Item 7.3 - Attachment 3 |
Summary of Submissions
Received |
Summary of Submissions Received
No. |
Author |
Issues Raised |
1 |
Rev. Keith Hamilton |
Request that Council defer
consideration of the draft DCP until early 2010 to enable them the time to
meet with the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor. |
Rev. Kevin Manning Bishop of |
||
Rev Bruce Morrison |
||
2 |
Mr Mikel Aydin |
The draft DCP places
unreasonable financial and logistical constraints on a church which is
growing. Residential zones should
encompass land uses which serve a community purpose such as parks and
churches. The draft DCP should not
apply to industrial, retail and commercial zones. The draft DCP should
clarify that it doesn’t affect the existing use rights of existing places of
public worship. The draft DCP should not
use the term ‘character’ due to its subjective nature. The draft DCP forces
churches to be disconnected with its members. It is unreasonable to apply
the same floor space ratio to churches as would apply to a dwelling in the
residential zone. The figure of 250 people is
arbitrary. What happens during
funerals and other special events? The requirement for a
traffic impact statement is costly and onerous and aims to limit the size of
churches where members can walk to church. The figure of 50 people as
a capacity for extension to a church is arbitrary. How was it arrived at? The requirement for car
parking is unreasonable particularly when schools are not required to provide
car parking for parents. The requirement for an operational
plan of management is unreasonable, particularly in a culturally diverse area
where English may not be the principal language. |
3 |
Rev. Kevin Manning Bishop of |
Council should have
consulted stakeholders prior to the preparation of the draft DCP. The draft DCP does not
acknowledge the contribution that local churches make to the well-being of
the community. The application of Clause
1.3 to existing churches is a diminution of existing use rights. The figure of 250 people is
arbitrary and doesn’t account for special events. The threshold of 50 people
for the submission of a traffic impact statement is arbitrary. The result of the draft DCP
will be to force churches into non-residential areas. The requirement for an
Operational Plan of Management is unreasonable and allows for no flexibility
in terms of timetabling religious services. The requirements for the
preparation of acoustic privacy and traffic, parking and access would be
expensive and beyond the means of non-profit organisations such as churches. |
4 |
Mr Philip Gunning St Pauls Anglican Church |
A blanket restriction
limiting Places of Public Worship to a maximum of 250 people will limit the
financial viability of new churches and force them into areas where land is
cheapest, ie. Residential areas. The draft DCP does not
define the “local community”. However,
in the Land and Limiting places of public
worship to those that serve the local community is a form of discrimination
as a similar restriction does not apply to land uses such as shopping
centres, hotels etc… Design Principle P4 on page
4 states that: “Any new development must predominantly serve the local
community and have a maximum capacity of 250.” This is ambiguous as the DCP states that it
applies to alterations to existing Places of Public Worship as well as new
ones. A size limit of 250 people
is unrealistic as it doesn’t allow for special events such as weddings,
funerals, Christmas and Easter services etc… The DCP should not apply to
places of public worship within schools as they tend to have sufficient
infrastructure to cope with the numbers without impacting on the amenity of
residential areas. |
5 |
Mr Russell Bailey Headmaster |
As the DCP applies to
places of public worship ancillary to an educational establishment, all
non-government schools should have been notified. Local congregations often
attract broader meetings within or across Christian denominations or special
events such as wedding and funerals.
The DCP should not limit activities such as this that promote cohesive
communities. For the last two millennia,
churches have often had congregations of greater than 250 people and Council
should not seek to change the history of the church by limiting the size of
the congregation. The DCP would prevent
schools with more than 250 students from meeting as a school for religious
worship. The maximum limit would
prevent new parishioners from joining a growing church limiting people’s
opportunities to find spiritual sustenance, social support and physical
assistance. |