Minutes of public meeting held on 7 July 2014 at Rosebank Union Church, Hurlingham
The purpose of the public meeting was to discuss the proposed precinct plan for Hurlingham, as well as security software upgrades.- PROPOSED HURLINGHAM PRECINCT PLAN
RATIONALE FOR PROPOSED PRECINCT PLAN AND TIMELINE
Lombard explained that the precinct plan provides the most detailed level of planning which a resident’s association can undertake. It is used to provide a fairly predictable environment in terms of land use changes that can be expected within a demarcated area.
Although not cast in stone, it provides residents with a negotiating tool should plans be submitted to council for development. It will be a tool that to monitor land use changes in the area and equip residents to decide whether to oppose requests for development as and when they arise. Currently, without a plan in place, it is a “free for all” in terms of development.
The public meeting was held to fulfil the requirement of public participation as part of the approval process. This is the second public meeting, following the meeting on April 9. The plan will now be made available on the HGC website for 30 days and is open for comment. Residents can contact Lombard on or 011327 3310 directly. Any comments will then be discussed and replied to and the plan will then be submitted to Council for approval. No further public meetings are expected to be held on the plan.
Lombard estimates that the plan should be approved by Council in early 2015.
PROPSED HURLINGHAM PRECINCT PLAN – GUIDELINE
WATERFALL AVENUE
A number of residents were concerned about the fact that Waterfall Avenue falls under the approved precinct plan for Craighall Park, even though they are contributors to HGC. Lombard explained that Waterfall Avenue cannot fall under two precinct plans and discussions would need to be held with the Craigpark Residents Association (CRA) should Waterfall Avenue wish to be included under the Hurlingham plan. He pointed out that the proposals for Waterfall Avenue remain identical under both the Craighall park plan and the HGC plan. This means that properties could be subdivided to a maximum of 10 units per hectare – as in the “core” of Hurlingham.
CLYNTON AND RIEPEN PARK
It makes sense to include Clynton and Riepen Park in the Hurlingham plan as these two small suburbs fall between the Craighall plan and Hurlingham. A number of residents from these areas attended the meeting.
DENSIFICATION ALONG WILLIAM NICOL AND “INTERFACE” WITH NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES
The proposed precinct plan allows for densification along William Nicol to 70 units per hectare. There are already a number of examples of this type of development – for example, Hurlingham Gate, the three storey development that has been built at the corner of Stirling and William Nicol.
But Lombard stressed that what’s important is that there is an “interface” between these higher buildings and the neighbouring properties. The plan therefore makes provision for 30 unit subdivisions per hectare (two storeys) residential developments to act as buffers (indicated in brown on the guideline plan). In the “core” of Hurlingham, properties will be limited to subdivisions of a minimum of 900sqm, two storeys (indicated in yellow). In Hurlingham Extension, the properties will be limited to subdivisions of 700sqm, two storeys (indicated in beige). The reason for the difference is that historically properties in Hurlingham’s “core” were larger 4000sqm stands versus Hurlingham Extension’s 2 000sqm.
Council has already approved a number of 10 unit subdivisions in the core of Hurlingham.
HAMILTON AVENUE DEVELOPMENT
Because it runs next to William Nicol, Hamilton Avenue has been earmarked for densification according to the proposed plan. There are 10 original stands. Of these, five have already been subdivided into two or three – making them unattractive to developers at this stage.
A further two, Erven 79 and 80, have already been rezoned into 20 units per hectare, but are as yet undeveloped. The developers have applied for densifcation of 30 units per hectare, but the surrounding owners have objected to this with Council.
According to Lombard, there are only three more stands in Hamilton Ave that potentially could be demolished and redeveloped into at a density of 20 dwelling units per hectare. These are located at the northern end of Hamilton, closer to the church. Ervens 82, 85 and 86 are still available for potential rezoning and are likely to be developed at 20 units per hectare. This amounts to eight dwellings on each stand, amounting to a total of 24 units – insignificant in the bigger scheme of things.
Hamilton Park has a water canal running through it and a flood line is applicable, so it is unlikely to be further developed. Lombard said it is not legally protected against development, but if residents want to have more control over the park, it would be worth considering entering a maintenance agreement with City Parks to have more input.
Karien Wandrag from Fife Street pointed out that residents successfully negotiated with developers next to Hurlingham Gate to reduce the density from 20 units to 4-6 units. The developer had indicated that market research showed that potential buyers would prefer bigger, more expensive units in this area. This will be good for the suburb as will increase property values and demonstrates how active community input can influence development.
Lombard said it was positive that there were no existing commercial activities in the area – no shops, offices or petrol stations. The new Marion on Stirling, is viewed as a residential development, even though it is a guest house since it is two storeys and equivalent of 20 units per hectare.
CONCERNS ABOUT INCREASED TRAFFIC
The proposed precinct plan does not deal with potential road upgrades and traffic issues. The HGC would need to appoint a traffic consultant should road upgrades be required. A number of residents raised concerns about residents being “locked” in the suburb if developments along Hamilton went ahead.
It was Lombard’s opinion that the HGC should not request road upgrades as this could lead to further unwanted densification and traffic disruption. He pointed out that Hamilton road is very close to William Nicol, so any increased traffic from further development would have the shortest route to the arterial road.
The precinct plan indicates existing road closures, but no new ones. This would require a formal application to the Council.
Ends
1