Agenda of Development & Environment Committee

Minutes of the Development & Environment Committee

Meeting Date: Tuesday, 2 July 2019

Location: Council Chambers, City Administrative Building, Bridge Road, Nowra

Time: 5.00pm

The following members were present:

Clr Joanna Gash - Chairperson

Clr Patricia White

Clr John Wells

Clr John Levett

Clr Nina Digiglio

Clr Annette Alldrick

Clr Kaye Gartner

Clr Mitchell Pakes

Clr Greg Watson

Clr Mark Kitchener

Clr Bob Proudfoot

Mr Stephen Dunshea - Chief Executive Officer

Apologies / Leave of Absence

Apologies were received from Clrs Findley and Guile.

Confirmation of the Minutes

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Alldrick) MIN19.454

That the Minutes of the Development & Environment Committee held on Tuesday 04 June 2019 be confirmed.

CARRIED

Declarations of Interest

Clr Gash – DE19.58 - Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 - Proposed Amendment to Chapter N12: Culburra Beach - The Marina Area – pecuniary interest declaration – will leave the room and will not take part in discussion or vote – She is the co-owner of 97 The Marina, Culburra Beach and the amendment may or may not have a positive or negative effect on her property.

Call Over of the Business Paper

The following items were called up for debate DE19.46, DE19.53, DE19.54, DE19.57, DE19.58, DE19.59, DE19.60, DE19.61 and DE19.62.

The remaining items (DE19.52 and DE19.55) were resolved en-bloc (Clr Gartner/ Clr White) at this time. They are marked with an asterisk (*) in these Minutes.

Mayoral Minutes

Nil

Deputations and Presentations

DE19.46 - Public Exhibition Outcomes - Coastal Hazard Review Planning Proposal and Coastal Management Areas DCP Amendment (Page 12)

Ms Leonie Sinclair addressed the meeting to speak against the recommendation.

Mr David Greenslade addressed the meeting to speak against the recommendation.

DE19.57 - Exhibition Outcomes and Proposed Finalisation - Citywide SP3 Tourist Zones Review - Planning Proposal and Proposed Amendment to Chapter V3 Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014

Mr John Willmott addressed the meeting to speak against the recommendation.

DE19.59 - Development Application – No. 64, Lot 1138 in DP 1210394, Seagrass Avenue Vincentia (Page 65)

Mr Glyn Leyshon (of behalf of Bayswood residents) addressed the meeting to speak for the recommendation.

Mr Andrew Stecyk (owner) addressed the meeting to speak against the recommendation.

DE19.60 - Development Application – 38 Lyrebird Drive Nowra – Lot 74 DP 1198691 DA18/2175 (page 98)

Mr Alex Kelly and Mr Anthony Barthelmess (representing the owners of the land) addressed the meeting to speak against the recommendation.

Procedural Motion - Bring Item Forward

RESOLVED (Clr Gartner / Clr White) MIN19.455

That the following matters be brought forward for consideration:

· DE19.46 - Public Exhibition Outcomes - Coastal Hazard Review Planning Proposal and Coastal Management Areas DCP Amendment

· DE19.57 - Exhibition Outcomes and Proposed Finalisation - Citywide SP3 Tourist Zones Review - Planning Proposal and Proposed Amendment to Chapter V3 Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014

· DE19.59 - Development Application – No. 64, Lot 1138 in DP 1210394, Seagrass Avenue Vincentia

· DE19.60 - Development Application – 38 Lyrebird Drive Nowra – Lot 74 DP 1198691 DA18/2175

CARRIED

DE19.46 Public Exhibition Outcomes - Coastal Hazard Review Planning Proposal and Coastal Management Areas DCP Amendment

HPERM Ref: D19/113261

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Adopt the Planning Proposal (PP026) as exhibited and forward to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation.

2. Adopt and finalise Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 Chapter G6: Coastal Management Areas Amendment as exhibited, with the inclusion of the changes highlighted in Attachment 2.

3. Advise key stakeholders, including all CCBs, relevant industry representatives and those who made a submission, of this decision, and when the LEP and DCP amendments will be made effective.

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr Watson) MIN19.456

That:

1. Consideration of the Planning Proposal (PP026) be deferred to allow for:

a. a briefing be held for Councillors to address the concerns raised at the 2 July 2019 Development and Environment Committee Meeting

b. The provision of an avenue for affected community members to address any of the concerns raised at the 2 July 2019 Development and Environment Committee meeting

2. Following the briefing and community consultation, that a further report on the proposal be brought to the July 2019 Ordinary Council meeting for adoption, if possible.

3. No changes be made with respect to Coastal Mapping unless a report has been provided to the Council and prior community consultation undertaken with affected residents.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Stephen Dunshea

Against: Clr Levett

CARRIED

DE19.57 Exhibition Outcomes and Proposed Finalisation - Citywide SP3 Tourist Zones Review - Planning Proposal and Proposed Amendment to Chapter V3 Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014

HPERM Ref: D19/171980

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Adopt and finalise the exhibited Planning Proposal (PP013)

2. Forward PP013 to NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to draft the amendment to Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014.

3. Make the resulting amendment to the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 using Council’s delegation.

5. Advise key stakeholders, including owners of the subject land, adjoining land owners, all Community Consultative Bodies, relevant industry representatives and those who made a submission, of this decision, and when the LEP and DCP amendments will be made effective.

RESOLVED (Clr Gartner / Clr Digiglio) MIN19.457

That Council:

1. Adopt and finalise the exhibited Planning Proposal (PP013).

2. Forward PP013 to NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to draft the amendment to Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014.

3. Make the resulting amendment to the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 using Council’s delegation.

4. Adopt and finalise the amendment to Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 Chapter V3: Miscellaneous Site-Specific Issues as exhibited, with the inclusion of the change to Performance Criteria P5.1 as noted in Attachment 2 and with an amendment to Acceptable Solution A5.4 specifying that screening is an alternative solution.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Proudfoot and Stephen Dunshea

Against: Clr Pakes, Clr Watson and Clr Kitchener

CARRIED

DE19.59 Development Application – No.64, Lot 1138 in DP 1210394, Seagrass Avenue Vincentia

HPERM Ref: D18/383673

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Development Application DA18/1998 be refused for the reasons set out in Attachment 1 to this report.

RESOLVED (Clr Gartner / Clr Alldrick) MIN19.458

That Development Application DA18/1998 be refused for the reasons set out in Attachment 1 to this report.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Stephen Dunshea

Against: Nil

CARRIED

DE19.60 Development Application – 38 Lyrebird Drive Nowra – Lot 74 DP 1198691 DA18/2175

HPERM Ref: D19/189185

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That the Committee refuse Development Application DA18/2175 for the erection of an attached dual occupancy at Lot 74 DP 1108691, 38 Lyrebird Drive Nowra, for the reasons as shown in the draft Notice of Determination at Attachment 1.

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Proudfoot) MIN19.459

That:

1. Council accept Development Application DA18/2175 for the erection of an attached dual occupancy at Lot 74 DP 1108691, 38 Lyrebird Drive Nowra, a further report be provided to Council with suitable conditions for consent.

2. The next Housekeeping Amendment seek to consider inserting provisions in the Shoalhaven LEP to rule out dual occupancy development in the vicinity of Riverview Road and Lyrebird Drive, Nowra.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener and Clr Proudfoot

Against: Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner and Stephen Dunshea

CARRIED

Reports

DE19.46 Public Exhibition Outcomes - Coastal Hazard Review Planning Proposal and Coastal Management Areas DCP Amendment

HPERM Ref: D19/113261

Item dealt with earlier/later in the meeting see MIN19.456

Items marked with an * were resolved ‘en bloc’.

DE19.52 Progress Update - Berry Heritage Investigations

HPERM Ref: D19/181822

RESOLVED* (Clr Gartner / Clr White) MIN19.460

That Council:

1. Provide in principal support to the proposed heritage listing of the 25 properties and 2 Heritage Conservation Areas in Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014, as identified in Table 1 in this report, for preliminary community consultation only.

2. Investigate the heritage significance of No. 30 and No. 40 Alexandra Street, Berry as recommended by the Heritage Consultant.

3. Following part 2 of this recommendation, commence preliminary community consultation with the affected landowners, the Berry Forum, Berry Showground Management Committee, Berry Chamber of Commerce and Berry & District Historical Society regarding the Berry Heritage Investigations work to date.

4. Advise relevant stakeholders (affected landowners, the Berry Forum, Berry Showground Management Committee, Berry Chamber of Commerce and Berry & District Historical Society) of this decision.

5. Receive a further report outlining the findings of the supplementary heritage investigations and preliminary community consultation.

CARRIED

DE19.53 Exhibition Outcomes and Finalisation - Planning Proposal: 2017 Housekeeping Amendment (Instrument Changes) - Shoalhaven LEP 2014

HPERM Ref: D19/121834

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Adopt and finalise Planning Proposal (PP033) as exhibited, with the changes outlined in Attachment 2.

2. Forward PP033 to NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to draft the amendment to Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014.

3. Make the resulting amendment to the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 using Council’s delegation.

4. Undertake a separate future review of Clause 4.2B of Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 with the following scope:

a. Further consideration of Item 6 (proposed for deletion from PP033) including the appropriateness of the current zoning of certain land in Clause 4.2B.

b. Provide clarification as to what ‘land’ means (i.e. identifying holdings).

c. Other matters that are identified during the review or were raised in submissions.

5. Prepare a future report to Council in relation to the outcome of the review at Part 4 of this recommendation, including the scope of a future Planning Proposal as appropriate and its priority in the Strategic Planning Works Program.

6. Advise key stakeholders, including all CCBs, relevant industry representatives and those who made a submission, of this decision, and when the Amendment will be made effective.

RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Pakes) MIN19.461

That the Planning Proposal (PP033) be deferred for consideration at the July 2019 Ordinary Council meeting.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Stephen Dunshea

Against: Nil

CARRIED

DE19.54 Nowra CBD Fringe Planning Proposal - Progress and Possible Next Steps

HPERM Ref: D19/122291

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Adopt the following recommendations of the Heritage Study and provide an amended Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment:

a. Reduce the boundaries of the proposed Heritage Conservation Area to exclude areas where there are large areas of ‘non-contributory’ buildings.

b. Update the Statement of Significance for the proposed Heritage Conservation Area.

2. Not adopt the following recommendation of the Heritage Study and defer for consideration as part of any broader future Shoalhaven heritage review:

a. Expand the proposed Heritage Conservation Area boundary to include Oliver Parade which is in the study area but not in the proposed Heritage Conservation Area.

3. Not include ‘post-war fibro cottages’ on Leaney Avenue and Oliver Parade as ‘contributory’ items on the contributory items map.

4. Endorse the revised contributory items map for public exhibition with the supporting DCP Chapter.

5. Not endorse the DCP controls recommended in the Heritage Study to ensure the overall focus of the DCP Chapter remains on character rather than heritage aspects of individual ‘contributory’ items.

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Gartner) MIN19.462

That Council:

1. Adopt the following recommendations of the Heritage Study and provide an amended Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment:

a. Reduce the boundaries of the proposed Heritage Conservation Area to exclude areas where there are large areas of ‘non-contributory’ buildings.

b. Update the Statement of Significance for the proposed Heritage Conservation Area.

2. Not adopt the following recommendation of the Heritage Study and defer for consideration as part of any broader future Shoalhaven heritage review:

a. Expand the proposed Heritage Conservation Area boundary to include Oliver Parade which is in the study area but not in the proposed Heritage Conservation Area.

3. Not include ‘post-war fibro cottages’ on Leaney Avenue and Oliver Parade as ‘contributory’ items on the contributory items map.

4. Endorse the revised contributory items map for public exhibition with the supporting DCP Chapter.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Stephen Dunshea

Against: Nil

CARRIED

DE19.55 Funding Offer - NSW Heritage Grants - 2019-20 and 2020-21

HPERM Ref: D19/185099

RESOLVED* (Clr Gartner / Clr White) MIN19.463

That Council:

1. Accept the following NSW Heritage Grants funding offers as detailed in the report:

a. 2019-20 to 2020-21 financial years for the Local Heritage Places and Local Government Heritage Advisor streams; and

b. 2019-2021 Local Government Heritage Studies stream (Berry Heritage Investigations project).

2. Note that recurrent funding is provided in the annual Budget to meet Council’s matching commitment.

CARRIED

DE19.56 Proposed Housekeeping Amendment - Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 - General and Generic Chapters

HPERM Ref: D19/185859

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Endorse the initial draft General and Generic Chapter Housekeeping Amendment (draft Amendment) to Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 at Attachment 1 (including the Draft Waste Minimisation and Management Guidelines and rescission of Chapter 3: Exempt Development) and support the exhibition of the draft Amendment for a period of at least 28 days as per legislative requirements.

2. Receive a further report on the draft Amendment following the conclusion of the public exhibition period to consider feedback received, any necessary adjustments and the finalisation of the amendment.

3. Advise key stakeholders, including relevant industry representatives, of this decision and the exhibition arrangements in due course.

RESOLVED (Clr Gartner / Clr Digiglio) MIN19.464

That Council:

3. Advise key stakeholders, including relevant industry representatives, of this decision and the exhibition arrangements in due course.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Stephen Dunshea

Against: Nil

CARRIED

DE19.57 Exhibition Outcomes and Proposed Finalisation - Citywide SP3 Tourist Zones Review - Planning Proposal and Proposed Amendment To Chapter V3 Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014

HPERM Ref: D19/171980

Item dealt with earlier/later in the meeting see MIN19.457.

Note: Clr Gash left the meeting at 7:10pm – Clr Watson assumed the chair in the absence of Councillor Gash.

DE19.58 Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 - Proposed Amendment to Chapter N12: Culburra Beach - The Marina Area

HPERM Ref: D19/191446

Clr Gash– DE19.58 Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 - Proposed Amendment to Chapter N12: Culburra Beach - The Marina Area – pecuniary interest declaration – left the room and did not take part in discussion or vote – She is the co-owner of 97 The Marina, Culburra Beach and the amendment may or may not have a positive or negative affect on her property.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Endorse the preparation of an amendment to Chapter N12: Culburra Beach – The Marina of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014.

2. Receive a further report on the draft Amendment prior to public exhibition.

3. Adopt the ‘Interim’ Policy Position that the Maps at Attachment 1 represent Council’s ongoing strategic intent in terms of building lines, erosion setback lines and 20m vegetation buffer lines for The Marina area and apply the Interim Policy Position until the lines have been reviewed, considered and finalised as part of the amendment to DCP Chapter N12.

4. Advise key stakeholders, including relevant industry representatives and landowners, of this decision.

Note: Clr Proudfoot left the meeting at 7.17pm

RESOLVED (Clr Gartner / Clr Digiglio) MIN19.465

That Council:

1. Endorse the preparation of an amendment to Chapter N12: Culburra Beach – The Marina of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014.

2. Receive a further report on the draft Amendment prior to public exhibition.

4. Advise key stakeholders, including relevant industry representatives and landowners, of this decision.

For: Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener and Stephen Dunshea

Against: Nil

CARRIED

Note: Clr Gash returned to the meeting at 7:18pm and reassumed the Chair.

Note: Clr Proudfoot returned to the meeting at 7:18pm

DE19.59 Development Application – No.64, Lot 1138 in DP 1210394, Seagrass Avenue Vincentia

HPERM Ref: D18/383673

Item dealt with earlier/later in the meeting see MIN19.458

DE19.60 Development Application – 38 Lyrebird Drive Nowra – Lot 74 DP 1198691 DA18/2175

HPERM Ref: D19/189185

Item dealt with earlier/later in the meeting see MIN19.459

DE19.61 Shoalhaven City Council - Mobile Food Vans in the LGA - Private and Public Lands

HPERM Ref: D19/187221

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That the report Mobile Food Vans in the LGA - Private and Public Lands be received for information.

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Wells) MIN19.466

That:

1. The report Mobile Food Vans in the LGA - Private and Public Lands be received for information.

2. Council write to the NSW State Government to express concerns about the impact of the Mobile Food Van provisions within the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Exempt & Complying Development Codes) on businesses in regional towns and villages and consider further consultation and amendments to the SEPP if necessary.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Stephen Dunshea

AGAINST: Nil

CARRIED

DE19.62 Shoalhaven Heads - River Road Foreshore Precinct Rehabilitation Project - Progress Update

HPERM Ref: D19/115308

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Proceed to call Tenders for the Shoalhaven Heads River Road Foreshore Precinct Rehabilitation Project in accordance with the separable portions strategy outlined in the report.

2. Receive a further confidential report regarding the Tender process in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act.

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr White) MIN19.467

That Council:

1. Proceed to call Tenders for the Shoalhaven Heads River Road Foreshore Precinct Rehabilitation Project in accordance with the separable portions strategy outlined in the report.

2. Receive a further confidential report regarding the Tender process in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act.

For: Clr Gash, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Digiglio, Clr Alldrick, Clr Gartner, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Stephen Dunshea

Against: Nil

CARRIED

Procedural Motion - Matters of Urgency

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Pakes) MIN19.468

That an additional item with respect to home modifications for elderly and injured persons be introduced as a matter of urgency.

CARRIED

The Chairperson ruled the matter as urgent as it is a current issue affecting residents.

DE19.63 Additional Item – Home Modifications – Elderly and Injured Residents – Medical Requirements

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Pakes) MIN19.469

That:

1. Council approve an Interim Policy to give approval for residence modifications in response to Occupational Therapists and Doctors instructions to allow elderly people and those who are injured to return to their homes.

2. A further report be provided back to Council on a policy provision to address this issue.

CARRIED

There being no further business, the meeting concluded, the time being 7.33pm.

Clr Gash

CHAIRPERSON

Development & Environment Committee – Tuesday 06 August 2019

Page 0

DE19.64 SF10541 - C130 Princes Hwy MEROO MEADOW - Lot 502 DP 1221372

DA. No: SF10541/4

HPERM Ref: D19/187428

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Development Services

Attachments: 1. s4.15 Assessment Report (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Draft Determination (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Subdivision Plan ⇩

Description of Development: Fifteen (15) lot Torrens title subdivision and associated site works

Owner: Linkwood Nowra Pty Ltd.

Applicant: Allen Price & Scarratts (APS)

Notification Dates: The application was notified on four (4) separate occasions on 12 December 2016, 17 January 2018, 8 November 2018 and 19 March 2019

No. of Submissions: 86 submissions were received to the notifications. All submissions were in objection to the application. Multiple objections were received in some cases by a single submitter(s).

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

On 23 January 2017 Council resolved at the Development Committee meeting, that:

1. All delegations for SF10541 be withdrawn and this matter be reported to council for consideration.

2. A residents briefing meeting be held on the abovementioned application.

3. The time for submissions be extended until the residents briefing meeting can be held.

This Report is prepared in response to item 1 of the Council’s resolution. A resident briefing meeting was held on 2 March 2017 in response to item 2.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Approve Development Application SF10541 for a fifteen (15) lot Torrens title subdivision and associated site works at C130 Princes Highway, Meroo Meadow - Lot 502 DP 1221372 by way of Deferred Commencement consent, subject to the recommended conditions of consent contained in Attachment 2 to this report.

2. Support the preparation of a planning proposal over C130 Princes Highway, Meroo Meadow - Lot 502 DP 1221372 to amend Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP 2014) to rezone the current R1 General Residential component of the land to R5 Large Lot Residential and also apply a 1,500m² minimum lot size and 8.5m height limit to that part of the land.

3. Submit the Planning Proposal to the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (PIE) to request a ‘Gateway determination’. If a favourable determination is received, proceed to public exhibition and report back to Council with the outcomes of the exhibition period.

Options

1. Support and approve the development application (DA) as a deferred commencement in accordance with the recommendation and prepare a planning proposal (PP).

Implications: This would allow the applicant to seek a Subdivision Construction Certificate (CC) for development on the subject site upon resolution of the deferred matter. The deferred matter would be finalisation of the Planning Proposal.

The proposed amendment to SLEP 2014 would support the appropriate long-term management of the land.

2. Refuse the application and not prepare a planning proposal.

Implications: Council would need to determine the grounds on which the application is refused, having regard to section 4.15 considerations.

The applicant would have the ability to request a review of any refusal by Council and/or pursue an appeal through the NSW Land and Environment Court (L&EC). Council may still wish to give further consideration to the zoning and other particulars of the land via a separate process.

3. Alternative recommendation.

Implications: Council will need to specify an alternative recommendation and advise staff accordingly.

Location Map

Figure 1 – Location Map

Figure 2 – Zoning Map

Background

On 11 December 2014, a pre-lodgement meeting was held in relation to the subject site for a development described in the pre-lodgement meeting notes as a 37 lot subdivision.

On 19 October 2016, the applicant lodged SF10541 for development described on the development application form as

“37 Torrens Title Residential subdivision, vegetation clearing within the development footprint, demolition of the existing dwelling, swimming pool and tennis court; and associated site works”.

On 27 October 2016, Council requested additional information from the applicant. Council requested additional information from the applicant on numerous occasions throughout the assessment process.

On 12 December 2016, the development application was notified for a period of 47 days (extended notification for the Christmas and New Year period). A total of 26 submissions were received during the notification period or shortly thereafter. All submissions were in objection to the application.

On 23 January 2017 Council resolved at the Development Committee meeting that:

1. All delegations for SF10541 be withdrawn and this matter be reported to council for consideration.

2. A residents briefing meeting be held on the abovementioned application.

3. The time for submissions be extended until the residents briefing meeting can be held.

On 6 February 2017, the applicant lodged amended plans and written responses to the referral process to date.

On 2 March 2017, a resident’s briefing meeting (RBM) was conducted to outline the planning process and the development application and the outstanding issues to be resolved prior to determination of the application.

On 12 December 2017, the applicant lodged amended plans which included upgrades to Emerald Drive required to satisfy the Acceptable Solutions of Chapter G11: Subdivision of Land of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 (SDCP 2014).

The drawings provided details of proposed road widening along a portion of the southern side of the existing pavement along Emerald Drive. The road widening intending to create a functional width of 6-7m.

On 17 January 2018, the applicant’s amended plans were re-notified for a period of 30 days. A total of 25 submissions were received following the re-notification of the development application. All submissions were in objection to the application.

On 6 September 2018, the applicant lodged amended concept plans which included a proposal to reduce the lot yield to 15 lots and removal of the required widening of the southern side of Emerald Drive, the retention of the existing dwelling on proposed lot 4 and construction of a single raised threshold traffic calming device (an additional three (3) devices to be provided in locations to be determined by Council.

On 8 November 2018, the application was re-notified for a period of 15 days. A total of 20 submissions were received following the re-notification of the development application. All submissions received were in objection to the application.

On 11 March 2019, the applicant lodged final amended plans and supporting reports for the amended 15 lot subdivision

On 19 March 2019, the application was re-notified for a period of 15 days. A total of 15 submissions were received following the re-notification of the development application. All submissions were in objection to the application.

As is with all applications, documentation was made and remains accessible on the DA tracking website.

Proposed Development

The development, as amended, seeks development consent for a 15 lot Torrens title subdivision and associated site works including the construction of an extension to Emerald Drive and associated drainage. Lot sizes range from 1,500m² to 7.16ha.

The proposal is to create 14 residential allotments and one residue lot comprising the remainder of the property with a building area within the R1 General Residential zone (15 lots in total).

The existing dwelling house is to be retained on a resulting lot. The tennis court will be removed. An extract of the subdivision plan is provided in Figure 3.

The development is proposed to be accessed via two access points. All 15 lots will gain access via a proposed extension of Emerald Drive. Additionally, proposed Lot 15 will retain the existing site access from the Princes Highway where the Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) is currently in the process of constructing a turning bay as part of the highway upgrade (Refer to Figure 3). The purpose of this access is to provide the Rural Fire Service (RFS) with secondary access to the development area. This would be secured by a locked gate on Lot 15 (adjacent to the southwestern corner of proposed Lot 10) to ensure traffic from the proposed development does not take advantage of this access to the highway.

Figure 3 - Extract of the proposed subdivision plan for the proposed development.

Subject Land

The subject site is located north of Bomaderry situated between the Princes Hwy and the western end of Emerald Drive in the suburb of Meroo Meadow. The land is legally identified as Lot 502 DP 1221372 (formerly Lot 1 DP 130825) and is described as C130 Princes Highway, Meroo Meadow.

Site & Context

The subject site is a regular shaped allotment with a total land area of 9.707 hectares.

The site enjoys dual frontage to the Princes Highway in the west and connects with Emerald Drive in the east. Meroo Road is located 600m to the east of the site. The site is presently accessed via a driveway off Princes Highway located on the south-eastern boundary of the site.

The land is gently undulating, with the property rising to a central ridge running parallel to the northern boundary. Water naturally drains to Abernethy Creek in the north-eastern corner of the site and an unnamed creek toward the southern boundary of the site which feeds into Abernethy Creek on the eastern side of Meroo Road.

Significant vegetation has historically been removed from the site as part of the rural/residential land use of the site. There are stands of remnant eucalyptus located along the southern boundary and riparian vegetation along the extent of Abernethy Creek on the northern boundary. The site has also been extensively landscaped to the extent of the curtilage of the existing dwelling house and access driveway.

The site is currently a ‘semi-rural’ property containing a single dwelling, pool and tennis court located in the north-eastern portion of the site and shed on the eastern boundary.

The site is mapped as bush fire prone land in accordance with bush fire prone land maps prepared by Council and certified by the Commissioner of the NSW RFS.

The supporting reports associated with the RMS Berry to Nowra Princes Highway upgrade indicate that there were Aboriginal archaeological artefacts recorded on the AHIMS database within the vicinity of the subject land. The applicant’s Aboriginal due diligence reports have identified Aboriginal objects that are the subject of an Aboriginal Heritage Impact permit pursuant to Section 91 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

The site is bound to the west by the Princes Highway which is currently undergoing an extensive upgrade associated with the State Government’s Berry to Bomaderry works program. It is noted that a U-turn bay is proposed to be located on the south-eastern corner of the site (Refer to Figure 4 below). On the western side of the Princes Highway and along the extent of Abernethys Lane the predominant land use is a mix of rural and residential.

To the south, the site is adjoined by Council (environmental) managed land. Further to the south again, the land has predominately been developed for low-density residential development consisting of detached single and two-storey dwelling houses. It is noted that there are limited examples of multi-dwelling housing.

To the north, the land has been historically used for agriculture (and associated dwellings).

To the east, the site is adjoined by the western extent of Emerald Drive and Maddor Park Estate. The estate having been developed for residential accommodation with the predominant built form being single storey detached dwelling houses.

Figure 4 – extract from the concept designs for the Berry to Bomaderry upgrades for the section of the Princes Highway to the extent of the subject site.
Extracted from the RMS website.

Existing Road Network

The Princes Highway at the boundary of the site is a two-way undivided highway. The Princes Highway is being upgraded to include four lanes of divided highway to improve road safety and traffic efficiency.

Emerald Drive is considered an access street under SDCP 2014 Chapter G11: Subdivision of Land and is 16m wide (road reserve). Emerald Drive services 73 residential dwellings and has a nominal local road speed limit of 50km/h. Emerald Drive provides a trafficable width of approximately 5.0m, constituting a formal central two-way carriageway of approximately 4.2m gutter invert to gutter invert, and layback gutter dish drains on both sides of approximately 0.7m each.

Meroo Road to the east of the site is a major collector road between the Princes Highway and Bomaderry. Meroo Road carries one lane of traffic in each direction and has unrestricted parking along most of its length.

The proposed access and traffic impacts associated with the development are detailed further in this Report and in consideration of submissions.

History

On 18 July 2000, Council granted Development Consent SF8781 for a 76 lot subdivision of land now known as Maddor Park Estate (accessed via Emerald Drive).

The approved road design for the subdivision stipulated construction of a 5m carriageway width within a 16m and 18m road reserve (which included traffic calming pavement).

The first request from the landowner for rezoning of the subject site was received in August 2002.

Under Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 1985 (SLEP 85) the subject site was zoned 1(b) Rural (Arterial and Main Road Protection) Zone.

On 18 January 2005, a report to Council’s Development Committee considered the proponent’s rezoning request that part of the site be rezoned from its current zoning of Rural 1(b) (Arterial and Main Road Protection) to a residential zoning.

The proposed residential area was to be accessed from Emerald Drive on the eastern boundary of the site and comprised an extension of the existing residential area to the east (Maddor Park Estate). The report recommended limiting the extent of the potential rezoning having regard to the site constraints to that generally consistent with the R1 General Residential zone under Draft SLEP 2009.

It was recommended that a planning report be prepared to support the proposed rezoning and to address the following issues:

· Flooding and water quality;

· Visual impacts including views to and from the site (specifically in relation to the urban/ rural interface);

· Traffic impact assessment;

· Impact on agricultural values of the site; and

· Preliminary concept plan for the future development of the site.

On Tuesday 25 January 2005 Council resolved to:

a) Support preparation of a draft LEP (at the owners cost);

b) The General Manager (Planning Group) be requested to consider a reduction in the buffer zone area adjacent to the Princes Highway.

This resolution resulted from a request from the then landowner to rezone the subject land to enable residential subdivision. Specific provisions were recommended to be incorporated into the draft plan so that the primary vehicular access to the subject land would be via Emerald Drive and not the Princes Highway.

On 12 February 2008, a report to the Policy and Planning Committee considered the rezoning application and sought Council’s direction in regard to aspects of the proposed draft plan prior to proceeding to request a certificate to publicly exhibit the Draft Local Environmental Plan (LEP) No. LEP 379 (Draft LEP 379).

On 6 June 2008, the NSW State planning agency at the time, now known as PIE, wrote to Council of PIE’s refusal to issue their section 65 Certificate under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EP&A Act) in regard to Draft LEP 379 for the subject site.

On 9 January 2009, PIE wrote to Council to reiterate that they would not support the rezoning of the subject site which would allow for residential development to within 50m of the Princes Highway.

However, PIE went on to state that it was “willing to support a rezoning that allows residential development to within 100m of the Princess Highway.”

PIE advised that should Council and the landowner accept that no development was to occur within 100m of the Princes Highway the matter should be dealt with as part of the Draft Shoalhaven LEP 2009 rather than a stand-alone LEP amendment.

On 18 July 2011, Shoalhaven City Council’s draft Shoalhaven LEP 2009 was placed on public exhibition for 13 weeks. A copy of an extract of the Land Zoning Map – LZN-024 Nowra Bomaderry indicating the proposed zoning boundaries relative to the subject site is provided in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5 - Extract of the Land Zoning Map – LZN-024 Nowra Bomaderry indicating the proposed zoning boundaries relative to the subject site

On 8 April 2014, Shoalhaven LEP 2014 was gazetted.

Issues

Traffic Impacts

The proposed development has the potential to impact on local traffic conditions, with the local street network (Emerald Drive and Intersection with Meroo Road) being identified as a potential impediment to the proposed development due in part to the width of the Emerald Drive road pavement, no traffic calming devices and concerns with sightlines at the Meroo Meadow intersection.

A number of traffic reports have been prepared for the application since lodgement of the DA. However, it is important to consider the development in light of the most recent amendment to the lot yield and therefore consideration of the principal traffic report titled Traffic Impact Assessment (Traffic Report) prepared by Ason Group dated 8 March 2019 (D19/83206).

The Traffic Report assess the revised proposal (15 lot subdivision) in relation to the:

· current planning context,

· existing conditions;

· public transport, cycling and pedestrian network;

· existing traffic conditions;

· operational impacts; and

· design.

Road Network

Emerald Drive currently services 73 residential dwellings and has a nominal local road speed limit of 50km/h.

Emerald Drive provides a trafficable width of approximately 5.0m, constituting a formal central two-way carriageway of approximately 4.2m gutter invert to gutter invert, and layback gutter dish drains on both sides of approximately 0.7m each. This profile extends to the full extent of Emerald Drive.

The current construction of Emerald Drive is consistent with the upper carriageway width of a laneway (carriageway width 3.5–5.0m with less than 15 Annual average daily traffic (AADT)) as per SDCP 2014 Chapter G11: Subdivision of Land.

Emerald Drive – Current Conditions

Under the current circumstances with no further development, the AADT flows do not exceed 500vpd (vehicles per day) in Emerald Drive. This is based upon data collected by the applicant from an automatic traffic counter (ATC) installed in Emerald Drive in February 2016 (Appendix B to Traffic Report).

Applying the surveyed daily trip rate to the 73 dwellings within the existing subdivision provides an AADT estimate of just under 500vpd. Figure 6 below, indicates that AADT would not exceed 500vpd for Emerald Drive and at the intersection with Meroo Meadow.

Figure 6 - Existing Emerald Drive sectional daily traffic flows. Extracted from the Traffic Report prepared by Ason Group (D19/82306).

Emerald Drive – Projected Conditions (15 Lot subdivision)

Based upon the applicant’s amended application for 15 lots (one dwelling per lot) with access along Emerald Drive the Traffic Report provides predicted daily traffic flows which indicate that AADT would exceed 500vpd at a point west of Ruby Lane, generally adjacent to 24 Emerald Drive (refer to Figure 7). Reference to SDCP 2014 Chapter G11: Subdivision of Land suggests that west of this location a 6.0m carriageway would be required, while east of this location a 7.0m carriageway would be required. Refer to Table 1 below.

The amended application does not propose road widening works along Emerald Drive.

The applicant’s plans for retention of Emerald Drive’s current construction standard has been considered by Council’s Traffic and Transport Unit to be satisfactory under the current circumstances and road widening is neither feasible nor supported. It is noted that residents also expressed concern about the potential widening.

It is important to note that approval of the current application without the need for road widening would constitute a variation to SDCP 2014 Chapter G11 Subdivision of Land – Acceptable Solution A19.1 (refer to Table 1 below).

Figure 7 - Future Emerald Drive sectional daily traffic flows. Extracted from the Traffic Report prepared by Ason Group (D19/82306).

Table 1 - classification of streets (extracted from SDCP 2014 Chapter G11:

Subdivision of Land).

Emerald Drive and Meroo Road Intersection

The intersection of Meroo Road with Emerald Drive provides a T intersection under priority (unsigned Give Way) control. The intersection provides a short auxiliary left turn lane to Emerald Drive, and a widened southbound carriageway (paved kerbside lane) over a short distance to notionally allow for a southbound vehicle to pass a vehicle turning right to turn into Emerald Drive (refer to Figure 8).

The Emerald Drive approach provides a paved carriageway of approximately 5.5m for approximately 12m, after which the carriageway returns to 5m. Meroo Road has a posted speed limit of 60km/h.

Figure 8 – Aerial image of Emerald Drive and Meroo Road intersection.

In relation to the operation of the Emerald Drive and Meroo Road intersection under the current conditions, the Traffic Report indicates on page [11] that:

“[T]he intersection operates at a high Level of Service in both peak periods, with average delays of less than 6 seconds to vehicles departing Emerald Drive and an overall average delay of less than 1 second. The intersection provides significant spare capacity. Ason Group has also provided sensitivity testing of alternative distribution (north/south) scenarios and determined similar results.

It is important to note that, at present, the narrow width of the Emerald Drive approach has the potential to reduce capacity at the intersection and reduce the efficiency of inbound movements given the narrow carriageway width remaining when vehicles are queued to depart Emerald Drive. While a more detailed review of the SIDRA results indicates an 85th percentile queue in Emerald Drive of less than 1m – indicating that 85% of the time no more than a single vehicle would be queued to depart – it is likely that on occasions 2-3 vehicles might be queued, which would reduce the length of the arrival lane as it tapers back to the broader design profile. The Proposal is unlikely to fundamentally change these operations or increase average queue lengths on the approach to Meroo Road.

In the event that the subdivision is approved and developed with a single dwelling house on each lot, the Traffic Report indicates on page [16] that:

“SIDRA testing of the future traffic flows at the intersection Meroo Road with Emerald Drive indicates that the intersection will continue to operate at a high Level of Service in both peak periods, with average delays retained at less than 6 seconds to vehicles departing Emerald Drive and an overall average delay of less than 1.3 seconds and 1.2 seconds in the AM and PM peaks respectively. The intersection would also continue to provide significant spare capacity.

The impact of the proposed development on the critical intersection of Emerald Drive with Meroo Road has been assessed as a net increase over and above the baseline future conditions and the results of this analysis are summarised in… [Table 2 below].”

Table 2 - Future and Development Intersection Performance
(Figures extracted from Page 16 of the Traffic Report).

Intersection	Control Type Period	Period	Intersection Delay	Level of Service
Emerald Drive / Meroo Road	Priority	AM	1.3	A
Emerald Drive / Meroo Road	Priority	PM	1.3	A

The Traffic Report concludes that the intersection operates satisfactorily having regard to future traffic volumes. Council’s Traffic and Transport Unit has considered the Traffic Report and is satisfied that the operation of the Emerald Drive and Meroo Road intersection is operating satisfactorily and efficiently and is not required to be upgraded to facilitate the proposed development.

A summary of estimated 2026 peak period traffic flows at the intersection is provided in Figures 9 and 10 below:

Figure 9 - Estimated 2026 Peak Period Traffic Flows

(No Proposal) (extracted from Page 13 of the Traffic Report).

Figure 10 - Estimated 2026 Peak Period Traffic Flows

(with Proposal) (extracted from Page 14 of the Traffic Report).

Proposed Emerald Drive Road Upgrade Works

In lieu of Emerald Drive road widening, the applicant proposes to construct four (4) raised threshold devices (flat-top speed humps) at appropriate locations along Emerald Drive. The approximate location of the first device is provided in Figure 11 below. The location of the three (3) remaining devices will be identified in consultation with Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Figure 11 - Extract from plan titled Plan Showing Proposed Subdivision and Site Analysis prepared by Allen Price and Scarratts indicating the approximate location of the first raised threshold device.

A turning head catering for service vehicles is currently located at the western end of Emerald Drive, immediately adjacent to the site. The applicant proposes to extend Emerald Drive to enable road access to all lots in the development. A typical cross-section of the proposed extension of Emerald Drive is provided in Figure 12 below.

A typical cul-de-sac treatment at the western extent of the Emerald Drive extension is proposed. The design of these cul-de-sac treatments would provide a 19m turn radius and 24m verge to accommodate Council waste vehicles and emergency vehicles.

Figure 12 - Typical cross-section of the proposed extension of Emerald Drive.

Provision of alternate access to the site for all lots

As previously stated, all 15 lots are proposed to gain access via an extension of Emerald Drive with Lot 15 also retaining access to the Princess Highway, the access will afford the NSW RFS secondary access to the development area.

The applicant, Council and RMS (roads authority in relation to the Princes Highway) have explored the potential for alternative access arrangements for access to the subdivision during the period following the initial pre-lodgement meeting on 11 December 2014 and subsequent to lodgement of the application on 19 October 2016.

The alternate access options are provided below.

Option 1: Construction of a new connection road to the north to be located along southern boundaries of adjacent rural properties to the east of the development linking to Meroo Road in the east (Option 1 indicated in yellow in Figure 13 below). The main concerns or impediments to this proposal may be broadly summarised as follows:

· private ownership of land containing dwellings and rural outbuildings and infrastructure;

· the impact on the amenity of residents on the northern side of Emerald Drive would be significant with most lots having public roads to their front and rear boundary;

· the land is largely flood prone making the construction of flood free access difficult and costly;

· rural holdings would be further fractured and the viability of the rural holdings potentially compromised.

Option 2: Construction of a new connection road along the southern boundary of existing lots on the southern side Emerald Drive through the public reserve to link to Meroo Road (Option 2 indicated in green in Figure 13 below). The main concerns or impediments to this proposal may be broadly summarised as follows:

· the road would be on land dedicated as a public reserve;

· the land is wholly flood-prone;

· the road would impact on private land owned in Halstead Place including pond filling and an engineered watercourse crossing;

· the impact on the amenity of residents on the southern side of Emerald Drive would be significant with these lots having public roads to their front and rear boundary

Option 3: Construction of direct access to Princes Highway with no access to Emerald Drive (Option 3 indicated in orange in Figure 13 below). The main concerns or impediments to this proposal may be broadly summarised as follows:

· safety issues with sight lines for southbound highway traffic;

· fracture of RU1 land on residue lot which would further limit the potential use of the residue land for an agricultural use;

· this arrangement has been rejected by the RMS as part of the original application for 37 lots and again as part of the amended application for 15 lots. The RMS has accepted access for proposed lot 15 on the basis that there is existing access and access to the highway is required and desirable to enable emergency services access (in particular the RFS).

· Without the support of the RMS to access the Princes Highway this option cannot be pursued any further.

Option 4: Construction of direct access to Princes Highway utilising the existing access driveway which would include a revised proposed layout with no access to Emerald Drive (Option 4 indicated in blue in Figure 13 below). The main concerns or impediments to this proposal may be broadly summarised as follows:

· RMS has agreed to only a single lot use of the existing access driveway by way of existing rights of access to the subject site (emergency access exempted);

· RMS has consistently indicated that they wish to limit direct access onto the Princes Highway and to limit traffic volumes;

· RMS has agreed to use of Highway as secondary access for emergency services over easement via a locked gate on proposed Lot 15;

· An access road in this location would result in further fracturing of the E3 zoned land on residue lot;

Option 5: Construction of a road through Council’s public reserve to the south of the development site, linking the new development to Jasmine Drive via Gardenia Crescent, Magnolia Grove and Sheraton Circuit (Option 5 indicated in red in Figure 13 below). The main concerns or impediments to this proposal may be broadly summarised as follows:

· The public access road would be located on land dedicated as a public reserve;

· The land is largely flood-prone;

· Road pavement widths along Gardenia Crescent and Magnolia Grove present similar traffic and road network issues as is present within Emerald Drive;

· Additional ecological impacts are likely and may require entry in the Biodiversity Offset Scheme to offset flora and fauna impacts.

It is important to note that the Council as the assessing authority can only assess the application as proposed by the applicant and cannot direct the design. Council can encourage consideration of alternate designs but cannot redesign the application for the applicant.

Figure 13 - Potential alternate access arrangements for providing access to the subdivision which does not include the use of Emerald Drive. Each coloured line indicates the five (5) potential options that have been explored as part of the application.

Significant public submissions in relation to the application

The DA was notified in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy for Development Applications on four (4) separate occasions following the submission of additional information.

Table 3 – Summary of notification /submissions

	Date	Details	Submissions
1	12 December 2016	Notified for a period of 47 days (extended notification for the Christmas and New Year period).	26 Objections
2	17 January 2018	Re-notified for a period of 30 days	25 Objections
3	8 November 2018	15 days	20 Objections
4	19 March 2019	15 days	15 Objections
		TOTAL	86

In accordance with section 4.15(d) of the EP&A Act and clause 3.4.10 of Council’s Community Consultation Policy for Development Applications (Including Subdivision) and the Formulation of Development Guidelines and Policies, Council is required take into consideration any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

Some submissions received by Council raised a single issue relating to a specific part of the development. Other submissions raised several issues and relate to several perceived deficiencies with the development. Such submissions have been broken into the relevant heads of objection and addressed in the section 4.15 Assessment Report that accompanies this Council Report (Attachment 1).

The key issues identified in objection to the development through the notification process may be generally summarised as follows:

Traffic and road infrastructure

· The current road network is insufficient to support further development of the subject site. The revised Traffic Report acknowledges Emerald Drive's existing width does not comply with Chapter G11: Subdivision of Land under SDCP 2014, which requires a minimum 6.0m pavement to accommodate an AADT figure of up to 500 vpd.

· The current design of Emerald Drive would not provide compliance with AUS-SPEC or Landcom residential road design guidelines.

· The increased traffic flows through the construction phase of the development will severely impact on traffic flows and the safety of residents

· The Emerald Drive and Meroo Meadow intersection is unsafe and the increased traffic flows from the development will exacerbate the situation.

· Proposed traffic calming devices are unsatisfactory and will not result in a satisfactory outcome for Emerald Drive in terms of safety and operation.

· The increased heavy vehicle movements will result in continued damage to Emerald Drive and the surrounding road network.

· The Traffic Report does not consider the increase in traffic due to commercial vehicles or make reference to this traffic at peak times. No consideration of the impacts of construction traffic has been made within the report.

· Council should engage an independent traffic consultant to review the Traffic Report to provide a transparent assessment.

Comment:

The traffic impacts and existing and essential road infrastructure upgrades have been considered by the applicant as part of the numerous traffic reports that have been submitted to Council and assessed by Council’s Traffic and Transport Unit.

The applicant’s final Traffic Report has considered the existing and future traffic impacts associated with the site based upon one dwelling house per lot. It is noted that the current planning regime would permit development and subdivision of the lots based on 500m² minimum lot sizes, which would likely result in additional traffic impacts on Emerald Drive and the functioning of the Emerald Drive and Meroo Meadow subdivision.

It has been suggested that it may be appropriate to seek to impose appropriate restrictions on the title of the lots in accordance with s88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 to restrict development on the lots and prevent traffic impacts. However, title restrictions cannot be used to prevent a planning purpose / outcome that would be otherwise permissible by an environmental planning instrument. There is scope to impose a requirement for a building envelope to be placed on the subdivision plan for each lot which would be consistent with the nominal building envelope stipulated under Chapter G11: Subdivision of Land of SDCP 2014.

Council may also choose to explore the appropriate amendments to SLEP 2014 through a planning proposal and ‘Gateway Determination’ to rezone and amend appropriate development standards which would curtail more intense land uses. This approach has been recommended and is explored later in this Report.

The additional traffic impacts associated with subdivision, construction and eventual dwelling construction on the lots have not been considered by the submitted Traffic Report. Traffic impacts associated with construction works are difficult to effectively estimate and survey and it is unclear whether the applicant may seek to obtain a staged CC for works at the site. Conventional traffic reports will generally not consider these details.

However, the applicant will be required to prepare and lodge a construction traffic management plan as a condition of the development consent (if approval is granted). Council can require such a plan to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and list the matters for inclusion.

The construction traffic management plan must assess traffic impacts on the local road network created by the construction of the development. An appropriate condition is also recommended to ensure all subdivision construction traffic be directed via the existing driveway access from the Princess Highway and that no section 138 approval to access to Emerald Drive shall be issued by Council to open Emerald Drive until all required civil, demolition and drainage works have been completed to the extent to the eastern boundary with Emerald Drive.

Additionally, a dilapidation report would also be required to deal with any damage to public infrastructure as a result of construction traffic.

It is considered that the requirement for four (4) raised threshold devices along Emerald Drive to aid in traffic calming along with the reduction in the lot yield from 37 lots to 15 lots has significantly reduced the potential traffic impacts associated with the development and has removed the need for widening. It is also noted that the road widening of Emerald Drive was opposed by residents during the notification of the ‘road widening’ plans by Council on 8 November 2018.

The operation of the Meroo Road and Emerald Drive intersection has been assessed and considered by the applicant via a Traffic Report which has also been reviewed by Council’s Traffic and Transport unit as part of the assessment of the application. The safety, functionality and efficiency of the intersection have been reviewed and determined to be satisfactory under the existing and future conditions. It has been determined that there is presently no requirement for upgrade works at the intersection.

Council has suitably qualified professionals working in the Traffic and Transport Unit who have reviewed all plans and information submitted by the applicant. The assessment has been detailed and independent of external influences. It was not considered warranted to refer the matter for external review by an independent traffic consultant. There is nothing unusual about this. This is standard practice for most NSW Councils where there is in-house expertise to assess technical aspects of a development.

Safety concerns associated with road users and pedestrians along Emerald Drive

· The width of Emerald Drive, coupled with the absence of a pedestrian or shared pathway connecting Maddor Park Estate and the new development to Meroo Meadow Road and the parking of residents cars on the verge requires that pedestrians and cyclists share Emerald Drive with vehicles. The proposed development is likely to result in an increase in the potential for conflict between pedestrians and cyclists with vehicles using the road.

Comment:

The safety, functionality and efficiency of Emerald Drive have been determined to be satisfactory under the existing and future conditions, should the subdivision be approved.

The management of traffic impacts associated with the subdivision construction works will be further managed through a construction traffic management plan in the event of an approval.

Further development impacts on Emerald Drive

· The current planning controls relating to the site and resulting lots do not prevent further development or subdivision of the lots which have not been modelled in the Traffic Report and are likely to result in unacceptable traffic impact.

Comment:

The current planning regime would not prevent further development (i.e. multi-dwelling housing, dual occupancy, child care centres or residential flat buildings) and further subdivision of the lots which would have a significant and detrimental impact on the safety and functioning of Emerald Drive and the Meroo Road intersection with Emerald Drive.

Accordingly, it is recommended that a Planning Proposal (PP) and/or site-specific development control plan for the site to ensure that future development of the lots does not result in unsatisfactory traffic impacts on Emerald Drive and the Meroo Road intersection.

The potential options open to Council to limit further development are discussed later in this report.

Alternate access to the site should be explored with no access from Emerald Drive

· The proposed extension of Emerald Drive to the west to accommodate the development is not an acceptable option that will result in unsatisfactory traffic impacts on a road which is already under prescribed in terms of the effective road pavement width when considered against the provision of SDCP 2014 Chapter G11: Subdivision of Land. The applicant should explore alternative access arrangements to the north, south or via the Princes Highway.

Comment:

As has been identified earlier in this Report, the potential for alternate access to the site has been explored by the applicant, Council and the RMS throughout the assessment process. The potential for access to the Princes Highway for all lots has been considered and rejected by the RMS under the original proposal for 37 lots and again under the amended application for 15 lots. The RMS has agreed to enable access for Lot 15 and emergency vehicles to Emerald Drive via the right of carriageway accessed via the turning head to be constructed on Lot 505 DP 1221372.

It is important to note that Council previously approved the construction of Emerald Drive with the existing road pavement width under SF8781 and rezoning of the subject site was prepared and gazetted largely on the basis that access to the subject site would in all likelihood be via Emerald Drive.

It is considered that there is no realistic alternative to access the subject site beyond that proposed by the applicant for the extension of Emerald Drive.

Negative impacts on the amenity of Emerald Drive residents

· The additional dwellings on the resulting lots and extension Emerald Drive will have a negative impact on the amenity of existing residents and the Emerald Drive streetscape.

Comment:

The additional lots will likely result in an additional dwelling house on each lot with subsequent traffic movements to and from the dwellings consistent with typical residential usage. It is not considered that the impacts associated with an additional 15 lots will have a significant and discernible impact on the amenity of the residents of Maddor Park Estate or the broader locality.

The proposed lots range from 1,500m² to 7.16ha. The larger lot sizes are considered to be more reflective of the surrounding rural/residential setting.

Street planting will contribute to the streetscape. It is envisaged that similar housing to existing will be constructed continuing the low density streetscape and character.

Noise impacts

· The noise associated with the additional traffic movements and driver behaviour associated with the traffic calming devices (heavy braking and accelerating) will have a negative impact on all residents and particularly for those residents directly adjoining traffic calming devices.

Comment:

It is likely that the installation of four (4) raised thresholds (traffic calming devices) along Emerald Drive will result in driver behaviour that may result in associated noise impacts i.e. braking before the devices and accelerating after going over the device. Emerald Drive has a speed limit of 50km/h. The Traffic Report and associated surveys demonstrate that average speeds are below 40km/h and the addition of 15 lots to the subdivision is unlikely to increase vehicle speeds. The raised thresholds should be designed to reduce associated noise impacts where possible.

Property Values

· The proposed subdivision and extension of Emerald Drive will have such a detrimental effect on the character of the neighbourhood, that property values will be negatively affected.

Comment:

Whilst this is a typical and worrying concern when people are faced with new development, it is not a planning consideration that Council can consider in the assessment of the application. The planning assessment of an application is prescribed by section 4.15 of the EP&A Act 1979.

Stormwater Impacts

· The extension of the Emerald Drive road and dwellings on the 15 lot proposal will create a significant additional stormwater impact. The revised subdivision proposal does not seem to provide updated details of stormwater management or an assessment of peak stormwater events to the North into Abernethy's Creek or South into the watercourse flowing east behind the existing houses along the southern side of Emerald drive into the pond near Meroo Road.

Comment:

Lots will include inter-allotment drainage and street drainage installed to manage stormwater runoff.

All future dwellings are to include 5kL on-site detention (OSD) rainwater tanks (beyond any requirements for BASIX), to limit peak runoff flow rates to pre-developed levels and to improve downstream water quality and on-site retention for rainwater re-use.

A drainage easement through proposed Lot 14 will cater for major overland flows in the 100-year storm event and an appropriate restriction is to be placed on the lot in accordance with s88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919.

A soil and water management plan will be prepared prior to work commencing on the site to manage site disturbance and control sediment runoff from the construction site.

The development has been considered by Council’s subdivision and drainage engineers to be satisfactory and is consistent with the applicable objectives relating to sustainable stormwater management and sediment control.

The redesign of the application does not prevent further subdivision or intensification of land uses that would have an unreasonable impact on Emerald Drive.

Comment:

The subject site has split zoning under SLEP 2014, consisting of land zoned part: R1 General Residential, E3 Environmental Management and RU1 Primary Production. Refer to the extract from the Land Use Zoning Map of SLEP 2014 in Figure 14 below.

Development permitted with consent and prohibited in the R1 General Residential zone is identified under Item 3 and 4 of Land Use Table to the zone as follows:

3 Permitted with consent

Attached dwellings; Boarding houses; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Centre-based child care facilities; Community facilities; Dual occupancies; Dwelling houses; Emergency services facilities; Environmental protection works; Exhibition homes, Exhibition villages; Group homes; Home-based child care; Home businesses; Home industries; Hostels; Jetties; Multi dwelling housing; Neighbourhood shops; Office premises; Oyster aquaculture; Places of public worship; Pond-based aquaculture; Recreation areas; Registered clubs; Residential flat buildings; Respite day care centres; Roads; Semi-detached dwellings; Seniors housing; Sewerage systems; Shop top housing; Tank-based aquaculture; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Veterinary hospitals; Water supply systems

4 Prohibited

Farm stay accommodation; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 3

Under the current provisions of SLEP 2014 and in the event that the current proposal is determined by way of approval a development application could be lodged for a land uses (bolded) which would all result in a significant increase in traffic volumes on Emerald Drive. The intensification of land uses and the associated impacts are of considerable concern to residents.

The increase in traffic would likely exceed that presently modelled under the Traffic Report which has adopted an average of 6.4 vehicles movements per day (vpd) per dwelling. The highlighted land uses would be expected to generate a significantly higher vpd for each of the lots and AADT.

Figure 14 - Extract from SLEP 2014 Land Use Zoning Map. The subject site highlighted in blue.

The Lot Size Map relating to the subject site indicates that there are two minimum lot sizes relating to the subject site – “AB4” 40ha and “I” 500m². The 500m² minimum lot size mapping is consistent with the land zoned R1 General Residential under SLEP 2014. Refer to Figure 15 extract from SLEP 2014 Lot Size Map.

Under the current provisions of SLEP 2014 and in the event that the current proposal is determined by way of approval a development application could be lodged for a re-subdivision of any of the lots in accordance with clause 4.1 of SLEP 2014. Based on the current subdivision design an application could be lodged to re-subdivide each lot to generate an additional 15 lots (30 lots in total) or a subdivision pattern similar to that previously proposed by the applicant as part of the original application lodged in October 2016.

Furthermore, there are additional provisions under Part 4 Principal Development standards of SLEP 2014 which allow for subdivision of the land which would result in a lot less than the minimum lot size indicted on the Lot Size Map; they include the following provisions:

· Clause 4.1C Exceptions to minimum subdivision lot sizes for certain residential development; and

· Clause 4.1F Minimum subdivision lot size for community scheme and strata plan lots.

Any subsequent re-subdivision of the resulting 15 lot subdivision would result in an increase in traffic volumes on Emerald Drive which would exceed that presently modelled under the Traffic Report which indicates that AADT would exceed 500vpd at a point west of Ruby Lane, generally adjacent to 24 Emerald Drive (refer to Figure 7 in this Report).

Figure 15 - Extract from SLEP 2014 Lot Size Map. The subject site highlighted in blue.

There are a number of approaches that Council could explore to ensure that further subdivision and subsequent dwelling houses and more intense land uses are not capable of being situated on the resulting lots, this may include matters along the following lines however the imposition of any restrictions via an 88B Instrument would have to be worded in a manner that they do not prevent the achievement of a planning purpose /outcome permitted in an Instrument.

· Placement of appropriate covenant on the lots as a restriction on the use of land by deed of agreement between the parties pursuant to s88 Conveyancing Act 1919. Such restrictive covenants could include:

o No part of a dwelling or other habitable building may be constructed or allowed to remain on any lot hereby burdened unless it is contained wholly within the approved building envelope delineated on the plan in relation to the burdened lot; and

o No driveway access shall be permitted to be constructed or retained on any lots unless such driveway access is the only driveway access on the lot.

However, such restrictions would serve to highlight to future owners that the intention is for the land to accommodate conventional low density residential development. In the event that an approval is granted for the development and the PP is pursued, it would be likely that an application would be made to remove any such requirement noting that the building envelope is relatively modest having regard to the land size.

Given the recommendation is for a Deferred Commencement, restrictions are not deemed necessary.

· Preparation and lodgement of a planning proposal (PP) in relation to:

o Zoning (relating to R1 General Residential land only). A zoning of R5 Large Lot Residential is considered more appropriate for the land as it is consistent with the development application’s large lot nature and would enable land owners to pursue land uses consistent with the nature of the land;

o Minimum lot size (relating to land identified as “I” under the Lot Size Map which relates to the 500m² minimum lot size). A minimum lot size of 1,500m² would maintain the large lot residential nature proposed as part of the development application. This will assist in managing future development of the land to avoid congestion and adverse impacts on the immediate road network; and

o Building height. The Height of Buildings Map does not show a maximum height for the land and therefore the height of a building on the land shall not exceed 11 metres. A maximum height of 8.5m over the land (R1 part only) is considered appropriate as it reflects the height limit of surrounding residential land and the citywide approach to heights in this context.

· Preparation of an area specific development control plan to guide future development of the lots and stipulate performance criteria and acceptable solutions to ensure that the rural/residential character of the lots is maintained, the resulting development does not result in a significant increase in traffic generation beyond that anticipated under the Traffic Report. This is considered not to be a suitable approach for this site. Furthermore, having regard to the hierarchy of planning controls and the intention of a development control plan, it should be noted that they are designed to guide development and provide a degree of flexibility. In simple terms, it is easier to vary provisions in these plans as opposed to controls included in a local environmental plan (LEP).

The applicant has also advised Council the landowner is prepared to enter into a legal agreement. Such an agreement would prevent or seek to defer registration of the lots or lodgement of a subdivision certificate until the PP was resolved. Whilst the intention may be clear, some concern remains about the veracity of such an agreement.

Another option which has been suggested is a deferred commencement style consent. However, a deferred matter should generally not be something that relies on another independent process or approval. A deferred consent however would ensure resolution of the PP prior to the subdivision occurring. This greatly reduces the risk of land being sold /purchased and potentially developed for uses with a higher traffic generation.

Planning Assessment

The application has been assessed under section 4.15 of the EP&A Act, with all necessary heads of consideration reviewed. (Attachment 1)

Community Engagement

The notification of the application was undertaken in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy including advertising and notification of local residents within the vicinity of the development, with letters being sent within a 100m radius of the site and to Community Consultative Bodies.

A total of 86 submissions were received to the application. All submissions were in objection to the application.

Should a planning proposal proceed through Gateway to exhibition it would be exhibited for a period of at least 28 days in accordance with legislative requirements.

Policy Implications

If an approval is to be issued, the policy implications, if the recommendation is adopted, will be that the strategic planning framework will need to be explored to limit further development in the locality having regard to the unique circumstances of the estate, being a long narrow road, servicing the number of lots.

Financial Implications

There are potential cost implications for Council in the event of a refusal of the application. Such costs would be associated with defending any appeal in the Land and Environment Court of NSW.

Should Council support the preparation of a planning proposal, this process would be managed through the Strategic Planning budget and may impact on the work programme.

Legal Implications

Pursuant to section 8.2 of the EP&A Act a decision of the Council may be subject of a review by the applicant in the event of approval or refusal. Alternatively, an applicant for development consent who is dissatisfied with the determination of the application by the Council may, as mentioned above, appeal to the Court against the determination pursuant to section 8.7 of the EP&A Act.

Summary and Conclusions

· The proposal is acceptable having regard to the relevant environmental planning instruments and the SDCP 2014.

· The extent of variations to SDCP 2014 are limited to nominated road widths indicated in Chapter G11: Subdivision of Land. The variations are identified in the attached section 4.15 Assessment Report;

· The proposed development is unlikely to result in significant adverse unreasonable environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality having regard to the urban zone and context of the land;

· Subject to appropriate conditions, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development noting that it has been zoned for urban development (although the capacity of the land has been questioned and the proposal modified in response);

· The submissions received by Council raise concerns with the development and associated impacts. The submissions have been considered and addressed as part of the Council Report and section 4.15 Assessment Report;

· The development is considered to be in the public interest in that it will provide additional land for housing development; and

· The development is compatible with the surrounding development and will not have a significant adverse impact on the landscape character of the area.

Regarding the above, the proposal is not considered unacceptable, objectionable or warranting refusal. Accordingly, a positive recommendation is made.

Development & Environment Committee – Tuesday 06 August 2019

Page 0

Figure 2 Key	Proposed LEP Amendment	Staff Comment
(A)	Rezone approximately 2ha of land from RU1 Primary Production to R1 General Residential.	Support in principle – further discussion below.
(B) (E) (N) (O) (P)	Rezone areas of R1 General Residential to E2 Environmental Conservation.	Support. The PP request will result in an overall increase of E2 land from 39.93 ha to 47.93 ha.
(C) (D) (K) (M)	Rezone areas of E2 Environmental Conservation to R1 General Residential.	Support in principle – further discussion below.
(F)	Adjust E2 and R1 zone to suit landform.	Supported.
(G)	Reduce the size of the business zoned area from approximately 2.31ha to approximately 2.24ha and rezone it from B1 Neighbourhood Centre to B2 Local Centre or B4 Mixed Use.	Support in principle – further discussion below.
(H)	Rezone R1 General Residential to the adjoining Business zone.	Support in principle – further discussion below.
(I)	Adjust the RE1 boundary to fit with the proposed Indicative Layout Plan.	Support. The adjustment results in a slight increase in RE1 land from 2.58 ha to 2.6 ha.
(J)	Reduce the size of the E3 Environmental Management buffer along Moss Vale Road from 75m to 30m and rezone the additional 45m to R1 General Residential.	Reservations – further discussion below.
(L)	Introduce provisions to enable the subdivision of the existing dwelling with a 2,000m² minimum area around it.	Support – this is currently being resolved through a separate PP to generally amend LEP Clause 6.5.
(Q)	Remove the Scenic Protection Area from B7 Business Park land.	Support in principle – further discussion below.
(R)	Introduce provisions to enable the provision of small lots (300-450m²) in close proximity to open space and or on main traffic ‘spine’ roads.	Support in principle – further discussion below.
(S)	Introduce provisions to encourage medium density development in close proximity to open space and business zoned land.	Reservations – further discussion below.

Discussion on Proposed LEP Amendments

(A). Rezone approximately 2 ha of land from RU1 Primary Production to R1 General Residential.

Extending the URA to line up with cadastral / property boundaries in this location is logical and supported. In addition to an R1 zoning, the minimum lot size map should also possibly be used to reflect the intended future use which is shown as ‘Large Lot >1,000m²’ development on the submitted Indicative Layout Plan – this would see a 1,000m² minimum lot size applied to the land.

Internal referral comments received have requested that the proposed change from E2 to R1 for some of the ephemeral watercourses be reviewed carefully given the potential for erosion of the soil types existing on the site.

This will be further discussed with the proponent and relevant Government Departments as part of the PP process.

(G). Reduce the size of the business zoned area and rezone it from B1 Neighbourhood Centre to either B2 Local Centre or B4 Mixed Use and (H) Rezone R1 General Residential to the adjoining Business zone.

The proponent group are seeking to rezone the current B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone to B2 Local Centre or B4 Mixed Use. Based on the recent Nowra-Bomaderry Retail Centres Hierarchy Review, B2 is preferred/supported over a B4 zone which is referenced in the draft DCP.

The recent Retail Centres Hierarchy Review also recommended that the two B1 Neighbourhood Centre areas currently zoned to service MVRN and MVRS should be subject to a strategic analysis and “be combined in a single centre that is relevant and accessible for the two growth areas north and south of Moss Vale Road.” The Review recommended that the resultant business centre should be a maximum size of 1.2–1.5 ha providing for a centre of a maximum of 5,000 m² Gross Lettable Area (GLA).

The Retail Centres Hierarchy Review was exhibited for comment and will shortly be reported back to Council to consider how to take it or relevant components forward. It is also noted that a separate strategic analysis of the existing R3 Medium Density/B1 Neighbourhood Centre/SP2 Educational Establishment zonings adjacent to the MVRS area probably also needs to be undertaken given what is now known about likely development in this location.

Dependent on the decisions made regarding the overall Retail Centres Hierarchy Review and any work on the area adjacent to MVRS, the need to consider reducing the size of the MVRN business zone to 1.5ha and including an additional clause in the LEP to ensure the centre does not exceed 5,000m² can be considered as part of the PP process.

The proponent’s Proposed PP Justification Report also seeks the insertion of an Additional Local Provision to permit the “temporary residential use of ground floor shop top housing areas (i.e. use of shop area) until surrounding development and viability is achieved to support the shop top use. This outcome will avoid the Business centre having vacant land / shops in its initial development period.” Again, the actual need for this will be considered as part of the PP process.

(J). Reduce the size of the E3 Environmental Management buffer from 75m to 30m and rezone the additional 45m buffer area to R1 General Residential.

The Scenic Protection Area buffer was first identified along Moss Vale Road in the Nowra-Bomaderry Structure Plan 2008. Its width was however reduced through the Citywide LEP process based on submissions. Given the topography of the land, the original intent of this buffer in the Structure Plan was to lessen the visual impact of the future development looking north when travelling along Moss Vale Road. The original proposed buffer provided the opportunity to site dwellings below the level of the road, assisted with road noise management and also acknowledged the size of the existing trees that are located on that side of the road.

The proponent group’s justification for further reducing the E3 buffer from its current 75m to 30m is that the current width is excessive for the purposes of providing a dense landscape screen planting and visual buffer from Moss Vale Road. They propose that suitable screening can be provided within a 25m/30m width (Note: conflicting widths in multiple documents) including an added landscaped earth mound for noise attenuation and a further 5m wide ‘share way’ abutting the perimeter road.

The proponents draw a comparison between the 20m buffer further east along Moss Vale Road that separates lots in Bomaderry along Tartarian Crescent, however an important distinction is that these lots average 4,000m² and are significantly larger than what the draft Indicative Layout Plan proposes for MVRN (Small Lots 300–450 m²). Based on traffic forecasts for Moss Vale Road to 2041, there is concern that a 2-4m vegetated earth mound will do little to attenuate against existing and future traffic noise especially if dwellings in this location are built to the maximum permissible height of 11m (3 storeys).

Some of the staff comment raised concerns that this requested change may have a significant visual/scenic impact.

This requested change is not necessarily supported completely as submitted, but requires more detailed and careful consideration in discussion with the proponents and others (e.g. NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment) as the PP advances. Specific things that need to be considered and/or further investigated include:

· Appropriate noise attenuation

· Whether small lots of 300–450 m² should be encouraged in this location

· Whether building heights needs to be controlled given that it is an elevated ridge

· Should the Scenic Protection Layer be retained to ensure that adverse visual impacts from Moss Vale Road can be considered.

(Q). Remove the Scenic Protection Area from B7 Business Park land.

This Scenic Protection Area was carried over into Shoalhaven LEP 2014 from the Nowra-Bomaderry Structure Plan 2008, when this area was originally identified as a ‘Possible Future Living Area’ (long term). As such in the original versions of the then draft LEP this area was shown as a ‘rural’ zone with the ‘scenic protection area’ hatching. The area was however ultimately zoned B7 Business Park through the Citywide LEP process based on submissions.

Given the objectives of the B7 Business Park zone to provide a range of office and light industrial uses, the original scenic protection purpose is highly compromised and should be removed as it is now inconsistent with the zoning of the land that envisages development of a more intensive nature.

The land directly east of the B7 zone is currently shown incorrectly in the proponent group’s proposed zoning plan as being zoned RE1 Public Recreation when it is actually zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. This will be rectified in the PP.

(R). Introduce provisions to enable the subdivision of small lots (300-450m²) in close proximity to open space and main traffic ‘spine’ roads.

The introduction of the potential for small lots will hopefully help facilitate a mix of housing types and lot sizes to support a wide/diverse range of residents at various life stages. Small lots are also more likely to be priced more affordably than larger lots and may contribute to increased future housing affordability in the area.

Small lots should only be considered and permissible in higher amenity locations close to main traffic roads and future public transport routes and with direct street frontage to open space, not necessarily just “in close proximity to open space”. This will ensure that future small lots enjoy a superior amenity to justify any trade-offs as a result of reduced land area. Some areas identified on the draft Indicative Layout Plan as being “Small Lot 300–450 m²” should possibly be removed moving forward where they do not front onto open space areas as these may not ultimately be considered suitable high amenity locations.

The facilitation of Small Lots (300-450 m²) will be achieved via a similar provision to Clause 4.1H that was inserted into the LEP to enable the subdivision of small lots in the MVRS URA below the set minimum lot size in higher amenity locations.

(S). Introduce provisions to encourage medium density development in close proximity to open space and business zoned land.

The current R1 zoning already permits a range of medium density housing types including multi dwelling housing (3 or more dwellings on one lot) and residential flat buildings within the URA.

The proponent has clarified they are actually seeking for areas marked as “Medium Density / Integrated Apartments <300m²” on their draft Indicative Layout Plan to be rezoned from R1 General Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential. This is however not currently reflected in Figure 3 – Draft Proposed Zones Map. The justification for this is to provide the opportunity to increase the range of housing and facilitate opportunities for increased affordable housing supply. This justification is not clear as the outcome (and possibly a better one) can already be achieved through the existing R1 zone.

The main differences between the R1 and R3 zone are shown in the table below:

	R1 General Residential	R3 Medium Density Residential
Dwelling houses	ü	û
Dual occupancies	ü	ü
Semi-detached dwellings	ü	û
Multi dwelling housing	ü	ü
Residential flat buildings	ü	ü

There is also some concern over the scale of the proposed rezoning of all the “Medium Density / Integrated Apartments <300m²” areas shown on the draft Indicative Layout Plan to R3. It is specifically noted that the R3 zone is not as flexible as R1 zone and for example prohibits standalone dwelling houses and semi-detached dwellings.

Thus, to enable future development to respond flexibly to market demand, it is recommended that any areas to be rezoned to R3 Medium Density Residential must be within 400m walking distance of the proposed business centre and also have direct frontage onto connected open space areas. Areas which do not meet these criteria should be left as R1 to enable medium density development to be flexibly applied should there be market demand for this, not mandated.

Other Possible LEP Amendments

The proponent group’s draft DCP also refers to possible maximum building heights of up to 16m (4 storeys) in the business centre and R3 Medium Density areas. This is in excess of the current maximum permissible height of 11m under Clause 4.3(2A) of the LEP and no explanation or justification has been provided in the PP justification report.

This issue needs further clarification before being included in any PP for the area. Subject to further discussion, increasing the maximum height from 11m to 16m is generally not favoured as it could result in an overdevelopment of the URA that is not compatible with the location and its high scenic and pastoral landscape setting.

The draft DCP also states that height in other residential zones will be a maximum of 10m (2 storeys), however it is unclear whether this is being sought as a mapped LEP adjustment below the current maximum height of 11m as it has also been excluded from the PP Justification Report. Further clarification is required in this regard.

Also, as a minor housekeeping amendment, the PP should also amend the current URA mapping to exclude Lot 10 DP 1105201, which has approximately 2.67m² currently mapped within the URA. This is not a viable area; however, the current mapping would still trigger Part 6 of the LEP before any development consent can be granted on that land. To avoid this issue in the future, the Draft Proposed Zones Map should follow the boundaries of the ILP to avoid small ‘left over’ pieces of land.

Other Considerations

Biodiversity Certification

Council Environmental Services staff have flagged the potential opportunity for the URA to be also be biodiversity certified under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

This is given that a significant amount of work has already been done by the applicant’s environmental consultant (JB Enviro) which could be used in the Biodiversity Certification (BC) assessment process. BC would avoid the requirement for individual Biodiversity Development Assessment Reports (BDAR) to be required at the future development application stage and would result in a streamlined biodiversity assessment process for future developments. This would then result in greater certainty for developers and the community on the development and conservation outcomes for the URA.

BC can be either ‘Standard’ (available to landholders and planning authorities) or ‘Strategic’ (available only to planning authorities to support significant regional development and planning processes). The Biodiversity Conservation Trust may also provide loans and financial assistance to planning authorities undertaking BC.

At this stage, it is recommended that Council endorse the principle to biodiversity certify the URA and that this be discussed in further detail with the proponent and landowners with a further report to be provided to Council. The ability for expenses associated with the BC process to be recouped through the Contributions Plan system or similar will also be investigated.

Affordable Housing

One of the reasons that Council brought forward the phasing of this URA at the request of the proponent group was the potential to help with affordable housing opportunities in the Nowra-Bomaderry area given the issues being experienced. This has also been discussed with and raised by the proponent group.

The adopted Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy contains various ‘strategies’ that are particularly relevant regarding the URA that is currently under consideration given its significant size. The relevant strategies include:

· Short Term: Strategy 4 - Council will investigate the potential for development of small lot housing on a privately-owned Greenfield site, and appropriate mechanisms, funding and legal agreements to implement an appropriate model or demonstration project including opportunities for shared equity approaches.

· Short Term: Strategy 6 - Advocate for the NSW Government to revise SEPP 70 Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) to include Shoalhaven to effectively mandate provision of contributions for affordable housing where appropriate/required.

· Medium Term: Strategy 9 - Council will ensure that there is sufficient developable land zoned R1 in future greenfield release areas to provide market opportunities for development of residential flat buildings and multi dwelling housing.

· Long Term: Strategy 24 - Council will develop a Masterplan DCP approach to Greenfield developments in accordance with Part 6 of Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014, potentially including the following types of requirements:

˗ A proportion of lots to be allocated to multi dwelling housing (for example, 10% of lots), with mandatory provisions for smaller 2-bedroom stock (i.e. 2-bedroom, 1-bathroom dwellings with a maximum floor area of 70 or 75 m²);

˗ A proportion of lots be allocated as smaller lots (for example, 10% of lots or 5% of the masterplan area as 350 m² lots);

˗ A proportion of separate houses of a specified size (for example, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings with 1 bathroom and a maximum floor area of 110 m²).

· Long Term: Strategy 25 - Council will develop a performance criteria-based approach in an early stage of new release areas, with criteria related to housing type and affordability benchmarks.

It is acknowledged that the proponent group’s current package of plans does seek to provide a range of lot size and housing opportunities – this approach is consistent with the intent of some of the above strategies and will hopefully assist with affordability. Given the above strategies and Council’s commitment to taking positive planning steps to assist with the provision of affordable housing opportunities, the possibilities in this regard should be further explored in consultation with the proponent group, and if possible/practical, implemented through the detailed plans that will be prepared for this URA.

In regard to Strategy 6 it is relevant to note that SEPP 70 Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) was amended in early 2019 to enable its provisions to be used in all regional areas, including Shoalhaven. These provisions enable an affordable housing contribution scheme to be established in appropriate areas and enable contributions to be collected by councils for affordable housing. Given that the planning package effectively involves a new LEP for this URA, the opportunity now exists to consider and test the possible establishment of an affordable housing contribution scheme in this location. This involves following a set process to determine whether such a scheme is viable in this URA.

Thus, it is recommended that Council, in supporting taking the overall proposal forward, investigate the preparation of an affordable housing contribution scheme under the SEPP 70 for this URA.

Bushfire / Asset Protection Zones

The URA is partially mapped as bushfire prone. The Bushfire Assessment Report dated March 2018 references the outdated NSW Planning for Bushfire Protection (PBP) 2006 document. Revised asset protection zones (APZs) are needed with PBP 2018 dimensions. The bushfire assessment area also falls short of Moss Vale Road and does not include the land proposed to be extended in the north west section (as does the Biodiversity Report). Future development will also be assessed under PBP 2018.

The report maps the (possibly outdated) indicative APZs which will be required. It is recommended that APZs are contained within the residential zoned land and do not include E2 zoned land via a mechanism such as the DCP. For example, areas identified for ‘Small Lots 300–450 m² next to 35m APZs may need to be reconsidered. Where APZs widths cannot be achieved, the level of construction of the dwelling will have to be increased as a result. This issue will be discussed in further detail with the proponent as part of the further development of the supporting plans (e.g. the DCP Chapter). This discussion will also cover comments raised by staff in the Development Services Section regarding the need to ensure that APZs, bushfire etc. are properly resolved with access arrangements.

Contamination

The site has previously been used for agricultural purposes and there is the potential for isolated contamination. The Preliminary Site Investigation submitted is satisfactory and further individual geotechnical assessment at the development application stage should be undertaken. This can be covered in the DCP Chapter.

Flooding

The initial staff review of the Flood Study and Riparian Lands Assessment has shown it to be comprehensive in assessing the flood scenario at the pre-development condition. Initial comments from Council’s flooding technical staff have provided some addition information to be considered at the development application stage. This will be forwarded to the proponent group for future reference and may also be considered in the development of the DCP Chapter.

Riparian Zones

It is not entirely clear from the documents provided whether or not the proposed zoning boundaries include the required riparian buffers which were previously discussed with the proponent group on site. Guidance on riparian corridor widths is provided by the NSW Office of Water using the Strahler System of ordering watercourses. Riparian zone widths will be further discussed and clarified with the proponent prior to proceeding with the PP preparation.

Some concern was also raised in the initial Council staff consultation over the width of the riparian corridor in the northern E2 portion along Abernethy’s Creek. Further clarification will be sought from the proponent group as well as requesting that the width be increased in this section to ensure it is a practical corridor for wildlife movements in the future.

Infrastructure – Traffic & Transport

An assessment of the functionality of the proposed internal road network has been difficult at this stage as the package of plans do not include traffic volume forecasts. Similar forecasts were used to determine the adequacy of the indicative MVRS layout and should also be provided for the MVRN area to confirm that the proposed road types (local or collector roads) and road cross sections (including road widths and number of lanes) are appropriate.

Inconsistencies with the Nowra-Bomaderry Structure Plan Preferred Road Network should also be considered/addressed, as well as considering external strategic road links for future longer-term development to the north (Meroo Meadow Future Long Term Living Area). It is noted that external traffic modelling requested by RMS is still outstanding.

Greater consistency will also be required in terms of road widths between the MVRS and MVRN DCP Chapters. In addition to these high-level comments, Council’s Traffic and Transport staff have raised a number of detailed issues which will be further discussed and worked through with the proponent group and their traffic consultant.

Infrastructure – Water and Sewerage

Sewerage infrastructure for MVRS is expected to be delivered in 2019/2020 (not 2018/2019 as indicated in the Infrastructure Report) and MVRN is expected to be delivered in 2021/2022 (not 2019/2020 as indicated in the Infrastructure Report).

Water infrastructure for MVRN is expected to be delivered between 2019/2020 and 2022/2023 (not between 2018/2019 and 2021/2022 as indicated in the Infrastructure Report).

Development contributions payable will be in accordance with the Development Servicing Plans current at time of payment.

Shoalhaven Water are currently advancing their planning to potentially service both MVRS and MVRN.

Natural Resources

At this stage the package of plans does not clearly distinguish which areas will be landscaped for open space areas and which areas will be protected/conserved and rehabilitated. It is expected that the proponent group will work towards full restoration and function of the riparian system, particularly Abernethy’s Creek which is severely degraded in its present form. This has been achieved in other areas within the City such as Dolphin Point and will be further discussed with the proponent group moving forward.

Open Space

The draft ILP meets the open space requirements for passive recreation of 12 m² per person (1.2 ha/1000 people) set out in Council’s adopted Community Infrastructure Strategic Plan (CISP). However, some areas of ‘Open Space’ shown on the draft ILP are not shown on the Draft Proposed Zones Map and are instead shown as R1. This will be clarified with the proponent group.

Council also does not generally support the development of any new ‘pocket parks’, of which there are six (6) proposed on the draft ILP. This directly contradicts the adopted CISP and Council’s current approach of rationalising all pocket parks in the City with the focus on developing district and regional hubs for active recreation. It is recommended these be removed from the draft ILP or alternatively connected to the wider open space network.

Further emphasis on ensuring open spaces are accessible should also be made in the draft DCP.

Council’s Social Infrastructure Planning Unit also made a range of more detailed comments which will be forwarded to the proponent for consideration.

Stormwater Management and Water Quality

Prior to construction, background water quality sampling will be required to establish the water quality of Abernethy’s Creek. This should capture upstream locations (from the escarpment) through to locations where detention basins are proposed in order to establish background data that can then be used to determine future water quality parameters as well as any development impacts on water quality.

Water treatment devices will need to be of a proven design to protect the receiving E2 zoned areas/riparian areas and be contained within residential zoned land. This will be specified in the DCP Chapter.

Draft Development Control Plan Chapter and Draft Contributions Plan Amendment

Under Part 6 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014, development consent cannot be granted for subdivision etc. in a URA unless a DCP has been prepared for the site and arrangements made for public utility infrastructure (generally via a CP and other mechanisms).

To assist in the preparation of the DCP Chapter, the proponent group have prepared a set of potential draft controls.

A preliminary review of this draft DCP document has identified some areas which need to be worked through with the proponent group to potentially achieve consistency with the PP and resolve issues with the suggested staging plan, desired future character chapter and other detailed comments received from Council staff during the initial internal consultation period.

Preliminary preparatory work has also commenced on the CP. At time of writing the State Infrastructure Contribution (SIC) approach has however not yet been resolved or clarified by the NSW Government.

This report seeks the required formal resolution to commence the preparation of the required plans. It is intended that the draft DCP Chapter and CP will be placed on exhibition with the PP at the appropriate point and a further report will be provided prior to exhibition, so that the detail of these draft plans can be reviewed and considered by Council.

Suburb Naming

The MVRN URA is currently split by the boundary of two suburbs – Meroo Meadow and Cambewarra, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 – Current Suburb Boundaries of Cambewarra and Meroo Meadow

As development of the URA progresses, it is expected this delineation could cause a number of issues and confusion in terms of street addressing, way finding for emergency and postal services, and community cohesion within the URA.

Council staff have been researched potential naming options for both the Moss Vale Road URAs (North and South) using historic lands title maps and knowledge of the Aboriginal and European history of the area; however, these investigations have not uncovered any clearly suitable naming options that would conform with the naming principles of the Geographical Names Board of NSW (GNB).

In order to avoid confusion as the URAs develops, it is recommended that Council formally commence the process to investigate and resolve potential naming options for the URAs.

The naming process is not managed by Council and all options will ultimately require an application to the GNB. Council could undertake community consultation prior to submitting the final naming request to the GNB.

Options which could be considered, including the number of affected properties, are outlined in the table below:

Suburb Naming Option	No. of Affected Properties
1. Adjust the current Cambewarra / Meroo Meadow suburb boundary to run along Moss Vale Road instead of through the middle of the MVRN URA (as shown in Figure 5).	6
2. Assign new suburb names individually to both the MVRN and South URAs.	33+
3. Assign a single new suburb name for the two URAs combined.	33+

Option 1, as shown in Figure 5 below, will have the least impact on landowners, would result in less contention among owners in choosing a new name, and is more likely to be supported by the GNB.

However, depending on feedback received from Council, landowners, community groups, etc, Options 2 and 3 should also possibly be considered. These options also have the benefit of establishing a new identity for these substantial new residential area/s.

Figure 5 – Option 1 Suburb Name Boundary Adjustment (preferred option)

Conclusion

A significant body of work has now been prepared for the MVRN URA, including the proposed justification for a future adjusting PP and draft DCP Chapter. The considerable work undertaken by the proponent group in this regard is duly acknowledged.

Council’s endorsement of the work to date and formal resolution to prepare the necessary PP, DCP Chapter and CP Amendment as outlined in this report will enable the planning of MVRN URA to enable its ‘release’ to continue to progress. Further reports will be presented to Council as these plans advance and at key future points.

Community Engagement

In acknowledgement that not all landowners within the MVRN URA are part of the proponent group, an initial landowner meeting was held on 25 September 2017 following Council’s decision to revise the staging plan for the URA. Further updates have subsequently been provided to all owners through an online ‘Get Involved’ page for the Nowra-Bomaderry URAs.

Letters were also sent to all landowners in the URA advising of receipt of the package of plans from the proponent group and how to view them. No early comments have been received at this stage from landowners or the public

Another meeting with all landowners will be arranged once Council has formally considered the plans that are subject to this report to discuss the next steps etc.

The proposed PP, DCP Chapter and CP Amendment will ultimately be publicly exhibited as a package following the Gateway determination for a minimum period of 28 days.

Policy Implications

This is a ‘high priority’ project on the 2019-2020 Strategic Planning Works Program that was adopted by Council in June 2019.

Preparation of a PP, a DCP Chapter, and a CP Amendment will set the policy direction for future development and ‘release’ of the URA.

Financial Implications

Work being undertaken by Council staff to progress the MVRN URA release planning is currently being managed within the existing Strategic Planning budget.

The majority of the technical studies for the URA have so far been funded by the proponent group, with the exception of the Integrated Water Cycle Assessment (IWCA) which was prepared for Council and will be considered for recoupment via Section 7.11 contributions levied from future development within the URA.

There are likely to be a range of more detailed financial and longer-term resourcing implications for Council associated with the ultimate development of this URA and these will be discussed in more detail at the appropriate points in the release process. This includes possibly funding mechanisms or management regimes for the extensive open space and riparian areas and other required infrastructure (e.g. Stormwater controls). In the discussions with the proponent group their desire to consider different or innovative approaches in this regard have been highlighted, with the aim of providing a higher standard of maintenance/presentation, employment opportunities and the like.

Development & Environment Committee – Tuesday 06 August 2019

Page 0

DE19.69 Public Hearing Outcome and Proposed Finalisation - Planning Proposal (PP023) - Anson Street, St. Georges Basin

HPERM Ref: D19/219918

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Strategic Planning

Attachments: 1. Public Hearing Report - Planning Proposal PP023 (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Public Exhibition - Submissions Summary - Planning Proposal PP023 (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Previous Council Report - May 2019 - PP023 Exhibition Outcomes (under separate cover) ⇨

4. Submission - On behalf of Mr De Battista - Dated 14 March 2019 ⇩

Purpose / Summary

Detail the outcome of the Public Hearing held regarding this Planning Proposal (PP) and consider the next steps to possibly finalise this PP.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council

1. Receive the Independent Chairperson’s Report on the Public Hearing held on 1 July 2019 regarding Planning Proposal PP023 for information.

2. Adopt and finalise Planning Proposal PP023 as exhibited.

3. Forward PP023 to the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office to draft the amendment to Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014.

4. Give effect to the decision by making the resulting amendment to the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 using Council’s delegation, through arranging for the instrument to be notified on the NSW Legislation Website.

5. Write to the affected landowner, relevant community groups/individuals and advise them of this decision.

6. Proceed to separately review the building height controls for the adjacent B4 and R1 zoned land to the north and south of the subject land to consider establishing a consistent outcome (8.5 metre maximum mapped height) and advise the affected landowners in this regard.

Options

1. Adopt the PP as exhibited, exercise the Council’s delegation to make a Local Environment Plan consistent with the PP, and arrangements be made for the drafting of the plan and notification of the plan on the NSW Legislation Website, and separately review and set a consistent mapped height of buildings (8.5m) for the adjacent B4 and R1 zones.

Implications: This option is open to Council and will enable the PP to be finalised by Council as exhibited.

Council should also decide whether, as either a standalone PP or as part of the regular Housekeeping PPs, to consider establishing a consistent mapped height of buildings (8.5m) for the other B4 and R1 zoned land to the north and south of the subject land. This is flagged in the letter from the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) that accompanied the Gateway determination and was also raised in the landowner’s submission to the PP. It is also likely to have broader community support given the concerns that have arisen with the potential development of the subject land. This additional step is also recommended to ensure a consistent outcome.

2. Adopt the PP as exhibited, but not exercise the Council’s delegation to make a plan consistent with the PP, write to the NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment advising them of this decision and request that the Minister makes a Local Environmental Plan consistent with the PP and notifies the resulting plan on NSW Legislation Website to give effect to the PP, and separately review and set a consistent mapped height of buildings (8.5m) for the adjacent B4 and R1 zones.

Implications: This option is also open to Council and would also enable the PP to be finalised by the Minister. Given the contentious nature of this PP, the Council could opt not to use its delegations to make the Plan and write to DPIE and advise them of this decision. This would essentially mean that Council finally adopts the PP and then requests DPIE to consider and make the resulting Plan.

Again, the additional step of reviewing the zoning of the adjacent B4 and R1 zone is also recommended to ensure a consistent outcome.

3. Either Option 1 or 2, without the separate building heights review of the adjacent B4 and R1 zones.

Implications: This option involves adopting the PP as exhibited and proceeding to either make the local environmental plan under delegation or ask the Minster to make the plan, but not resolving to undertake a separate review of the B4 and R1 zones. This option is not recommended given the need to also clarify/set the desired height outcome on the adjacent similarly zoned land given community concerns associated with the subject land and the need for a consistent outcome in this location as suggested by DPIE in the Gateway determination.

4. Proceed with an amended PP.

Implications: Depending on the nature of any amendments, for example changing the proposed height from 8.5m to another height, the PP may require an amended Gateway determination and need to be re-exhibited to enable the community and landowner to comment.

5. Discontinue the PP process.

Implications: This would see the existing height limit of 13m remain in place contrary to the Council’s original intent when it proposed the PP and contrary to community opposition.

Background

The outcomes of the recent public exhibition (February to March 2019) of this PP were considered by Council in May 2019, see Attachment 1. As a result, Council resolved on 7 May 2019 to:

1. Proceed to organise a Public Hearing for Planning Proposal No. PP023 that applies to part of Lot 1 and Lot 6 DP 1082382, Anson Street, St Georges Basin.

2. Consider a further report on this matter and its possible finalisation following the Public Hearing.

The report to the Development & Environment Committee dated 7 May 2019 (Attachment 1) details the submissions received during the exhibition of the PP and presents options for Council to consider regarding the finalisation of the PP.

This report presents that outcome of the Public Hearing that was held on 1 July 2019 regarding the PP in accordance with the Council resolution.

The report also presents the options that are available to Council to consider in finalising this PP.

Public Hearing – Overview

The Public Hearing was held on 1 July 2019 in the Council Chambers, City Administrative Centre, Nowra commencing at 5.30pm. It was chaired by an independent Chairperson and attended by 30-40 people. Eight (8) people gave oral submissions at the hearing in support of the exhibited PP.

The directly affected landowner who requested the hearing elected not to give an oral submission, but at his request a copy of his submission to the PP was provided to the Chairperson. A copy of this submission is provided at Attachment 4. The Chairperson also provided a verbal summary of the submission at the commencement of the hearing.

The report on the Public Hearing provided by the Independent Chairperson is provided as Attachment 2. This report was made publicly available once received via Council’s website.

The report concludes that “The public hearing did not reveal any reasons why the planning proposal should not proceed. To the contrary, there is clear community support for the planning proposal.”

Public Exhibition Outcome – Recap

The PP was publicly exhibited from 27 February until 29 March 2019 and the exhibition material is still available on Council’s internet site at the following link under the heading “Planning documents on exhibition”:

http://www.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/My-Council/Public-exhibition/Documents-on-exhibition

The report that was considered by the Development & Environment Committee on 7 May 2019 provides a detailed overview of the outcomes of the public exhibition – see Attachment 1.

The summary of the submissions which were received is also provided as Attachment 3. The following is an overview of the submissions:

Total of 217 submissions received:

· Support: 167 (includes 3 community petitions containing 483 signatures)

· Comment: 49

· Oppose: 1

Those supporting or commenting on the PP covered the following main themes:

· 8.5m is better overall outcome

· Basis of previous decision

· Character

· Amenity

· Visual Impact

· Environment

· Infrastructure/services

· Viability/land values

· Social Impact

The local Community Consultative Body, the Basin Villages Forum, also provided a submission in support of the PP that covered many of the above items.

The one (1) submission that was received in opposition to the exhibited PP, on behalf of the directly affected landowner Mr D DeBattista, raised the following reasons for objection:

· PP is ad-hoc

· Inconsistency with Section 117 Directions

· Inconsistency with broader strategic planning framework

· Desired character of development

· Feasibility analysis

· Insufficient strategic planning merit to justify the change. Should not proceed and be supported by Council. If Council decides to proceed, public hearing requested, with the results to be considered before Council decides whether to make the plan.

Each point raised in opposition to the PP is commented on in detail in the report dated 7May 2019.

Conclusions

As outlined in the earlier report, there is community interest in the subject land and the PP that has been exhibited as shown by the number of submissions that supported or commented on the proposal.

Given that the requested Public Hearing has now been held Council needs to consider the next steps that it wishes to take regarding the PP and its possible finalisation.

The basic options outlined in the earlier report are still valid in this regard, noting that a Public Hearing has now been held, namely:

· Adopt the PP as exhibited and exercise delegation to make the resultant Plan.

· Adopt the PP as exhibited, but not exercise the delegation to make the Plan.

· Proceed with an amended PP

· Discontinue the PP process

Also, as discussed elsewhere in the report, should Council ultimately decide to adopt the PP, it would also be appropriate to consider applying a consistent mapped height of buildings (e.g. 8.5m) to the other adjacent B4 and R1 zones in this location – further commentary on this aspect is provided below.

Community Engagement

The PP was formally public exhibited in accordance with the Gateway determination from 27 February until 29 March 2019 (31 days) inclusive. The report to Council dated 7 May 2019 detailed the submissions received as a result of the public exhibition.

The requested Public Hearing was held on 1 July 2019, the details and outcomes of which are covered in this report.

Policy Implications

Given that similar zones exist to the north and south of the subject land, Council needs to decide whether to also adjust the height of buildings provision for this similarly zoned land to reflect the outcome of this PP when determined.

This will ensure that a consistent height control also applies to the adjacent B4 and R1 zones, that are currently unmapped and rely on the general 11m height provision. This could be done as a standalone PP or as part of a future Housekeeping PP. The priority of this additional project needs to be considered in the context of the overall Strategic Planning Works Program.

It is noted that most of the remaining B4 zoned land is vegetated and undeveloped. The R1 zone is however already partially developed as 1 to 2 storey developments, with the remainder undeveloped and vegetated. There is the potential that applying a lesser height control (e.g. 8.5m) may be resisted by the affected landowners but may also be supported by the broader community given the issues that have arisen with the proposed development of the subject land.

Financial Implications

This PP is currently being managed within the existing Strategic Planning budget.

Risk Implications

The December 2018 Land & Environment Court Judgement regarding this PP is the subject of an appeal to the NSW Court of Appeal, the outcome of which is unknown at this point.

Development & Environment Committee – Tuesday 06 August 2019

Page 0

DE19.72 Quarterly review for compliance matters

HPERM Ref: D19/219965

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Building & Compliance Services

Attachments: 1. List of penalties issued 1 April to 30 June 2019 ⇩

Purpose / Summary

At Council’s Ordinary meeting held on 13 November 2018 it was resolved to receive a detailed quarterly report on compliance activities (MIN18.907).

This report provides information on the period April – June 2019 (fourth quarter).

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council receive the quarterly report on compliance matters for information.

Options

1. Council receive the report for information

Implications: Nil

2. Council receives the report and provides additional direction for future reports.

Implications: Any changes or additional matters can be added to future reports.

Report

Compliance activities are completed by the following Teams within the Planning, Environment and Development Group:

(a) Compliance Team: Development compliance matters including unauthorised development, development not in accordance with development consent, land and water pollution incidents (including building sites), land use management issues, fire safety and swimming pool safety issues.

(b) Environmental Health: Pollution incidents (noise and water), environmental incidents, food shops and the operation of on-site sewage waste management facilities.

(d) Rangers: Animal control, littering, unauthorised camping, rubbish dumping and other environmental offences.

This report provides Councillors with an update on the penalties issued (number, type and ticket value), penalty reviews dealt with by the panel and any Local or Land and Environment Court matters determined or progressing.

This report relates to April – June 2019 (fourth quarter).

Penalties issued during the period

A combined total of 1840 penalty notices were issued by the Teams during the period. These penalties have a face value of $542,533. Historically Council stands to receive approximately 70% of this ticketed figure. A total of 344 cautions were also issued during the period. Attachment 1 to this report provides a breakdown of the penalties and cautions issued.

The following is a summary of the penalties issued for each team:

Team	Number Issued	Total Amount	% of total amount	Cautions issued
Compliance	29	$93,910	17.3%	37
Compliance – Fire Safety	0	0		0
Compliance – Pools	0	0		0
Environmental Health	0	0		0
Rangers – Animal issues	659	$213,285	39.3%	19
Rangers – Environmental issues	40	$21,720	4%	12
Parking	1111	$213,288	39.3%	276
Sewer Management Facility	1	$330	0.1%	0
Total	1840	$542,533	100%	344

There has been a considerable increase in animal related penalty notices for this quarter. This is due to Council’s annual pet registration drive which resulted in 598 penalties issued for failing to comply with Council’s notice to register. There has been a procedural change and this will be now be completed monthly rather than yearly.

Penalties related to Compliance issues

The following details are provided in relation to the 29 compliance penalty notices issued:

(a) Two penalty notices issued to one owner for unauthorised construction of an alfresco outdoor area and a detached habitable room – Development without development consent – class 1a or 10 building – Individual $1500 ($3000 total) – Meroo Meadow

(b) Two penalty notices issued to one owner for unauthorised construction of a large concrete bridge – Development without development consent – class 1a or 10 building – Individual $1500, and converting a Class 10a structure into a habitable dwelling - Development not in accordance with consent - any other case – Individual – $3000 (Total $4500) – Parma.

(c) Two penalty notices issued to one owner for failing on two occasions to comply with a development control order relating to a dilapidated asbestos dwelling – Fail to comply with terms of development control order – Individual $3000 (Total $6000) – Mollymook.

(d) One penalty notice each issued to two owners for converting a shed in an industrial zone to a habitable dwelling – Development without development consent – any other case – Individual $3000 (Total $6000) – Ulladulla.

(e) Three penalty notices issued to one owner for unauthorised demolition of a dwelling and the subsequent construction of a new dwelling and shed. – Development without development consent – class 1a or 10 building – Individual $1500 ($4500 total).

Two penalty notices issued to the builder on this site for constructing the new dwelling and shed – Development without development consent – class 1a or 10 building – Individual $1500 ($3000 total). – Conjola.

(f) Two penalty notices issued to one owner for failing on two occasions to comply with a development control order relating to works done on a heritage property – Fail to comply with terms of development control order – Individual $3000 (Total $6000) – Berry.

(g) One penalty notice each issued to one owner for the unauthorised construction of a pergola – Development without development consent – class 1a or 10 building – Individual $1500 (Total $1500) – Sanctuary Point.

(h) One penalty notice issued to a building company for failed sediment control measures at a new shopping centre under construction resulting in water pollution – Pollute waters – class 1 – Corporation $8000 (Total $8000) – Worrigee.

(i) One penalty notice issued to a corporation for failing to comply with a development control order – Fail to comply with prevention notice – class 1 – Corporation $8000.

Three penalty notices were issued to the same corporation for failed sediment control measures at a new shopping centre under construction resulting in water pollution – Pollute waters – class 1 – Corporation $8000 (Total $32000) – Bomaderry.

(j) One penalty notice issued to one owner for the unauthorised installation of an effluent system – Development without development consent – any other case – Individual $3000 (Total $3000) – Tomerong.

(k) One penalty notice issued to one owner for the unauthorised renovation of a heritage home – Development without development consent – class 1a or 10 building – Individual $1500 (Total $1500) – Berry.

(l) One penalty notice issued to one owner for the unauthorised construction of a pergola – Development without development consent – class 1a or 10 building – Individual $1500 (Total $1500) – Parma.

(m) One penalty notice issued to one owner for the unauthorised construction of earthworks – Development without development consent – any other case – Individual $3000 (Total $3000) – Ulladulla.

(n) One penalty notice issued to one owner for failing to comply with a development control order relating to a clean-up notice – Fail to comply with terms of development control order – Individual $3000 (Total $3000) – Tomerong.

(o) One penalty notice issued to one owner for failing to dispose of asbestos waste in an appropriate manner – Failure to ensure waste is stored in an environmentally safe manner – Individual $750 (Total $750) – Culburra Beach.

(p) Two penalty notices issued to a builder for failing on two separate occasions to prevent waste from building site moving onto road – Expose article in/on/over road/let article be exposed at road without approval – Individual $330 (Total $660) – Sussex Inlet.

Penalties related to Rangers issues

(a) Illegal dumping of asbestos and other materials at Woollamia

Following an eyewitness report, Rangers were able to track down an offender after their vehicle had been spotted in heavily vegetated vacant bushland. Rangers inspected the area and found a recent dumping of materials including asbestos cement sheeting. After an extensive investigation Rangers interviewed a suspect where admissions were made concerning the offence.

The offender was issued with a “clean up notice’ directing them to engage a qualified and licensed person to remove and correctly dispose of the asbestos and other material to a recognised waste disposal facility. At the completion of the work a validation certificate was submitted confirming that the site is free of any contaminants.

The total clean-up of this offence cost the offender $5,940. Potential penalties relating to this offence totalled $16,000; however, only one $4000 penalty notice was issued for “transport asbestos waste to unlawful facility”. All other offences were dealt with by way of caution considering the cost to the offender for cleaning up the dump site.

(b) Eight dog attacks (each receive a $1320 penalty)

Eight people have all received penalty notices for incidents relating to dog attacks. Each dog has also been declared dangerous to ensure owners provided adequate controls and housing to prevent such incidents recurring.

Council Rangers are stepping up patrols of public areas and discussing the importance of responsible dog ownership. This includes keeping dogs on leash and under effective control at all times.

Penalty infringement panel reviews

During the period, the review panel met on 4 April, 24 April, 9 May and 6 June 2019. The following eight penalty infringement appeals were considered during this period:

(a) Failure to comply with terms of development control order – Individual ($3000).

Council had issued orders for the owner of the premises to cease occupation on the property and to demolish the dwelling and manufactured home. The site did not have a dwelling entitlement.

Council officers had also extended the time period to over one year for compliance to enable the owners to find alternative accommodation. The owners failed to comply with the order. The following additional information was provided:

· The structures were located on bushfire prone land and structures should be designed and constructed to Bushfire Attack Level Flame Zone (BAL FZ). The structures had no bushfire protection.

· The owners had not provided Council with confirmation that working smoke alarms were installed within either the dwelling or the manufactured home.

· A non-compliant onsite effluent disposal system. Effluent was flowing directly into an onsite trench. There was no formal section 68 approval nor an operational approval for the onsite effluent system.

· The owners were actively burning all the household waste as there is no weekly rubbish removal for the property.

The panel considered the matter on 4 April 2019 and agreed the penalty should stand. Council officers are seeking to have the structures removed and the land remediated.

(b) Development without development consent – Class 1a or 10 building – individual (four submissions each for $1500).

There are four (4) owners of a property and each admitted to installing and altering four shipping containers to make them habitable and authorising the construction of timber decks to each shipping container. Each of the four owners has appealed against the penalties issued.

The panel considered that each owner could have been subject to nine (9) offences totalling $19,800. Only one penalty notice of $1500 was issued to each of the four owners.

The panel considered the matter on 24 April 2019 and agreed that each of the four penalty notices should stand. Further, it was considered that Council’s Compliance Team should pursue demolition orders for the unauthorised works.

Compliance Officers became aware of the unauthorised works at a heritage significant property in Berry. The investigation identified the owners were aware of the need to obtain development approval and they indicated their needs to continue to complete the works. Penalty notices were issued for the initial unauthorised works and Council issued a development control order directing each owner to cease work.

The owners proceeded to complete the works and further penalty notices were issued. One of the two owners appealed against this subsequent penalty notice.

The panel considered the matter on 24 April 2019 and agreed that both owners were aware of the requirements to stop and they indicated they would continue. This was a deliberate act and the panel resolved that the penalty should stand.

(d) Development not in accordance with consent – Class 1a or 10 building – Corporation ($3000).

This matter related to building waste, sediment controls and boundary encroachment of materials and site fencing onto Councils’ reserve. A direction to take clean up action was issued under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act (PoEO) in relation to the waste. The waste included glass, metal framing brackets and masonry rubble. A show cause was sent to the building company identifying the multiple breaches of the development consent. A $3000 penalty was subsequently issued to the company.

Council staff showed leniency for not issuing an $8,000 penalty notice for sediment leaving the building site creating a pollution event and also not issue additional $3,000 penalties for each of four other breaches of the development consent. This could have been a total of $23,000.

The panel considered the matter on 9 May 2019 and agreed the penalty should stand.

(e) Development without development consent – any other case – individual ($3000).

This matter related to extensive excavation and clearing of native vegetation on land adjoining the site owned by the perpetrator. The works were completed to construct bike tracks for his children. The owner of the adjoining land was unaware of this clearing event and they did not give permission for this to occur.

A significant number of trees were removed as part of these unauthorised works. Council officers issued only one penalty for the offences committed and have issued orders on the owner of the land to have it regenerated. The owner does not want the perpetrator back on their site. These works will take a number of years to complete.

The panel considered the matter on 6 June 2019 and agreed the penalty should stand.

Local or Land and Environment Court matters

(a) Jerberra Estate – Failure to comply with demolition.

An order was issued by Council to the owner of a premises directing them to demolish a building. The owner failed to complete the works and a $1500 penalty notice was issued.

The owner elected to have the matter dealt with by the Local Court. The matter was heard in the Local Court on 15 April 2019. The owner was found guilty of the offence and fined $1000 and ordered to pay Council’s professional costs of $750.

(b) Jerberra Estate – unauthorised works.

Unauthorised works were undertaken, and the owner had failed to comply. This matter was taken to the Land and Environment Court in 2014 where the Court issued orders for the works to be completed. This is contempt of Court proceedings against the owner who has failed to comply with the Courts order to clean up the premises.

The matter was heard on 27 May 2019. The landowner attended Court on this occasion and entered a guilty plea to the contempt. Council indicated its intention to enter the land and execute the orders. The owner was allowed a further 4 weeks to remove any personal items.

On 28 June 2019 Council entered the land to conduct a safety assessment prior to executing the terms of the Court Order.

The matter was heard on 1 July 2019 where it was adjourned to 19 September 2019 to allow Council to execute the terms of the Court Order. Quotations are being sought for the works to be undertaken.

Other matters

(a) Shoalhaven Animal Shelter celebrates its first birthday

The Shoalhaven Animal Shelter celebrated its first birthday as a Council managed facility. The shelter has found new forever homes for 598 animals including dogs, cats, roosters, sheep, a goat, a horse and a bird.

The Shelter operations continue to be a good news story since Council took over its management.

Development & Environment Committee – Tuesday 06 August 2019

Page 0

DE19.75 Lake Conjola Entrance Opening and other Matters Relating to Mayoral Minute MIN19.143

HPERM Ref: D19/246757

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Environmental Services

Attachments: 1. Executed Short Term Licence - Opening of Lake Conjola ⇩

2. Response - Minister Lake Conjola ICOLL classification ⇩

3. Response from Minister - Lake Conjola Fish Kills/Seagrass and Lead Contamination ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To provide Council with an update on progress in response to the Mayoral Minute of 26 March 2019 (MIN19.143)

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Write to The Honourable Melinda Pavey MP, Minister for Water, Property and Housing, to thank her for her assistance in the granting of a licence to carry out “Access and Environmental Protection Work” (Conjola Lake entrance opening works).

2. Write to The Honourable Shelley Hancock MP, Minister for Local Government, to thank her for her assistance and support in making representations for the Licence application for Lake Conjola entrance opening works.

3. Receive a briefing regarding the formulation of a “dry notch” management policy for Lake Conjola.

Options

1. As per recommendation

Implications: Nil

2. Alternative recommendation

Implications: This would depend on the recommendation

Background

On 26 March 2019 Council passed the following Mayoral Minute relating to the management of Lake Conjola entrance (MIN19.143):

That Council:

1. Make further representations to the relevant agencies for approval to open the entrance of Lake Conjola on the following grounds: -

a. To minimise risk to public safety associated with excessive inundation of foreshores and infrastructure as a result of low-level flooding that has been affecting residents and foreshore areas for more than 3 months.

b. In accordance with the recommendation from residents and community members at the Lake Conjola Community CCB Meeting 21 January 2019.

c. In-line with the Interim Entrance Management Plan: -

i. On the planned openings prior to Christmas and Easter holiday trigger levels.

ii. Social, mental and physical impact and wellbeing of residents and tourists including events that occurred over last 3 months.

d. The continued threat of weather i.e. heavy rain from storms and capacity of contractor’s timeframes and safety to open the entrance in an emergency.

2. Continue to make ongoing representations to the relevant agencies for approval to open the entrance at Lake Conjola in accordance with Item 1 above until such opening has occurred.

3. Seek approval from the NSW Government Ministers of Crown Lands, Office Environment and Heritage and Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) to immediately prepare and maintain a “dry notch” at the entrance to Lake Conjola to allow “break out” of the lake should flooding occur. This is to be maintained until a new Coastal Management Plan is approved by the Minister.

4. Write to the Minister for Crown Lands & Office of Environment & Heritage requesting that an investigation be undertaken immediately to establish how and why Lake Conjola was listed as an “ICOLL” and not a Wave Dominated Barrier Estuary (WDBE).

5. Write to Department of Fisheries and request Fisheries to investigate:

a. All current, ongoing and future fish and marine life deaths/kills and sea grass kills in Lake Conjola.

b. The amount of Lead in the Lake from lost lead from over a century of recreational fishing by testing water, fish and marine life species in Lake Conjola and the sands beds of the Lake with the lake closed and not being subject to two tidal interchanges per 24 hours, is this lead building up in the water column and the food chain.

6. Report back to Council with a proposed plan and costings to undertake investigations for contamination at the old Waste Depot at Lake Conjola. Such investigations to include: -

a. Water samples in Pattimores lagoon, land run off water, Ground water. Take soil core samples. Take into consideration that many residents use bore water to water their gardens, vegetable gardens and fruit trees.

b. Contaminations including asbestos, industrial liquids, insecticides.

c. Seek information from Local residents on knowledge of what was dumped at the site from the original opening.

7. Request the General Manager (or his delegate) to continue to audit the safety of Council assets at Lake Conjola and undertaken any works or signage that maybe necessary. This report to include an investigation of the condition of “Steps” over Lake Revetment walls created by Council on the Council reserve in front of the Lake Conjola Liquor Store and to the east towards Deep Water Resort to be repaired, cleaned and maintained by council.

8. Report timeframe and priority status for preparation of Coastal Management Plan for Lake Conjola to Council.

9. Report back to Council at the Strategy & Assets meeting in April on reasons for:

a. Not providing the CCB Executive with copies of documentation in relation to Lake Conjola requested over the last 9 months.

b. How Council can facilitate the requests from the CCB Executive for copies of documentation.

10. Provide monthly update reports to Councillors on all issues concerning Lake Conjola.

11. Formally resolve as policy to continue to support and advocate for residents and community members at Lake Conjola on all issues pertaining to opening the entrance, flooding and erosion at Lake Conjola.

The following is a summary of the progress to date relating to the nominated items from the above resolution.

1. Lake Conjola Entrance – Opening/Pilot Channel

Part 2 of the Mayoral Minute stated the following.

“Make further representations to the relevant agencies for approval to open the entrance of Lake Conjola”.

Council prepared and submitted a further Short-Term Licence application to NSW Department of Industry (DoI) – Crown Lands for the excavation of a pilot channel on 11 April 2019. A Review of Environmental Factors (REF) was prepared as an addendum to the Interim Lake Conjola Entrance Management Policy REF 2013, to accompany the Crown Land Licence.

On 6 June 2019 Council prepared a Ministerial brief for the NSW Minister for Water, Melinda Pavey MP, providing further information to support the short-term licence application.

On 7 June 2019 the NSW DoI – Crown Lands wrote to Council offering a licence to occupy the land, to excavate a pilot channel, with a set of conditions that Council must adhere to (Attachment 1). Council accepted the offer along with the licence conditions on 11 June 2019.

Council officers, Councillors and representatives from the Lake Conjola Community Association met to determine the location of the pilot channel and procedure that would be followed for the opening. It was agreed at this meeting that the pilot channel would be located on the central-southern side of the main entrance spit, as shown on the operating procedure of the Interim Lake Entrance Management Policy (see figure 1).

Works on the channel commenced on 16 June 2019 and concluded on 12 July 2019. Over 1500 truck loads (22,600cu.m) of sand were excavated and placed at an approved location to the north of the lake. The initial channel prior to plug removal was excavated to 10m wide and over 1m deep (0m AHD). The plugs were removed opening the lake to sea on 19 June 2019. Works were completed using Caterpillar 320CL excavator and two Volvo A25 dump trucks. The total cost of works was approx. $140,000.

A close up of text on a white background

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Operational map showing location of pilot channel and sand spoil – REF Crown Lands Licence, June 2019.

The excavated pilot channel will continue to be monitored on a weekly basis by staff, to assess changes in channel composition and dynamics until such a time as it ceases to function as a channel, or a rain event occurs that naturally facilitates a further lake opening.

The sand that was dredged from the entrance and lake was stockpiled on the northern side of the lake entrance, up against the base of Cunjurong Point, as per the operational procedures of the Interim Lake Entrance Management Policy.

Following completion of works, Council received an email request from Crown Lands, 15 July 2019, stating:

The department is concerned that the current dredging operation at Lake Conjola has expanded beyond the parameters of the existing Crown Lands licence conditions.

A number of additional questions were also contained in the email which brought the following response from Council’s Director Planning, Environment and Development:

There is nothing to suggest to me that Council’s initial Review of Environmental Factors and subsequent addendum, prepared in June, did not address and cover all issues associated with the works recently completed by Council.

Whilst I have attended the site on one occasion during works, I have been informed by relevant staff as to the progress of the project, and am aware that required monitoring has taken place during the term of the works.. I am also aware that necessary advices were provided to State Agencies who were welcome to attend the site at any stage during the course of the project.

The works associated with the opening of the Lake were completed on 12 July when it was considered that the objectives and community outcomes, clearly outlined in Council’s addendum REF, were achieved. All required monitoring was carried out during the project and it is gratifying to note that there has been no adverse environmental effects and there have been very significant and positive outcomes in regard to the objectives of the Lake Conjola community relating to public safety and health and overarching community values. It is also positively noted that there is still, as of today, a healthy tidal interchange within the lake.

As you can appreciate, working within lines on a map, particularly in a waterway is not a straightforward proposition. Whilst Council has taken measures to define the “red line” within the issued licence, we have also been cognisant of meeting the overarching objectives of the project at hand. Thus, whilst Council did carry out initial survey work to establish various reference points and parameters, no final survey has been carried out to determine the actual extent of completed operations. If you feel that such survey is now necessary, please let me know. Also, if you require any further information in regard to the project, I am happy to meet at any time. If further information is required, I would suggest that the requesting agencies be involved in the meeting in order that we can address all issues.

2. Lake Conjola Flood Dry Notch

Part 3 of the Mayoral Minute states the following:

“Seek approval from the NSW Government Ministers of Crown Lands, Office Environment and Heritage and Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) to immediately prepare and maintain a ‘dry notch’ at the entrance to Lake Conjola to allow ‘break out’ of the lake should flooding occur. This is to be maintained until a new Coastal Management Plan is approved by the Minister.”

Council staff have significantly advanced a draft Lake Conjola “Flood Dry Notch” proposal report based on the current available scientific data and current studies. The difficulty with such a report is it is not able to guarantee accuracy or completeness to the full extent of the subject matter, given the information gap. Any proposal, without being informed by relevant documentation and extensive study, can be prone to failure as coastal processes are a complex science.

Having regard to the above it is suggested that a briefing be provided to Councillors prior to tabling of the draft document.

3. Lake Conjola ICOLL Listing

Part 4 of the Mayoral Minute stated the following:

“Write to the Minister for Crown Lands & Office of Environment & Heritage requesting that an investigation be undertaken immediately to establish how and why Lake Conjola was listed as an ‘ICOLL’ and not a Wave Dominated Barrier Estuary (WDBE).”

Following this Council wrote to the Minister of Energy and Environment, the Hon. Matt Kean, on 23 April 2019, asking why Lake Conjola was listed as an Intermittently Closed and Open Lake or Lagoon (ICOLL) and not a Wave Dominated Barrier Estuary (WDBE).

A reply from Michael Saxon, Director of South East Branch on behalf of the Minister, was received on 20 June 2019 (Attachment 2). The letter stated that Lake Conjola has a long history of closing for periods of time, dating back to 1909.

The ICOLL classification was used for estuaries across NSW based on a paper by Roy et al., where the terminology of wave dominated barrier estuary is introduced as one of five classes of coastal water bodies for eastern Australia.

The response stated that Lake Conjola has a dual classification of ICOLL and WDBE.

4. Lake Conjola Fish Kills/Seagrass and Lead Contamination

Part 5 of the Mayoral Minute stated the following:

“Write to Department of Fisheries and request Fisheries to investigate:

a. All current, ongoing and future fish and marine life deaths/kills and sea grass kills in Lake Conjola

Following the resolution, Council wrote to the Minister for Agriculture and Western NSW, the Hon. Adam Marshall MP, regarding marine life, seagrasses and lead contamination in Lake Conjola.

On 20 June 2019, Sarah Fairful, Deputy Director General for DPI Fisheries, responded stating the following in relation to the inquiry (Attachment 3):

1. Since 2014, according to the NSW DPI Fish Kill database, there had been three recorded incidents of marine life kills. All of which has been caused by natural events.

2. According to aerial imagery, between 2012 and 2013, there had been reduction in seagrass coverage at Lake Conjola, this was consistent with other estuaries across SE NSW. Since 2013 to 2018 there had been an increase in seagrass coverage across Lake Conjola. They suggested that a more detailed analysis of aerial imagery was needed, and this could be an action of the Lake Conjola Coastal Management Program.

3. DPI Fisheries is not aware of any health concerns relating to lead contamination.

5. Lake Conjola Coastal Management Plan (CMP)

On 26 April 2019 Council applied to the NSW Coast and Estuary Grants – Planning Stream for the preparation of a CMP for Lake Conjola, following the decision by the community in February to prepare a standalone CMP.

On 7 June 2019 Council received a letter of offer for $140,000 to fund 50% of the preparation of CMP for Lake Conjola. A report was provided to the Council Ordinary meeting on 30 July 2019 which recommended that the grant offer be accepted.

It is important to note that, based on advice from NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment and the NSW Coastal Council, Council has decided to undertake the first phase of the CMP process, the preparation of the Scoping Study, across the whole of the City. This means that the Scoping Study will be prepared for the Shoalhaven’s open coast and all estuaries.

This will give Council a prioritisation system for the future development of CMPs across the City and will allow Council to engage with all affected communities to gain an understanding on the priority issue for coast and estuary management across the City.

The preparation of the Lake Conjola CMP will begin once the citywide scoping study has been finalised, and all the coastal management issues identified in the community consultation phase of the scoping study for Lake Conjola have been identified.

The timeline for the preparation of the Lake Conjola CMP is summarised in the table below.

Grant Milestone	Activities	Outputs	Timeframe
Completion of Citywide Scoping Study for open coast and estuaries (including Lake Conjola)	Commence the preparation of tender and procurement for Lake Conjola CMP	Successful consultant selected for the preparation of the Lake Conjola CMP	Dec 2019
Additional Studies	Commence additional studies including: - Update of Estuary Health Report Card - Review of Interim Entrance Management Policy - Update of Lake & entrance process study - Final list of studies will emerge from the Scoping Study	- Working group established - Consultant engaged - Additional studies commenced	April 2020
Draft CMP prepared	- Implement community consultation - Additional studies completed - Preparation of draft CMP to meet mandatory requirements	- Draft CMP complete and on public exhibition	Dec 2020
Final CMP report	- Prepare final draft of CMP - Submissions in reply report and revised CMP - OEH review - Councillor and NRFMC briefings - CMP finalised for adoption - Send to State Government for certification	- Final CMP adopted by Council - Grant acquitted	August 2021

Community Engagement

Council have collaborated closely with both the Red Head Villages Association and Lake Conjola Community Associations, throughout the planning and implementation process of the recent lake opening.

The preparation of the citywide scoping study will hold focus workshops with communities in the south, which both Community Consultative Bodies (CCB) will be invited to, to gain a clear understanding of the coast and estuary management issues at Lake Conjola.

The development of the Lake Conjola CMP will be done in direct collaboration with both the CCB’s and will also undertake targeted surveys of residents and visitors.

Policy Implications

The community consultation and associated works will contribute to the production of updated coastal policy.

Financial Implications

The total cost to Council for entrance management intervention and management of the lake from August 2018 to July 2019 is approx. $330,000, this includes:

· Entrance management works;

· Water quality monitoring;

· Staff attendance at community meetings;

· Site inspections;

· Entrance monitoring;

· Surveys; and

· Administration.

Development & Environment Committee – Tuesday 06 August 2019

Page 0

DE19.77 Review of Environmental Factors - Woollamia and St Andrews Way - Berrys Bay- Pressure Sewer Scheme

HPERM Ref: D19/202563

Group: Shoalhaven Water Group

Attachments: 1. Woollamia Pressure Sewer System REF - Public Works (under separate cover) ⇨

2. St Andrews Way Berrys Bay Pressure Sewer System REF - Public Works (under separate cover)

Purpose / Summary

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the Review of Environmental Factors (REF) for the Woollamia and Coolangatta Pressure Sewer Schemes dated June 2019.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That

1. After consideration of the REF for Woollamia Pressure Sewerage System, June 2019,

a. Council determine that it is unlikely that there will be any significant environmental impact as a result of the proposed work and an Environmental Impact Statement is therefore not required for the proposed activity.

b. The proposed mitigation measures and controls outlined in the REF be adopted and implemented.

2. After consideration of the REF for St Andrews Way, Berrys Bay Pressure Sewerage System, June 2019,

b. The proposed mitigation measures and controls outlined in the REF be adopted and implemented.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendations.

Implications: This is recommended as the community has been consulted following Council’s resolutions to provide pressure sewer systems to the subject areas of Woollamia and St Andrews Way/Berrys Bay.

2. Council could determine not to proceed with provision of pressure sewer provision to the subject areas of Woollamia and St Andrews Way/Berrys Bay.

Implications: The community has been consulted extensively following the resolutions of Council to connect these areas to Council’s pressure sewer systems. Council has made funds available for the completion of the project.

3. Council could determine that the environmental impacts warrant the preparation of an EIS.

Implications: This is not recommended as the REF has found that the identified potential impacts are addressed by the proposed management and mitigation measures and assessment of statutory matters reveals the proposed management and mitigation measures will meet legislative requirements.

Background

Council, at its Ordinary Meeting on 31 January 2017, resolved to:

Amend the Delivery Program and Operational Plan to include the new capital projects for sewer extensions to Woollamia Village and the residential subdivision at St Andrews Way.

Council, at its Ordinary on 26 June 2018, resolved to:

Connect 1260 – 1280 Bolong Road, Coolangatta (Berry’s Bay) to reticulated sewer and amend the Delivery Program and Operational Plan to include these properties in the capital project to sewer the residential subdivision at St Andrews Way (construction to be completed in 2019/20).

In response to the recommendations above staff have progressed through the planning phase and design is complete.

The preparation of separate Reviews of Environmental Factors (REFs) for the two components of the project, Woollamia and St Andrews Way/Berrys Bay has been proceeding concurrently with the design and preparation of specifications. It is intended to deliver the two components under a single supply and construct contract.

REF for St Andrews Way and Berrys Bay

The owners of various parcels of land within Coolangatta Estate approached Council to express interest in connecting to the new system when implemented. While the design and environmental assessment for the scheme has taken into consideration the connection of parts of Coolangatta Estate, the connection would be subject to a formal application and considered under a separate process (in accordance with Council’s Rural Wastewater Connection Policy). A further report would be provided to Council for its consideration should this application be received.

Following environmental assessment, the REF states that the proposal would potentially cause short term impacts such as increased noise and traffic, as well as a reduction in community amenity for the users of construction areas and adjoining land during the construction phase. However, the works are temporary and can be managed to minimise impacts.

Given that the works predominantly comprise underground pipelines, adverse environmental impacts potentially associated with the operation phase of the proposal are considered to be minimal. The operational impacts would be positive due to the provision of sewage reticulation infrastructure in the village.

The REF for St Andrews Way, Berrys Bay and Coolangatta Estate Pressure Sewerage System concludes as follows:

Based on the information in this REF, it is concluded that:

i. the proposed activity is not likely to have a significant impact on the environment and therefore an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

ii. the proposed activity is not likely to significantly affect threatened species, populations, ecological communities, or critical habitat. Therefore, a Species Impact Statement (SIS) is not required.

iii. the proposed activity is not likely to affect any Commonwealth land, is not being carried out on Commonwealth land, or significantly affect any Matters of National Environmental Significance.

The proposed activity is recommended to proceed subject to the implementation of the measures to avoid, minimise or manage environmental impacts listed in this REF.

REF for Woollamia Village

The REF for Woollamia Village states that a pressure sewer system would provide a much-needed sewerage reticulation system for the developed and future lots at the village zoned areas on Edendale Street and Woollamia Road, a fishing club toilet block on Frank Lewis Way; and rural residential lots on Coulon Street in Woollamia. The proposal would potentially cause short term impacts such as increased noise and traffic, as well as a reduction in community amenity for the users of construction areas and adjoining land during the construction phase. However, the works are temporary and can be managed to minimise impacts.

The REF recommends further due diligence works in relation to Aboriginal Heritage. This process has commenced and is expected to be completed in time for a tender to be released.

The REF for Woollamia Pressure Sewerage System concludes as follows:

Notwithstanding further assessment, which is recommended in relation to Aboriginal heritage impacts, on the basis of the information presented in this REF it is concluded that:

i. the proposed activity is not likely to have a significant impact on the environment and therefore an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

iii. the proposed activity is not likely to affect any Commonwealth land, is not being carried out on Commonwealth land, or significantly affect any Matters of National Environmental Significance.

The proposed activity is recommended to proceed subject to the implementation of the measures to avoid, minimise or manage environmental impacts listed in this REF.

Community Engagement

Community engagement has been extensive through the planning and design phases of the schemes. It was recognised that numerous property owners, particularly in Woollamia, would not be aware that the scheme in their area was proceeding. It was also recognised that few would have knowledge of pressure sewer systems. Some consultation had been undertaken with property owners in St Andrews Way and Berrys Bay by Environmental Services so have some familiarity with the proposed system.

The consultation process thus far has included newsletters, information brochures, website updates, social media and a community drop-in session. The community drop-in session was held at the Lady Denman from 9:30am to 11:30am on Saturday 9 February 2019. It was very well attended with approximately 60 people in attendance (most from Woollamia but some from St Andrews Way). The vast majority of attendees were in support of the scheme but there were some concerned with the potential and ongoing costs of being connected to the scheme; others were concerned with the cost of decommissioning recently installed (expensive) on-site systems.

There were several requests to hold another similar session at the completion of the design process (and prior to construction commencing). This will be added into the program.

A “Get Involved” page has been set up on Council’s website to continue the consultation process and provide a history of correspondence for those who haven’t responded to the consultative process thus far.

The REFs for these projects were placed on public exhibition between from 3 July 2019 to 20 July 2019 during which time submissions were invited. Two responses were received in relation to the Woollamia scheme.

The first respondent was supportive of the scheme and requested an extension of the current scheme boundary. It is not considered a matter to be dealt with under this REF as the assessment only considered the impacts within the adopted scheme boundary.

The second respondent objected to the scheme generally, raising matters such as ongoing costs to the landowners through sewer availability charges and electricity costs. These matters have been previously dealt with by correspondence and discussed at the Community drop in session. It is considered that the matters raised can be resolved with the respondent during the construction and management of the project or have been addressed by the REF.

Policy Implications

Council’s Policy POL16/94 - Pressure Sewer System Policy - Backlog Sewerage Schemes has been provided to all property owners and the main points were highlighted at the Community drop-in session. The primary interest of the property owners has been the potential and ongoing costs.

Financial Implications

Adequate funds have been allocated in the sewer budget to support Council’s resolutions to complete design for the schemes in 2018/19 and construction in 2019/20.

Risk Implications

A project risk assessment for the project has been established. Environmental risks have been identified and addressed in the project REFs by recommending mitigation measures. These mitigation measures will be required to be implemented by the construction contractor through their Construction Environmental Management Plan.

Action No.	CZMP Actions
C4.3	Maintain and enhance ecological communities in coastal reserves (including dunes), considering appropriate ecological strategies for urban (foreshore recreation reserve) and non-urban areas
C4.5	Support bush regeneration programs in coastal reserves

Elements for Classification	Description
Overview	Opportunity for visitors to walk in a slightly modified natural environment requiring moderate level of fitness and where the provision of interpretation and facilities is not common
Track conditions	Generally, a modified surface, sections may be hardened. Width: variable and generally less than 1200mm. Kept mostly clear of intrusions and obstacles
Gradient	May exceed 1:10 for short sections but generally no steeper than 1:10. Steps may be common
Signage	Signs and track markers may be used for direction. Limited signage for management and interpretation purposes.
Infrastructure	Facilities generally not provided except for specific safety and environmental considerations.
Terrain	Users need no bushwalking experience and a minimum level of specialised skills. Users may encounter natural hazards such as steep slopes, unstable surfaces and minor water crossings. They are responsible for their own safety.
Weather	Storms may affect navigation and safety.