating the DPA addresses
various matters, as stated below.
(10) A council must not release a DPA for public consultation unless or until the chief executive
officer of the council has, on behalf of the council, issued a certificate in the prescribed form
relating to the extent to which the proposed amendment—
(a) accords with the Planning Strategy; and
(b) accords with the Statement of Intent; and
(c) accords with other parts of the Development Plan; and
(d) complements the policies in the Development Plans for adjoining areas; and
(e) satisfies the matters prescribed in the regulations
The DPA on public consultation contains the Schedule 4a Certificate. It is not however clear whether this
certificate was signed on behalf of Council following a resolution, or whether the CEO has utilised
delegation to sign this Certificate. Given the lack of Council resolutions regarding the consideration of the
DPA, it is therefore questioned whether the current body of Elected Members did consider the DPA as a
suitable amendment to the Development Plan and suitable for public consultation.
Whilst issues of local heritage are not of a direct concern to the YMCA, it is noted that Council’s website in
relation to the DPA has been updated this week and states:
The proposed policy change in relation to heritage includes the removal of
seven contributory items and two local heritage places. However, the report that was
attached to the consultation copy only lists four contributory items.
In response to this issue, the heritage report has been updated and Council is undertaking
targeted consultation that is above the minimum legislated process.
Should you wish to make comment on this updated heritage report or the proposed
heritage policy changes, you can do so up until 24 September 2015 (the date of the public
meeting for the Town Centre DPA).
It is our respectful submission that to ensure all parties who may be interested in the DPA are aware of
the error made relating to the heritage report in the DPA, an amended notice should be placed in
Government Gazette and The Advertiser, to at least notify the general public of the extended public
consultation period.
14697LET03
2
Irrespective of the heritage issues and the extension of time for public consultation, it is our submission
that the processing of the DPA appears to be flawed and could be the subject of legal challenge.
Given the DPA has such significant implications for the YMCA and other land owners within the proposed
Town Centre Zone, it would be appropriate for the Council to reconsider the policy framework of the DPA
in an open and transparent manner, redraft the DPA and re-release the DPA for public consultation again.
A representative of the YMCA INEA will be in attendance to address both of its submissions at the public
hearing.
Yours sincerely
Julie Jansen
MasterPlan SA Pty Ltd
cc:
Mr David Clayton, President, YMCA INEA
14697LET03
3
^,".
Natural Resources
Adelaide and Mt Lofty Ranges
Natural Resources Centre
205 Greenhill Road
Eastwood SA 5063
DX 174, Adelaide
Tel 0882739i. 00
Fax 08827J. 9585
dewnr. amlr@sagov. au
WWW. naruralreSOurceS. sagov. au/
adelaidemtloftyranges
Reference: FOODOL77632
-Kiki Magro
Chief Executive Officer
Town of Walkerville
PO Box 55
WALKERVILLE SA 5081
Dear Ms Magro
Re: Draft Town Centre Development Plan Amendment (DPA)
Thank you for providing the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) and
the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges (AMLR) Natural Resources Management Board (the Board) with
the opportunity to comment on Council's Draft Town Centre DPA.
It is understood that the purpose of this DPA is to rezone a number of areas around the Walkerville
Town Centre, aimed at replacing existing residential zones with a new Town Centre Zone and to
develop new community facilities, directed by the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide that identified
Walkerville Town Centre as a "Potential Regeneration Area" where opportunities for mixed use
development should be encouraged.
The DPA has been reviewed in conjunction with DEWNR with the following comments provided for
your consideration.
Stormwater Management
It is recommended that the principles of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) be applied throughout
planning, design and delivery of the likely development to occur under the Walkerville Draft Town
Centre DPA proposed policy changes.
The integration of WSUD into urban environments will improve landscape aesthetics, water security
and climate resilience, contribute to public health and wellbeing, help protect or improve the health of
receiving water bodies and their ecosystems, help reduce ecological impacts and support affordable
living by reducing long-term costs associated with water management. Please refer to the SA
governments Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy (August 2013) and the Technical Manual for WSUD
design in Greater Adelaide at WWW. sa. gov. au for further information.
It is noted that the Town of Walkerville's 2009 Urban Master plan identified "/inproved streetscopes
including stormwoter collection, omenity ond bibatversity" as an anticipated outcome of its
implementation, however, stormwater collection, retention and treatment options have not been
addressed within the DPA.
The higher density urban development, as proposed in this DPA, is expected to predominantly result
in stormwater impacts of increased stormwater flow volumes and reduced runoff quality. Both Water
for Good and the Planning Strategy recognise WSUD as an important element in delivering more
liveable urban environments, and both support much greater prominence of WSUD within South
Australia.
Regional planning
The Regional NRM Plan (the Plan) takes a landscape approach and considers social and economic
influences on natural resource management. It also provides more detail at a subregional level rather
than being asset focused and identifies specific priorities for action within each subregion.
As the Town of Walkerville is located in the Metropolitan Adelaide subregion the DPA should consider
its key priorities. The key priorities are detailed in the Plan which can be found at:
WWW. amirnrm. sa. gov. au/Plans/RegionalN RMPlann'he Plan. aspx.
Additionally, please be aware that the Town of Walkerville lies within the Central Adelaide (CA)
Prescribed Wells Area (PWA). A Water Allocation Plan (WAP) is currently being developed and will
incorporate the Northern Adelaide Plains, CA and the Dry Creek PWAs. The new WAP will be called the
Adelaide Plains WAP and any policy changes relating to groundwater extraction and use will need to
be considered in future DPAs, once adopted.
Should you require further information on this matter, please contact Kylie Rose, NRM Policy Officer
on telephone (08) 82739L34 or via the email address below. Please note that future correspondence
can be directed to:
. email address: DEWNR. AMLRreferra!s@sa. gov. au; or
. Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board
Attn: Referrals
205 Greenhill Rd
EASTWOOD SA 5063.
.
You SI
S
erely
heri Smith
MANAGER PLANNING AND EVALUATION
.^*^^ ,^, 11 ^15
Alyssa Burford
To:
Subject:
Walkerville at Walkerville Council
RE: EM201515735 - 3.20.3.7 - Town Centre DPA submission - Caroline Webber 101 Walkerville Terrace Walkerville - Received 6:00pm 24/08/15
.
From: Caroline Webber [mailto:caroline@peterwalker.com.au]
Sent: Monday, 24 August 2015 6:00 PM
To: Walkerville at Walkerville Council
Subject: EM201515735 - 3.20.3.7 - Town Centre DPA submission - Caroline Webber - 101 Walkerville Terrace
Walkerville - Received 6:00pm 24/08/15
From: Caroline Webber, Owner, 101 Walkerville Terrace, Walkerville, 5081 Address for Correspondence: 38 Osmond Terrace, Norwood, SA, 5067 After cosidering the Walkerville Town Centre Development Plan and Heritage Policy Change I would like to put forward my support for the basic tenents of the proposals. I do think that the Town Centre Area would develop in a manner that would make it a centrepiece of the community if the proposals were to go ahead and the vibrancy this would bring to the community would be a major improvement to the present situation, and that balance should allow for similar development rules for both sides of the street. Caroline Webber 1
24 August 2015
Chief Executive Officer
Town of Walkerville
Po Box 55
Walkerville SA 5081
email walkerville@walkerville.sa.gov.au
Dear Sir/Ms
Town Centre DPA
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DPA. Renewal SA has the following
comments for your consideration.
Comments
Affordable housing: the policies of the proposed zone are likely to permit a significant
increase in dwelling yield in this inner city location. Following the direction of the 30
Year Plan for Greater Adelaide (pg. 98) promoting affordable housing for ‘rezoning that
substantially increases dwelling potential’, Council is requested to consider
implementing the government’s affordable housing policy by adopting policies from the
Planning Policy Library (version 6). For example, the Affordable Housing Overlay could
be adopted to coincide with the area of the Town Centre Zone. Similarly, policy could
be implemented that provides concessions to encourage dwellings constituting
affordable housing.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Stranger
Director, Planning and Transaction Services
Richard.Stranger@sa.gov.au
www.renewalsa.sa.gov.au
Alyssa Burford
To:
Subject:
Walkerville at Walkerville Council
RE: EM201515755 - 3.20.3.7 - Town Centre DPA Submission - Denise Gamble - The
Mews Walkerville - Received 12:10pm 25/08/15
From: Denise Gamble [mailto:denise.gamble@adelaide.edu.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 25 August 2015 12:10 PM
To: Walkerville at Walkerville Council
Subject: EM201515755 - 3.20.3.7 - Town Centre DPA Submission - Denise Gamble - The Mews Walkerville Received 12:10pm 25/08/15
Dear Elected Members of Walkerville Council,
Please accept this submission re Town Plan; I request this submission "Be Heard" at meeting.
I purchased my unit in The Mews, Walkerville in November 2001. Since then I have seen quite a few changes, many
for the better. However, after attending a meeting recently organized by the Walkerville Society I am concerned at
some of what I hear. That advice was sought from outside consultants on the 'best use' of various Walkerville sites
and properties - leading to the (rejected or shelved) proposal to get rid of the Memorial Garden and move the YMCA astounded me. The terms of reference for "best" needed to be pre-defined to reflect community values, not
interpreted in terms of some outside consultants' theory of development. I have lived in the cities of Manhattan,
Boston, Sydney, Wollongong, and Belfast, Northern Ireland, and am not against all development in Walkerville. But
change and development should accept and not try to overturn the historical character of Walkerville as a modest
oasis in the midst of more strident uniformity everywhere else. A few strategically placed tall apartment blocks like
the Watson bring light and life to the area at night. But suitable places for such buildings are limited in Walkerville.
Some specific concerns and suggestions.
1. Do not permit proposals that allow up to 5-storey development in 'non-character' residential areas.
A long north-facing section of my property in The Mews backs on to the ACH property, Hamlyn Court. Hamlyn Court
is currently comprised of 1-story independent living units. In 2001, to ensure privacy, I had a long section of lattice
erected to supplement the height of my fence, and grew up a screen of vegetation. This to some extent sacrificed
some of my winter sun, making my extended area in damper, colder, and the unit much harder and more expensive
to heat. The possibility of further development of sites like the Hamlyn Court site, up to 5 stories, horrifies me. Any
higher fence would be like living in a canyon and could still not secure privacy. The amenity of my home would be
destroyed and the value of my property significantly undermined.
Now such a development may not occur at Hamlyn Court. But I was nervous to hear at the Walkerville Society
meeting (11/8) that a large-scale aged care development group has been having discussion with some members of
Council. If such a development does not happen in my back yard, the Plan allows the possibility of it happening in
someone else's backyard, and this is equally unacceptable.
(2) Do not aim for greater commercialization of Walkerville.
Walkerville Terrace will never turn into The Parade or Unley Road. Most of us do not mind. Driving into Walkerville
from the city, or down from North-East Road, our blood-pressure subsides, we breathe a sigh of relief; we
"breathe". Walkerville is a breathable place. It is not an endless flat sea of suburbs, roads, lights, cars, buildings.
Bordered by the Torrens on one side and North East Rd on the other, it is a calm little oases. We get to see the hills
from the open spaces. Why would you want to commercialize the place to make it look more like everywhere
else? And, we have enough traffic already.
(3) Get appropriate businesses on the Terrace.
Businesses complain about lack of activity on Walkerville Terrace and expect Council to wave a wand to fix it. But as
with GM Holden, Mr. Mayor, if they provided the businesses people want, they would thrive. Home furnishings;
1
garden and hardware products; bookshops; and a greater diversity of restaurants. These might work. More
hairdressers, chicken shops, and uninspiring clothes or gift shops will not.
An area obviously ripe for development of up to 2 or 3 stories is the little corner shopping area adjacent to the
roundabout where IGA once was. This area could provide a more vibrant counterpoint to the Woolworths' forecourt
on the other side, with complementary and not replicated businesses.
(4) Oval-facing town centre is an unlikely idea.
The notion of turning the back-side of Walkerville Terrace bordering the oval into a new 'town centre' seems to me
fanciful, but I would not oppose this initiative if no residents' wishes who live there were ridden over in the
process. The kindergarten and play park are fairly nondescript and drab affairs. However I would have thought
development on the other side of Walkerville Terrace bordering the Torrens would make more sense.
(5) The status quo of the YMCA can legitimately be questioned.
I have been going to the gym in the YMCA since 2001. I do believe there is room to move there. The outward
frontage is uninspiring to say the least. Its function over the years that I have gone there has transformed from an
active gym with many adult classes to a glorified child-care centre for many non-residents. (I also personally find it a
bit disturbing that the viewing areas on Saturday mornings are often dominated by men (no doubt in most instances
honest innocent fathers), standing watching half-clad young children shinny up ropes and do somersaults. The gym's
upper level was built in a different era.) The gym 'brings people in' to the area from the outside but to what extent
do they go beyond the gym's parameters? It does seem to me that a different kind of facility - perhaps with indoor
swimming pool for adult lap swimming - with physiotherapy and other health-related functions built into it - could
make a beneficial change and serve the immediate community more.
(6) Get the right balance between present and future generations.
One person at the Walkerville Society meeting pointed out that most attendees were in their 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s plus, and that decisions should be made that recognize a new and younger and more diverse demographic coming
into the area. He talked about needing to get a "critical mass" of people thus requiring denser and higher-rise
housing. On reflection, I disagree. I myself am a relative newcomer to Walkerville. A lady I spoke to at the meeting
had lived here for 60 years. Why should the peace of mind and enjoyment of their home of/by those who have
grown old here be sacrificed to some newcomers who have no deep connection with the place? Let those who live
here in 20 or 30 years time make their own decisions. In the meantime respect the views and wishes of those who
are already rooted in this place.
Thank you for hearing my submission.
D.D Gamble
2
EPA 05 21306
The Chief Executive Officer
Town of Walkerville
walkerville@walkerville.sa.gov.au
Dear Ms Magro
Town Centre Development Plan Amendment
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Town Centre Development Plan Amendment (DPA).
The EPA understands that the purpose of the DPA is to encourage mixed use development within the
Walkerville Town Centre.
When reviewing this DPA, the key interest of the EPA has been to ensure that all environmental issues
within the scope of the objects of the Environment Protection Act 1993 are identified and considered. The
EPA is primarily interested in the potential environmental and human health impacts that could result from
any development that may be proposed subsequent to any rezoning. At the DPA stage, the EPA works to
ensure that appropriate planning policy is included in the development plan to allow proper assessment at
the development application stage. The EPA may also provide advice to assist with preparation and
assessment of subsequent development proposals.
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has reviewed the DPA and the policy contained in the
Walkerville Council Development Plan (consolidated 28 August 2014) and provides the following
comments for your consideration.
Site contamination
It is proposed in the DPA that the existing Council works depot and adjacent recreation building be replaced
with a form of mixed use development in a building at least 5 storeys high. From the policy included in the
proposed Town Centre Zone, it is understood that the site would include residential and possibly aged care
development.
Council commissioned Golder Associates to undertake site contamination investigations in respect of the
Council depot site. Golder Associates concluded in the report, Environmental investigation – groundwater
and gas monitoring, Walkerville Council Depot, Fuller Street, Walkerville (2011), that site contamination is
present at the site. Various recommendations were made in the report including that ‘if the land use was
to change, it is recommended that the fill on site is managed and the buried matter disposed off site.
Removal of the organic matter will improve geotechnical conditions at the site as well as remove the risks
associated with the landfill gas’ (p 16) (please note that this recommendation has not been correctly
rephrased on page 20 of the DPA).
The EPA notes that the Walkerville Council Development Plan contains the appropriate site contamination
policy from the South Australian Planning Policy Library.
2
On 10 April 2014 the EPA suggested wording to Matthew King of URPS that could be used in the desired
character statement for the proposed Town Centre Zone to identify the presence of site contamination:
‘Due to former industrial uses (including the former Council depot) within the zone, development
is expected to occur on a precautionary basis where a site contamination audit verifies that the
site is suitable and safe for the intended use, particularly where it involves sensitive uses like
residential development’
This wording is included on page 20 of the DPA, but it is not included in the desired character statement.
Instead, it is stated in the desired character statement that the site will contain residential development up
to 5 stories in height ‘after any necessary site remediation has occurred’.
The EPA recommends that the reference to site contamination in the desired character statement be
strengthened to make it clear that site contamination is present at the site and further investigations,
remediation work and appropriate sign off (i.e. a site contamination auditor report) may be required to
ensure the site is suitable for its intended use. This will alert planners to the site contamination issue when
assessment of proposed development for the site is being undertaken.
Interface between land uses
Due to the nature of mixed use development there is potential for air quality and noise issues to occur
between residential development and restaurants, hotels, transport corridors and the like in the proposed
Town Centre Zone.
It is noted that the Walkerville Council Development Plan contains the Interface between Land Uses
module from the South Australian Planning Policy Library, but that it is from an earlier version that is lacking
in some important air and noise planning policy.
The EPA recommends that Council update the Development Plan to include the module from the South
Australian Planning Policy Library Version 6 (September 2011) as it contains additional air and noise policy
that would assist Council planners when undertaking assessments of proposed development in mixed use
areas, particularly in respect of residential interfaces with restaurants, entertainment venues, and hotels.
For further information on this matter, please contact Geoff Bradford on 8204 9821 or
geoffrey.bradford@epa.sa.gov.au.
Yours sincerely
KYM PLUCK
PRINCIPAL ADVISER, PLANNING POLICY AND PROJECTS
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Date: 25/8.2015
Alyssa Burford
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kathryn Clausen <KClausen@npsp.sa.gov.au>
Friday, 28 August 2015 1:27 PM
Walkerville at Walkerville Council
Eleanor Walters
EM201516042 - 3.20.3.7 - Attention: Kiki Magro, Brett Willmott - re Draft Town
Centre Development Plan Amendment (DPA)
Dear Kiki,
Thank you for your letter of 26 June 2015, inviting comment on the Draft Town Centre Development Plan Amendment
(DPA). I am aware that the closing date for written submissions was 24 August 2015 and apologise for the delay in
responding to you.
While the Council has no specific comments to make on the draft policies contained in the DPA, overall, it supports
the revitalisation and recognition of the Walkerville Town Centre through the proposed policy changes.
Thank you for forwarding the Draft Town Centre DPA to this Council for comment.
Kind regards
Kathryn Clausen
SENIOR URBAN PLANNER
City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
175 The Parade, Norwood SA 5067
Telephone 8366 4560
Facsimile 8332 6338
Email kclausen@npsp.sa.gov.au
Website www.npsp.sa.gov.au
Think before you print.
Confidentiality and Privilege Notice
This email is intended only to be read or used by the addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. If you
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), or you have received this
communication in error, you must not copy or distribute this message or any part of it or otherwise disclose its contents to anyone.
Confidentiality and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery to you. No representation is made that this
email or associated attachments (if any) are free of viruses or other defects. Virus scanning is recommended and is the responsibility
of the recipient. 1