Lot 362 Regent Street, Melrose Park Engagement Report · Refer Interim Engagement Report –...

Lot 362 Regent Street, Melrose Park

Engagement Report

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY

FEBRUARY 2018

1 | P a g e

ENGAGEMENT REPORT

Background

The Project

Renewal SA (RSA) on behalf of the South Australian Housing Trust is creating opportunities through the

Renewing Our Streets and Suburbs (ROSAS) program to renew all pre-1968 SA Housing Trust housing over

the next 15 years.

This includes the Melrose Park Renewal Project, at Lot 362 Regent Street Melrose Park, which will see the

renewal of the SA Housing Trust (SAHT) Cottage Flat site, constructed around 1960.

The exciting renewal of the site will deliver a diversity of affordable and market priced energy efficient

housing, within a well-designed precinct that achieves uplift in density and successfully interfaces with

neighbouring land uses and existing communities. It will also feature a public reserve for the wider

community.

Junction Australia is a leading affordable housing provider, and will manage the redevelopment of the site.

Planning Approval Process

In September 2015, the Development (Renewal of Social Housing) Variations Regulations were made to

support the objectives of the ROSAS program. The State Coordinator-General (SCG) and the State

Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP) of the State Planning Commission formerly the Development

Assessment Commission (DAC) are the appointed bodies to assess the ROSAS development applications.

Applications for dwellings and associated land division proposals are lodged directly with the SCG, having

been assessed against a set of published performance criteria. For Apartment Developments, a pre-

lodgement process is undertaken that includes planning and design input from State agencies and

Councils.

As part of the SCG process, RSA consults with neighbours of apartment development proposals to canvass

comments.

Engagement Objectives & Methodology

Community engagement commenced late in 2017 for the Melrose Park site, where some local residents

provided their comments and feedback through meetings with Junction Australia – individually and/or

through a meeting hosted by the State Member for Elder, Annabel Digance MP. The community

feedback submitted from those meetings was captured in an Interim Engagement Report used by

Junction Australia to review the plans ahead of re-engaging the community. Refer Interim Engagement

Report – summary of consultation with the Local Community November-December 2017). Through this

previous engagement, it became evident that:

not all property owners/occupiers were aware (of the project and invitation to attend the community engagement event of Nov 13, 2017) and required to be included;

2 | P a g e

some residents had not seen the initial invitation letterbox dropped by Renewal SA or had misunderstood its purpose; and

feedback concerns were raised which required further discussion with the local community.

Therefore, to ensure a full and fair process, Junction Australia and Renewal SA committed to undertaking

further consultation in early 2108, enabling more time for residents to provide their feedback. It also gave

those who had previously provided feedback the opportunity to view, discuss and provide feedback on the

two further broad options for the proposed road linking Kegworth Rd to Regent St, developed to address

concerns about the impact on surrounding streets.

A Community Consultation Session was held on February 7 2018 at the Edwardstown Bowling Club at East

Terrace, South Plympton. Residents and property owners adjacent to the project site at Lot 362 Regent

St, Melrose Park, were invited (see Appendix 1) and advised that the purpose of the session was to:

gain information about the renewal of the Melrose Park site

view and discuss the redevelopment plans which now included options for the proposed road linking the site from Kegworth Road to Regent Street

meet with Junction Australia, Qattro Pty Ltd and Renewal SA team members, and

provide comments for consideration by the State Coordinator-General as part of the planning assessment process.

If unable to attend this session, those invited were encouraged to contact Junction Australia before

February 28, to discuss opportunities to view plans and provide comment. Junction Australia was not

approached by residents for further meetings; however was contacted by 2 residents during this period to

clarify their submission.

The key audience was neighbouring residents and property owners within the engagement area of some

140 or so properties identified in the map (see purple area on map over).

The Community Consultation Session invitation was emailed (by the Member for Elder’s office) to 20

interested local residents and also forwarded to City of Mitcham, State and Federal Members and

absentee property owners identified (50).

3 | P a g e

Map showing Project site (red) and Engagement area (purple).

Key Engagement Findings

Some 24 participants attended the Community Consultation Session including local member Annabel

Digance, City of Mitcham Mayor Glenn Spear & 2 Ward councillors and Edwardstown Bowling Club

President. Eighteen participants identified themselves as living within the engagement area (see Appendix

2) and 2 as property owners living outside the engagement area.

Participants attending the session were invited to view the plans on display (from the previous session),

including the proposed road link options (see Appendix 7), provide comments in general about the project

with post-it notes on the Ideas and Comments panel or specifically about the apartment building and road

link options in writing by February 28 in two ways, either via email to Renewal SA or by completing a

community comment form for SCG consideration (provided to all attending the Community Consultation

Session, which could be completed at the session or posted to Renewal SA using a reply-paid envelope).

A number of participants took extra forms for neighbours who were unable to attend the session.

Participants who attended engaged with team members, discussing aspects of the project plans and

expressing:

genuine interest and engagement with information presented, however some voiced reservations, questioning their ability to influence the plans through the consultation process,

concerns for increased traffic from the development,

a preference for road option 2

opposition to the proposed density for the site, particularly 3-storey apartment,

general support for the development and positive comments.

4 | P a g e

One post-it note (see Appendix 3) and one comment was received (see Appendix 5) at the Community

Consultation Session with most participants electing to take the form home to complete and return.

Twenty-three community comment submissions were received by Renewal SA after the Community

Consultation Session (see Appendix 5). A summary of the submissions received by February 28, is provided

in Appendix 4. Key points from the submissions included:

Most support road option 2, (17 of 23 submissions) and strong opposition to a road being constructed as a continuous thoroughfare through the site connecting Kegworth Road to Regent St.

Preference for 2 storey (3-storey not in keeping with area) and reducing the density on site with fewer dwellings overall,

Car parking, increased traffic and access concerns,

Disappointment that other issues raised through the earlier engagement in previous feedback provided did not seem to have been addressed.

Junction Australia has addressed each of the issues raised in the submissions both from the 2017

consultation and the February 2018 consultation and is providing information on its position/action for

each within a separate document accompanying the revised plans to the SCG, for consideration by the SCG

within the planning assessment process.

While the submissions are included in this report, the identities of the respondents (and any photographs,

illustrations or text identifying or depicting their property) have been withheld from this public document

in respect of personal privacy. The full details and all photographs/illustrations have been provided in

confidence to the State Co-ordinator General.

5 | P a g e

Appendix 1 – Community Consultation Invitation Letter

6 | P a g e

7 | P a g e

8 | P a g e

9 | P a g e

Appendix 2 – map used at the Community Consultation Session - IMAGE DEPICTING ATTENDING

RESIDENTS’ LOCATION WITHHELD

10 | P a g e

Appendix 3 – Post it notes completed by public at the Drop-in Session – (1)

IDEAS or COMMENTS – is there anything that you feel has not been addressed?

IDEAS or COMMENTS – What did you think of today’s drop-in and chat session?

11 | P a g e

Appendix 4 – Summary of submissions received (23)

NO. LOCATION ISSUES RAISED

1 Within engagement area

Comment on removal tree on site


In favour of road option 3 Concerned about development effecting house values Supportive of 2-storey apartment not 3 Believes plan is crowded and prefer to see number of houses reduced slightly


In favour of road option 3 Concerned about 3 storey acting as precedent for future developments, would prefer to see less dwellings on the site


Road option 2 is only acceptable option for proposed road. Questions that other issues raised previously by community were not addressed. Density proposed for site including 3-storey apartment, parking issues caused by increased housing on Kegworth


Supplement to previous submission, Supports road option 2 does not want road to allow access between from Kegworth Rd to Regent St.


Road option 2 only acceptable option does not resolve other matters raised by residents


Prefers road option 2


Supplement to previous submission, Supports road option 2. Concerned that proposed 3-storey apartment, not in keeping with area and effecting property values in area. Too many units on site


Supplement to previous submission, Supports road option 2, disappointed no changes to density proposed for site – against anything 2 storey or over despite feedback provided.


Too many buildings planned for the site and associated traffic issues caused. Access issues (from driveways) caused by narrow roads for rubbish collection and street sweeper.


Supports road option 2 Supplement to previous submission. Disappointed no change to proposed density of development from feedback provided. 3-storey out of character for area, too many units on site. Stormwater and flooding concerns raised. Questions about trees being cut down and information for the community and planning process.

12 Outside engagement area

Supports road option 2 Stormwater concerns Increased traffic concerns and consider site overcrowded with proposed 3-storey out of character for the area

12 | P a g e

NO. LOCATION ISSUES RAISED


Supports road option 2 Consider site overcrowded, against 3-storey in the area


Supports road option 2 Opposition to 3-storey not consistent with area


Supports road option 2 Too many apartments/units on site this size


Representing Strata Corporation Supports road option 2 Development will increase congestion, parking issues and impact on service vehicles along Kegworth Rd. Opposes proposed density for the site, excludes elderly and those with disabilities. Objects to 3-storey rental flat complex proposed, recommending other accommodation proposed for the project site be made available for social housing


Supports road option 2 Concern that site is being overdeveloped Proposed 3-storey housing not consistent with area


Supports road option 2 Kegworth Road, parking, access and safety for pedestrians/road users Access for refuse trucks and commercial vehicle Access issues for existing properties Issues with proposed density – objection to 3-storey Questions if apartment block is suitable social housing option Questions for council

19 7 Within engagement area

Prefer road option 3 Not in favour of 3 storey building


Supports road option 2 Opposes 3-storey apartment Concern for trees wellbeing


Prefers single storey housing for site (less congestion on Kegworth Rd & Regent St)


Supports road option 2 Concern about increased traffic and on-street parking issues Proposed 3-storey does not fit with area, no single storey for residents wishing to stay in the community. Safety issues for pedestrians (aged and children) and residents of apartments (emergency evacuation for people with disabilities) Considers disability ‘unfriendly’


Supports road option 2 Strongly opposes 3 storey apartment and density proposed for the site. Concerned about allocated car parking and access issues

13 | P a g e

Note:

1. Refer also Summary of Submissions received within the Interim Engagement Report – Summary of Consultation with the local Community November-December 2017 - ‘Previous Submissions’ referenced by community members in their submissions contained in Appendix 5 of this report (and noted above in the submission table) are all contained in the Interim Engagement Report. Those earlier expressed views still apply.

2. From the 24 submissions received in response to the November-December 2017 consultation, 12 did not resubmit.

3. Petition summary (received November 24 2017, the Interim Engagement Report) Petition (45 signatures) represented 25 households from 3 streets surrounding project site. Ten

households signed the petition ONLY and did not complete submission forms in November-

December 2017 or February 2018.

2

1310

5

1921

0

5

10

15

20

25

Kegworth Rd Romsey Gr Wheaton St

PETITION SUMMARY OPPOSING JUNCTION AUSTRALIA MELROSE PARK

DEVELOPMENT

No of addresses represented from St Signatures received from St

14 | P a g e

Appendix 5 – submissions/comments received at the Community Consultation Session on 7 February

2018 or by February 28 – (23)

15 | P a g e

Submission received 13/02/2018

Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 4:29 PM

To: Renewal SA, Reception (Renewal SA) <[email protected]>

Subject: Renewing Our Streets and Suburbs Project Lot 362 Regent Street Melrose Park

Comments for the State Co-ordinator General

We favour Option 3 as presented at the recent meeting, for the entry and exit points to the housing facility.

We are still concerned about how this development will affect home values in the area. We believe that the 3 stories should be reduced to 2. We feel that the plan is somewhat crowded and would like to see the total number of houses

reduced slightly.

We believe that overall Option 3 is a vast improvement over option 1 and believe it will control the flow

of traffic in and out of the development and minimise disruption to other streets in the area.

Thank you for considering our submission

NAME & CONTACT DETAILS WITHHELD

mailto:[email protected]

16 | P a g e


17 | P a g e

18 | P a g e


19 | P a g e


20 | P a g e


21 | P a g e


22 | P a g e


23 | P a g e


24 | P a g e

25 | P a g e


Sent: Sunday, 25 February 2018 5:48 PM

To: Renewal SA, Reception (Renewal SA)

Subject: Project Kegworth Road

Re the construction of units between Kegworth road and Regent street. We think the amount of

buildings in this area is far too many for the traffic on these roads. Kegworth road itself is very narrow

and causes problems now with people getting in and out of their driveways, also problems with rubbish

collection and the street sweeper. I can't see how any more traffic can work. I also wish to point out that

there is a historical building next to the area and believe there are certain rules about what can be built

nearby. It's turning our street and area into a mess.

NAME & CONTACT DETAILS WITHHELD

26 | P a g e


27 | P a g e

28 | P a g e

Submission Received 26/02/2018

29 | P a g e

30 | P a g e


31 | P a g e


32 | P a g e

33 | P a g e


34 | P a g e


35 | P a g e

36 | P a g e

37 | P a g e

38 | P a g e

39 | P a g e

40 | P a g e

41 | P a g e

42 | P a g e


43 | P a g e

44 | P a g e


45 | P a g e

46 | P a g e

47 | P a g e

48 | P a g e


49 | P a g e


50 | P a g e


51 | P a g e


52 | P a g e


(Note: submitted in error to a different agency within the consultation period and received by Renewal

SA on 8 March 2018)

To Renewal S.A

Re: Lot 362 Regent Street, Melrose Park.

I agree with the following comments regarding the above development:

Through Road. Having considered the 3 Options presented at the information session, Option 2 is the preferred Option as it has the least impact on the residents of Kegworth Road and will not significantly impact residents of Regent Street, Brett Street and Romsey Crescent. Regent Street in particular has very few residential properties – the majority are commercial.

Kegworth Road is a ‘no through road’ and should be maintained as such. It is used extensively by pedestrians, cyclists, children, parents with prams and people in motorised buggies to safely access South Road. An increase in traffic from the proposed development will turn it from pedestrian-friendly to an unsafe thoroughfare.

3 storey apartment block. I strongly oppose the 3 storey apartment block. There are no other residential or commercial buildings in Melrose Park or the greater Mitcham Council area of this height. The block will tower over the rest of the complex and surrounding residences.

Density of the development. The size of the allotment is smaller than the Kegworth Road/Wheaton Road site on which 55 houses are located. The new development will contain 36 residential buildings + 3 storey apartment block containing 15 apartments. If the same criteria had been applied to the Kegworth/Wheaton Road development there would be in excess of 100 properties. As long-term residents we have invested in our homes and a development of the proposed density will de-value our properties and affect our quality of life.

Lack of off-street parking. We have been advised that each property will have 2 parks. This is totally inadequate for the density of the development as it doesn’t cater for visitors and residents with more than 2 vehicles. Kegworth Road is narrow (6.9 metres wide) and is already very difficult to negotiate when vehicles are parked on both sides of the street. Parking restrictions would make the issue worse. Additional parking should be included in the development.

Thank you,

53 | P a g e

Appendix 6 – Community Consultation Session Display panels & proposed plans

54 | P a g e

55 | P a g e

56 | P a g e

57 | P a g e

Appendix 7 - Road Options

Option 1

58 | P a g e

Plans provided by Junction

Option 2

Option 3

59 | P a g e

Appendix 8 – Junction Australia Flyer

60 | P a g e

The Interim Engagement Report – Summary of Consultation with the local Community November-

December 2017 – separate document to this report

Note:

1. Community engagement commenced late in 2017 for the Melrose Park site, where some local residents provided their comments and feedback through meetings with Junction Australia – individually and/or through a meeting hosted by the State Member for Elder, Annabel Digance MP. The community feedback submitted from those meetings was captured in an interim Engagement Report used by Junction Australia to review the plans ahead of re-engaging the community. Refer Interim Engagement Report – summary of consultation with the Local Community November-December 2017).

2. The ‘previous submissions’ referred to by community members in their submissions contained in Appendix 5 are contained in the Interim Engagement Report. Those earlier expressed views still apply.

3. The Interim Engagement Report forms part of the final documentation to the State Co-ordinator General for detailed consideration within the planning assessment process for renewing the Melrose Park site.

61 | P a g e

Lot 362 Regent Street, Melrose Park Engagement Report · Refer Interim Engagement Report –...

Documents

Transcript of Lot 362 Regent Street, Melrose Park Engagement Report · Refer Interim Engagement Report –...