yonkikkert
Mar 9, 2018

DS planning laws revision.

1 comment

Good evening fellow Nine Milers,

 

First up many thanks to the DSRA for their enormous efforts in getting this space up and running. I sincerely hope it will become a special space for democratic deliberation.

 

The draft planning scheme for Dolphin Sands proposes that visitor accommodation be restricted to within existing buildings only.

I suggest the community be given the opportunity to discuss changing this. One major possibility for people on the Nine Mile to become independent economically and/or subsidise their income is to allow construction of a second (or more?) building as a holiday rental on their block.

 

The ability to make a living is a first principle that should never be denied a community as long as it fits with the amenity and environment of the area. We all have large blocks, particularly on the DS end, with nooks and crannies everywhere amongst the dunes and gums for chalets to be hidden away without unduly disturbing the amenity or environment.

 

The cut off date for Community submissions is 12th march 2018. However, this public consultation is an informal and early opportunity for the community to provide input into future stages of preparation of the Local Provision Schedule (LPS). So we may miss the March 12 deadline for a collective response, but it seems there will be more opportunities down the track which the community and it's association should grab with two hands. Therefore, it maybe good to formally begin a community conversation about this issue. The draft planning Local Provision Schedule can be found here (no hyper link I think you may have to cut and paste into your browser):

 

http://gsbc.tas.gov.au/.../2018/01/Draft-GSBC-LPS-V1.pdf

 

The provision I have issue with is A1 (a) within GSB-P1.5.2 Visitor Accommodation. I do NOT have issue with the primary objectives set out a,b,c, as follows:

Objective: That Visitor Accommodation: (a) is of a scale that is compatible with the character and use of the area; (b) does not cause an unreasonable loss of privacy; and (c) does not impact the safety and efficiency of local roads or rights of way.

So far so good, but the following point I do have issue with.: A1 Visitor Accommodation must: (a) be accommodated in existing buildings.

 

I believe stand alone visitor style chalet accommodation that is cleverly designed to achieve amenity and environmental integrity within the objectives a, b and c is entirely achievable and the current revision of DS planning code should capture that. It would be good to hear other people's thoughts on this topic.

Regards,

Yon

 

 

Grant Andrews
Mar 24, 2018

You’ve done some good research there, Yon. So long as adjoining blocks aren’t compromised as you mentioned I don‘t imagine resistance. It would be assett building for us and more rates for the council.

Do hope we get more comments on this forum: for and against.

New Posts
  • Brett Harrison
    Oct 3

    This is my second attempt to create a post on this article. My first attempt was disconnected. The article is inaccurate, it fails for the same reasons it purports to accuse opponents of. The overlay previously published in the Mercury is accurate. It sets out the total area that the SAP relates to. There has been no DA submitted by the proponent so no-one knows what is proposed within the SAP area if it is passed. The proponent has released a concept plan, that is all. DSRA committee does not represent the views of members in the published article, the article represents the views of a number of committee members, not the membership. There has been no consultation by DSRA committee of membership as to their views on the proposal. All that has occurred is a rather "shonkie" survey of members , with a limited response to some very vague and slanted questions. It appears based on these responses certain elements of the committee have seen fit to advocate on behalf of the proponent to the detriment of the community they were elected to represent. I note that it is proposed to hold an AGM sometime in October to consider changes to the Rules of the Association. This meeting may well be an appropriate forum for the Committee to properly ascertain community views on the Cambria Green proposal. In the absence of the committee being prepared to properly embrace community views then a motion of no confidence and a spill motion would be appropriate.
  • Ross Irving
    Oct 3

    The DSRA committee’s open letter to its membership raises some interesting questions. It includes the following statement: “The DSRA committee’s role, as guided by our constitution, is ‘to use the Association’s best endeavours to safeguard the interests of ratepayers within the territory’.” The DSRA constitution includes the following The objects and purpose of the Association shall be:- a. To establish a no-political and non-sectarian Ratepayers Association to provide a forum for its members. b. To promote and develop civic pride in the Territory. c. To use the Associations best endeavours to safeguard the interests of the Ratepayers within the Territory. d. To promote acceptable development in the Territory. e. To take such action in respect of all the foregoing objects and purposes as shall be resolved by the Association. The constitution does not appear to make the committee responsible for safeguarding the interests of the ratepayers within the territory, or for deciding what these interests might be. It seems quite clear that it should be up to the association’s membership to decide what is in its best interest and what action should be undertaken to safeguard it. While the constitution does give the President and the Secretary / Treasurer the power to run the day to day matters of the Association, I’m finding it a bit of a stretch to see how this delegated authority extends to advocating in favour of the Cambria SAP with amendments. I am also unaware that anything has been resolved by the association regarding negotiating with the proponents. I don’t necessarily have a problem with the DSRA resolving to negotiate some of the contentious details of the SAP with the proponents. It’s just that we (the members) haven’t. The open letter also makes the following statement: “Stopping the SAP supports the broader anti-development agenda of green groups but doesn't serve the interests of our community.” The DSRA constitution clearly establishes that our association is a non-political association. The political opinions of our membership are likely to include views that cross the entire political spectrum. Our organisation has been formed to represent all its members regardless of their political affiliations. In making the generalisation, as the committee has, that green groups have anti-development agenda’s and therefore their opinions are somehow not in the best interests of our community, you appear to be making a political statement that would disenfranchise a sizable proportion of our membership. You ask us, as members, to consider if we understand what stopping the SAP might mean. You say that: “As explained on the Council website, most of the development envisaged in the concept plan in the vicinity of Dolphin Sands and Cambria can occur without the SAP amendment. This includes accommodation, the golf course and rezoning the land surrounding the Cambria homestead.” What the Council’s Planning Officer’s report actually says is: “ It should be noted that many of the uses envisaged by the Cambria SAP can be considered under existing zones consistent with this policy position.” You then advise us that: “The use standards in the SAP (eg. building heights) are consistent with the current planning scheme.” Really? The current planning scheme is the Glamorgan Spring Bay Interim Planning Scheme. Many of the directives included in the SAP (building height, setbacks, subdivision allotment sizes etc.) are definitely not consistent with the current planning scheme. They have in fact been drawn from the future Tasmanian Planning Scheme SPP, which has not yet been implemented – and which uses a different zoning scheme (according to the draft LPS zoning maps submitted to the Tasmanian Planning Commission by GSBC). Obviously a SAP is not necessary for a rezoning application, and some of the development ideas outlined in the masterplan might be able to be considered under the current planning scheme. However, as there is currently no development application (and Mr Hu has openly stated that any future development application will likely include few of the elements shown in the masterplan), we have no idea what the proponents are actually considering. It would be naive in the extreme to think that the proponents would have gone to this much effort and expense if they did not intend to take advantage of the relaxations to the current planning scheme this Cambria SAP will deliver. Ross & Robyn Irving
  • colin.stevenson2
    Jun 30, 2018

    As financial members of the DSRA, we would advise that the views expressed in your Open Letter are not our view and for this reason we made our earlier decision to not take part in the survey, as is our right. It was apparent from the survey questions, that it assumed an approval of the SAP with or without amendments. Further we find it extremely insulting to question whether we know the intent behind the Specific Area Plan Proposal. We along with many other community members have taken part in discussions, carried out our own extensive research and received professional advice on what the implications of this proposal are and based on this, we have made our informed decision. Maureen and Colin Stevenson

© 2018 by DSRA. Photos taken by members of the Dolphin Sands Community Network Facebook group

  • email-button
  • Facebook Social Icon