minutes - City of Stirling

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 18 SEPTEMBER 2012 Parking Oversupply The City’s Parking Policy contains the following objective in relation to the oversupply of parking:- To ensure that an oversupply of parking does not occur that discourages alternative forms of transport and is detrimental to urban design and Centre character. It has been demonstrated through the Parking Assessment Report that there is a current oversupply of parking relative to demand. It could be argued therefore that subject to compliance with the remaining objectives of the policy, in order to satisfy the above mentioned objective the City ought to be seeking to limit the amount of additional parking provided on site particularly given the proximity of the Shopping Centre within 400m of a high frequency bus stop/station. Mediation hearing 21 August 2012 As stated previously in this report, a mediation hearing was held at the City’s offices on the 21 August 2012 in order to ascertain whether there was any possibility of arriving at a compromise between the two parties. Although Councillors were invited to attend, none were able to do so. The lack of Councillor involvement in the mediation hearing represents a lost opportunity to achieve a possible compromise situation acceptable to both parties, and may have implications in relation to defending the Councils decision, should this matter proceed to a full hearing. Involvement of independent planning consultant The City’s officers were unable to represent Council at the SAT as the Council decision was inconsistent with the officer’s recommendations. Consequently, Greg Rowe and Associates have been engaged to represents Council at the SAT. It should be noted that should Council form a different view to that of its current planning consultant in this matter, the City’s officers will need to engage another planning consultant to represent Council, should this matter proceed to a full hearing. Policy and Legislative Implications Following the Council’s decision on 12 June 2012, the applicant has lodged an Application for Review in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. In accordance with Orders made by the State Administrative Tribunal at mediation, this report requests the Council to reconsider its decision and agree to delete conditions a, b and c. Should the Council decide not to reconsider its decision, the matter will be referred back to mediation on 24 September 2012. The matter has also been listed for a Directions Hearing on 7 September to deal with a request by the applicant to set a date for a final Hearing. Financial Implications Should Council resolve to reaffirm the status of conditions a, b and c it is extremely likely that the City will be required to defend its decision at a hearing in the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). The City will be required to engage further legal representatives and planning consultants as representatives at the SAT and the costs will likely be in excess of $20,000. 44
MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 18 SEPTEMBER 2012 Council should also be mindful that in light of the advice it has received from it’s officers, and two separate planning consultants, there exists in this situation the very real possibility that should the applicant be successful in its application for a review of Councils decisions, costs may be awarded against the City. Strategic Implications Goal 3: Objective 3.2: SI 3.3.1: To foster the ongoing economic development of the City, encouraging investment and employment in a sustainable manner. Facilitate enhancements of regional and local centres. Develop and implement a strategy to foster economic development and tourism. Sustainability Implications The following tables outline the applicable sustainability issues for this proposal:- Nil. Issue ENVIRONMENTAL Comment Amenity Issue SOCIAL Comment The proposed development is not considered to impact on the amenity of any surrounding land uses. Job creation Issue ECONOMIC Comment The proposal will create employment in the locality. Conclusion It is acknowledged that Conditions a, b and c do not require the provision of additional car bays but rather seek to create the ability to require additional car bays should they be required in the future. The applicant contends that there is a pre-existing buffer of additional car bays as is demonstrated through the Parking Assessment Report which identifies that during the peak period there is a significant surplus of car bays beyond the actual parking bay demand. The City’s Traffic Design Engineer has reviewed the traffic report and concurs with its conclusions. The imposition of conditions requiring another Parking Contingency Plan to be drafted and legal agreement entered into with the City is not considered necessary based on the findings of the Traffic Report submitted with the original application. Although there is technically a 107 bay parking shortfall associated with the proposed application, in a practical sense there is considered to be a surplus of parking on site to accommodate the proposed Shop addition. For this reason it is recommended that Conditions a, b and c of DA11/1982 be removed. 45
Page 1 and 2: MINUTES ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM SUBJECT PAGE
Page 5 and 6: ITEM SUBJECT PAGE 10.1/AP7 LOT 678,
Page 7 and 8: MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF
Page 43: MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF
Page 95 and 96:
MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
125 MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361:
show all

minutes - City of Stirling

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?