to: development assessment panel henley …€¦ · to: development assessment panel from: ... ms...

City of Charles Sturt DAP Report 21/12/16

TO: Development Assessment Panel

FROM: Manager Planning and Development

DATE: 21 December 2016

HENLEY WARD

ITEM 3.69 73 EAST TERRACE HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Applicant Teistra Corporation Ltd

Development Application No 252/0917/16

Proposal Telecommunication facility comprising 35 metre high monopole.

Owner of land Telstra Corporation Ltd

Zone Residential Character Zone

Precinct 79 Henley Beach

Form of assessment Merit

Public notification category Category 3 Public Notice

Representations 48 representation received, 16 to be heard:

Representors to be Heard:

The Hon. Paul Caica MP - 318 Seaview Road, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mrs Anita F White - 58 Main Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Ms Anne M Dohnt - 2 Clarence Street, HENLEY

BEACH SA 5022 (Authorises Anita White to speak on her behalf)BEACH SA 5022

Western Adelaide Coastal Residents C/- Mr Jim Douglas - P0 Box 72, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Ms Angela M Vaughan - 2 York Street, HENLEY

BEACH SA 5022 (Authorises Western

Adelaide Coastal Residents Association to

speak on her behalf)

Mr John C Steer - 13 Main Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mrs Suzanne Bromley - 71 East Terrace,

HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mrs Margaret Wilms - 2/14 Durham Street,

HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 (Authorises Sue Bromley to speak on her behalf)

City of Charles Sturt DAP Report 21/12/16

Mr Kelvin S and Mrs Heather Brown - 106 East

Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mrs Cathryn L Schumacher - 14 York Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mr David M Eblen - 120 North Street, HENLEY

BEACH SA 5022

Mr John and Mrs Heather Flanagan —69 East

Terrace, HENLEY BEACH 5022 (Authorise David

Eblem to speak of their behalf)

Mr Timothy A Cavanagh - 77 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mrs Kayelene F Erskine - 1 Durham Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mr James and Jennifer Hall - 61 East Terrace,

HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Ms Jane MacArthur - 18 Durham Street, HENLEY BEACH, 5022

Mr Derek Murray - 2 Raymond Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mr Patrick F Stewart - 17 Malurus Avenue, LOCKLEYS SA 5032

Mark Baade, will appear on behalf of the applicant.

Agency consultations Nil

Author John Tarasiuk - Development Officer Senior Planner

Attachments Development Plan provisions table

Application documents

C. Representations/Applica nts response

Heritage Advisors Comments

Notification map

Development Plan 5 November 2015

Recommendation Approval with Conditions

City of Charles Sturt 3. DAP Report 21/12/16

Report

Background

The proposed telecommunications tower seeks to replace an existing facility currently located on the roof top of an apartment building at 358-362 Seaview Road, Henley Beach.

Due to the age of the facility and the poor condition of the facility (due to its coastal

location), the facility is in need of replacement. Furthermore, the recent construction of the

four storey apartment buildings to the south is blocking signal to various locations and

therefore, the current site is no longer acceptable for the facility.

Telstra have investigated several alternative locations prior to the current site being chosen

for the new facility. In August 2015, Telstra representatives approached Council exploring

the possibility of leasing a portion of land for the construction of a telecommunications facility on two Council-owned properties. The sites included the Henley library at 378

Seaview Road and the Council depot at 216-218 Military Road, Henley Beach. The two sites

identified have been listed by Council as future development or sales sites and hence were not offered to Telstra for the potential construction of a Telecommunications facility. Whilst

these sites were not available for Telstra's use, the Council depot site, which is located to

the western end of Durham Street, is also located within the Residential Character Zone.

Unlike the subject site at 73 East Terrace, the existing buildings on the depot site are located

to the rear of the allotment and therefor do not provide any visual screening to the tower when viewed from the street. The Henley Library was investigated by Telstra, however, this

site is located within a Residential Zone. Whilst a tower structure could be positioned to the

rear of the building, the structure has similar impacts to that of the proposed tower location at East Terrace. However, the library location does not offer the camouflage provided by the established Norfolk Island Pines.

Whilst Council is not objecting in principle to the possibility of erecting telecommunications

on Council land, Councils 'Telecommunications and Electricity Infrastructure on Council Land

Policy' requires a public consultation process to be undertaken, to simply entertain the idea

of such a facility to be proposed on the site. The consultation area would extend to radius of

300 metres surrounding the subject site. Under the current policy should the community not

be supporting of a telecommunication facility on Council land, the proposal would not be

further considered by Council. As such Telstra did not wish to further explore these sites.

The carpark to the rear of the Ramsgate was investigated by Telstra as a possible location for

the telecommunications facility. The site was not considered for the following reasons:

• The site is listed as being State Heritage item.

• The tower facility would reduce existing number of parking spaces,

• The owner of the site would not enter into an agreement to lease the site to Télstra.

The Uniting Church located at 214 Military Road, Henley Beach was also investigated by

Telstra as a possible location for the telecommunications facility. The site was not

considered for the following reasons:

• The site is listed as being State Heritage,

• Concerns raised by the church and likely community issues, made the site unavailable.


After the category 3 public notification period, the applicant requested Council put the

application on hold whilst the Henley football oval was investigated as a possible alternative

site for the tower construction. Telstra explored the possibility of replacing an existing light

tower with the Telecommunications facility. Henley Oval was regarded as a more desirable

option as there would be a greater separation from the existing dwellings as well as allowing

for easier construction and maintenance for Telstra. After a lengthy investigation, Henley

Oval was rejected as a possible alternative site as it could not meet the technical objectives

required for a facility, primarily due to the extra distance from Henley Square and the

existing Telecommunications facility.

Whilst it is acknowledged by the applicant that the subject site at 73 East Terrace is not

Telstra's ideal choice for the towers location, the applicant has demonstrated the

investigation into all other possible locations, with the subject site being the most feasible

option available to provide a high quality service to Telstra customers, whilst minimising the

visual impact to residents in the locality.

The ERD and Supreme Courts have considered a number of matters similar to the subject

application. The Courts generally assess:

• The difficulties and complexities of site selection

• Whether the applicant had taken sufficient steps to secure a location that minimises

visual impact

• If the development is acceptable in visual terms in the desired location. The

judgements have determined the question of need to be weighed against the effect

on visual amenity in the assessment of the application.

A similar proposal for a 35 metre high telecommunications tower located at Sellicks Beach in

the City of Onkaparinga, was refused by the DAP and appealed by Telstra to the ERD Court in

2013. The tower was proposed to the rear of a group of shops which are located in a

residential zone.

MAN

7

VE

If

I ,,;/;7 .:ö1

gi

/ Anal View: Google Maps 2016 - Monopole structure located to the north-east corner of the shops


.-

!

Gig'" ..

Street View: Google Maps 2016 - Monopole structure viewed from Butterworth Road

The ERD Court reversed Council's decision and granted Development Plan Consent. The

decision had regard to:

• The demand and need for such a facility,

• The visual impact to the character of the localised environment,

• Whether alternative sites and locations explored,

• Whether the proposed development sufficiently meets the Development Plan as a

whole.

The proposed telecommunications facility was not considered to be seriously at variance

with the Development Plan and was subsequently approved.

An application for a 33 metre high telecommunication tower located at 148-150 Grange

Road, Flinders Park (refer to Development Application 252/2679/11) was approved by The

City of Charles Sturt DAP in September 2012. Whilst the site is located within the Mixed Use

Zone, the 33 metre high monopole structure was proposed to be located 1.2 metres from

the Residential Zone boundary. The adjoining residents appealed Councils decision to the

ERD Court.


-

I lRJ !

' •' 41 -. .

* --- _

:4__.

.-, SKI ' ,

.-

!jT& I Anal Photo: Approved tower location at the rear of 148-150 Grange Road Flinders Park

The ERD Court dismissed the residents appeal. The made the following conclusions in the judgement:

I am satisfied that the proposed facility is required to meet the needs of the community for telecommunications services. I am further satisfied that the Mixed Use Zone is an appropriate zone for such a facility and that the location for the proposed facility in this Zone is preferable to a location within the Residential Zone. I acknowledge that the site selected is very close to the Residential Zone boundary. but I accept the evidence, largely unchallenged by the Appellant, that there is no available alternative site which is suitable from a radio engineering perspective.

Given the required height of the proposed monopole and its associated antennae, it will inevitably be visibly intrusive and is likely to impact adversely on the amenity of the Appellant's properties and of the locality more generally. However, I am satisfied that some visual impact is unavoidable and that, in the design of the proposed facility, all that is possible has been done to minimise this impact.

Overall, therefore, I am satisfied that the proposed development is sufficiently in accord with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan to merit consent. I intend, therefore, to dismiss the appeal and to affirm the decision of the Council.


The Courts have considered a number of matters similar to the subject application. The

issues that are generally considered by the Courts include:

• Difficulties and complexities of site selection,

• whether the applicant had taken sufficient steps to secure a location that minimises

visual impact,

• Is the structure visually acceptable in the desired location,

• Whether the facility is a required need to serve the community.

The assessment of the proposed telecommunications facility takes into consideration

previous ERD and Supreme judgement of similar facilities.

Proposal

The application seeks to propose a Telstra communications facility comprising a 35 metre

high freestanding monopole to be located at the Telstra Exchange site at 73 East Terrace,

Henley Beach.

The tower is proposed to replace an existing telecommunication facility located on the roof

of an existing apartment building located at 358-362 Seaview Road, Henley Beach.

The proposal will comprise of six panel antennas and remote radio units to be mounted on

the top of the monopole.

Base station equipment will be located in the existing exchange building.

Site/Locality

The subject site is a corner allotment located to the south-western side of East Terrace and

Durham Street. The land is relatively flat with an area of approximately 1777m2 and 51

metre frontage to Durham Street and 31 metre frontage to East Terrace. The site has rear

access to a laneway.

The land comprises of an existing Telstra exchange building located on Durham Street and

East Terrace road boundaries. The land to the rear of the building is used as a service yard

and for storage purposes.

The site is located within the Residential Character Zone, Precinct 79 Henley Beach and the

existing building is listed as a contributory item in the Development Plan.

The locality is predominantly residential, typically comprising of low density single storey

dwellings.

Non-residential land uses include the Henley Bowling Club to the eastern side of East

Terrace, a state heritage listed Uniting church to the south-eastern corner of Military Road

and Durham Street and a Council depot to the north-eastern corner of Military Road and

Durham Street. Henley Square is located approximately 300 metres to the south-west.

City of Charles Sturt 8. DAP Report 2 1/12/16

.--j- I'

____ 5r

Awr - - -.. -',.

Site Photo: . j.- . . .

__ JI

Site Photo: Norfolk Island Pines lining East Terrace looking south

City of Charles Sturt 9. DAP Report 2 1/12/16

Site Photo: Residential dwellings adjacent the subject site

Site Photo: Henley Bowling Club adjacent the subject site

Is

a


Site Photo: view southwest from adjacent the subject site

Site Photo: Looking west on Durham Street


Site Photo: Looking east on Clarence Street

u1

\

1:

: •

.

•1

NC12S

'41E T Also:122 Military Road, Henley Beach South and 31 Mitton Avenue, Henley Beach

1. - • $! i I

• '

1s1. 'L • - ..: -

- -._a•.

- -' . .• 'I.. •

.

fb-

OW

1

4 I

AL

r


Site and Locality Plan

O Subject Site shown in blue, Locality in red and

Representors property indicated by a red

dot.


Summary of Representations and Applicants Response

Representations

The proposal underwent the Category 3 Public Notification process from which the following representations were received:

Representors to be heard:

The Hon. Paul Caica MP - 318 Seaview Road, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mrs Anita F White - 58 Main Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Ms Anne M Dohnt - 2 Clarence Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 (Authorises Anita

White to speak on her behalf)

Western Adelaide Coastal Residents Cl- Mr Jim Douglas - PC Box 72, HENLEY BEACH

SA 5022 Ms Angela M Vaughan - 2 York Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 (Authorises Western

Adelaide Coastal Residents Association to speak on her behalf) Mr John C Steer - 13 Main Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 Mrs Suzanne Bromley - 71 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 Mrs Margaret Wilms - 2/14 Durham Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 (Authorises Sue

Bromley to speak on her behalf)

Mr Kelvin S and Mrs Heather Brown - 106 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mrs Cathryn L Schumacher - 14 York Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mr David M Eblen - 120 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mr John and Mrs Heather Flanagan - 69 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH 5022 (Authorises

David Eblem to speak of their behalf) Mr Timothy A Cavanagh - 77 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 Mrs Kayelene F Erskine - 1 Durham Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 Mr James and Jennifer Hall - 61 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 Ms Jane MacArthur - 18 Durham Street, HENLEY BEACH, 5022

Mr Derek Murray - 2 Raymond Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 Mr Patrick F Stewart - 17 Malurus Avenue, LOCKLEYS SA 5032

Representors Not to be Heard

Mr Gregory S Smith - 65 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Lara E Hollamby - 132 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mr Henry Rzemieniuk - 116 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Ms Anne L Travers - 118 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mr Stephen S G Spencer - 114 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mr Joseph Marafioti -91 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 Ms Anna Mattiazzo - 122 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mr Andrew Tols - 122 Military Road, HENLEY BEACH SOUTH SA 5022 Mrs Helena A M Saunders - 112 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 Mr Alexander Marton - 108 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 Mrs Anne M Frey - 110 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

George Spazzapan - 80A East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Dr Kylie M Stanton - 134 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022


Dr Catriona E Balfour - 134 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Ms Debra F Hoey - 5 York Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Ms Meredith Hemsley - 102 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mrs Frances D Brooks - 67 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Ms Effie Anargyros - 73 White Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Ms Jane E Leonard - 31 Mitton Avenue, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mr Simon R Holmes - 130 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Ms Leanne N Gelly - 84 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mrs Judy I Duff - 10 Durham Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Ms Renae Weir - 6 Chambers Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Ms Kathy D West - 92 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mr Ian H Lovell - 9 Durham Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mr Brenton W Byers - 98 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mrs Natalie I Murray - 2 Raymond Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mr Neil R Barratt - 108 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 Ms Kenzie J Van Den Nieuwelaar - 3 York Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Mr Mark Ridgway - 8 Clarence Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022

Category 3 public notification provides representors with a right of appeal to the Environment Resources and Development Court should they be aggrieved by the decision of

Council.

Copies of the representations and the applicant's response are attached (Attachment Q.

The following is a summary of the representations and the applicant's response.

Representors issue Applicant's response

Locating the tower in another location. e.g. The subject site is not the preferred choice

Henley Square, Henley Football Oval, (as outlined in the full response in

Attachment C). A lack of alternative

options available to Telstra that also meet

the technical requirements needed for the

tower has resulted in the proposed

location. The proposed tower is to replace

an existing facility located at 362 Seaview

Road, and is Telstra's strong preference to

have a facility closer to Henley Square

where most of the demand will be

required.

The tower will detrimentally affect the The locality compromises a number of non- amenity of the locality. Tower is residential land uses. Tall pine trees

considerably higher than the existing dominate the locality and will have a strong

Norfolk Island Pines and existing dwellings impact on mitigating the visual impact of

in the locality, the tower. To further reduce impact the

headframe to the top of the monopole has

been redesigned by reducing the size and the amount of equipment present. It is



acknowledged that there will be some visual impact, the Development Plan seeks

to minimise detrimental impact from such

facilities.

Not consistent with the Desired Character The desired character statement reinforces

of the Zone. the existing pattern of the residential character of the locality. The elements as

specified in the desired character

statement will not be directly affected by

the proposed facility.

Electro Magnetic Energy (EME) Radiation The EME levels emitted are very low and in

and associated health risks, the case of the subject proposal, are

estimated to be, as a maximum, 0.88% of

the exposure limits mandated by the

Australian Communications & Media

Authority (ACMA). It is important to note that in terms of the standard, the proximity

of the proposed facility is a completely

irrelevant consideration, as it is only the

level of exposure at a particular location

that is of interest - which in this case is

easily below the standard by many

hundreds of times.

A copy of the EME prediction for the

proposal has been provided to Council as

part of the original lodgement

documentation.

Loss of property values to the dwellings in There are almost 20,000 mobile

the locality, telecommunications facilities installed

across Australia. Telstra and S K Planning are not aware of any credible evidence that

the installation of these facilities has had

any adverse impact upon property values.

Incorrect classification of the development Application properly deemed to be

by Council. Should be defined as a 'public category 3 by Council.

service depot' which is non-complying in

the Development Plan.



Limited notification by Council. Should have To my knowledge, Council has properly

extended further to all areas of high discharged the requirements for category 3

visibility and where Electro Magnetic public notification and there is nothing that

Energy (EME) is projected to be at would make me suspect there has been any

maximum levels approximately 160m from deficiency in this process. in fact, given 48

the tower. representations were received this would

indicate the public, particularly those

around the Exchange land, were sufficiently

aware of the proposal.

In any event, this is a matter for Council and any further issues or concerns arising from the public notification process should

be directed to Council.

Officer's response

Whilst is acknowledged that the telecommunications facility will be a prominent visual structure, it must be acknowledged that telecommunication facilities are a necessity to

provide the needs of the local community. The applicant has acknowledged that the

subject site is not the ideal choice and therefore investigated alternative sites to no avail.

Given that the tower will be located behind an existing building, the structure will be

partially screened when viewed from the street. The prominence of the existing Norfolk

Island Pines will aid in concealing the structure in the wider locality.

For these reasons the location of the proposed facility is not considered to be

unreasonable.

Internal Consultation

Department/Staff Response

Pippa Buckberry - The proposed development of a 35m mobile phone tower does

Flightpath Architects not easily respond to the objectives and principles for the

Consulting Heritage Historic Conservation Area and Residential Character Zone,

Advisors which are primarily concerned with the development comprising

new housing and associated structures.

However, there are two aspects which I believe are particularly

relevant in assessing the proposed development from a heritage

perspective, which is essentially concerned with maintaining the

character of the streetscapes within the zones identified.

1. Provisions which relate to advertising signage (being a type of

development most similar to the proposed mobile phone tower)


Department/Staff Response

Principle of Development Control: 2

Advertisements and/or advertising hoardings associated with

culturally significant places and areas should:

be of a size, colour, shape and materials that enhances the

character of the locality

not dominate or cause detraction from the prominence of

any place and/or area of historic significance.

2. The dominant characteristics of the locality, in particular "The

presence of mature Norfolk Island pines along most of East

Terrace contributes to the streetscape."

The Norfolk Island Pines are identified as one of the most defining characteristics within the streetscape of East Terrace

and surrounds and given their quantity, locations, height and

shape, they actually help to conceal the proposed development

from many views within the streetscape.

While there is no doubt tKat the proposed structure will be an

obvious new addition, the photo montages provided

demonstrate that the structure will be no more dominating visually than existing stobie poles, power lines and street lights.

In summary, an alternate location would most certainly be the best outcome with respect to minimising impacts on the

streetscape character. However in the event that an alternative

location cannot be established, the presence of many other

elements of a similar height (including Norfolk Island Pines,

stobie poles and lighting) mean that the proposed mobile phone tower is not considered to fundamentally detract from the

streetscape character of the precinct.

Development Assessment

The proposal is neither a complying nor non-complying form of development and must be

considered on its merits against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. The

Development Act 1993 provides that a Planning Authority is to have regard to the relevant

provisions of the Development Plan in assessing development proposals.

Attachment A contains a comprehensive list of all Development Plan provisions considered

relevant to the proposal. A comprehensive assessment against the relevant provisions of

the Development Plan has been undertaken within Attachment A. Where compliance with

a particular Development Plan provision requires further discussion, it has been outlined in

further detail below.


Desired Character/Land Use

The Desired Character Statement for the Residential Character Zone seeks to embrace the

historic residential character with a high level of amenity that produces safe, convenient and

distinctive living environments for all residents, along with local community facilities that

complement the living environment.

The primary objective of the Residential Character Zone seeks to conserve the residential

character of the locality with the desired character statement being fairly silent on

telecommunication type facilities. Whilst the Zone does not envisage such facilities, the

tower is proposed to be located on an existing lelstra telephone exchange which has

occupied the site for a number of decades.

Residential Character Zone, Objective 1 seeks the preservation of the existing development patterns and built form. Whilst the telecommunications facility is not listed as being

envisaged within the Zone, the proposed development does not seek to demolish any

existing contributory listed buildings. The structure is to be constructed to the rear of the

existing contributory listed building, and whilst it will be seen from the street and within the

locality, it will not significantly diminish the existing heritage character of the locality.

General Section, Telecommunications Facilities Objective 1 seeks telecommunications

facilities to be provided to meet the needs of the community. The applicant has stated that due to the poor condition of the existing facility which is currently located on Seaview Road

and the construction of the new apartment buildings to the south of the site a new facility is

required to be constructed in a different location to serve the needs of the local area. General Section, Telecommunication Facilities, Principle of Development Control 1 part (d) requires telecommunications facilities to be primarily located in industrial and commercial

zones. Whilst the existing commercial site is located within a residential zone,

Telecommunications Facilities, Principle of Development 3 allows for telecommunications

facilities to be located within residential zones only if sited and designed to minimise visual

impact by using existing buildings and vegetation for screening and taking into account the

size, scale, context and characteristics of existing structures, landforms and vegetation so as

to complement the local environment. The tower is proposed to be located to the rear of

the existing solid brick Telstra exchange building, with the established character of the

Norfolk Island Pines to provide some screening, to minimise its visual impact from several

vantage points.

Residential Character Zone, Principle of Development Control 4 requires non-residential

development to be of a nature and scale that serves the needs of the local community, is

consistent with the desired character of the locality and does not detrimentally impact on

the amenity of nearby residents. Whilst it has been established by the applicant that the

tower is required to serve the needs of the local residents, this needs to be weighed against

the potential visual impacts to the nearby residents. This will be discussed in the Visual

Appearance/Built Form and Amenity sections of this report.

Given that the structure is to be located on an existing non-residential site behind a

contributory listed building, the land use can be considered acceptable should the structure

not detrimentally impact on the amenity of nearby residents. This will be discussed in the

section below.


Visual Appearance/Built Form

The proposed 35 metres high tower is to be located at the rear of the existing Telstra

exchange building which is positioned to the corner of East Terrace and Durham Street. The

height of the monopole results in it forming a visible feature that would be seen from many

parts of the locality.

General Section, Infrastructure, Principle of Development Control 7 seeks service

infrastructure to be designed and located to minimise its visual and environmental impacts.

The proposed monopole is proposed to be located to the rear of the existing building which

will somewhat minimise the visual impact from the street. The height of the established

Norfolk Island Pines which line East Terrace will aid to camouflage the structure in the

locality, although it is acknowledged it will be visible in the locality.

General Section, Telecommunications Facilities, Objective 2 and Principle of Development

Control 1(g) requires telecommunications facilities to be designed and sited to minimise

visual impact on the amenity of the local environment. The applicant has provided

photomontages (See Appendix B - Application Documents) of the monopole structure from

various vantage points. Whilst it is evident that the structure will be visually prominent

within the locality, the Norfolk Island Pines will help to screen the monopole within the

streetscape and various vantage points within the area. When viewed from a pedestrian

perspective the monopole will somewhat blend in with the existing stobie and light poles

within the locality.

1J

iL

Site Photo: Norfolk Island Pines to the south of the subject site


-, .-

;:•' ' :4

-

LI: Ii'' •f _-

__

Site Photo: Norfolk Island Pines north of the subject site

In response to the issues raised by representors, the equipment and antenna located to the

top of the monopole have been redesigned to be as compact as possible. The antenna have

been redesigned to fit as close as possible to the pole, in an effort to reduce its visual

impact.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the telecommunications tower will be a notable visual

element in the locality, the structure to be located behind the existing building will help

reduce the impact on the streetscape, whilst the height of the established Norfolk Island

Pines will aid in concealing the height of the structure from the wider locality. For these

reasons the location of the telecommunications facility is not considered to be

unreasonable.

Amenity

General Section, Interface between Land Uses, Principle of Development Control 1 requires

development to not detrimentally affect the amenity of the locality or cause unreasonable

interference through emissions, noise, vibration, electrical interference, light spill, and traffic

impacts. Representors have raised concerns regarding potential health risks associated with

Electromagnetic Radiation Emissions (EME) from the tower. All telecommunication facilities

are required by Federal legislation to provide an EME report in accordance with established

standards. The report provided by the applicant indicates that EME emissions are well

below the maximum levels permitted by the Australian Standards.

It is therefore considered that based on the EME report provided, the radiation emitted

from the tower would not create any health impacts to residents within the immediate or

wider locality.


Heritage

General Section, Telecommunications Facilities, Principle of Development Control 4 requires

telecommunications facilities to not have a direct or significant effect on the amenity,

character and settings of Historic Conservation Areas.

The plans were referred to Council's consulting heritage advisor, Pippa Buckberry from

Flightpath Architects, to assess the impacts of the telecommunications facility on the

character of the Historic Conservation Area.

The advice outlines that whilst a 35 metre mobile phone tower does not easily respond to the objectives and principles for the Historic Conservation Area and Residential Character

Zone; the Norfolk Island Pines are identified as one of the most defining characteristics

within the streetscape of East Terrace and surrounds and given their quantity, locations,

height and shape, they assist in concealing the proposed development from many views

within the streetscape.

Residential Character Zone, Principle of Development Control 9 requires new buildings and

structures, to be designed to maintain the prominence of existing historic buildings and

should not dominate the appearance of the front elevation of the building. Whilst the tower

will be a prominent structure in the locality, the location behind the existing contributory listed building will maintain the prominence of the existing building and will not dominate

the appearance of the front elevation of the building.

The heritage advice states, that "while there is no doubt that the proposed structure will be an obvious new addition, the photo montages provided demonstrate that the structure will

be no more dominating visually than existing stobie poles, power lines and street lights".

Whilst the heritage advisor has acknowledged that an alternative location would be preferable, given that there are no reasonable alternative locations, the presence of Norfolk

Island Pines, stobie poles and lighting indicates that the proposed mobile phone tower is not

considered to fundamentally detract from the streetscape character of the precinct.

Based on the advice provided by Council's heritage advisor, it is considered that the

proposed telecommunications facility will not have a significant effect on the character and

settings of the Historic Conservation Area.

Significant Trees

A Norfolk Island Pine is located in front of the site, on East Terrace. The tree measures over

three metres in circumference and if therefore considered 'significant'. The proposed

telecommunications tower will be located approximately 25 metres from the base of the

tree. The distance is considered to be sufficient so to not have any impacts to the health or

structure of the tree. Furthermore, the tower structure is to be located on an existing

bitumised area and is therefore unlikely to have any roots anywhere near the proposed

structure.


Conclusion

This application has been assessed against the Charles Sturt Development Plan dated 5

November 2015.

Whilst the proposed telecommunication facility will be a visibly prominent structure within

the immediate and wider locality, the location of the structure behind the existing Telstra

exchange building will help in reducing the impact on the streetscape whilst the height of

the established Norfolk Island Pines will aid in concealing the height of the structure in the

locality. Furthermore, the antenna located to the top of the monopole has been designed to

be as compact and as close to the monopole as possible to reduce the visual impact.

Based on the electromagnetic radiation emissions (EME) report provided, the radiation

emitted from the tower will be well below the Australian Standard requirements and will

not create any health impacts to residents within the immediate or wider locality.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed site is not the most ideal location for the proposed structure, the applicant has demonstrated that alternative locations have been

investigated and, due to unavailability or the inability to meet the facility demand, have not

been suitable for the proposed development. As such, the subject site is able to achieve the technical needs required whilst not having a detrimental impact to the locality. Therefore,

on balance, the proposal is considered to have sufficient merit to warrant support.

Recommendation

Reason for Decision

The Panel has read and considered the report prepared by the Development Officer -

Senior Planner dated 21 December 2016 and agrees with the assessment outlined in

that report.

That pursuant to Section 35 (2) of the Development Act, 1993, the proposal is not

seriously at variance with the relevant provisions of the Charles Sturt (City)

Development Plan consolidated 5 November 2015.

That pursuant to Section 33 of the Development Act, 1993, Development Application

Number 252/0917/16 be GRANTED Development Plan Consent subject to the

following conditions:

1. Develop in accordance with the approved plans

That the proposal shall be developed in accordance with the details and approved

plans stamped by Council except where varied by the conditions herein and shall be

completed prior to occupation of the proposed development.

Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in an orderly manner.


Notes

The approval for this development DOES NOT imply approval to alter, shift or remove

any existing public infrastructure, including street trees and/or landscaping or any

other street furniture or features. Approval to alter any of these must be obtained from Council or the relevant government department or service authority. All costs

associated with such alteration are the sole responsibility of the applicant.

Development Approval must be received for this development within 12 months of

the date of this Development Plan Consent.

You will require a fresh Development Plan Consent and Development Approval before

commencing or continuing the development if you are unable to satisfy these

requirements.

To ensure your development can now proceed without unnecessary delays please ensure

the matters outlined below are properly managed.

The following information outlines your obligations in relation to appropriately managing

noise, dust and works effecting adjoining land (both private and public).

Driveway Crossovers

If you are relocating an existing driveway crossover you must remove and reinstate the

old crossover to match the existing kerb profile, footpath and verge. You will require a permit to work on Council land to construct your new driveway crossover which must

be constructed to Council specification. Please contact Council on 8408 1111 or refer to our website http://www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au/page.aspx?u=808&c=4118 for relevant

specifications.

Council Verges

. Please take every precaution necessary to avoid damage to the landscaping and

infrastructure present on Council verges, as you will be required to make good

damage to Council property.

Common boundary

When removing fences that are on the common boundary with your neighbour you

must give your neighbour 28 days notice in writing that you intend to remove the

dividing fence. Where the neighbour has a pool, particular care must be taken to

ensure the pool is not left exposed, if temporary fencing is installed the temporary

fence must comply with AS 1926.1 - Swimming pool safety. We recommend that you

consider the Fences and the Law booklet available on line and follow the processes

outlined in the booklet.

Where it is intended to erect external walls on the boundary the face of the external

wall must be on the boundary. Further, barge boards, capping tiles or other fixtures

on the boundary wall must not encroach upon the land of the adjoining owner.

Existing fence lines may not be the true legal boundary. To avoid violation of

neighbour's rights, the onus of proof of the boundary line rests with the owner of the

land where the work is undertaken. This will necessitate a survey being carried out by


a licensed surveyor to identify the true location of the boundary and proposed footing

on the ground. You will need the neighbour's written approval to enter their land to

carry out any construction.

Neighbours

• Construction within an established neighbourhood can be a stressful time for existing

residents. You are urged to take all necessary precautions to ensure adjoining

properties are not damaged or residents unreasonably impacted. In the interests of

good neighbourliness you may wish to consider providing your contact details to all

adjoining property owners inviting them to contact you should there be any concerns

during the construction process.

Dust

• Airborne dust and sand emissions potentially generated on site must be managed and this can be achieved by wetting down the soil and site during the demolition and

construction process. If you have any concerns or questions in relation to dust you

can contact the EPA on 8204 2004.

Asbestos

• If there is asbestos material in or on the building or fencing to be demolished there

are specific requirements for the method of removal and disposal of asbestos. The removal of asbestos over 10 square metres in area must be carried out by a licensed

asbestos removal contractor in accordance with Safe Work SA requirements. For

further information in relation to this please contact Safe Work SA on 1300 365 255.

Use of Public Space

• Should any part of the development process require use of public land (ie, the

footpath, nature strip, road or other reserve), additional permits will be required.

• Examples of such activities include storage of materials, delivery of materials from public land, placing of temporary fences on public land, blocking of the road, footpath

or nature strip for any period of time.

• Where works from public space impact vehicular or pedestrian traffic, you will be

requested to lodge a Traffic Management Plan that adheres to the requirements of

the relevant Australian Standards.

• Additional fees and charges may apply, please contact the Council's Compliance Team

on 8408 1380 to discuss your projects needs.

Environment Protection Note

The Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003 requires any person who is

undertaking an activity, or is an occupier of land to take all reasonable and practicable

measures to avoid the discharge or deposit of waste from that activity or land into any

waters or onto land in a place from which it is likely to enter any waters (including the

stormwater system).

The policy also creates offences that can result in on-the-spot fines or legal proceedings. The

following information is provided to assist you to comply with this legislation:


Building and construction should follow sediment control principles outlined in the

Stormwater Pollution Prevention - Code of Practice for the Building and Construction

Industry (EPA 1999). Specifically, the applicant should ensure:

• During construction no sediment should leave the building and construction

site. Appropriate exclusion devices must be installed at entry points to

stormwater systems and waterways.

• A stabilised entry/exit point should be constructed to minimise the tracking of

sand, soil and clay off site. However, should tracking occur, regular clean-ups

are advised.

Litter from construction sites is an environmental concern. All efforts should be made to keep all litter on site. The applicant should ensure that bins with securely fitted lids,

capable of receiving all waste from building and construction activities, are placed on

site.

All building and construction wastewaters are listed pollutants under the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003 and as such must be contained on site.

It is important that you familiarise yourself with the terms of the Policy and ensure that all

contractors engaged by you are aware of the obligations arising under it.

For further information please contact the Environment Protection Authority on telephone

(08) 8204 2004.