shoalhaven city council development committee

Business Paper - Development Committee 20 January 2009SHOALHAVEN CITY COUNCIL
D E V E L O P M E N T C O M M I T T E E
To be held on Tuesday, 20th January, 2009 Commencing at the conclusion of the Ordinary Council meeting.
14th January, 2009 Councillors,
NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby requested to attend a meeting of the Development Committee of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven, to be held in Committee Rooms 1, 2 and 3, City Administrative Centre, Bridge Road, Nowra on Tuesday, 20th January, 2009 commencing at the conclusion of the Ordinary Council meeting for consideration of the following business. J Gould Acting General Manager Membership (Quorum – A majority of members) Clr Ward – Chairperson Clr Young Clr Findley Clr Bennett Clr Fergusson Clr Brumerskyj Available Councillors
BUSINESS OF MEETING 1. Apologies 2. REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER Development & Environmental Services Note: The attention of Councillors is drawn to the resolution MIN08.907 which states:
a) That in any circumstances where a DA is called-in by Council for determination, then
as a matter of policy, Council include its reasons for doing so in the resolution. b) That Council adopt as policy, that Councillor voting in Development Committee
meeting be recorded in the minutes. c) That Council adopt as policy that it will record the reasons for decisions involving
applications for significant variations to Council policies, DCP’s or other development standards, whether the decision is either approval of the variation or refusal.
Note: The attention of Councillors is drawn to Section 451 of the Local Government Act and Regulations and Code of Conduct regarding the requirements to declare pecuniary and non- pecuniary Interest in matters before Council.
Cell Phones: Council’s Code of Meeting Practice states that “All cell phones are to be turned off for the duration of the meeting”. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 Chapter 3 Section 8(1) - The Council’s Charter
(1) The council has the following charter:
• to provide directly or on behalf of other levels of government, after due consultation, adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities for the community and to ensure that those services and facilities are managed efficiently and effectively
• to exercise community leadership
• to exercise its functions in a manner that is consistent with and actively promotes the principles of multiculturalism
• to promote and to provide and plan for the needs of children
• to properly manage, develop, protect, restore, enhance and conserve the environment of the area for which it is responsible, in a manner that is consistent with and promotes the principles of ecologically sustainable development
• to have regard to the long term and cumulative effects of its decisions
• to bear in mind that it is the custodian and trustee of public assets and to effectively account for and manage the assets for which it is responsible
• to facilitate the involvement of councillors, members of the public, users of facilities and services and council staff in the development, improvement and co-ordination of local government
• to raise funds for local purposes by the fair imposition of rates, charges and fees, by income earned from investments and, when appropriate, by borrowings and grants
• to keep the local community and the State government (and through it, the wider community) informed about its activities
• to ensure that, in the exercise of its regulatory functions, it acts consistently and without bias, particularly where an activity of the council is affected
• to be a responsible employer.
Development Committee - 20 January 2009 Report - General Manager - Development and Environmental Services Page 1
REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER
TUESDAY, 20 JANUARY 2009 DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1. Development Application for a Subdivision and the construction of a Tourism
Development comprising Six Tourist Cabins, Conference/Common Hall and a Manager's Residence - Lot 1 DP 1031764, 407D Bendeela Road, Kangaroo Valley. Applicant and Owner: Toni and Robert Moran. File DA07/2540 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT: A development application for the establishment of a “Tourism Development” on the subject land was lodged with Council on the 17 September 2007. This application is being reported to Council due to the need for transparency in the assessment and determination process of the proposal by Council as the property is part owned by a member of Council’s Development and Environmental Services staff. The proposed development has also generated considerable interest from the residents of the nearby area of Kangaroo Valley. DETAILS/ISSUE: Background Records indicate that the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board used the subject land as a temporary camp site in the past. More recently, a rural dwelling was approved in October 2002 under DA02/3042 and is currently occupied by the applicant. It is understood that the owners of the subject land (the applicant) intend to live on the tourism development allotment in the manager’s residence to manage the development, including booking, reception and cleaning, and in order to undertake the maintenance of the asset protection zones, bushfire hazard reduction works as required, roads, effluent disposal fields and equipment. The proposed development would require the construction of effluent disposal areas, an access road, parking facilities, carports and an associated asset protection zone. From aerial photographs and the submitted concept plans, it appears that areas of native vegetation would need to be cleared. Based on the submitted information, a Property Vegetation Plan (PVP)/development consent is likely to be required for the clearing of native vegetation to establish the proposed tourist facility. In this regard, the proponent has been advised to contact the
Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority (SRCMA)y to request a PVP or make an application for development approval under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NVA). The Subject Site The subject land is located on the southern side of Bendeela Road at Kangaroo Valley, and east of the Bendeela Pondage. The site has an area of 48.2 hectares, accommodates one rural dwelling house and is largely forested with two types of vegetation communities, including a Scribbly Gum/Bloodwood forest community. The site is bisected by an unnamed creek, resulting in a gorge area at the southern portion of the subject land, which is characterised by rainforest vegetation and low cliffs and rocky outcrops. The northern portion of the site is affected by a high voltage transmission line easement originating at the adjacent Hydro Power Station to the west. The adjoining lands to the east and south of the subject site have been cleared for grazing purposes. The subject site is also subject to a number of physical constraints, including: • The subject land is mapped as being bushfire prone and having Category 1
vegetation;
The topographic map indicates the creek bisecting the property as a permanent water course. This creek provides slopes greater than 18 degrees in the vicinity of the southern boundary of the subject property.
• Vegetation assessment indicates Yellow-bellied Glider habitat on the subject land
and a number of large hollow bearing trees within the development site; and • The habitat on the subject property is suitable for the Leafless Tongue Orchid,
Cryptostylis hunteriana.
# Locality Map is provided as Attachment ‘A’. # Subject Site plan is provided as Attachment ‘B’.
The Proposal The application seeks Council approval for a tourism development comprising six tourist cabins, a common hall and a manager’s residence to be located on an a new allotment created under Clause 11(3) of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 1985 (SLEP 1985). Subsequent to the registration of the two lot Torrens Title subdivision, it is further proposed to subdivide the tourism development under the Community Land Development Act 1989, although this current application does not involve a community title subdivision. The development is proposed to be constructed in stages to permit the release of individual allotments in order to finance the construction of subsequently staged components of the development. It is proposed to commence the construction of the manager’s residence and two cabins and to register the two-lot torrens subdivision so
that the residue allotment containing the existing dwelling house can be sold to finance the construction of the balance of the development. The stages proposed for the development comprise seven (7) stages as follows: Stage I: Construction of the tourist cabins located at Sites 8, 7 and 6 (i.e. three cabins)
and associated access road to those cabins at the northern end of the development site. One of the cabins is to be used as the interim (temporary) manager’s residence;
Stage II: Release of torrens title subdivision and the separate lodgement of a
community title subdivision of the above-mentioned three cabins, and community lot, with a development lot comprising the undeveloped elements of the proposal.
Note: It should be noted that a community title subdivision is not part of this development application. However, it is understood that the applicant intends to submit a future community title application.
Stage III: Construction and completion of the manager’s residence located at Site 1 and
completion of the remainder of access road. Interim (temporary) manager’s residence reverts to a tourist cabin.
Stage IV: Construction of the community hall located at Site No. 2. Stage V: Construction and completion of the tourist cabin located at Site 3. Stage VI: Construction and completion of the tourist cabin located at Site 4. Stage VII: Construction and completion of the tourist cabin located at Site 5.
# Proposed development plan is provided as Attachment ‘C’. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL (ESD) CONSIDERATION: Statutory Considerations and Policy Framework The following list of Environmental Planning Instruments (which include SEPPs, REPs and LEPs), DCP, Codes and Policies are relevant to this application, in respect to the matter of landuse and are discussed individually below: • Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; • Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Section 5A); • Native Vegetation Act 2003; • Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (as required under S5A EP&A Act 1979); • Rural Fires Act 1997; • Illawarra Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 (IREP No.1); • Drinking Water Catchment Regional Environmental Plan; • Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended); • Development Control Plan 18 - Car Parking Code;
• Development Control Plan 63 - Tourist Development in Rural Areas; • Development Control Plan 78 - On-site Sewerage Management; • Development Control Plan 93 - Site Waste Minimisation and Management; • Development Control Plan 100 - Subdivision Code; • Shoalhaven City Accessibility Guidelines Policy; • S.C.C. S94 Contributions Plan 1993. Section 79C Assessment Report (EP&A Act 1979) An assessment of the application against the key Matters for Consideration under Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is provided below: a) Any planning instrument, draft instrument, DCPs and regulations that apply to
the land • Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999
Following consideration of the administrative guidelines for determining significance under the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999, the revised flora & fauna assessment associated with this development application concluded that the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance or commonwealth land and that referral to the Environment Minister is not necessary. Council assessment concurs with this position.
• Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
The land is vegetated and disturbance would occur due to the proposed development. Therefore, in accordance with S5A of the EP&A Act 1979, a flora and fauna assessment has been made to determine the impact of the proposal on threatened species, populations and their habitats or on endangered ecological communities. A full version of the assessment is contained within the Revised Flora and Fauna Assessment prepared by bushfire+environmental Services (BES), which was submitted in support of the application. The BES flora and fauna assessment concludes that there would be no significant impact as a result of the proposed development. The Yellow-bellied Glider habitat is able to be retained on the subject site with a buffer and without disturbance, as are many of the larger hollow bearing trees found within the tourist cabin construction area.
• Native Vegetation Act 2003
The Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NVA) requires approval for the clearing of remnant native vegetation or protected regrowth from the SRCMA. In the Shoalhaven City Council area, this requirement generally applies to land that is zoned Rural (Zone 1), Special Use (Zone 5), Open Space (Zone 6), Environment Protection (Zone 7) and Natural Hazards (Zone 9). Where development consent relates to land in such a zone, the applicant may need to obtain further separate approval from the SRCMA for the clearing of remnant native vegetation or “protected” regrowth.
This development application has been assessed in accordance with the EP&A Act, 1979. The determination of this development application has not involved any assessment of the proposed development in regard to the NVA.
It is the applicant’s responsibility to consult the SRCMA to determine the need or otherwise for their approval under the NVA. The proponent has been advised to contact the SRCMA in this regard.
• Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
Following the application of the assessment of significance as required under Section 5A of the EP&A Act 1979 (mentioned above), the BES Flora and Fauna Assessment goes on to conclude that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant affect on threatened species, populations, ecological communities or their habitats. A Species Impact Statement is, therefore, not required for this proposal. Further, the study area does not contain any core Koala habitat pursuant to the NSW State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection and no endangered populations or endangered ecological communities occur within the area studied. A number of strategies, designed to minimise any potential adverse impacts of the development on the flora and fauna within the study area in general and to minimise the effects on threatened species and their habitats, have been recommended for implementation in the event of approval. Such strategies would be incorporated into the development consent by way of suitable conditions. According to BES, the adverse effects of the proposed development on threatened fauna species are considered to negligible.
• Rural Fires Act 1997
The subject land is shown as being bush fire prone land. Under S100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997, authorisation from the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) is required in respect of bushfire safety of subdivision of land that could be used for residential or rural residential purposes or development of land for “special fire protection purposes”. The application has been referred to the RFS for comment. The applicant has submitted a bushfire protection assessment prepared by BES showing all the asset protection zones within the tourist lot. The RFS advised that the access road servicing the development would need to be constructed and maintained to comply with the requirements of Planning for Bushfire Protection (PfBP) 2006. The development must provide for non-combustible materials to be used in the buildings, including external claddings, colourbond roofing, aluminium windows and concrete slab-on-ground construction. The construction for the tourist cabins would be required to meet Level 1 construction standards in accordance with AS3959. Construction of the games room/activity hall and manager’s residence would need to comply with Australian Standard AS3959- 1999 “Construction of Buildings in Bush Fire-prone Areas” Level 3.
The applicant should be required to implement a Bushfire Emergency Evacuation Management Plan, including the provision of an emergency evacuation route accessing Old Bendeela Road south of the development. Such an emergency evacuation route needs to be constructed in accordance with Section 4.2.7 of PfBP 2006 requirements and to the satisfaction of the Rural Fire Service. It should also require the sealing of any grades greater than 15%.
• Public Roads
In the event of a bushfire emergency, the public roads servicing the subject land (Bendeela Road and Old Bendeela Road) have the capacity to accommodate the increased traffic volumes associated with the development. Subject to conditions imposed by the RFS, the proposed development would not have a significant adverse effect on the implementation of any strategies for bush fire hazard reduction or risk management adopted by the Council.
• Illawarra Regional Environmental Plan No.1
The Illawarra Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 (IREP No.1) applies to the subject land. A series of maps attached to IREP No.1 indicates where specific policy issues apply. In this regard, the following assessment is made in regard to the Rural Land objectives of the IREP No.1. The subject land:
is not located within a wildlife corridor, nor is the land shown as being located
within a nominated wildlife corridor;
does not contain vegetation consistent with remnant rainforest;
there is no extractive resources on the site;
given that appropriate environmental protection measures, as required by the relevant Government authorities and the Council, would be implemented in the development of the tourist facility, it is considered that development of rural lands having regard to bushfire risks, salinisation, soil degradation, erosion and weed infestation would be effectively managed;
the proposed development would allow for the appropriate development of this
relatively small rural holding;
the proposal is unlikely to lead to any increase in the demand for State Government services;
given that the subject land is not located within close proximity of the Kangaroo
Valley village boundary, this proposal is unlikely to compromise any future urban expansion of the Kangaroo Valley village area;
the closest cabin site is located approximately 600 metres south of Bendeela
Road. Given the landscaping required to be implemented, the scenic attributes of the rural area would not be significantly affected by this proposal; and
the proposed tourist development is not of an offensive or hazardous nature that would require siting away from urban areas, although the subject site is suitable for eco tourism given the setting and physical attributes of the land.
• Illawarra Region Landscape and Environmental Study
The Illawarra Region Landscape and Environmental Study (IRLES) was published by the Department of Environment and Planning in August 1981. The IRLES supports IREP No. 1 and provides some recommendations in terms of this site. Under the IRLES, the subject land is identified as land with landscape or environmental attributes. The environmental attributes indicate that the site has a vegetation canopy but that it is not botanically significant. Further, the site does not enjoy high environmental scenic quality attributes, being ranked as III medium, with lower portion of the site ranked as low – II. The proposed development either satisfies or does not compromise the implementation of the relevant objectives of the IREP No. 1.
• Drinking Water Catchments Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 The subject site is located within the area covered by the Drinking Water Catchment Regional Environmental Plan No.1, which requires that a basic Water Cycle Management Study must be carried out to assess the affect of the development on the receiving waters which form part of the catchment controlled by the Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA). The site must be capable of having a sustainable effluent disposal system, with assessment based on the guidelines in “On-site Sewage Management for Single Households” produced by the Department of Local Government and others. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Assessment by Southern Geotechnics Pty Ltd with the application. In its summary, Southern Geotechnics Pty Ltd states that it has “considered the site constraints to effluent disposal in accordance with the guidelines in On-Site Sewage Management for Single Households and has provided recommendations for effluent treatment, siting and size of the disposal areas such that the proposed development should have a neutral or beneficial impact on the receiving waters in the catchment area”. Geotechnical Assessment was referred to the SCA on the 29 October 2007. The applicant subsequently submitted a Water Cycle Management Study prepared by SEEC Morse McVey and dated 29 April 2008, including MUSIC modelling, on the 5 May 2008. The Water Cycle Management Study was referred to the SCA on the 9 May 2008.
• Sydney Catchment Authority
On reviewing both the Geotechnical Assessment and the Water Cycle Management Study, the SCA advised that: “the Chief Executive would concur with Council granting consent to the application, subject to the certain conditions being imposed on the development. In the event of
approval, such conditions of the Sydney Catchment Authority Chief Executive would be imposed on the development”.
• Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 1985
Aims of SLEP 1985 The proposed development SATISFIES the aims of SLEP 1985. The proposed development SATISFIES the relevant objectives of SLEP 1985.
Zoning The subject land is zoned No. 1(d) (Rural “D” (General Rural) Zone). The objectives of the Zone No 1(d) (General Rural) are:
(a) to provide opportunities for a range of rural land uses and other development,
including those which by virtue of their character require siting away from urban areas;
The proposed development is not of such a nature that it would require siting away from urban areas. However, the proposal does take best advantage of the natural attributes of the land and, provided it is carried out sensitively and in accordance with relevant requirements, can be developed without resulting in any adverse or on-going detrimental environmental impacts.
(b) to recognise the potential for high intensity bush fire over wide areas of the zone
and to ensure that development does not lead to significant risks to life or property from bush fire or to the implementation of bush fire mitigation measures which will have a significant environmental impact; and
The site is bushfire prone and the existing rural dwelling house was constructed to Level 1 standard under AS3959 and is provided with an adequate Asset Protection Zone. The proposed Eco-tourism development is a Special Fire Protection Purpose that required a higher level of protection under PfBP 2006. The application states that the proposed development has been designed to provide refuge and defendable space for the eco-tourism cabins which would meet the “deemed-to-satisfy” provisions of the PfBP. The on-going management of the community allotment (future DA) would be undertaken where required to provide hazard reduction and asset protection zone (APZ) maintenance rather than being dependant on individual tourist cabin owners.
(c) to ensure that wherever possible the location, design and management of
development is consistent with:
(i) the protection of important natural and cultural environments;
The proposal would not impinge on any important natural or cultural environment to be found in the locality.
(ii) the conservation of renewable natural resources such as forests and prime crop and pasture land;
The proposal would not have any impact on forestry resources or prime crop and pasture land.
(iii) the maintenance of opportunities for economic development of important
extractive resources;
There are no extractive resources on the site that are likely to be impacted upon by the proposed development.
(iv) minimising conflict between land uses; and
The adjoining land to the east is used for grazing. It is not likely that there would be any conflict with the proposed tourist use of the subject land. Rural ambience is part of the nature of the proposed development and it is what tourists to Kangaroo Valley seek.
(v) any plans for public infrastructure provision or management.
There are no known plans for additional public infrastructure provision or management that may impact on this locality or the subject land.
The proposed development satisfies the 1(d) rural zone objectives. It may be noted that both the proposed tourist facilities and the proposed subdivision are uses that are permissible within the 1(d) zone with the consent of Council.
Subdivision of Land The proposed subdivision is permissible in accordance with Clause 11(3) and 11(3A) of SLEP 1985. The subdivision of land zoned Rural and Environmental Protection is applicable to this proposal which includes a two-lot subdivision under Clauses 11(3) and 11(3A). Should the application be determined by way of approval, the Subdivisions Planner has recommended that the certain conditions should be included in the development consent.
Dwelling House The proposed manager’s residence would be located on an allotment created under Clause 11(3) for the purposes of a tourist facility and there would be no other dwelling for permanent occupation on the created new lot. The manager’s residence would be permissible pursuant to Cl 14 (2A) of SLEP 1985 and would be integral to and essential for the proper and efficient operation of the tourist facility. Protection of Streams A permanent water course, identified on the topographic map, traverses the site from north to south. All development on the subject land is proposed to be located in excess of 40 metres from the bank of the stream. This is designed to provide for a
core riparian zone and associated buffer, along with effluent disposal buffers and APZs. The application is supported by a Geotechnical Assessment and a Water Cycle Management Study that makes recommendations regarding the treatment and disposal of the on-site effluent. It would also be recommended that Soil and Water Management Plan measures be implemented on the site prior to construction works commencing. Given these circumstances, it is considered that the proposal would not be contrary to the underlying objectives of this clause.
Steep Lands Whilst there are areas of the subject land that have slopes in excess of 20% (i.e. 11.3 degrees), there are no proposals to develop or utilise land of that slope, other than for walking trails adjacent to the creek if they can be formalised and the provision of emergency fire evacuation. All APZs are located on land with slopes less than 10 degrees. Soil, Water and Effluent Management The Assessment and Management Study confirm that effluent disposal is capable of being undertaken on the subject land in a manner that would not adversely affect or impact on the local watercourses. The Geotechnical Assessment and the Water Cycle Management Study were both referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer and to the SCA and any requirements in this regard would be imposed on the development. Soil and water management measures, such as the use of filter fences and straw bale bunding, would need to be installed around the downhill perimeter of the construction site to ensure that sediment from the construction area would not enter local watercourses. Danger of Bush Fire Subject to conditions imposed by the RFS, the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on the implementation of any strategies for bush fire hazard reduction or risk management adopted by the Council, nor would the proposal result in a significant decrease in the ability of the emergency services to effectively control major bush fires. Notification of Certain Development This development application has been advertised on four separate occasions in accordance with Council’s Community Consultations Policy. Scenic Preservation Area The subject land is shown hatched on the SLEP 1985 zoning map and is subject to the provisions of Clause 41 in relation to scenic preservation areas. Clearing of vegetation under this clause requires development consent.
The tourist facility development is located with a scenic preservation area. In the event of approval, to maintain the rural amenity of the area in this regard, exterior materials (excluding windows and other glazing) of the tourist facility development should be required to be non-reflective and of a texture and colour which blend with the existing rural surroundings. It is noted that land adjoining the subject property has been extensively cleared for agricultural and grazing purposes. Whilst the visual amenity of the immediate locality has already been significantly affected by past clearing of a number of adjoining and surrounding properties, the use of appropriate external materials and colour on the buildings, together with relevant landscaping measures, would mitigate the visual impact that would be caused by this development.
• Development Control Plan 18 - Car Parking Code
In the event of approval, adequate on-site parking would be provided with the proposed development. Car parking comprises a minimum of 14 constructed on-site car spaces (i.e. 2 spaces per cabin and 2 spaces for the manager’s residence). Such car parking spaces would be constructed to an all-weather gravel standard and be designed and signposted in accordance with the Car Parking Code. It is noted that sufficient space is available adjacent to each tourist cabin to accommodate two car parking spaces.
• Development Control Plan 63 - Tourist Development in Rural Areas
Aims and Objectives The proposed development satisfies the aims and objectives of DCPlan 63 - Tourist Development in Rural Areas. Cumulative Impact and Ecologically Sustainable Development The traffic volumes that are likely to be generated from the proposed development would be within the capacity of the local road network. The effluent that would be generated by the proposal would be treated on the subject site to ensure a neutral impact on water quality. The adverse impacts on the local threatened species would be negligible. Encourage Tourist Facilities with a Range of Supporting Infrastructure The proposed development provides the opportunity for educational and recreational experiences. The community hall/activity building would be made available for additional on-site recreational activities. Provide Opportunities for a Range of Tourist Accommodation in Rural Areas The proposed tourist cabins have been designed to provide a modern form of tourist development. The designs are contemporary and utilise a mix of cladding materials and different but simple roof profiles. The cabins would be oriented to take advantage of solar access and views.
Discourage Permanent Occupation of the Development Approved for Tourism Uses The proposed tourist cabins contain a kitchenette area to permit self catering, but do not contain full laundry facilities (only cupboard laundry areas) in accordance with Council’s policy. Common laundry facilities are provided in the community hall building for use by the guests. Provide for an Acceptable Regime for Different Types of Tourist Accommodation The current land owners intend to manage the tourist facility and live in the Manager’s Residence. They would maintain the future community property, including asset protection areas and other required bushfire hazard management matters. They would also maintain the access road and effluent disposal areas as well as take bookings, e.t.c.. Community Title Subdivision It is proposed to subdivide the development under Community Title (via a future DA), creating community allotments and community property. Density Standards The application seeks approval to initially create a tourist allotment of 22.28ha. Where a manager’s residence is also proposed, the minimum number of tourist cabin cannot be less than five. Stage I of the development must provide for a minimum of three tourist cabins. The proposed staging seeks approval for a minimum of 3 cabins with the manager’s residence occupying the third cabin as part of the first Stage, which is consistent with the requirements of DCP 63. The proposed manager’s residence would be ancillary to the primary use of the land as a tourist facility and complies with the 2.2 Density Standard provisions of DCP 63. Clause 11(3) empowers Council to issue consent for a subdivision of land to which the Clause applies, to create a lot of less than 40 ha if Council is satisfied that the land will be used for the tourist facility before the plan of subdivision is registered. Building Design and Site Layout The proposed tourist cabins would: • have a floor area of less that 120m2 which complies with the floor space
requirement; • have a maximum height of less than 7.5m; • comprise materials sympathetic to the character of the surrounding rural area; • not be located upon a prominent ridgeline or knoll; • be setback a minimum of 30m from property boundaries; • be located within cleared area of the subject land; and • not be provided with domestic laundries within the cabin. Prior to final inspection, it would be necessary for the applicant to submit certification that the dwelling has been constructed in accordance with the submitted BASIX
Certificate and that the materials used in construction comply with the attached schedules of BASIX, Thermal Comfort and Energy commitments. The proposed development complies with the provisions of Clause 2.3 of DCP 63. Management of the Tourist Facility In the event of approval, it would be a condition of development consent that a Property Management Plan be implemented for the development, given the proposal makes provision for a manager’s residence. The subject site enjoys good access to the tourist township of Kangaroo Valley. The proposal makes provision for the ultimate manager’s residence to be constructed as part of Stage III of the development with the initial third cabin then reverting to tourist cabin use. Environmental Considerations The proposed development would not be located on slopes steeper than 20%. Wastewater disposal for the proposed development has been addressed in: • Geotechnical Assessment by Southern Geotechnics Pty Ltd; and • Water Cycle Management Study prepared by SEEC Morse McVey; which were both submitted in support of the development application. These reports demonstrate that the proposal is able to satisfy the requirements of both the SCA and Council’s DCP 78 - On-site Sewerage Management. Flora and Fauna The flora and fauna assessment prepared by BES concludes that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats pursuant to S5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Council’s Threatened Species Officer, concurs with the BES S5A assessment and conclusion of non-significance and has incorporated the BES recommendations within the recommended conditions of consent. Council concurs with the conclusion following a review of the Community Management Statement for the proposal which documents how the philosophy and ongoing management/maintenance of the proposal will ensure the long-term protection of the identified threatened species habitat. Erosion and Sedimentation To minimise the impact of the development on the natural environment, all practical measures must be taken to ensure erosion and subsequent sediment movement off- site does not occur. In the event of approval, the soil erosion and sediment control measures should be implemented in accordance with an approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP). Amenity of the Area - Scenic Impact The proposed tourist cabins would be located between 70 and 130 metres from the eastern boundary of the subject land, with the community hall and manager’s
residence located 50m and 40m from the eastern boundary respectively. The tourist cabins would be located even further from other boundaries. It is noted that there are existing dwellings located to the north approximately half a kilometre from the proposed tourist facility development. The existing dwelling on the subject site would be located well over 200 metres from the proposed tourist cabins. Given these circumstances, the location of the tourist cabins should not adversely impact on the character of the locality or on existing residences. Given that the indigenous vegetation canopy has already been compromised by past farming practices on adjoining and nearby lands, this development should not unreasonably intensify the existing impact to a significant degree. In this regard, provided the conditions relating to tree removal are complied with, the extent of visual impact would be acceptable. It may be noted that the provision of an APZ allows for the retention of certain trees providing the canopies of such trees do not touch or overlap. Traffic Impact It is considered that the local road system would be capable of accommodating the approximate 30.6 vehicles per day that would be generated by this development. It is assumed that the manager’s residence would generate nine (9) vehicle trips per day and that the six tourist cabins would each generate approximately 3.6 vehicle trips per day for a total of 21.6 vehicle trips per day. Council’s Development Engineer has raised no concerns in relation to the above assessment of traffic generation. Landscaping Given the setting of the proposed development, it is considered that only a relatively small amount of landscaping would be required. Such landscaping should incorporate low scale shrubs, paths and driveways, with associated lighting for safe access and egress from the manager’s residence and the tourist cabins.
• Development Control Plan 78 - On-site Sewerage ManagementEffluent Disposal
An “Assessment for On-site Disposal of Effluent” together with a Water Cycle Management Study were referred to SCA and to Council’s Environmental Health Officer.
On reviewing those documents, the SCA responded that they would concur with Council granting consent to the application, subject to the suitable conditions being imposed on the development.
Refer above to Drinking Water Catchments Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 for more detailed assessment of effluent disposal measures.
• Development Control Plan 93 - Waste Minimisation and Management
The proposed development is considered to be a low waste generating development. The majority of the waste would be green waste associated with the removal of vegetation related to the construction of the cabins, manager’s residence, driveway and the provision of an APZ. The remaining waste would be the result of construction which would be disposed of in accordance with the submitted Waste Management Plan.
• Section 94 Contributions Plan 1993
Tourist cabin development generates additional demands on facilities and services such as roads and bushfire. Under these circumstances such developments will be required to make payment of contributions in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plan 1993 (CP).
b) Likely impact of that development on the natural and built environment and
social and economic impacts in the locality. Economic Impact The proposed development would provide economic benefits to the local community by promoting and expanding tourism in the area and by utilising other tourism related businesses in the region. The proposal should have a positive economic impact by facilitating tourist accommodation and by contributing to the tourist industry within the Shoalhaven. Property Values Given the impact of similar developments on adjoining and adjacent properties in the past, the proposed development is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the current property values of the subject land. Noise Machinery noise and limited vibration due to machinery movement may be created during the construction of the access drive and also during the construction of the manager’s residence and cabins. The impacts of this nature would be short-term. Notwithstanding the above criteria, no offensive or unacceptable noise generally should be audible at the boundary of the nearest affected residence at any time in accordance with the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) - Noise Guide for Local Government, the NSW DEC Industrial Noise Policy 1999 and the relevant Noise Control provisions under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. It is considered that the proposed development would not pose an unacceptable risk to the natural or built environment. c) Suitability of the Site for the Development It is considered that, provided the proposed development is achieved in accordance with the submitted plans and Statement of Environmental Effects, and all the conditions of
development consent are complied with, the subject site would be suitable for, and would adequately accommodate the proposed development. d) Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or the regulations. Community Consultation Twenty-four (24) submissions were received as a result of the community consultations process. It may be noted that a number of objectors lodged more than one submission. In this regard, taking into account the multiple submissions, there are nine (9) objections and one letter of support. Public Submissions to be Addressed Based on the number of times certain issues were raised in the submissions, the key main issues as perceived by the interested public are as follows: • Non-compliance with DCP 63; • Non-compliance with DCP 93; • Undesirable Subdivision Precedent; • Inadequate Information; • Asset Protection Zone is Inadequate; • Amended Bushfire Report and Water Study are Inadequate; • Flora and Fauna Assessment is Inadequate; • Exhibition of Incomplete Development Application Information; • Applicant should lodge Community Title Plan; • Seven Dwellings to be Established; • Change from “ECO” Tourism Avoids RFS Requirements; • Emergency Access from Old Bendeela Road; • Water Cycle Management Study - MUSIC; • Visual Analysis; • Spread of Weed and Pests; • Restrictions on Pets; • Erosion Controls; and • Monitoring of the Tourist Facility.
# Refer to Attachment ‘D’ for a detailed summary and assessment of the submissions.
# A number of the issues raise in the submissions led to either an amended design or to addition studies being carried out (i.e. threatened species and effluent disposal). Subsequent assessment and determination confirms that the proposal complies with Council requirements, subject to the conditions contained in Attachment ‘E’. None of the issues raised in the submissions, either singularly or collectively have been deemed to be fatal to the consideration of the application.
e) The public interest It is considered that the imposition of appropriate and relevant conditions on this proposed development would ensure that the public interest would not be compromised. The above assessment addresses the key issues under Section 79C. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: This proposal has no direct financial considerations for Council other than the potential cost of an appeal in relation to Council’s determination. OPTIONS: 1. Refuse the application.
Comment: The Section 79(c) Assessment of the application has not identified any substantive basis to refuse the development application.
2. Approve subject to suitable conditions.
Comment: This option is recommended by staff.
3. Application be determined under delegated authority.
Comment: As outlined in the report, this is not the preferred option as the applicant and owner is a staff member.
CONCLUSION: The development satisfied the definition of a “tourist facility” and, as such, is a use that is permitted with Council consent. In this regard: • The traffic generated is unlikely to impact adversely on the existing ambience and
amenity of the local area. • The proposed use does not constitute an unsuitable type of development on the
subject land provided suitable conditions are imposed. • The subject property is zoned as rural land and does not contain a heritage item and
nor is it located with a heritage conservation area. • Provided suitable conditions were imposed, and the tourist facility was adequately
managed in accordance with such conditions, any impact on the nearby rural dwellings would be negligible.
• Given that the subject land owner is a current member of the Council’s staff, and in
the interests of probity and open administration, it appropriate that the application is determined by Council.
RECOMMENDED that in relation to Development Application DA07/2540 on Lot 1 in DP 1031764, 407D Bendeela Road, Kangaroo Valley the Development Application be determined by the granting of development consent subject to the imposition of suitable conditions contained in Attachment ‘E’ and in accordance with the associated approved plans.
2. Review of Development and Environmental Services Group Policies 2008 - Round
1 File 5226, 8397-02, 5297, 15164, 31533, 23618, 31509, 1422-02, 23139 & 17432 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT: The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s direction on current Development and Environmental Services (DES) Group Policies, as reviewed in this report. Council has a requirement to review all existing policies within twelve (12) months of election. DETAILS/ISSUE: DES Group has forty-eight (48) Development Control Plans (DCP) and Policies that are due for review. Most of these are proposed to be incorporated into the comprehensive single Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2009 (SDCP 2009) (currently being put together by Council’s Strategic Planning Group) and will be concurrently reported to Council when SDCP 2009 is reported in due course.
This first round of DES Group’s reporting on public policy review focuses on ten (10) policies, which are provided in the Councillors Information Folder, namely;
1. Tasman Park Estate (DP 8082) - Building Lines (File 5266, POL8/196)
This Policy applies to the properties of the original DP 8082, known as “Tasman Park Estate” (bounded by The Wool Road, The Basin Road and Island Point Road), zoned Rural 1(d) and Residential 2 (c), as shown edged heavy black in the map following.
1(d) 2(a1)
2(a1) 2(a1)
2( a1
THE WOOL RD THE WOOL RD
ISLAND POINT RD
ISLAND POINT RD
ISLAND POINT RD
ISLAND POINT RD
ISLAND POINT RD
The Policy was originally drafted following Council’s resolution of 3 May 1988 with a minimum front building setback of 30 metres being adopted for all lots within Deposited Plan (DP) 8082, Tasman Park Estate, to reduce the incidence of dust nuisance. Further, on 23 February 2004, Council resolved that for Residential 2(c) zoned lots fronting The Wool Road, St Georges Basin that a 10 metre building line be adopted as an interim measure pending the completion of the Development Control Plan (DCP) process.
A separate Council resolution on the 23 February 2004 reaffirmed the combination of the two (2) resolutions above into the one (1) Policy (currently in force), as an interim measure until such time that DCP 75 could be completed. DCP 75 has not progressed to any draft documentation. The intent of the Tasman Park Estate Policy is to reduce the incidence of dust nuisance associated with dwellings adjacent to unused roads, however, most of the roads bounding the area subject to the Policy have now been sealed including a later subdivision serviced by a cul-de-sac, known as Tasman Park Close. The only remaining properties within the Tasman Park Estate having unsealed road is a stretch of approximately 270m along The Wool Road adjacent to five (5) properties zoned Residential 2(c). DCP 91 - Single Dwelling and Ancillary Structures which was subsequently adopted by Council on 25 June 2007, provides Acceptable Solutions for setback and front building lines for rural residential locations and rural zoned lots and is consistent with setback provisions within DCP100 - Subdivision Code (adopted by Council on 18 December 2001). The acceptable solution for front building lines for rural residential locations and rural zones, within DCP 91 states:
“In rural residential locations and rural zones, for lots up to 4000m2, a minimum front building line of 12.5m is provided, for lots 4000m2 and above, a minimum front building line of 20m is provided, and a front building of 30m for larger than 1ha. The setback to a secondary street frontage is 50% of the required front setback.”
The provisions within DCP 91 effectively supersede the subject Policy and adequately covers the provisions for front building lines for both the area zoned Rural 1(d) and the Residential 2(c) of the Tasman Park Estate policy. Given the adoption of DCP 91, it is recommended that the Policy for Building Lines - Tasman Park Estate (DP 8082) be rescinded.
2. Termite Protection Policy - (File 8397-02, POL08/197)
This Policy was originally adopted in 1995 with subsequent amendments in 1996. The Policy set out criteria for termite protection for new building construction within the Shoalhaven Local Government Area. Requirements for termite protection is already covered in the Building Code of Australia (BCA), furthermore the requirements within this Policy are considered more onerous than those of the BCA. Given the requirements of the BCA are adequate to address this issue, it is recommended that the Termite Protection Policy be rescinded.
3. Determination of Development Applications - Draft Policies and Development
Control Plans (File 5297, POL08/175)
This policy was originally adopted in 1997. The Policy provides that draft Policies and draft Development Control Plans will not be applied in the assessment and determination of development applications. Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP & A) Act 1979 already provides that the consent authority take into consideration matters that are of relevance to a Development Application (DA), among others, any environmental planning instrument (Local Environmental Plans (LEP), State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP) and Regional Environmental Plans (REP)), any draft environmental planning instrument and any adopted DCP that apply to the land subject of the DA. While the intention of the Policy is understandable, it is adequately addressed through the provisions of Section 79(c) and to this extent could be misleading for DA applicants or the community because the Policy implies that Council has the discretion to consider a draft DCP or policy. It is recommended that the Policy for Development Applications - Determination - Draft Policies and Development Control Plans be rescinded.
4. Dual Occupancy Development - Subdivision Restriction (File 15164, POL08/176)
This Policy was originally introduced as an interim policy statement as a result of Council resolution in March 2005 following the repeal of SEPP No 25 - Residential Allotment Sizes - Dual Occupancy Subdivision in 1997. This Policy articulates Council’s position on dual occupancy developments. Specifically, this Policy provides that dual occupancy applications be assessed under the provisions of DCP 57 and that Council not support any variation to the Subdivision Code to allow the subdivision of dual occupancy development. Planning Policy No 5 currently provides for subdivision of Dual Occupancy in certain situations, this policy is inconsistent with the subject policy. Note that work is also currently being undertaken to review DCPs 57 (Dual Occupancy) and 100 (Subdivision). In that regard, it is recommended that this Policy be rescinded.
5. Crematoriums in Funeral Parlours (File 31533, POL08/172)
This Policy was first introduced in 1990 to articulate that a crematorium is not ancillary or an integral part of a funeral parlour and as such if a crematorium is proposed then a DA for the specific purpose is required to be lodged and assessed accordingly. At present there are four (4) funeral parlours in the Shoalhaven LGA, two (2) of which are located within Business 3(b) - Transitional Zone, one (1) on Business 3(d) - Commercial Zone and the other on Residential 2(a1) - Residential A1 Zone, under the current Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (SLEP) 1985. Council’s draft SLEP 2009 (which at this time, is with the Department of Planning awaiting a certificate for public exhibition), has in accordance with the standard LEP template, proposed a “B3 Commercial Core” zone for the three (3) funeral parlours currently within Business zones and an “R2 Low Density Residential” zone for the funeral parlour currently in a Residential zone (its land use will rely on existing use rights). Under draft SLEP 2009, a number of zones are proposed to allow permissibility of funeral parlours and/ or crematorium with consent. The intention is that crematoriums are deemed to be better suited within zones away from residential areas and are better suited on industrial and rural zoned lands that are not heavily populated. A simple matrix illustrating this is provided in the following table:
Proposed Zones under Draft SLEP 2009
Permissible with Consent
Funeral parlours
-
Crematorium
Zone B2 Local Centre Funeral chapels, Funeral homes
Crematorium
Crematorium
-
-
-
Zone IN1 General Industrial Crematoria Funeral chapels, Funeral homes
Given that the subject Policy is consistent with the proposed permissibility with consent of funeral parlours and crematoriums under the Draft SLEP 2009, it is recommended that this Policy be reaffirmed until such time that SLEP 2009 is gazetted (as currently drafted), upon which the Policy should automatically be rescinded.
6. Fees - Waiving of Development Application and Other Fees for Charitable
Organisations and Community Groups (File 23618, POL08/178)
This Policy has been in place for a number of years. The Policy aims to exempt certain organisations from the payment of fees associated with DA and provides certain criteria for the exemption. Through this policy review process, it is recommended that this Policy be reaffirmed subject to minor changes being made to its “Purpose”, which does not change the intent of the Policy but rather makes for greater clarification: • Replace the contents of Clause 1 - Purpose - with:
“This policy exempts certain organisations from the payment of fees associated with Development Applications subject to certain exemption criteria.”
7. Private Burial Grounds (File 31509, POL08/189)
This Policy originated from a Council resolution in 1997. The Policy provides criteria which allows for private burial grounds on private lands in the Shoalhaven. It is recommended that the Policy be reaffirmed.
8. Verons Estate - Sussex Inlet (File 1422-03 , POL08/198)
This Policy originated from a Council resolution in 1999. The Policy aims to permit low- scale, non-residential development that is ancillary to the rural use of properties pending resolution of zoning and road construction issues at the Verons Estate, Sussex Inlet. It is recommended that the Policy be reaffirmed subject to two (2) updates being made, as follows:
• update Clause 3.3 to be consistent with legislation; i.e. 8-part test should now read 7-
part test in accordance with Section 5A of the EP & A Act 1979; and
• delete Clause 3.7 given that Council had resolved in part on 20 September 2005 that
it acknowledges that the roads within the Verons Estate at Sussex Inlet constituted in DP 9897 are public roads (Min05.1251)1
9. Companion Animals (Impacts on Native Fauna) - Conditions of Development
Consent (File 23139, POL08/188)
This Policy originated from a Council resolution in 2005. The Policy provides protection of native fauna in areas of sensitive environmental locations whilst respecting the rights of civil liberties of those in the community who find health benefits and comfort in the responsible caring of companion animals. It is recommended that the Policy be reaffirmed.
10. Parking of Caravans for Commercial or Community Activities - (File 17432,
POL08/187)
This Policy originated from a Council resolution in 1996. The Policy provides guidelines on the parking of caravans (and similar types of vehicles) on public roads for the purposes of carrying out commercial and community activities. It is recommended that the Policy be reaffirmed.
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL &ENVIRONMENTAL (ESD) CONSIDERATION: ESD considerations are addressed within each individual policy document. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Not applicable in the context of this report OPTIONS: Council may: 1) Resolve to adopt the recommendation(s) in the report; 2) Resolve to make amendments to individual policies and specify such amendments;
or
3) Resolve to require a further report or briefing on all or particular policies.
RECOMMENDED that in accordance with this report:
a) Council rescind the following policies:
• Tasman Park Estate (DP 8082) - Building Lines (File 5266, POL8/196); • Termite Protection Policy - (File 8397-02, POL08/197); • Determination of Development Applications - Draft Policies and
Development Control Plans (File 5297, POL08/175); and • Dual Occupancy Development - Subdivision Restriction (File 15164,
POL08/176).
b) Council reaffirm the following policies, subject to certain minor updates being made for consistency purposes (as attached), as described in this report :
• Fees - Waiving of Development Application and Other Fees for Charitable Organisations and Community Groups (File 23618, POL08/178); and
• Verons Estate - Sussex Inlet (File 1422-03 , POL08/198).
c) Council reaffirm the Crematoriums in Funeral Parlours Policy (File 31533, POL08/172) until such time that SLEP 2009 is gazetted, upon which this policy will be automatically rescinded; and
d) Council reaffirm the following policies:
• Private Burial Grounds (File 31509, POL08/189); • Companion Animals (Impacts on Native Fauna) - Conditions of
Development Consent (File 23139, POL08/188); and • Parking of Caravans for Commercial or Community Activities - (File
17432, POL08/187). Tim Fletcher DIRECTOR, DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES John Gould ACTING GENERAL MANAGER
Notice of Meeting
Development and Environmental Services
1. Development Application for a Subdivision and the construction of a Tourism Development comprising Six Tourist Cabins, Conference/Common Hall and a Manager's Residence - Lot 1 DP 1031764, 407D Bendeela Road, Kangaroo Valley. Applicant and Owner: Toni and Robert Moran. File DA07/2540

shoalhaven city council development committee

Documents