By Jenel Hunt
A block of land that has stood vacant for years “might stay vacant for eternity” following a council decision to reject an application for a Material Change of Use that would have allowed storage units to be built on the land.
The proposed development at 43 Percy Street in Warwick was for four buildings to house a total of 180 storage units. The current zone for the Percy Street property was medium density residential, but the proximity of other zones made this a vexed question for councillors.
Councillors were divided, although at least two of them described themselves as “torn” over the issue. Much of the discussion centred around the need for more residential development.
Cr Jo McNally was clear on her stance.
“We’re talking about storage sheds in a residential area when we (local government) are screaming out for accommodation for people. This is something that could have a huge impact for the residents of our town. I believe we would be highly hypercritical to say that storage needs come above human needs,” she said.
“There is other land available for storage units.”
Cr Gliori said Cr McNally’s comments asking which was the priority – housing or storage sheds – had hit the nail on the head for him.
“It’s housing for me,” he said.
“This is an opportunity for us to indicate where we want the overall planning scheme to head moving forward and I believe it should be residential. I’d love to see some units there.”
This ignored the fact that the application was not for housing, said Cr Ross Bartley.
“The owner, it’s his land. It’s his choice what he does. Probably the applicant has looked at the economic viability of 26 units and he’s gone for the alternative industrial usage. We’d like to see housing, but that may never happen. It may remain vacant for eternity.”
He said the planning scheme needed to be the guide.
“We might try to bend it a little bit, but it is our bible in some respects.“
Dr Andrew Gale said that while he agreed about the planning scheme being the councillors’ bible, what he did not see anywhere was a competing proposal to go into housing.
An application for approval to build 25 units on the site had been lodged over five years ago but had lapsed.
“I see someone who is prepared to invest in our region at the moment. They’re putting up a proposal for something that is in demand. There are other multi-unit dwelling proposals in place. If this was going to be developed for housing, it would have been developed (already). I believe very much in the bird in the hand rather than two birds in the bush.”
Cr Gale also commented that the economic needs assessment report had stated it had not been adequately demonstrated there was an overwhelming need for this kind of development to justify the need for an industrial activity within a residential zone.
“But the word on the street – the anecdotal evidence – is that there is a drastic shortage of storage available in this area. I’ve even been told people are renting private garages for storage.”
Cr Stephen Tancred reminded the other councillors that although more accommodation was a local government, state and federal government aim, development was essentially driven by developers.
“They assess the construction costs, the interest rate costs; they make the decisions. No one’s made the decision here to build units on this block,” he said.
“There’s no shortage of residential land in this region. People develop land and it sits there for a long time before blocks are built on. We have even softened the costs to assist developers to come here and build units. Our role is clearly to enable all sorts of development – residential and small business. We are one of the few councils that has signed the Small Business Charter.”
Cr Tancred said that in the 20-page report prepared by the council’s planning services, which recommended that the application for Material Change of Use be refused, the main objection seemed to be about amenity.
“But I’m wondering if people who are looking for residential development will say, ‘Gee, this is next to a pub, it’s across the road from some mixed use industrial. It’s around the corner from a feed place.’ Maybe it will sit there forever because they’ll find better residential land. We have to be flexible, and this is what’s in front of us.”
Cr Gale put forward that the amenity issue could be addressed in a number of ways, including putting a buffer around the boundary, reduction in roof area or reduced operating hours.
That perspective was rebutted by Cr Sheryl Windle, who said it was clearly residential.
Cr McNally claimed it might even be one of the last spots available for medium density residential development in Warwick.
Cr Cynthia McDonald called for some latitude to be given.
“My point is that not everything fits into a nice little box. When I did a drive-by of the block, my feeling was that we are in a mixed use area as opposed to medium density residential.”
The block was once a scrap yard and was identified as contaminated land and as such was put on the Environmental Management Register. The council spent a considerable amount of money to decontaminate it and the project had been removed from the register, although council’s mapping information did not reflect that. The council had owned the land and had sold it, a decision that Cr McNally said that with hindsight might not have been the best option.
Mayor Cr Vic Pennisi said if the motion lapsed he would take an alternative motion but councillors needed to be aware they could not make a decision based on economic reasons.
The motion did not lapse. The councillors who described themselves as ‘torn’ came down on the side of refusing the application, voting for the motion.
Voting against the motion were Councillors Tancred, Gale and McDonald.
