September 12, 2017 Staff Report recommends refusal of ClubLink’s Glen Abbey applications

September 12, 2017 Staff Report
September 12, 2017 Staff Report recommends refusal of ClubLink’s Glen Abbey applications
Find Oakville's Cheapest Gas
Advertisement

About the Author

Nolan A Machan

Nolan A Machan

Nolan Machan is the Publisher of OakvilleNews.Org and has over 41 years of local Oakville knowledge. He is committed to providing Oakville residents with the most up-to-date information about our great town.

Latest posts (See all)

Advertisement

A planning services September 12, 2017 Staff Report  recommends that the town refuse the ClubLink applications for the redevelopment of the Glen Abbey Golf Course. 

On September 26, 2017, Oakville town council will decide on that redevelopment application by ClubLink at a Special Planning and Development Meeting to be held at Town Hall starting at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber.

On August 21, 2017 the town approved a notice to designate Glen Abbey as a Cultural Heritage Landscape.

September 12, 2017 Staff Report of Conclusion

In summary, staff’s analysis of the applications concluded the following:

  • the applications engage several matters that are fundamental to the Ontario policy-led land use planning and decision making system process, including:

a) the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources;

b) achieving intensification and redevelopment by planning for growth in a coordinated and comprehensive manner;

Advertisement

c) directing growth to planned strategic growth areas that will be supported by infrastructure investments, including transit;

d) planning for growth to make effective and efficient use of infrastructure, and to increase the use of transit; and

e) maintaining the character of existing communities – while intensification generally and development in the built-up area are important objectives, they must be balanced against other important Provincial, Regional and Town objectives based on comprehensive and strategic planning;

  • the development proposed by the applications would have the effect of removing a significant designed cultural heritage landscape, and replacing it with urban development, thereby failing to conserve a significant cultural heritage landscape, having cultural heritage value and significance according to Provincial criteria, in contravention the cultural heritage resource policies of the PPS (2014), Growth Plan (2017), Halton Plan and the Livable Oakville Plan;
  • the applications propose development commensurate to a new unplanned Growth Area (within the Livable Oakville policy context), Intensification Area (within the Halton OP policy context), and strategic growth area (within the Provincial Growth Plan (2017) policy context), considering the development’s area, proposed population, density, built form and building heights;
  • the creation of a new strategic growth area outside of a municipal comprehensive review does not conform to policies of the Growth Plan (2017).
  • the Region has confirmed that the applications do not conform with the Halton Region Official Plan.
  • the applications propose development commensurate to a new unplanned strategic growth area in a location that is not served by any existing or planned level of transit service that would attract a mode share of transit beyond existing trends, contrary to Provincial, Regional and Town policy;
  • the applications are inconsistent with the town’s policy framework in the Livable Oakville Plan that establishes where and how the town will accommodate growth;
  • the town has confirmed through its Urban Structure Review where and how the town will accommodate future growth to achieve its intensification target to 2031, and its estimated population and employment forecast to 2041;
  • the town’s Urban Structure Review also determined that the subject lands are not an appropriate location for the creation of a new growth area, given the absence of existing or planning transit service that would support the creation of a new node;
  • the proposed development could direct a significant proportion of growth from existing or planned higher-order transit which would be contrary to an established principle of the Growth Plan (2017) of coordinating transit infrastructure with growth management by directing growth to areas with
    existing or planned higher-order / frequent transit;
  • the applications represent a substantial deviation from the approved and inforce growth management strategy of the Livable Oakville Plan that could undermine the Town’s urban structure by redirecting growth from identified nodes and corridors, delaying timely development which would result in the ineffective and inefficient use of existing and planned investment.
  • the development proposed by the applications would fail to preserve the character of the area, by removing a significant cultural heritage resource which helps define the character of the surrounding area, and the town, and fosters a sense of place;
  • the development as proposed is not consistent with / does not conform to Provincial, Regional and Town policy requirements regarding protection of the natural heritage system; and,
  • the technical review and peer review generally found that many of the reports and studies submitted in support of the applications contained technical deficiencies that did not fully demonstrate conformity with the Provincial, Regional and/or local policies or practice.

Considering all of the foregoing, staff are of the view that the applications do not represent good planning and are not consistent or in conformity with applicable Provincial, Regional and Town policy, and that approval of the applications would not be in the public interest. Accordingly, staff recommend that the applications be refused.

The full September 12, 2017 Staff Report is available online. It is item 3 of the agenda, and reports will be shown on the right hand side once the link is clicked. 

Advertisement

Tags:

, , , ,


Readers Comments (0)




Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

%d bloggers like this: