26 July 2011 - City of Vincent

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 61 CITY OF VINCENT26 JULY 2011 MINUTESBicycle ParkingConsulting Rooms:• 1 space per 8 practitioners (class 1 or 2)• 1 space per 4 practitioners (class 3)= 0.375 space= 0 space= 0.75 space= 1 spaceLegal/PolicyStrategicSustainabilityFinancial/BudgetOther ImplicationsTPS 1 and associated Policies.The City’s Strategic Plan 2011-2021 - Objective 1 states:“ Natural and Built Environment1.1 Improve and maintain the natural and built environment andinfrastructure1.1.2 Enhance and maintain the character and heritage of the City.”Nil.Nil.COMMENTS:The current use of the building is residential and is therefore a permitted use. Due to thenature of the proposed activities, the proposed consulting rooms use (“SA” use) is notconsidered to be consistent with the general fabric of the residential area, regardless of thescale and intensity of its operations and that it abuts District Centre and Commercial zones.Approval of the proposed development would create an undesirable precedent for furtherencroachment of commercial uses into residential areas. The proposed clinical psychologistuse is not considered to serve the day-to-day needs of the local residents and is consideredmore appropriate in areas which have been appropriately zoned and developed for suchuses, namely the City’s commercial centres.Furthermore, the proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the City’s EconomicDevelopment Strategy, which aims to condense commercial type activities within LocalCentres, District Centres or Commercial zoned areas in order to capitalise upon co-locationalbenefits and increase the viability of the City’s commercial centres.The site is located on the eastern side of the right of way and is directly next door to a threestoreymixed use development, which is zoned District Centre and Commercial. It could beconsidered that the right of way acts as an effective barrier and buffer between thecommercial and residential uses; however, it is noted that there are three residentialproperties directly opposite the proposed development. It is noted that other residential zonedproperties have been granted approval for commercial uses; however, these properties aregenerally directly abutting a use that it is considered to adversely impact on their residentialamenity or is located on a major road, where a majority of the urban fabric is commercial. Thisparticular property fits into neither of these descriptions.For the abovementioned reasons, the proposal is therefore considered unacceptable and it isrecommended that the Council refuse the application.MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 26 JULY 2011 TO BE CONFIRMED ON 9 AUGUST 2011