Agenda of Development Committee

Minutes of the Development Committee

Meeting Date: Monday, 17 July 2017

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

Time: 5.03pm

The following members were present:

Clr Patricia White - Chairperson

Clr John Wells

Clr John Levett

Clr Nina Cheyne

Clr Annette Alldrick

Clr Mitchell Pakes

Clr Greg Watson

Clr Mark Kitchener

Clr Bob Proudfoot

Mr Russ Pigg - General Manager

Apologies / Leave of Absence

Apologies were received from Clr Gash, Clr Gartner, Clr Guile and Clr Findley.

Confirmation of the Minutes

RESOLVED (Clr Proudfoot / Clr Wells) MIN17.604

That the Minutes of the Development Committee held on Monday 05 June 2017 be confirmed.

CARRIED

Declarations of Interest

Nil

Deputations and Presentations

Mr Peter Stutchbury, Peter Stutchbury Architecture, addressed the Committee in relation to DE17.45 Development Application – 52 Cyrus St Hyams Beach – Lot 58 DP 577627

Ms Colleen Platford, of 54 Cyrus Street, Hyams Beach addressed the Committee in relation to DE17.45 Development Application – 52 Cyrus St Hyams Beach – Lot 58 DP 577627

Mr Mark Jones addressed the Committee in relation to DE17.50 Endorsement for Exhibition - Draft Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy

Mr Josh Sanders addressed the Committee in relation to DE17.51 Exhibition & Finalisation - Planning Proposal - Additional Permitted Use - 5C Creston Grove, Bomaderry (PP021)

Reports

Procedural Motion - Bring Item Forward

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Proudfoot) MIN17.605

That the matters of the following items be brought forward for consideration

DE17.45 Development Application – 52 Cyrus St Hyams Beach – Lot 58 DP 577627
DE17.50 Endorsement for Exhibition - Draft Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy
DE17.51 Exhibition & Finalisation - Planning Proposal - Additional Permitted Use - 5C Creston Grove, Bomaderry (PP021)

CARRIED

DE17.45 Development Application – 52 Cyrus St Hyams Beach – Lot 58 DP 577627

HPERM Ref: D17/152965

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Development Application 16/1341 to demolish the existing dwelling and erect a two storey dwelling and ancillary boathouse arm on Lot 58 DP 577627, 52 Cyrus Street Hyams Beach be approved subject to:

1. The boathouse floor being constructed to a height of 4.75m AHD (without any increase in maximum building height) and in accordance with the requirements of the Advisian report dated 6 June 2017 (report No.301015-03779-001) vis:

a. the floor of the boathouse is to be constructed of timber slats to reduce wave uplift pressures;

b. access to the boathouse is to be from the landward side or via a timber ramp oriented south-north so that it does not interfere with wave runup flows;

c. The boathouse is to be landscaped to suitably screen the sub-floor area.

2. The additional conditions contained in Attachment 7 of this report.

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr Proudfoot) MIN17.606

a. the floor of the boathouse is to be constructed of timber slats to reduce wave uplift pressures;

b. access to the boathouse is to be from the landward side or via a timber ramp oriented south-north so that it does not interfere with wave runup flows;

c. The boathouse is to be landscaped to suitably screen the sub-floor area and the area between the boathouse arm and the dividing fence be landscaped with appropriate vegetation.

2. The additional conditions contained in Attachment 7 of this report.

For: Clr Levett, Clr Alldrick, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Clr White, Clr Wells and Clr Cheyne

CARRIED

DE17.50 Endorsement for Exhibition - Draft Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy

HPERM Ref: D17/146959

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Endorse the draft Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy (Strategy) at Attachment 1 with the following changes:

a. Identify the Council owned site at 42-46 Coomea Street, Bomaderry as the preferred site for the short term strategy and investigate potential opportunities for expansion to include additional land in the precinct;

b. Remove the following sites as potential affordable housing project sites:

i. 11 Lamonds Lane, Nowra.

ii. Corner Greenwell Point Road and Clipper Road, Nowra.

iii. 10 Pleasant Way, Nowra.

c. Outline that Council will undertake investigations into the suitability of other sites for affordable housing projects that may also include sites not owned by Council.

d. Include a set of desired affordable housing location characteristics and a definition of key centres in line with the Background Report and Discussion Paper.

e. Include commentary on the broader approach to affordable housing maintenance.

f. Consider the relevant outcomes of the Shoalhaven Economic Development Strategy 2017.

2. Support the public exhibition of the draft Strategy with the Background Report, Discussion Paper and Strategic Framework.

3. Arrange for Dr Judy Stubbs to brief Council on the strategies/actions in the draft Strategy either prior to or during the public exhibition period.

4. Continue to pursue the possibility of an initial demonstration affordable housing development at Coomea Street, Bomaderry with the NSW Government, Community Housing Providers, property industry representatives (e.g. Property Council of Australia) and relevant community consultative bodies.

5. Receive a future report, following the public exhibition period of the draft Strategy, to enable any submissions to be fully considered and any changes made prior to Council adoption.

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Proudfoot) MIN17.607

That Council:

1. Endorse the draft Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy (Strategy) at Attachment 1 with the following changes:

b. Remove the following sites as potential affordable housing project sites:

i. 11 Lamonds Lane, Nowra.

ii. Corner Greenwell Point Road and Clipper Road, Nowra.

iii. 10 Pleasant Way, Nowra.

c. Outline that Council will undertake investigations into the suitability of other sites for affordable housing projects that may also include sites not owned by Council.

d. Include a set of desired affordable housing location characteristics and a definition of key centres in line with the Background Report and Discussion Paper.

e. Include commentary on the broader approach to affordable housing maintenance.

f. Consider the relevant outcomes of the Shoalhaven Economic Development Strategy 2017.

2. Support the public exhibition of the draft Strategy with the Background Report, Discussion Paper and Strategic Framework.

3. Arrange for Dr Judith Stubbs to brief Council on the strategies/actions in the draft Strategy either prior to or during the public exhibition period.

5. Receive a future report, following the public exhibition period of the draft Strategy, to enable any submissions to be fully considered and any changes made prior to Council adoption.

For: Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Nil

CARRIED

DE17.51 Exhibition & Finalisation - Planning Proposal - Additional Permitted Use - 5C Creston Grove, Bomaderry (PP021)

HPERM Ref: D17/163745

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Adopt the Planning Proposal as exhibited.

3. Advise the proponent and surrounding landowners of this resolution and again when the LEP Amendment is notified.

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Proudfoot) MIN17.608

That Council:

1. Adopt the Planning Proposal as exhibited.

2. Under Council’s delegation for this Planning Proposal, forward the Planning Proposal to the NSW Parliamentary Counsel instructing them to draft an amendment to the SLEP 2014 under Section 59(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in accordance with the Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning and Environment dated 27 October 2016

3. Advise the proponent and surrounding landowners of this resolution and again when the LEP Amendment is notified.

For: Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Nil

CARRIED

DE17.46 Development Application – 59 Princes Highway Ulladulla – Lot A DP 346694

HPERM Ref: D17/209331

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Supports the variation to Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 – Chapter G21 – Car Parking and Traffic to allow part of the car parking for the development to be provided on the adjoining road reserve.

2. Refer the application back to staff for determination

RESOLVED (Clr White / Clr Proudfoot) MIN17.609

That Council:

2. Refer the application back to staff for determination

For: Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Nil

CARRIED

DE17.47 Waiving of DA Fees - Nowra CBD Access Improvement Financial Assistance Program

HPERM Ref: D17/192826

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council endorse the waiver of development application fees to a value of $300 and the entire construction certificate fee and Principal Certifying Authority fees for successful applications under the Nowra CBD Access Improvement Financial Assistance Program.

RESOLVED (Clr Pakes / Clr Proudfoot) MIN17.610

For: Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Clr Kitchener

CARRIED

DE17.48 Shoalhaven LEP 2014 - Review of Subdivision Controls

HPERM Ref: D17/144236

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Development Committee:

1. Prepare a planning proposal to amend Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 to:

a. Investigate inclusion of an exception to clause 4.1 to remove Torrens subdivision restrictions following lawful dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing development.

b. Revise Clause 4.1A – Dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing to:

i. Remove provisions relating to a minimum lot size for the subdivision of resulting lots and replace with a minimum lot size for the parent lot prior to the erection of a dual occupancy or multi dwelling housing development.

ii. Consider expansion of areas to which this provision would apply.

c. Investigate the application of a minimum lot size to the parent lot for the erection of a dual occupancy on a battle-axe lot in certain areas and include the term ‘battle-axe’ in the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 Dictionary.

d. Revise Clause 4.1C - Dwellings, attached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings to:

i. Reduce the minimum lot size for resulting lots to 300m² or less.

ii. Expand application to the R3 and RU5 zones.

iii. Investigate additional provisions for urban release areas.

2. Consider a briefing and a further report to consider the detail of the planning proposal for submission to the NSW Department and Planning of Environment for Gateway determination.

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Cheyne) MIN17.611

That Development Committee:

1. Prepare a planning proposal to amend Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 to:

a. Investigate inclusion of an exception to clause 4.1 to remove Torrens subdivision restrictions following lawful dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing development.

b. Revise Clause 4.1A – Dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing to:

ii. Consider expansion of areas to which this provision would apply.

d. Revise Clause 4.1C - Dwellings, attached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings to:

i. Reduce the minimum lot size for resulting lots to 300m² or less.

ii. Expand application to the R3 and RU5 zones.

iii. Investigate additional provisions for urban release areas.

2. Consider a briefing and a further report to consider the detail of the planning proposal for submission to the NSW Department and Planning of Environment for Gateway determination.

For: Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Nil

CARRIED

DE17.49 Strategic Planning Works Program - Adoption and Finalisation

HPERM Ref: D17/142532

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Adopt and finalise Attachment 1 as Council’s Strategic Planning Works Program.

2. Request that the Strategic Planning Works Program be reported back to the Development Committee annually in June to coincide with each new financial year.

3. Make future changes to the Strategic Planning Works Program only after considering the current program, project priority, staff workload and resources.

4. Receive a briefing on how to use the interactive Strategic Planning Works Program when operational.

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Cheyne) MIN17.612

That Council:

1. Adopt and finalise Attachment 1 as Council’s Strategic Planning Works Program.

2. Request that the Strategic Planning Works Program be reported back to the Development Committee annually in June to coincide with each new financial year.

3. Make future changes to the Strategic Planning Works Program only after considering the current program, project priority, staff workload and resources.

4. Receive a briefing on how to use the interactive Strategic Planning Works Program when operational.

For: Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Nil

CARRIED

DE17.50 Endorsement for Exhibition - Draft Shoalhaven Affordable Housing Strategy

HPERM Ref: D17/146959

Item dealt with earlier/later in the meeting see MIN.607.

DE17.51 Exhibition & Finalisation - Planning Proposal - Additional Permitted Use - 5C Creston Grove, Bomaderry (PP021)

HPERM Ref: D17/163745

Item dealt with earlier/later in the meeting see MIN17.608.

DE17.52 Options Report - Berry Heritage Investigations

HPERM Ref: D17/194330

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Resolve to pursue Option 1 as detailed in this report as the appropriate approach to progress heritage investigations in the Berry urban area.

2. Apply for grant funding to support Option 1 via the NSW Government’s Heritage Near Me – Local Heritage Strategic Projects grants program.

3. Notify the Berry Forum of this outcome.

RESOLVED (Clr Wells / Clr Cheyne) MIN17.613

That Council:

1. Resolve to pursue Option 1 – Consideration of additional heritage listings for properties outlined in the report as the appropriate approach to progress heritage investigations in the Berry urban area.

2. Apply for grant funding to support Option 1 via the NSW Government’s Heritage Near Me – Local Heritage Strategic Projects grants program.

3. Notify the Berry Forum of this outcome.

For: Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Levett, Clr Cheyne, Clr Alldrick, Clr Pakes, Clr Watson, Clr Kitchener, Clr Proudfoot and Russ Pigg

Against: Nil

CARRIED

There being no further business, the meeting concluded, the time being 6.37pm.

Clr White

CHAIRPERSON

Development Committee – Tuesday 08 August 2017

Page 9

DE17.53 Draft Planning Agreement - Enterprise Avenue, South Nowra - Public Exhibition Outcomes and Finalisation/Execution

HPERM Ref: D17/199418

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Strategic Planning

Purpose / Summary

To report on the public exhibition outcomes and finalise/execute the Draft Planning Agreement that relates to the road project at Enterprise Avenue, South Nowra.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Finalise and execute the Planning Agreement with the following changes:

a. Inclusion of contact details for Council and Palmira Holdings Pty Ltd;

b. Amend to Clause 36.3.1 of the Draft Planning Agreement to reference an additional development consent that the applicant as obtained;

c. Include the cost of drafting the Planning Agreement, including revisions; and

d. Include the Council processes to fund a portion of the project as agreed.

2. Prepare a draft amendment to the Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2010 to reflect the revised costings and design for 01ROAD2149 (Enterprise Avenue) and receive a further report prior to public exhibition.

3. Continue and complete the process to acquire part of Lot 2 DP 1170503 to enable the construction works to be undertaken.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation.

Implications: This will enable the Planning Agreement to be finalised/executed and the required land acquisition and construction for the half-width portion of Enterprise Avenue, South Nowra to be undertaken.

2. Adopt an alternative recommendation.

Implications: If changes to the Draft Planning Agreement are proposed, this could potentially increase the costs to Council and delay the progression of the Agreement. There is also a risk that Palmira Holdings Pty Ltd may not agree to the terms of the agreement being revised.

Background

In May 2015 the Development Committee considered an initial acquisition request from the owner of Lot 26 DP 734975 (Mitsubishi dealership – Palmira Holdings Pty Ltd) to acquire land at Enterprise Avenue, South Nowra to enable the expedited delivery of Contributions Project - 01ROAD2149 (Enterprise Avenue). The Committee resolved to seek formal confirmation of involvement/interest from relevant landowners prior to proceeding further. At that time, it was advised that the landowner was no longer interested in pursuing the original offer, particularly due to the one-way alignment that was proposed by Council at that point.

In May 2016, Palmira Holdings Pty Ltd returned with the landowner of the adjacent Lot 3 DP 589103 (Smith’s Plant Hire – P.A & D.E & W.C & P.S Smith) to seek Council support for the desired full-width construction of the remainder of Enterprise Avenue.

Since that time, Smith’s Plant Hire withdrew from the agreement, and as a result, the proposal was modified to initially deliver Enterprise Avenue at half-width construction in a northerly direction as illustrated in the land dedication map in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Land Dedication Map

Palmira Holdings Pty Ltd also requested that Council fund part of the design of the road and construction. This was supported in principle at the Development Committee on 9 May 2017 and it was resolved to publicly exhibit the Draft Planning Agreement in this regard.

Public Exhibition

The Draft Planning Agreement (Note: link will take you to the exhibited version) was exhibited in accordance with the relevant legislative requirements from 17 May to 16 June 2017 (inclusive).

No submissions were received during the public exhibition period. Given that Palmira Holdings Pty Ltd did not make a submission, it is assumed that they support the Draft Planning Agreement as exhibited.

However, the following minor amendments need to be made to the exhibited document relating to the completion of missing fields or to address some previous requests from Palmira Holdings Pty Ltd:

· Inclusion of the contact details for Council and Palmira Holdings Pty Ltd;

· Change to Clause 36.3.1 to reference an additional development consent that the applicant as obtained;

· Inclusion of the cost of drafting the Planning Agreement, including revisions; and

· Inclusion of Council processes for funding the portion of the road on land currently owned by Council (via funds in deleted Contributions Projects).

A copy of the amended Planning Agreement will be available in the Councillor’s Room for review prior to the meeting. The amended Planning Agreement includes private Company details and thus has not been included as an attachment to this report for privacy reasons.

Purchase of part of Lot 2 DP 1170503

Council has commenced the process to seek written consent from the owner of Lot 2 DP 1170503 to allow Palmira Holdings Pty Ltd to complete road construction work over the required portion of their property (identified in green in Figure 1).

Clause 37 of the Planning Agreement requires Council to use its reasonable endeavours to enter into an agreement with the owner of Lot 2 DP 1170503 within three months of the execution of the agreement to acquire the necessary land within Lot 2. If no such agreement is reached, Council may acquire the subject area of land by compulsory process under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Just Terms).

Refund of Development Contributions and Development Application Fees

As part of the negotiations associated with the Planning Agreement and previous consideration by the Development Committee, Palmira Holdings Pty Ltd requested that Development Contributions and Development Application (DA) fees be waived. The resolution of 9 May 2017 resolved to support this.

At the execution of the Planning Agreement, a refund will be provided of the Development Contributions and Development Application (DA) Fees paid for DA16/1588 and DA16/2187. In addition, the Planning Agreement allows DA fees to be waived for the first DA made by the Palmira Holdings Pty Ltd or an Associated Entity.

The cost of these concessions is outweighed by the public benefit that will ultimately be obtained by opening up the services lane.

Community Engagement

Landowners within the catchment of the Contributions Project were sent letters advising them of the public exhibition of the Draft Planning Agreement.

The Draft Planning Agreement was exhibited in accordance with legislative requirements from 17 May to 16 June 2017 (inclusive). No submissions were received.

Financial Implications

In the previous report to Council, the financial implications associated with the acquisition of part of Lot 2 DP 1170503 and the refund of Development Contributions for DA16/2187 and DA16/1588 were outlined. The additional cost of undertaking the required acquisition was estimated to be $38,000 in accordance with Just Terms principles.

The previous resolution also required that Council considered the waiving of DA fees associated with DA16/2187 and DA16/1588, and deemed this appropriate in the circumstances.

Council will also pay a portion of the design and construction works to represent the works to be undertaken on land already owned by Council (Lot 7 DP 731949). The cost of this is yet to be finalised by Palmira Holdings Pty Ltd, however it is estimated that it will be approximately $50,000 and will be accommodated through funds available from deleted ‘road’ Contributions Projects.

Development Committee – Tuesday 08 August 2017

Page 13

DE17.54 Nowra CBD Urban Design Planning Controls - Planning Proposal and Development Control Plan Chapter - Adoption and Finalisation

HPERM Ref: D17/96445

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Strategic Planning

Attachments: 1. Gateway Determination ⇩

2. Exhibition Outcomes Report (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Additional Controls for Active Frontages ⇩

Purpose / Summary

Detail the outcomes of the public exhibition of the package of planning documents for the Nowra CBD that relate to desired urban design outcomes and obtain Council endorsement to finalise the Planning Proposal (PP) and Development Control Plan (DCP) Chapter.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That the Committee:-

1. Adopt the Nowra CBD Height of Buildings Planning Proposal as exhibited, with the following change:

a. Amend the Planning Proposal Report in respect to the number of storeys possible with a 15 metre building height limit to 4 storeys.

2. Submit the amended Planning Proposal for the Nowra CBD Height of Buildings to the NSW Parliamentary Counsel Office with instructions to prepare an amendment to Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 under Section 59(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

3. Adopt the draft Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 – Nowra CBD Urban Design Development Controls Chapter as exhibited with the following changes:

a. Remove the ‘Council owned land’ key from the Area Specific Controls Maps;

b. Reduce the area shown as “indicative consolidated deep soil zone” for the Council owned site on the corner of Worrigee Street and Berry Street in Figure 11;

c. Remove the proposed ‘desired future connection’ shown over privately owned land in Figure 13;

d. Include clarification that site coverage is calculated across a development site and on a lot by lot basis in relation to Area E1;

e. Amend the maximum building depth in Area E1 to 180m;

f. Revise the character area description of Area E1 to reflect the land uses permissible in the zone;

g. Revise the map ‘key’ in Figure 14 to clarify that the desired link is over privately owned land; and

h. Include the additional controls outlined in Attachment 3 to address active frontages and amend numbering of controls accordingly.

4. Notify the adoption of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 – Nowra CBD Urban Design Development Controls Chapter in the local newspaper in accordance with the requirement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and its Regulations, noting that it will commence when the related LEP Amendment is notified.

5. Repeal Chapters N8 – Nowra CBD Urban Fringe and N9 – Bulky Goods Precinct East Street Nowra in the Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 in association with the commencement of the new Chapter in the DCP.

6. Advise the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) and the people/agencies who made submissions on the Planning Proposal of Council’s resolution.

7. Separately consider the establishment of a Design Review Panel to assist in the assessment of Development Applications for certain land uses and scales within Shoalhaven through a separate report to Council.

8. Council receive a further report to consider a wider Heritage Conservation Area to the west of the Nowra CBD Commercial Core Area as part of the project that is underway in this regard.

Options

1. Adopt the DCP Chapter and finalise the LEP Amendment with the suggested changes to enable positive future development outcomes in the Nowra CBD area.

Implications: This is the preferred option as it allows Council to finalise the building heights and supporting urban design development controls for the Nowra CBD to provide certainty for the community, landowners and the development industry and to recognise Nowra’s role as a Major Regional Centre consistent with the Illawarra-Shoalhaven Regional Plan and Nowra CBD Urban Design Masterplan.

2. Make additional changes to the exhibited documents.

Implications: Depending on the nature of these changes, it may require the PP and/or DCP to be re-exhibited.

3. Not adopt the PP or DCP Chapter.

Implications: This option is not favoured as the finalisation of the Nowra CBD planning documents are an important step forward in providing certainty to the community, landowners and the development industry, and reinforcing Nowra as a Major Regional Centre consistent with the Illawarra-Shoalhaven Regional Plan and Nowra CBD Urban Design Masterplan.

Background

The Nowra CBD is identified as a ‘major regional centre’ in the NSW Government’s Illawarra-Shoalhaven Regional Plan, and Shoalhaven’s primary business, retail and service hub. Following on from the adopted Nowra CBD Urban Design Masterplan (2014), Council prepared and adopted the Nowra CBD Urban Design Development Controls Report in April 2016. Studio GL Pty Ltd prepared this report and it recommended a new set of maximum building heights and supporting urban design controls for the CBD, which recognised and reflected Nowra’s current and future role as a major regional centre.

Council also resolved (April 2016) to prepare a Planning Proposal (PP) to add the maximum building heights into Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 and to insert the adopted supporting Urban Design Development Controls, as a Chapter, into the Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014.

Planning Proposal - Building Heights in Nowra CBD

Under the current provisions of LEP 2014, the maximum height of buildings in the Nowra CBD that Council can consider is typically up to 11 metres through a generic city-wide provision, although some limited sites are specifically mapped to enable greater building heights to be considered.

During the preparation of LEP 2014 it was agreed with the NSW Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E) that Council would do the necessary work to enable detailed height of building controls to ultimately be added to the LEP via a standalone process given that Nowra CBD is recognised as a ‘major regional centre’

Council received a Gateway determination to for the PP to establish the new height of building controls in Nowra CBD from the NSW Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E) on 6 September 2016 with a 12 month timeframe to finalise the LEP Amendment. The Gateway determination is provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

The PP seeks to introduce a new set of mapped maximum building heights into LEP 2014 for the Nowra CBD. The proposed heights respond to key strengths of Nowra such as the location of heritage buildings, topography, and existing views and vistas to the natural and pastoral surrounds.

The PP proposes a range of building heights for the Nowra CBD, including:

· 20 metres immediately surrounding the core;

· 15 metres throughout the core and to the east of the Princes Highway; and

· 12 metres on Junction Street in consideration of heritage buildings, and within the mixed use zoned areas surrounding the CBD.

The proposed heights are shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 - Exhibited Building Heights

When thinking about building height in this context it is important to consider that the number of levels (or storeys) achieved within any given height limit can vary, and often depends on the proposed end use. Commercial and retail uses require a greater floor to ceiling height than residential apartments. For example, within a 20 metre height limit it is possible to build a five storey commercial building or a six storey building with retail on the ground floor and residential apartments on the upper levels as shown indicatively in Figure 2 below.

It is noted that there was an error in the exhibited PP report, where it was stated that the 15 metre building height limit would allow for 4-5 storeys instead of 4 storeys. This indicative advice will be clarified in the final PP document.

Figure 2 - Building Height in Storeys

Draft Development Control Plan (DCP) Chapter

The draft DCP Chapter provides a new set of detailed urban design controls to support the proposed new building height and help guide the overall future built form in the Nowra CBD. The draft DCP Chapter contains a range of controls for building and floor heights, building setbacks, building bulk and scale, articulation, heritage conservation and solar access.

The draft DCP Chapter also identifies opportunities to build on the existing character of the different precincts within the Nowra CBD, create active street frontages, improve vehicle and pedestrian linkages, and the protect views and vistas. The draft Chapter will also, when adopted, replace and rescind the following two (2) existing Chapters in Shoalhaven DCP 2014:

· Chapter N8 – Nowra CBD Urban Fringe; and

· Chapter N9 – Bulky Goods Precinct – East Street Nowra.

The draft DCP Chapter will be inserted to the Area Specific Chapters of the Shoalhaven DCP 2014 as Chapter N8 – Nowra CBD Urban Design Development Controls.

Public Exhibition

The draft PP and DCP Chapter were exhibited as a package, along with supporting material, for approximately six weeks between 2 November and 16 December 2016 (inclusive) at the Council Administration Centre in Nowra. The exhibition package was also available for viewing on Council’s website.

To support the public exhibition, two (2) community drop-in sessions were held where staff were available to answer any questions and explain the provisions in the PP and draft DCP Chapter. All owners within the PP area were advised in writing of the exhibition arrangements and the community drop in sessions. The two drop in sessions were held at Shoalhaven Arts Centre on Wednesday 23 November 2016 at 12pm to 2pm, and 4pm to 6pm respectively. A total of six (6) people attended the drop-in sessions.

A total of thirteen (13) submissions were received, including submissions from Stockland and the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA). A submission was also received by Council’s Assets and Works Group in relation to the development of the multi-storey car park on Worrigee Street.

The NSW Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) also commented on the PP consistent with the requirements of the Gateway determination.

In addition, a letter was also received by a consultant on behalf of a large CBD landholder that was requested to be dealt with as ‘commercial in confidence’. Due to this request to keep the submission commercial in confidence, a copy of the letter has not been provided in the Councillors Room with the other submissions. This was received in July 2017, seven months after the public exhibition had ended.

The submissions were provided to Council’s consultants Studio GL Pty Ltd, with the exception of the late submission, to review and comment on the issues raised in the submissions. A copy of the Studio GL Exhibition Outcomes Report is provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

A summary of the key issues raised in the submissions, with comments where relevant is provided below. A copy of all submissions will be available in the Councillors rooms prior to the Development Committee Meeting.

1. UDIA NSW

Commended Council on establishing a planning framework for the Nowra CBD that reflects Nowra’s role as the key commercial centre for Shoalhaven.

The draft DCP Chapter and the proposed modifications to the building heights in the LEP are viewed as a crucial step in strengthening Nowra CBD’s position as a major regional centre.

2. Stockland

Generally support the overarching objectives and the vision to revitalise Nowra CBD and improve the quality and attractiveness of the public domain as a catalyst to encourage development. The notion of excluding Floor Space Ratio controls from the LEP is also supported.

Raised a number of concerns with the draft planning framework, which are detailed below:

· The proposed building heights of 15m and 12m over the Stockland sites are unnecessarily restrictive and do not reflect the considerable opportunity afforded by the large consolidated landholdings, nor do the heights accommodate the nature of the proposed development that Stockland is planning. Based on the proposed heights, Stockland would be unable to develop its vision for a high quality interface with the Highway with two retail levels and multi storey parking in place of the existing at-grade car park. Stockland request the building heights be increased to 20 metres in this location.

· The desired future character for the Eastern Retail Precinct for a large scale retail uses of between 3 and 4 storeys cannot be satisfied within a 15m height limit or a 12m height limit.

· The aims and objectives of the Eastern Retail Precinct do not recognise and reflect the LEP zone objectives and permissible land uses.

· The draft DCP contains highly prescriptive, somewhat arbitrary and one-size-fits-all controls that do not cater for a range of building typologies and scales, and are inconsistent with existing development consents.

· The maximum site coverage control in the draft DCP needs to be clarified as it is unclear in circumstances of large landholdings covering multiple allotments.

· The maximum building depth of 100m and maximum floorplate of 30,000m² is inconsistent with the current approval and Stockland future development vision.

· The identification of a new north-south link road connecting North Street to Morton Parade is not identified for future acquisition, this should be identified through the preparation and adoption of a Section 94 Plan.

Comments

The proposed heights reflect Council’s vision for a strengthened commercial core with the highest buildings close to the centre, with building heights stepping down to the edges of the CBD area. The proposed building height of 15m (shown in coloured purple in Figure 3 below) at 10-18 East Street and 32 East Street will allow various configurations for a retail development of the site.

The submission states that the floor to floor ceiling heights would limit the development of the land for their vision, however it is argued that the proposed heights would still enable a two storey retail development with associated multi-level carpark up to five storeys. The desire for a taller gateway feature of greater than 20m next to the highway does not adequately justify the request for increased heights across all three Stockland sites, a specific gateway feature could be considered on its merits and under existing LEP provisions (i.e. Clause 5.6 Architectural Roof Features).

The residual lot to the east of the current centre has a 12m height limit as it is located on the edge of the CBD and surrounded by flood liable land. Development on this site to the requested 20m height could create a significant visual impact on the eastern edge of Nowra that would potentially be a poor urban design outcome.

It is recommended that the proposed building heights for the Stockland sites remain unchanged.

Figure 3 – Area Specific Controls Diagram Eastern Retail Precinct

To address the issue of the LEP zone objectives and permissible land uses not being reflected in the Eastern Retail Precinct future desired character statement, it is recommended that it be amended to read “New development in this area is likely to include a mix of retail, business, entertainment, community, residential and community uses”.

The remaining issues raised in the submission on specific DCP controls are proposed to be addressed with the following amendments:

· Clarification will be provided in the DCP on the appropriate method to calculate site coverage, being across the entire proposed development sites and not on a lot by lot basis.

· Increase the maximum building depth from 100m to 180m.

· Revise the map ‘key’ in Figure 11 so that the desired links over privately owned land is clearer. Remove the ‘Council Owned Land’ key on all Area Specific Controls Maps – this will help remove any confusion in interpreting the maps whilst also removing the need for a DCP Amendment should Council’s property portfolio change in the future.

4. Council - Assets & Works Group

Raise concern with respect to the controls over the proposed multi storey car park site bounded by Berry Street, Worrigee Street and Lawrence Avenue. Issues raised with respect to the building setback off Worrigee Street and Lawrence Avenue, upper storey setbacks, retention of mature trees, and deep soil zones. These concerns primarily relate to the design of the proposed multi-storey car park and its non-compliance with the draft controls.

Specific modifications requested to Acceptable Solution A25.1 and Acceptable Solution A45.1 to stipulate that the retention of trees is only undertaken where possible, and that the building setback from Worrigee Street is staggered between 3m and 6m.

Comments

The Exhibition Outcomes Report (Attachment 2) considers and addresses the various issues raised in the submission. In general, the issues raised were not considered to have enough merit to justify amending the controls to suit the specific design of the multi-storey car park development.

The draft DCP Chapter, and specifically the controls relating to Character Area C3 - CBD South attempt to encourage high quality design outcomes that will accommodate a wide diversity of land uses (not solely a multi-storey car park) that are currently permissible in the zone of the site being B4 Mixed Use.

In respect to the specific requests to modify Acceptable Solutions relating to building setbacks and retention of significant trees, it is recommended that a variation request to the development controls in the DCP be considered through the development application process rather than a change to proposed controls at this point. This is considered a more appropriate approach, than amending the controls to accommodate only one type of development and a specific use design. Amending the controls could result in a poor outcome if the proposed development (in this case a multi-storey car park) does not ultimately eventuate. Broadly, there is a potential risk that this could occur on all sites across the CBD.

The Exhibition Outcomes Report (Attachment 2) has recommended that the “indicative consolidated deep soil zone” illustrated in Figure 11 be reduced in size on the subject site as the street setbacks contribute to provision of deep soil zones.

5. Consultant on behalf of large CBD landholder

This late submission recognises that the draft DCP is positive and achievable over 80 percent of sites within the CBD, however it raises concerns that there is no incentive provided to develop large amalgamated sites. As such, it is suggested that development will occur on a site-by-site basis and potentially result in poor outcomes.

An ambit height of 42 metres is suggested via a diagrammatic representation in the submission for a possible development opportunity along the Princes Highway as a more suitable building height. This is also represented with a zero setback from Princes Highway and a 20 metre street wall height.

It has been requested that Council consider the inclusion of bonus provisions in the DCP for development of larger development sites to enable individual proposals to be assessed on their merits.

Comments

Given the lateness of this submission it is not considered in the Exhibition Outcomes Report (Attachment 2)

Whilst the holistic redevelopment of large amalgamated sites is generally supported as it can achieve better development and design outcomes, the assertion that large amalgamated site development would not occur unless the height of buildings was more than double is potentially unfounded and without basis.

The risk of increasing the height of buildings to the suggested 42 metres, with a limited basis, is that it could actually stifle development or ultimately create an undesirable outcome, as seen by other recent decisions to accommodate ambit landowner height requests (e.g. Anson Street, St Georges Basin).

The draft DCP proposes a maximum street wall height of 12m in the CBD core area, with reduced maximum street wall heights of 8.5m away from the core. Irrespective of the location of the development adjacent to a six-lane highway, increasing the street wall height to 20m would be inconsistent with the CBD area and does not ensure streets and lanes retain a pedestrian scale.

In addition, the landscape setbacks, maximum street wall heights and upper level setbacks proposed in the DCP will help to improve the overall amenity of this area. The application of the DCP is necessary to ensure that developments are able to achieve a high quality design along the highway and in the CBD area more broadly.

Provisions are available for the future development of the site to vary the LEP height standards using clause 4.6 of LEP 2014, or to vary a DCP control as part of a development application. Alternatively, a soundly based PP can be submitted to consider a site specific change to the height of buildings controls on its merits for submission to DP&E. Due to the limited timeframe remaining to finalise this LEP Amendment, this is considered the most suitable approach for this specific site/location.

It is also noted in regard to this submission that the PP and draft DCP are essentially the final steps in a broader strategic process that has been undertaken with ongoing community and landowner engagement. Thus, it would possibly be inappropriate to consider such a significant change at this point in the process and particularly one that is essentially seeking flexibility for a large site, when one of the aims of the process is establish clear controls for the future that assist with certainty.

6. Community Submissions

Issue - Building Heights

Ten (10) of the submissions made reference to the proposed building heights.

Two (2) submissions supported the increased heights and associated development controls and seven (7) submissions opposed increasing the building heights above the current 11 metre maximum height of building. The reasons for opposing the increase in heights are summarised below:

· Lack of demand / population growth to support the increased building heights;

· Impact on Nowra’s character (a number of submissions support a 3 storey maximum in this regard);

· Impact on views; and

· Impact on heritage.

The reasons for supporting the increase in heights include:

· The proposed building heights are a crucial step in strengthening Nowra CBD’s position as a major regional centre; and

· Act as a catalyst to encourage development in Nowra CBD.

Comments

It is important to note that prior to 2014, there were technically no maximum building heights for the Nowra CBD. Council did not have the time to establish detailed building height controls during the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 process, and therefore, the CBD was not given a ‘mapped’ height of building in the new LEP. This resulted in the building heights reverting to the city wide default height of 11 metres as prescribed in Clause 4.3 in Shoalhaven LEP 2014. The 11 metre height limit current applies to all land not mapped in the LEP 2014 height of buildings map overlay.

The 11 metres standard came from an earlier planning provision that enabled Council to deal with any development up to that height, then anything above that could still be considered, but with the concurrence or approval of the NSW Government

As noted earlier, at the time of preparing the Standard Instrument LEP, the DP&E supported Council’s approach to building heights in the Nowra CBD, as a detailed analysis had not been undertaken to establish specific height controls. However, DP&E advised that following the adoption of LEP 2014, Council needed to investigate and implement new building heights that reflected Nowra’s role as a major regional centre.

It is anticipated that the Nowra-Bomaderry area will experience significant population growth over the next 20 years, and, the increased building heights will assist to encourage employment generating and residential developments in the Nowra CBD. The CBD is the business hub for Shoalhaven, and increasing building heights provides an opportunity for existing sites to provide essential employment generating developments to support Shoalhaven’s growing population, as well as complementary and supporting residential development.

The proposed building heights were established through detailed analysis to minimise adverse impacts on views, heritage items and character. The proposed building heights are also supported by a set of detailed urban design controls that aim to ensure that development positively contributes to the future character of the Nowra CBD.

Studio GL Pty Ltd have recommended that Council also consider establishing a Design Review Panel to ensure developments meet a minimum standard of design. Additionally, it has been suggested that Council consider creating a large conservation area to the west of the CBD to ensure that development considers and responds to the local character of Nowra. These suggestions may have merit and are recommended for further consideration and will be separately reported to Council in due course.

Issue - Lack of Public Domain Controls

One (1) submission highlighted the importance of the public domain in town centres and raised concerns about the lack of public domain controls / planning in the draft DCP Chapter.

Comments

It is acknowledged and agreed that an appropriately planned and managed public domain is essential to the future look/feel and success of the Nowra CBD. However, it is important to note that the role of the DCP Chapter is to guide private development, not to plan the public domain.

Council is however currently working on a draft DCP Chapter for the Streetscape Design of Town and Village Centres. This DCP Chapter will consider appropriate treatment of streets in association with proposed developments.

In addition, the Nowra CBD Masterplan has a detailed plan for the public domain in the Nowra CBD and Council continues to improve the public domain through the implementation of the Nowra CBD Revitalisation Strategy in consultation with the Nowra CBD Revisitation Strategy Committee.

Issue - Lack of Supporting Infrastructure Strategy

One (1) submission raised concerns about the lack of infrastructure planning in the draft DCP. The submission stated that there is no plan for traffic, car parking, public domain, sewer, water and lighting.

Comments

As outlined earlier in the report, the draft DCP Chapter is a guide for private development, and is not itself an infrastructure strategy. However, in this regard, Council has previously adopted the Nowra CBD Transport Strategy, Nowra CBD Car Parking Strategy, Nowra CBD Masterplan (public domain) and Shoalhaven Development Servicing Plan (water and sewer) which adequately plan for infrastructure to support future development in the Nowra CBD. These various strategies and plans can be adjusted in the future if needed to respond to demands on infrastructure.

NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) were consulted on the PP and DCP and in their response advised that they are working on a Nowra-Bomaderry Network Strategy, which will investigate and recommend infrastructure upgrades to the local and classified road network.

Once the Network Strategy is finalised, an amendment to the Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2010 (CP) should be considered. In the interim, mechanisms such as Conditions of Consent, Planning Agreements in association with Development Applications and Council’s Capital Works Budget can be utilised to enable the delivery of infrastructure to support the demand created by new development. This aspect will be monitored as new development occurs and if necessary, appropriate changes and adjustments can be considered in this regard.

Issue - Proposed Laneway

One (1) submission raised concerns about a proposed laneway shown in the draft DCP Chapter. The proposed laneway is shown as a future link over what was previously Council owned land, however, the subject land is no longer in Council’s ownership.

The proposed laneway is shown in Figure 4 below, and the submission requests that the laneway (and Council owned land hatching) be removed or relocated in the draft DCP.

Figure 4 - Extract from submission, proposed laneway

Comments

While the proposed ‘desired future connection’ would create a more logical link, it was never intended for it to be shown over private land. It is recommended that the draft DCP be amended to remove the proposed laneway from the subject land, and also the ‘Council owned land’ key from all Area Specific Controls Maps. It is also noted that an existing lane is located just to the north.

7. State Government Agencies

The Gateway determination for the PP required consultation with state government agencies including RMS and NSW Health (Shoalhaven District Memorial Hospital), a response was only received from RMS.

RMS

Originally raised concerns about the lack of a traffic strategy to support the increase in building heights in the Nowra CBD. However, it was subsequently clarified that the Nowra CBD Traffic Strategy, which was adopted by Council and endorsed by the RMS, provides a strategy for traffic and transport in the Nowra CBD out to 2036. Following the exhibition, the RMS were provided with a copy of the Nowra CBD Traffic Strategy.

The RMS reviewed their initial advice taking into account the additional information provided. Subsequent advice provided indicated that they no longer require a traffic impact study and advised that they wish to work collaboratively with Council in planning for appropriate future road work upgrades. It was also recommended that Council consider the appropriate mechanisms to collect contributions from new development within the area affected by the PP as part of the consideration of this matter.

Comments

In considering the RMS advice, there are currently appropriate mechanisms in place to enable new developments to fund or undertake required infrastructure upgrades. These include conditions of consent, Planning Agreements associated with Development Applications and Council’s Capital Works budget.

In the most recent advice, RMS indicated that they are currently working on a Network Strategy for the Nowra-Bomaderry area which will investigate and recommend infrastructure upgrades to the local and classified road network. Once the study is finalised, a supporting amendment to the CP should be considered.

Additional Controls – Active Frontages

As part of the Nowra-Bomaderry Retail Hierarchy Study that is currently being finalised, the consultants undertook a review of the draft DCP Chapter. Recommendations were made with respect to the draft DCP, specifically, that there was a need to address treatment of active frontages.

Thus, a new section, ‘5.10 Active Frontages’ is recommended for inclusion in the DCP Chapter following ‘5.9 Addressing the Street’. Numbering of subsequent DCP controls will also need to be amended.

The new section provides development controls to ensure that streets identified as required or desired active frontages are designed with appropriate building treatments. In particular, they have regard to pedestrian scale, encourage ease of access, allow interaction and foster pedestrian activity.

The additional controls for inclusion are provided at Attachment 3.

Community Engagement

The draft Urban Design Development Controls were initially prepared with the assistance of a Project Liaison Group made up of local property and business owners, architects, planning consultants and community representatives. The project consultants facilitated three workshops with the group during the development and testing of the controls.

The PP and draft DCP Chapter were exhibited as a package between 2 November and 16 December 2016 (inclusive) at the Council Administration Centre in Nowra. The package was also available for viewing on Council’s website. Direct letters were sent to 144 of the affected landowners advising of the public exhibition period.

To support the public exhibition, Council staff held two (2) community drop-in sessions in the CBD, where staff were available to answer any questions and explain the provisions in the draft DCP Chapter and PP. A total of 6 people attended the drop-in sessions.

Policy Implications

The adoption of the draft DCP with amendments will also replace and rescind two existing DCP Chapters being N8 Nowra CBD Urban Fringe and N9 Bulky Goods Precinct – East Street Nowra.

The adoption of the Planning Proposal to increase the Height of Buildings will result in an Amendment to the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 to reflect the new heights within the subject area.

Financial Implications

The preparation of the draft DCP and PP have been managed within the existing Strategic Planning Budget.

As discussed earlier in this report, finalisation of the draft DCP and PP may necessitate the need for a supporting amendment to the CP.

Development Committee – Tuesday 08 August 2017

Page 35

DE17.55 Planning Proposal (Rezoning) - Warrah Road Bangalee - Finalisation of Development Footprint

HPERM Ref: D17/213879

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Strategic Planning

Attachments: 1. Gateway Determination - Warrah Road Planning Proposal ⇩

2. Final Peer Review - Ecological Assessment - Warrah Road Planning Proposal (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Proponents Submission 10/7/2017 - Warrah Road PP (under separate cover) ⇨

4. Proposed Land Zoning Map ⇩

5. Proposed Lot Size Map ⇩

6. Proposed Offset Map ⇩

Purpose / Summary

Advise Council of the results of the latest biodiversity peer review and consider a possible development footprint for the site and resultant draft zoning and lot size maps to enable progression of this Planning Proposal (PP) at Warrah Road, Bangalee.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council

1. Adopt the attached Land Use Zone (Attachment 5) and Lot Size (Attachment 6) maps as the basis for preparing the specialist studies required to enable public exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

2. Forward these maps to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment with a request to revise the Gateway determination that:

a. Reflects the proposed new development footprint;

b. Removes condition 1, which is covered by the new footprint;

c. Removes items (c) and (d) from condition 2 in the current determination; and

d. Adds a condition allowing the minimum lot size of 1500 m² to be revised if appropriately supported by the traffic and bushfire assessments undertaken for the planning proposal.

3. That the proposal be reported back to Council prior to exhibition.

Options

1. Adopt the revised zone and lot size maps as the basis for progressing this PP.

Implications: This option reflects the constraints and opportunities arising from the most recent ecological investigations related to the site. It also reflects Council’s earlier resolutions and allows much of the land that is not identified as having high conservation value to be developed. As such, it is the recommended approach

2. Do not utilise the results of the most recent and final biodiversity peer review and progress the PP based on the previous reduced development footprint and adopt appropriate zones and minimum lot size to proceed with.

Implications: This option avoids the need to seek an amended gateway determination from the NSW Department of Planning & Environment (DP&E) in the short term. It would, however mean that the PP does not reflect the more detailed biodiversity information and final biodiversity peer review that now exists, making progression of the PP potentially problematic. This approach is likely to result in further delays, and/or a lower lot yield and/or significant environmental impacts. This option is not recommended.

3. Discontinue the PP.

Implications: This would mean that the future of the site remains unresolved and the current ‘deferred’ zoning under Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 would be retained. Thus, this option is not recommended. Under this option, the proponent would also have the option to seek the intervention of the DP&E and Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP), which could result in the proposal being taken out of Council’s control.

Overview

On 6 December 2016, Council resolved to consider an additional biodiversity assessment submitted by the proponents (Huntingdale Developments Pty Ltd and Southbank Land Pty Ltd) in relation to the PP at Warrah Road, Bangalee.

This report outlines the results of the independent peer review of the proponent’s additional biodiversity assessment. The resulting revised development footprint, supported by draft zoning and lot size maps are presented for consideration so that the other necessary studies related to the PP can be prepared.

Background

The overall Crams Road Urban Release Area (URA) was originally identified in the Nowra-Bomaderry Structure Plan (NBSP). The subject land was part of the original URA.

The NBSP stated that a range of investigations, including biodiversity, would need to be completed to determine the potential extent of residential development.

Due to conflicting biodiversity studies the Crams Road URA was ultimately ‘deferred’ from the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 to enable further investigations to be undertaken to determine an appropriate development footprint for the site.

In 2014 the proponents submitted a PP to commence the process to resolve the zoning of the site. In an attempt to reconcile the conflicting biodiversity studies over the subject land, in early 2015 Council engaged NGH Environmental Pty Ltd to undertake an independent peer review of the biodiversity studies that existed over the site and make recommendations on biodiversity significance to inform a PP.

In December 2015, Council ultimately resolved to prepare and advance a PP based on the findings of the peer review. The Warrah Road PP (PP005) was subsequently submitted to DP&E and a Gateway determination issued on 12 July 2016. The Gateway determination allowed the PP to proceed subject to a number of terms and conditions including the following:

Condition 1: applying an environmental zone to Sub-remediation Area B.

Comment: this concerns unauthorised clearing on the site which is discussed later in this report.

Condition 2: completion of additional studies:

a) Bushfire Hazard Study

b) Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment

c) Biodiversity Review of Lots 21-23

d) Provision of infrastructure – water, sewerage and electricity to confirm demand and supply issues

Comments:

This report includes a recommendation that Council seek an amendment to the gateway determination to delete conditions c) and d).

In relation to condition c) the suitability of Lots 21-23 for residential development has already been established and confirmed by the latest independent peer review that is discussed later in this report.

In relation to condition d) Part 6 of the LEP already requires that adequate utility infrastructure is provided prior to the actual released of land within the URAs. Furthermore, the original Crams Road URA (of which the site is part) is identified as a long-term release area in the NBSP. As such the area once zoned, will not be developed in the short/medium term.

A copy of the Gateway determination is provided as Attachment 1.

Independent Peer Review of Conservation Significance Assessment Report

Following receipt of the Gateway determination, the matter was reported to Council and it was noted that the proponent had prepared a further biodiversity study that should be considered. Thus, in accordance with MIN16.944 (December 2016) Council engaged NGH Environmental Pty Ltd to prepare an independent and objective peer review of the latest OMVI 2016 study commissioned by the proponent and to:

· Reassess areas of High Conservation Value (HCV) land; and

· Determine if further field studies are still required to accurately define HCV areas.

This peer review was completed in June 2017. It concluded that adequate survey has been undertaken to determine HCV lands at the subject site. A full copy of the report prepared by NGH Environmental Pty Ltd, including the revised HCV land map is provided as Attachment 2 (see separate folder).

However, it should also be noted that NGH concluded that “…given that populations of the Leafless Tongue Orchid may not flower every year, and only one comprehensive survey for this species has been undertaken, it is recommended that another additional targeted survey be conducted for this species in areas that may be developed in the future, to clarify the conclusions of the study that the species is absent.”

Proponent’s Response to the Biodiversity Peer Review

A copy of the completed peer review was provided to the proponent and they responded on 10 July 2017 - see Attachment 3 (separate folder).

As a result of the latest information, the proponent’s submission proposes that:

1. The future western bypass corridor be zoned RU2 Rural Landscape

2. The HCV land be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation

3. For the remaining land:

o the area to the west of Warrah Road be zoned R2 Low Density Residential

o the area to the east of Warrah Road be zoned R1 General Residential

The proponent has proposed the following lot sizes:

· 2000 m² for the land adjoining existing residential development

· 500 m² for the remaining land within the development footprint

· 40 ha for the proposed E2 and RU2 areas

Council staff have reviewed the proponent’s proposed zoning and lot size maps. The overall development footprint is generally supported but some changes to the proposed density of development are considered necessary in response to the known site constraints.

Recommended Zoning and Lot Size Maps

The recommended land use zoning map is shown in Attachment 4 and the recommended lot size map is shown in Attachment 5.

The proposed 2000 square metreslot size across the northern part of the developable footprint is consistent with the existing pattern of development to the north, and will help maintain a consistent landscape character and amenity for the existing dwellings. It will enable a more appropriate development transition.

However, a 500 square metreslot size is considered too small for the southern fringe of the proposed R2 zone. The irregular configuration and long length of the residential/environmental boundary on the eastern side of the residential area has implications for infrastructure requirements and bushfire risk. It will also pose challenges in terms of managing weeds, pests and illegal dumping within the E2 area.

Thus, a 1500 square metresminimum lot size is recommended for the land adjoining the proposed E2 zone. This lot size reflects the need for a bushfire asset protection zone (APZ) between the dwellings and the adjoining bushland, as well as potential road/traffic issues. It is proposed to request a notation in the Gateway that this may be revised in the final PP subject to traffic and bushfire investigations.

An area within the centre of the site is proposed to have a minimum lot size of 500 square metres to enable some flexibility in this part of the site to enable smaller lots.

Remediation Areas

The current Gateway determination requires land affected by a remediation order under the Native Vegetation Act to be zoned for environmental protection. This reflects the uncertainty in determining ecological values after land has been cleared and the principal that there should be no benefit from unlawful activities.

The residential zone suggested by the proponents will encroach into the remediation area by approximately 1.5 hectares. To offset this impact, it is proposed to conserve in an E2 zone 3.8 hectares of land that would otherwise potentially be suitable for residential zoning. This represents an offset ratio of 1:2.5, and is shown in Attachment 6.

It is considered that this offsetting is appropriate as it will facilitate a negotiated outcome and allows better planning outcomes to be achieved. This outcome cannot be pursued, however, unless DP&E agree to delete or modify condition 1 from the Gateway determination, hence recommendation 2b in this report.

Community Engagement

The purpose of this report is to establish a potential development footprint and enable the PP to advance on that basis so that the other investigations required by DP&E can be undertaken.

The community will then be able to provide input through the formal PP exhibition process when this point is reached and prior to the PP being finally adopted by Council.

A site-specific chapter in Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014 will also need to be prepared before the land is ultimately released in the future. Thus may also need to be accompanied by a supporting Contributions Plan (CP). This step will also involve a separate community engagement process at that stage.

Council could consider seeking community feedback on the proposed footprint, zoning and lot size maps prior to the formal PP exhibition period. However, the proposal is not yet in a form that would enable a community member to reach an informed opinion on the proposal. It may also contribute to ‘consultation fatigue’ which could impact on formal community engagement processes for the PP and DCP Chapter.

If the land is able to be subdivided in the future once the PP and DCP/CP processes are completed, the proponents will need to submit development applications to subdivide the land, at which point the community will have further opportunity to comment on the proposed subdivision(s).

Financial Implications

The proponent has paid the PP lodgement and preparation fee in accordance with Council’s fees and charges and met the costs of the reports prepared to date. Any additional studies required by the PP are required to be wholly funded by the proponent, as would any further peer reviews that may need to be undertaken.

Conclusion

The ecological investigations for the Warrah Road PP have been completed and a position reached between the ecologists working for the proponent and the ecologists working for Council. A potential new footprint for the rezoning has been designed that reflects the latest and most complete ecological assessment of the site. Adopting this will require an amendment to the Gateway determination and it is recommended that Council request this amendment.

Once the Gateway determination is amended and further studies undertaken into bushfire risk, traffic impacts and Aboriginal cultural heritage, the PP will be in a form suitable to allow a community member to reach an informed opinion on the proposal. The proposal can then be formally exhibited and then reported back to Council.

Development Committee – Tuesday 08 August 2017

Page 47

DE17.56 Moss Vale Road North Urban Release Area - Resourcing and Funding

HPERM Ref: D17/216422

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Strategic Planning

Purpose / Summary

Report on the resourcing and funding requirements to enable the detailed planning tasks associated with the Moss Vale Road North (MVRN) Urban Release Area (URA) to be prioritised.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Formally commence the process required under Part 6 of Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2017 for Moss Vale Road North (MVRN) Urban Release Area (URA).

2. Revise the indicative development phasing plan (contained in the Nowra-Bomaderry Structure Plan) for the Nowra Bomaderry URAs as follows:

a. Phase 1 – Mundamia and Worrigee

b. Phase 2 – Moss Vale Road South and Moss Vale Road North

c. Phase 3 – Cabbage Tree Lane

d. Phase 4 – Crams Road

3. Consult with the landowners of MVRN URA regularly to ensure they are provided with opportunities to be involved in the planning process and offer feedback

4. Support the establishment of a Project Control Group to facilitate the progression of the planning for the URA and its role at the development stage to ensure satisfactory provision of public infrastructure.

5. Commit the required staff resources and set a budget of $165,000 in 2017/18 (as per Table 1 in the report) to undertake the detailed planning requirements and delivery of infrastructure and identify a funding source in the September Quarterly Review.

6. Continue to seek opportunities for grant funding to reduce the cost of technical investigations and infrastructure, which would ordinarily be imposed on landowners/developers through Section 94 Contributions.

7. Advise all landowners within the Nowra-Bomaderry URAs of this resolution.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation.

Implications: This will enable Council staff to work with the landowner’s consultants to achieve an outcome that both parties are supportive of and in a timeframe that is in line with their expectations. Should the recommendation be adopted it is necessary that all landowners within the MVRN URA are provided opportunities, as suggested in the report to be regularly consulted through this process.

2. Adopt an alternative resolution that requires that Council undertake the required investigations to prepare a Development Control Plan and Contributions Plan.

Implications: Given the amount of technical investigations involved with the MVRN URA, it is unlikely that Council staff will be able to enable the release of the MVRN URA in line with the Moss Vale Road South (MVRS) URA and the landowner and community expectation.

Background

On 28 March 2017, Council considered a Notice of Motion relating to the prioritisation of work on the MVRN URA and requested a report on the resourcing and funding requirements to do so.

The Council resolution (MIN17.222) in this regard is as follows:

That:

1. Council revise and elevate the strategic planning priority of the Moss Vale Road North urban release area due to the economic stimulus, provision of alternative development concepts and other benefits including affordable housing that this will provide.

2. The General Manager report to Council resourcing requirements for consideration to support the immediate commencement of the detailed development control plan and other processes required under Part 6 of Shoalhaven LEP 2014 and any other steps necessary to facilitate the short term release of this land to market.

3. The General Manager report to Council any alternate sources of funding including any contributions that may be negotiated with the proponents to manage the processes required to enable the release of this land.

4. The General Manager report to Council any acceleration that may be required for the provision of infrastructure to account for the change of priority.

5. That Council inform other holders of land within the Nowra-Bomaderry Urban Release Areas of Council’s decision and related justification.

This report responds as required to this resolution.

Prioritisation of MVRN URA

The Council resolution of 28 March 2017 specifically sought to re-prioritise MVRN from Phase 5 to Phase 2 in the Nowra-Bomaderry Structure Plan (NBSP) phasing, concurrent with the Moss Vale Road South (MVRS) URA that is actively being worked on by Council’s Strategic Planning Section.

The different phasing of the two URAs in the original NBSP was primarily due to economic feasibility and ensuring the market was not flooded with new land release in such close proximity. In addition, it was acknowledged that MVRN potentially had more constraints than MVRS.

A significant constraint relevant to MVRN is the significant amount of riparian areas that traverse the site. The additional considerations for MVRN, as opposed to MVRS, include but are not limited to Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, threatened species, bushfire and the riparian corridor network. The site is also much larger in area, which comes with greater land ownership fragmentation. While it is accepted that both release areas are in the same general location, their characteristics differ and it is expected that this difference will be evident in the eventual development of the URAs.

Bringing both MVRS and MSRN URAs online in the next phase of release creates an impact on Council resourcing and funding, as existing budgets and works programs did not account for the additional resourcing required to enable the release of the land at MVRN ahead of schedule.

The work required to bring a release area online is set by Part 6 of Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (SLEP) 2014. Part 6 stipulates that development of land mapped, as an URA must provide satisfactory arrangements for state public infrastructure, public utility infrastructure, and be subject to a Development Control Plan (DCP) prior to development consent being granted.

This means that funding budgets need to be reconsidered, opportunities for State Government infrastructure grants investigated and that the landowners will need to undertake a large portion of the scope of works required to inform the Development Control Plan and Contribution Plan for the URA.

Resourcing and Funding Requirements

Additional resourcing and funding will be required for a number of Sections of Council to support the immediate commencement of the detailed DCP and other processes required under Part 6 of SLEP 2014.

Strategic Planning

Council’s Strategic Planning Section will be responsible for the overall project management of the MVRN URA to ensure that the Part 6 requirements of SLEP 2014 are satisfied. This includes but is not limited to the preparation of a DCP, Contributions Plan (CP), and consulting with relevant State Government agencies, Shoalhaven Water and other infrastructure providers to coordinate the delivery of State and Local Public Utility Infrastructure for the new living area.

To encourage a variety of housing products at different price ranges, a Planning Proposal (PP) to encourage smaller lot sizes is likely to be considered for MVRN, similar to MVRS. The preparation and submission of a PP for Gateway determination will be coordinated by Strategic Planning. The PP may also need to address other matters related to the refinement of zones in this area, such as the existing B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone, dependent on the outcomes of the Nowra-Bomaderry Retail Hierarchy Study.

Strategic Planning will also be responsible for managing the required public exhibition of any PP, DCP and CP for MVRN as required by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (EP&A Act) 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulations (Regulations) 2000.

As Council’s Development Committee endorsed the Strategic Planning Works Program on 17 July 2017, management of the MVRN URA will be resourced by Council’s Strategic Planning Section and funded within the existing Strategic Planning Budget. Should additional funding be required in this regard or related to specific tasks, this will be covered in subsequent reports to Council through the process.

Water and Sewerage

Shoalhaven Water can provide sewerage servicing and water supply over an eight-year period to address the additional demand because of MVRN URA. Shoalhaven Water has advised that the upgrades required to sewer and water infrastructure also take into account the additional demand from MVRS URA. These works will be included in the new Water Supply and Sewerage Services, Development Servicing Plans.

Sewerage servicing requires the construction of major infrastructure to support both MVRN and MVRS URAs. The development of the URAs will require substantial works to be brought forward from the current Wastewater Capital Works program. This includes a number of gravity sewer mains, sewage pumping stations and emergency storage tanks that are estimated to cost in excess of $6.852 million (these figures are based on 2013 Sewer Strategy Report indexed to 2017/18 using NSW Water Supply & Sewerage Construction Cost Indices) between 2017/18 and 2024/25.

Water supply infrastructure can be provided to support both MVRN and MVRS URAs, however due to the elevation and ground levels of the existing Cambewarra Reservoir, the URAs will need to be split into two catchments for water supply servicing. Initial provision of water supply would be to the western section of MVRN URA and the north-eastern section of MVRS URA. Further water supply can be provided to the eastern part of MVRN via an extension from the Bomaderry Water Supply System. The development of the URAs will require new pipelines, reservoir and a water pumping station that are estimated to cost in excess of $2.55 million (these figures are based on the 2013 Water Servicing Strategy Report indexed to 2017/18 using NSW Water Supply & Sewerage Construction Indices) between 2017/18 through to 2022/23.

The costs provided by Shoalhaven Water are exclusive of land acquisition, servicing of other areas and upgrade to existing power supply. In addition, the required works and timing may change subject to the development staging identified for the URAs. An external contractor will undertake the construction works, which is standard practice for Shoalhaven Water capital works. However, Shoalhaven Water may carry out the designs where workloads permit.

Based on the above, the provision of water supply and sewerage infrastructure will require significant funding. However it is noted that the initial costs and timing provided for sewerage and water infrastructure have been provided on the basis of the Indicative Layout Plans for the URAs and are not based on any detailed subdivision plans (as they are not available at this stage), therefore these figures are subject to further analysis and refinement as the projects advance.

Road Infrastructure

To inform the Contributions Plan (CP) on the required road infrastructure, further investigations with respect to traffic and transport, infrastructure design and delivery, and project management will be required.

Traffic and Transport investigation that includes traffic modelling and investigations will be required to establish possible CP projects, and model traffic flows on Moss Vale Road and the Princes Highway to determine the timing of road and intersection upgrades. This resource is not currently available within Council’s Assets and Works Group and will need to be managed by an external consultant – estimated cost $30,000.

Infrastructure design and delivery are typically undertaken externally with potential input from Council’s Development Services Subdivision Unit. It is unknown what the cost or timing of this investigation work will be.

Project management will also be required, Council’s Assets and Works Group have advised that there is no capacity for existing resources to be taken offline to assist with project management. Thus, this will require an additional position internally.

In addition, NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) will need to be involved in any discussions relating to road infrastructure that may affect the State Road Network (i.e. Moss Vale Road and the Princes Highway). There may be spare capacity within RMS to undertake the design and costings of the infrastructure projects required (needs to be clarified), which could then be input into a Contributions Plan.

Outside the URA, the State Budget had identified a number of key projects within the vicinity of MVRN, which include the Berry to Bomaderry Princes Highway Upgrade, and the Nowra Bridge project. The progression of the Berry to Bomaderry Princes Highway Upgrade, in particular, will consider access to MVRN from Princes Highway. The RMS’s preliminary plans indicate that Pestells Lane should be used as the primary access point of the Highway as it is proposed to be a grade-separated intersection (similar to Berry) combined with Meroo Road.

The Federal Budget has also committed funding to the Far North Collector Road (FNCR). Council will consider a report in the future on the design and costings of the FNCR, including potential funds within this project that could be used to upgrade Taylors Lane and the intersection with Moss Vale Road.

Environmental Considerations

As indicated earlier, the MVRN URA has a number of potential environmental constraints including but not limited to Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, threatened species, bushfire risk, flood risk, stormwater management and management of the riparian corridor and open space system.

Council’s Natural Resources Section have indicated that consultants will need to be engaged to undertake the required investigations for MVRN; this would also require an additional position internally to manage various consultants, and a natural areas manager for the ongoing management of riparian corridor land. The review of these studies is unlikely to be able to be handled within existing internal staff resources of the section is likely to require a part time project officer costing approximately $60,000 annually, and would potentially be required over an 18-24 month period.

Open Space and Recreation

The riparian corridor network and RE1 Public Recreation zoned land within the MVRN URA will potentially result in the creation of a significant public asset for Council to manage.

Provision of suitable community infrastructure such as open space network, shared cycle ways or similar will require staff resourcing with respect to designing the embellishments of public open space. Council’s Social and Infrastructure Planning Section has advised that staff resourcing is available internally should the required consultant reports be undertaken externally.

Establishment of a Project Control Group (PCG)

To ensure the overall coordination of the development of the URA and that the planning requirements under Part 6 of SLEP 2014 are addressed, it is recommended that a PCG made up of relevant Council staff from Strategic Planning, Development Services, Natural Resources, Social Infrastructure Planning, Assets and Works, and Shoalhaven Water be established. The primary role of the PCG will be to meet regularly with the proponents to consult and progress with the overall planning of the MVRN URA. The Strategic Planning Section will be responsible for the management of the PCG.

An opportunity also exists for the PCG to continue to be involved after the requirements of Part 6 of SLEP 2014 are satisfied. This relates to the PCG reviewing and providing in-principle support of plans for public infrastructure prior to lodgement of a Development Application. This process has been adopted by some of the Councils that make up the Sydney Region Growth Centres as a mechanism to ensure that the standard of public infrastructure that is to be dedicated to Council is satisfactory and to simplify the pre-lodgement process.

Landowner Proposal

Since the March 2017 Council resolution, Council staff have met with two of the landowners in the MVRN URA who own a large proportion of the URA with their consultants Allen Price & Scarratts (APS) to discuss the way forward with the planning for the MVRN URA.

In these discussions, Council staff provided detailed advice on the studies required to develop a DCP and CP for the URA, including but not limited to the following:

· Development of an Indicative Layout Plan to inform street hierarchy and network, staging and development footprint;

· Flora and fauna study;

· Aboriginal Cultural Heritage;

· Traffic (this is to also consider the latest design of the Berry to Bomaderry highway upgrades and entrances via Pestells Lane and Abernathys Lane);

· Bushfire Risk;

· Flood Investigation of Abernathy’s Creek;

· Integrated Water Cycle Assessment, including baseline water quality conditions;

· Open Space and Landscape Strategy;

· Electricity Capacity Assessment;

· The potential need to review the existing B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone in relation to its size and location; and,

· Consideration of the future ongoing management of the riparian corridor and open space system.

APS have advised that the landowners have agreed to generally respond to the issues raised through their own scope of works to fulfil the requirements under Part 6 of SLEP 2014. The scope of works provided by APS involves:

· Detailed masterplanning including staging, urban design controls for significant development sites, encouraging increased densities, public facilities and commercial areas

· Transport Movement Hierarchy

· Landscape Concept Plan including vegetation and riparian corridor management and active and passive recreation areas

· Stormwater and Water Quality

· Natural and Environmental Hazards including bushfire, flooding and contamination

· Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

· Flora and Fauna

· Infrastructure Delivery

· Visual Impact

· Economic Feasibility

The list of studies identified appeared to generally address the issues raised in discussions. Council staff have also discussed the need to be involved in the process through establishing the scope of works for each study and reviewing the draft reports. This is to ensure quality control and that the final product (studies, DCP and CP) is of a high standard, provides the necessary information for the development of the DCP and CP and is capable of being supported by Council. It is considered that this role can be provided by the PCG. APS and their client generally support this approach.

Community Engagement

Regular meetings with the landowners in MVRN URA will be required should Council resolve to proceed to work with the proponents collaboratively to commence the requirements under Part 6 of SLEP 2014. It is necessary that Council run this process to ensure that all landowners are provided with sufficient opportunities to be involved, consulted and provide feedback.

In addition, once the PP, DCP and CP have been prepared to Council’s satisfaction, the documents will be publicly exhibited as a package in accordance with the requirements of the EP&A Act and Regulations.

Policy Implications

As MVRN is mapped as a URA under SLEP 2014, the requirements under Part 6 determine that arrangements are made for State public infrastructure, public utility infrastructure and a DCP is prepared to MVRN URA prior to development occurring.

Financial Implications

Significant funding is required to enable the immediate commencement of the detailed planning work and delivery of the required infrastructure for MVRN URA.

If Council resolve to undertake the detailed planning for MVRN URA as a combined effort with the landowners, the full extent of resourcing and funding for Council, as detailed in this report, may not be needed. Based on a collaborative approach, the financial figures is provided in Table 1 below, the table also identifies how payment could be allocated.

Resource / Infrastructure / Study	Costs	Cost Allocation
Strategic Planning – at least one internal officer	Unknown	Carried out initially within Strategic Planning Operational Budget
Sewer Infrastructure	$6.852M	Levied to developer as per Section 64 Headworks Charges
Water Supply	$2.55M	Levied to developer as per Section 64 Headworks Charges
Traffic and Transport Investigation	$30,000	Developer
Infrastructure Design and Delivery	Minimum $40,000	Council - Budget to be allocated. Portion of costs potentially be recouped via Section 94 Contributions and levied to developer
Infrastructure Project Manager	Minimum $40,000 per year	Council
Flora and Fauna Study	Minimum $10,000 As suggested by proponent	Developer
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Investigation	Minimum $15,000 As suggested by proponent	Developer
Bushfire Risk	Minimum $5,000 As suggested by proponent	Developer
Flood Investigation	Minimum $20,000 As suggested by proponent	Developer
Integrated Water Cycle Assessment, including baseline water quality	Minimum $25,000 As suggested by proponent	Council – Budget to be allocated Portion of costs potentially recouped via Section 94 Contributions and levied to developer
Open Space & Landscape Strategy	Minimum $25,000 As suggested by proponent	Developer
Environmental/Natural Resources Project Manager	$60,000 per year	Council - Budget to be allocated
Social Infrastructure Planning – at least one internal officer	Unknown	Carried out within Social Infrastructure Planning Operational Budget
Project Control Group Resources – at least eight (8) internal officers from Planning, Environmental & Development Services; Corporate & Community; and Assets & Works Groups.	Unknown	Carried out within Group Operational Budgets
Total – Council staff resourcing – minimum ten (10) staff members in varying capacities	Total – Minimum cost of $165,000	Council - Budget to be allocated

Table 1 – Approximate Indicative Resourcing Costs

Should the landowners choose to run the process ahead of Council’s schedule it is recommended that landowners fund the required technical investigations. Where possible, technical investigations that apply to both MVRN and MVRS URA will be undertaken concurrently and the costs shared.

State Infrastructure Contributions (SIC) Levy

Having arrangements in place for designated State public infrastructure is a requirement under Part 6 of SLEP 2014. These arrangements are typically provided through a SIC Levy which is administered by the NSW Department of Planning & Environment (Department). At this stage, a SIC Levy does not exist and it is not known whether the Department will proceed with a SIC Levy for MVRN URA. Confirmation will continue to be sought from the Department in this regard.

Shoalhaven Contributions Plan 2010 (CP) – specific projects

The delivery of infrastructure such as roads, drainage, open space, shared cycleways etc. will be levied via specific projects in the CP for the MVRN URA and in accordance with the EP&A Act. In some instances, where an infrastructure project is required for the development of both MVRS and MRVN URAs, the recoupment costs will be shared between the two URAs.

Where Council has funded the technical studies and design of infrastructure, there may be opportunities for the costs to be recouped through the CP process if deemed necessary and appropriate.

Water and Sewerage Headworks Charges (Section 64 Contributions)

The costs for water supply and sewer infrastructure as listed in the Development Servicing Plans for the development of MVRN URA will be recouped via Section 64 Charges.

Grant Funding

There may be opportunities to apply for future grant funding for technical investigations and help offset the cost of infrastructure delivery. The current grant funding available requires that projects are further advanced and are ‘shovel ready’.

Grant funding has the potential to reduce costs on Council and developers of MVRN URA by providing funding to undertake technical investigations and the delivery of infrastructure. These costs are typically incurred by a developer through Section 94 Contributions. This will hopefully also assist with making housing in this location more affordable should the opportunity arise.

Although the MVRN infrastructure projects may not be eligible for grant funding now, opportunities for future grant funding will be sought to reduce the cost of technical investigations and actual infrastructure delivery.

Risk Implications

The wider Moss Vale Road area has the potential to provide up to 2400 dwellings based on initial calculations. The release of that many lots within a short time period has the potential to flood the market that may decrease the viability of land in this area, especially given the approximate cost of infrastructure required to enable the land release. The DCP will need to consider appropriate staging of the MVRN URA in association with the delivery and staging of the MVRS URA.

Development Committee – Tuesday 08 August 2017

Page 56

DE17.57 Clause 4.6 Variation Report - 71 Meroo St, Bomaderry - Lot 1 DP 732712

DA. No: DA16/2440/4

HPERM Ref: D17/234650

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Development Services

Attachments: 1. DA Plans - Clause 4.3 Variation - Bomaderry Hotel - 71 Meroo St Bomaderry - Lot 1 DP 732712 ⇩

Description of Development: Alterations and additions to Bomaderry hotel to create additional guestrooms (19 new rooms for total of 24 rooms)

Owner: Schustrom Pty Ltd

Applicant: Lee Carmichael Town Planning

Notification Dates: 5 January to 19 January 2017

No. of Submissions: One (1) in objection

Zero (0) in support

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

To seek direction from Council on a policy variation relating to the 11m maximum height of buildings limit under Clause 4.3 (Height of buildings) of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP 2014). Under the assumed concurrence conditions from the Secretary, Department of Planning, variations greater than 10% are required to be considered by the Council and not by delegation.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That the Committee:

1. Confirms that pursuant to Clause 4.6 (Variation to development standards) of SLEP 2014, it supports the applicant’s request to vary the maximum height of buildings limit of 11m to 12.8m; and

2. Refer the development application (DA16/2440) back to staff for determination.

Options

1. Resolve to support the requested variation to the maximum height of buildings limit.

Implications: This would enable Council to issue a development consent for the proposal, subject to resolving outstanding issues relating to car parking. Negotiations on this issue are still ongoing but would unlikely affect the overall design of the proposed development and the maximum height of the building.

2. Resolve not to support the proposed variation to the maximum height of buildings limit.

Implications: This would require the applicant to reconsider the design of the proposal. If the applicant does not pursure this option or the current development application (DA) is not withdrawn, Council would have to refuse consent for the DA which may ultimately result in the applicant appealing Council’s decision in the NSW Land and Environment Court.

3. Resolve to modify the recommendations contained in this report.

Implications: This would require the Committee to provide direction to staff.

Location Map

Figure 1 – Location of site

Zoning Map

Figure 2 – zoning extract, Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014

Background

Proposed Development

A DA has been lodged with Council seeking development consent for alterations and additions to the Bomaderry hotel, located at 71 Meroo St, Bomaderry. The DA proposes:

· The creation of an additional 19 guest rooms (in addition to five (5) existing rooms and manager’s residence) through the construction of a third storey on top of the existing two-storey hotel and reconfiguration of the layout of the existing ground and first floors.

· The proposal would therefore result in a total of 24 hotel/motel type guestrooms plus a manager’s residence across the two upper floors of the building, with the existing pub and bottle shop remaining on the ground floor.

The proposal would be defined as both a pub and hotel or motel accommodation in the SLEP 2014 dictionary. Both these forms of development are permitted with consent within the site’s B4 Mixed Use zoning. See Attachment 1 for a copy of the submitted DA plans.

Subject Land

The subject land:

· Is located at 71 Meroo St, Bomaderry (legally described as Lot 1 DP 732712) and has an area of 2,183sqm; and

· Contains the existing two-storey Bomaderry hotel with associated car parking to the rear. This car park is shared with the Bomaderry Plaza shopping centre to the south. The hotel contains bars, gaming and dining areas, bottle shop and cool room on the ground floor with five (5) existing short-term accommodation rooms plus a manager’s residence and associated amenities on the upper floor.

Site & Context

The subject site:

· Is located within the established commercial/town centre of Bomaderry close to Bomaderry railway station;

· Is zoned B4 Mixed Use as is adjoining land. Land to the west across Coomea St is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential but currently contains mostly detached single dwellings;

· Is surrounded by single-storey commercial buildings to the north along Meroo St, detached single dwellings along the western side of Coomea St and the one and two-storey Bomaderry Plaza to the south;

· Has pedestrian access to Meroo St and pedestrian and vehicular access via the car park to the rear of the site accessed off Coomea St;

· Is neither bushfire nor flood prone land;

· Although a long-established building, it is not listed as a heritage item in SLEP 2014; and

· Contains a Right of Carriageway (ROC) and Right of Footway (ROF) as shown on the above Location and Zoning Maps. The ROC allows access to/from the adjacent Bomaderry Plaza lot to the south while the ROF allows access to/from a Council-owned lot to the north and further east towards Meroo St.

History

The DA was lodged with Council on 6 December 2016.

The DA has been under assessment for some time given complex issues relating to car parking. In summary, the car park is shared by patrons of both the hotel and the Bomaderry Plaza. This arrangement has been in place since the construction of the Plaza in 1985. At that time, the two developments were located on the same lot however after a subdivision was registered in 1986, the two sites were split and the car park is now effectively shared over both lots. There are existing Rights of Carriageway over both lots to ensure reciprocal rights of access for users of both sites.

Issues

Clause 4.3 (Height of buildings) of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP 2014)

Clause 4.3 of SLEP 2014 contains controls for the maximum height of buildings. Clause 4.3(2) states that: “The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.”

Clause 4.3(2A) states that: “If the Height of Buildings Map does not show a maximum height for any land, the height of a building on the land is not to exceed 11 metres.”

The proposed development would result in a structure that at its highest point would be 12.8m above natural ground level. This represents a 1.8m exceedance of the 11m maximum height limit. Expressed as a percentage (i.e. 1.8m / 11m) this represents a variation of 16.36%. Therefore a request to vary this development standard has been provided by the applicant pursuant to Clause 4.6 (Exceptions to development standards) of SLEP 2014.

The variation is demonstrated in the following 3D views with the 11m height plane shown:

Figure3 – 11m Height Plane 3D Views from Front and Rear

Applicant’s Submission

The applicant has requested a variation to the maximum building height development standard and has provided an adequate assessment as required by Clause 4.6.

In the variation statement submitted, the applicant has stated that strict compliance with the 11m maximum height limit is unreasonable and unnecessary having regard for the specific circumstances of this site and would be consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3 as:

a) The building proposed has considerable architectural merit. It is located in commercially zoned area and it is considered that the development will be entirely compatible with the surrounding built environment. Whilst the physical form of the building does differ from some older existing development in the locality in terms of height and architectural style, it is expected to make a positive contribution to the streetscape both current and future desired;

b) The newly constructed additions whilst exceeding the 11m height limit are of a lesser height than existing development. The ridge height of the existing roof is 13.26m above natural ground level. The parapet (highest part) of the new additions is approx. 12.8m above natural ground level;

c) The building, if approved, will have minimal visual impacts. In fact, it is expected that the finished development will enhance and modernise the appearance of the current property;

d) Being situated within a commercial area, the issues of privacy and solar access to existing development are not critical issues. Despite this, the issues of privacy and solar access will not be greatly impacted upon for adjoining development; and

e) There are no heritage items within the vicinity of the site that would be adversely impacted upon by the development.

Discussion

With reference to the objectives of Clause 4.3 and the applicant’s above submission:

· It is considered that the proposed development would be compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and future desired character of the locality. It is also acknowledged that most of the existing commercial development along Meroo St is single-storey and the proposal will differ from this development. The only building above one storey in the vicinity is the two-storey Bomaderry Plaza. However, given that Meroo St falls to the south, the Plaza also presents mostly as a single-storey building when viewed from Meroo St in front of the hotel, as well as when viewed from the rear car park at the Coomea St frontage. The change in height would not make a discernable difference to the locality. The change to the façade and architecture however will have more of an impact, modernizing a building that has undergone various alterations and additions over time.

It should be noted that the block bounded by Meroo, Tarawara, Coomea and Bunberra Streets is zoned B4 Mixed Use and that the 11m height limit also applies to all other lots. Chapter N5 (Bomaderry Town Centre) of Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 (SDCP 2014) applies to this area. The supporting map to this Chapter provides an indication of the desired future development of this area. It is noted that the proposed development would not increase the footprint of the existing hotel and preserve the car parking area to the rear of the site, consistent with the Supporting Map.

The Bomaderry Plaza and other commercial properties on Meroo St are generally underutilised with a number of vacant premises. It is clear that if the proposed development were built, it would be a modern and revitalised building at the heart of Bomaderry town centre and may encourage further redevelopment in this area in line with the desired future character as per Chapter N5.

· It is considered that the proposed development will not result in disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development. While it is acknowledged that the proposal would result in a building which will ‘stand out’ among the mostly single-storey buildings in this area, this is already the case for the current building.

While the highest point of the proposed redeveloped building will be slightly lower than the ridgeline of the existing roof, it can be seen from the design that a larger volume of the proposed building would exist above the 11m height plane compared to the current building. Despite this, the front (eastern) and rear (western) facades have been articulated with a variety of parapet heights, colours and building materials, which overall presents a modern design. This articulation combined with the building’s generous setbacks to both Meroo and Coomea Streets would therefore minimise its visual impact.

The site is bordered by commercial premises to both the north and south, which as noted by the applicant are not particularly sensitive to issues of disruption of views, loss of privacy or solar access. Rooms on the upper (second) floor would mostly face east and west, overlooking Meroo St and the rear car park respectively. Rooms on the southern elevation would overlook the car park and Bomaderry Plaza, while rooms to the north would overlook the adjacent Council-owned land and adjacent commercial development. As such, it can be concluded that any impacts regarding loss of privacy or solar access would be minimal.

· The applicant has stated that there are “no heritage items within the vicinity of the site that would be adversely impacted upon by the development”. While there are heritage items located within the vicinity (including the Bomaderry Railway Station and yard group – an item of State heritage significance), the DA was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who had no issues with the proposal. An extract of the referral response:

“There is no heritage impact associated with the proposed development. The proposed extra storey proposed will increase the visual bulk of the hotel building but does not increase its height beyond its current roof line. Although the hotel is located directly across the road from the heritage curtilage of railway group, the main built elements of the railway group are located more than 50 metres north of the hotel, with the Station Master’s residence positioned further to the north of the platform buildings. Since the hotel building itself is positioned on a generous setback from the street, there is little visual connection between the two places.”

In summary, assessment staff are satisfied that the proposed development would respect the heritage significance of surrounding heritage items, including the State significant Bomaderry Railway Station and yard group.

Clause 4.6 (Exceptions to development standards) of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014

Clause 4.6 contains the specific requirements relating to the variation of a development standard where it can be shown that strict compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and where there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. Before applying the requirements of Clause 4.6, the consent authority must be satisfied that the standard for which the departure is sought is a development standard and not a matter which would prohibit the proposal.

Applicant’s Submission

As per the requirements of Clauses 4.6(3) and 4.6(4), the applicant has submitted a written request for a contravention to the stipulated development standard, namely the 11m maximum building height limit that applies to the subject site as per Clause 4.3(2A). The applicant’s written request has provided the following justification for departure from this development standard and why this development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in this particular circumstance as follows:

Strict compliance with the 11m height limit is unreasonable in the circumstances of the case because:

a) Careful revision of the submitted plans and diagrams attached to this submission will reveal that the extent of the encroachment is reasonable. The part of the building which makes the encroachments to the 11m height limit replaces a part of the building that already exceeds it.

b) Appropriate building to boundary setbacks have been proposed to minimise the perception of building bulk. The new work is proposed towards the centre of the site well setback from the front and rear boundaries. This ensures that the work proposed will not dominate the streetscape and the new work shouldn’t result in the finished building being overbearing for pedestrians.

c) The physical form of the building is well articulated and a variety of building materials are proposed to be used in construction. The proposal will enhance the streetscape qualities of the area despite the encroachment made to the 11m height limit.

d) The structure will not be visually prominent from any important public places. The height of the structure will be compatible with the existing built environment. It must be remembered that the existing structure exceeds 11m in height. The new structure will be of a reduced height compared to existing development.

e) The extent to which to the building is expected to overshadow adjoining properties as a result of the encroachment is minimal.

f) The proposal if approved, will not result in any inconsistencies with other environmental planning instruments or the objectives of the B4 zone as outlined within the SLEP 2014.

g) The proposal remains consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3 as outlined above;

h) The proposal if approved will not set an undesirable precedence for reasons outlined above.

Discussion

The assessment concludes that the 11m height limit prescribed by Clause 4.3(2A) is a development standard which can be varied using Clause 4.6 of SLEP 2014 (i.e. regard has been had for the definition of ‘development standard’ in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act). The written submission provided by the applicant is considered to satisfy the requirements of Clause 4.6(3) and Clause 4.6(4) and as previously noted, compliance with the objectives of Clause 4.3 are still achieved. As such, compliance with the 11m maximum building height development standard is unnecessary, and there are sufficient environmental grounds to justify contravention of this development standard. The proposal is considered in the public interest for the following reasons:

· The development would be consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3 as previously discussed;

· The development would comply with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone, in that it would be an example of a compatible land use in the zone and being located in close proximity to Bomaderry railway station, would be a development that would maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling;

· The development is consistent with the provisions of any other applicable state or regional planning provisions that apply to the land;

· The works would have minimal environmental impacts as the site is fully developed, there would be minimal ground disturbance, the majority of works would be aboveground and the site is unaffected by flooding, bushfire or land contamination constraints;

· The proposed development would contribute to the desired future character of the locality as per Chapter N5 and Supporting Map of SDCP 2014, i.e. it is a form of mixed use development within the B4 Mixed Use zoning in the Bomaderry town centre and may promote further redevelopment in the area;

· The proposal has sufficient visual articulation, architectural merit and generous setbacks to both street frontages that reduces its visual impact, bulk and scale;

· As demonstrated on the height plane plans, given the change in natural ground level over the site, the 1.8m exceedance would only relate to the front elevation of the building with reduced exceedances on other elevations;

· The proposal would have minimal impact with regard to disruption of views and loss of privacy or solar access as previously discussed, given it is surrounded by mostly commercial development not particularly sensitive to such issues;

· The subject site has been used as a pub and for short-term visitor accommodation for some time and the proposed development would increase and improve the standard of such accommodation provided on the site;

· No concerns have been raised from Council’s Heritage Advisor or external stakeholders including NSW Police and Sydney Trains.

Concurrence from the Director-General is not required and can be assumed for this DA as per the guidelines prepared by the Department of Planning and Environment (Planning Circular PS 08-003 issued on 9 May 2008).

As the applicant’s submission and assessment above demonstrates, strict adherance to the development standard can be regarded is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of this case. There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify a contravention of this development standard. Pending the resolution of the car parking issue, the proposed development would ultimately be consistent with the objectives of the state, regional and local planning provisions for this site, the development would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of both Clause 4.3 and the B4 Mixed Use zone.

Planning Assessment

The overall proposal is still under assessment as per Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. If agreement can be reached and a solution found to the outstanding car parking issue, the DA assessment will be finalised and can be determined under delegated authority by the Section Manager – Development, Planning, Environment & Development Group.

Consultation and Community Engagement

In accordance with Council’s ‘Community Consultation Policy for Development Applications’ the DA was notified to surrounding residents, Endeavour Energy, NSW Police and Sydney Trains. The DA has been made available to view on Council’s website via DA Tracking.

No response was received from Endeavour Energy. Responses were received from NSW Police and Sydney Trains with no major concerns raised. Only one (1) public submission was received from a resident of Coomea St, raising concerns with the development in relation to heritage impacts. In this regard, the DA was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor and these comments are detailed earlier in this report.

Legal Implications

If the requested variation is not supported and the applicant is dissatisfied with Council’s determination the applicant has the right of appeal to the NSW Land and Environment Court.

Summary and Conclusion

The applicant’s submission has provided sufficient justification to demonstrate that given the specific circumstances of this case, strict compliance with the 11m maximum height limit is unreasonable or unnecessary. There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify a contravention of this standard. Accordingly, support for the variation is recommended.

Development Committee – Tuesday 08 August 2017

Page 76

DE17.58 Development Application – 123 Forster Drive Bawley Point – Lot 3 DP 527264

DA. No: DA17/1761/4

HPERM Ref: D17/240746

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Ulladulla Service Centre

Description of Development: Stock Management Building, Amenities and Associated Infrastructure

Owner: Capital Property Corporation

Applicant: Shaun Lawer on behalf of GHD

Notification Dates: 17 July to 1 August

No. of Submissions: One submission in support has been received, still in notification at time of preparing this report. Any additional submissions received by the expiry of the notification period (1 August) will be provided at the meeting.

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

The purpose of this report is to seek Council direction with respect to a request for a variation of a development standard (building height) applicable to the site under Clause 4.6 of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP 2014) for a small portion of an entry wall and a metal tree sculpture that exceed 11.0m

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council:

1. Confirm that it supports the proposed variation, under clause 4.6 of Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan 2014, to the 11m maximum building height to allow for the metal sculpture 13m in height and for the stockyards/camping area entry 11.7m in height;

2. Refer the application back to staff for determination by delegation;

Options

1. Resolve to support the propose variation to the development standard for height from 11m to 13m for a metal tree sculpture and 11.7m for a small portion of the entry feature gate to the stockyards/camping area and refer the application back to staff to determine the application under delegated authority.

Implications: This would enable the application to be finalised and conditions prepared to enable consent to be finalised.

2. Resolve not to support the proposed variation to the development standard and refer the application back to staff to negotiate with the applicant to redesign the proposal to meet the 11m height standard.

Implications: This would mean that the application could not be supported in its current form. This would require modifications to be made to specifically adjust the height. This option could also potentially result in litigation by the applicant.

3. Adopt an alternative recommendation and provide direction to staff.

Location Map

Figure 1 Location Map

Background

Proposed Development

The application proposes construction of Stock Management Building, Amenities and Associated Infrastructure as an addition to the existing Willinga Park Equine Centre. This component of the site provides for stock management and the primitive camp ground for events competitors and their animals approved under previous consent DA15/1659. Two components of this proposal exceed the 11.0m maximum building height:

a) A reinforced concrete drive through entry gate 45.6m wide that is generally under 8.0m high with a small sliver at the north east corner increasing in height to 11.7m due to site topography.

b) A wind activated kinetic tree sculpture that will vary in height from 10.0m to 13.0m depending on the position of the branches.

Subject Land

The site is part of a large land holding known as Willinga Park and is being established as an Equine Centre of Excellence, comprising facilities for the breeding and training of Australian stock horses, including a stable complex, covered arena for dressage events, polocrosse and camp drafting arenas, stockyards, horse paddocks and car parking areas.

The development site for the current application is located on a ridge at the western end of Forster Drive, Bawley Point on lot 3 DP 527264. The land is elevated, ranging from 30 to 48m AHD and heavily screened from view to properties outside the site due to vegetation, distance and topography. The development site currently contains stockyards, roads and a farm shed under construction under complying development approvals with associated vegetation clearing. There are also and roads and water tanks in the location being carried out under exempt development provisions.

Site & Context

The development site is immediately surrounded by RU2 zoned rural land with E2 zoned land around the headwaters of Lake Willinga to the north. Surrounding land uses are predominantly agriculture and rural residential. Willinga Park contains a number of larger buildings and monolithic feature walls, landscaping and sculptures that form gateways into the different areas of the development that are appropriate to the scale of the site and have provide a high quality built environment.

Issues

Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

The site is within an area where the Height Building Maps under cl.4.3 of SLEP 2014 does not map a specific maximum building height, therefore, the default height of 11.0m applies. This application seeks to vary this development standard.

A variation of 5.9% (11.65m) is sought for a small portion of the entry gate while a variation of 18% (13m) is sought for the wind activated kinetic tree sculpture for those periods when the tree limbs swing above the 11.0m height plane.

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

The NSW planning system provides flexibility in planning controls by providing the ability for Council to vary development standards in certain circumstances. In this regard, the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) can be assumed as provided in DP&E publication – Varying development standards: A Guide – August 2011 (the Guide). Clause 4.6 enables a development standard to be varied, provided the applicant has submitted a written request that adequately justifies the exception from the development standard by demonstrating that:

a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case; and

b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening a development standard.

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

i. the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objective for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

Applicant’s Submission

The applicant provided Council with a justification for the variation of the development standards:

The development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of this case. The variation is integral to the architectural merit of the stock management building and associated stockyards.

An 11m height limit is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance as the site is visually remote from any adjoining properties and the proposed entry feature gate and sculpture would not be seen from any vantage points external to the site and would be set within the backdrop of the existing native vegetation surrounding the site. Furthermore, the proposed entry feature gate and sculpture along with the stock management building will not result in any undue visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy or loss of solar access for any existing development within or external to the site.

It is considered there is sufficient planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard to support the proposed height variation. Furthermore the height of the entry feature gate above the building height limit is minimal with the vast majority of the structure having a height of 7.2m. Furthermore, the sculpture is a moveable structure that will fluctuate between 10 and 13m subject to wind conditions. The proposed development remains consistent with the objectives of the zone, despite it being non-compliant in relation to building height.

The scale and form of the development is in line with the site’s existing development and adds to the architectural merit of the proposed stock management building and associated infrastructure. Despite the non-compliance with the standard this is considered not to adversely affect any environmental, social or economic factors at the site.

Public interest

The proposed entry feature gate and sculpture are considered to be in the public interest as they are consistent with the objectives of the standard and the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out. As explained above a strict application of the height control is not considered necessary due to the site’s isolation and the complementary nature of the proposed entry feature gate and sculpture with the other architecture proposed for the stock management building and existing development at the site. The proposed built form at the site offers a striking and memorable feature to an otherwise rural landscape.

Discussion

In accordance with 4.(a)(i) of Clause 4.6 of the SLEP 2014, the applicant’s written request is considered to have adequately addressed the required matters. After reviewing the applicant’s submission it is considered that the variation is reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

· The entry gate height varies with the slope of the block and is contextually appropriate.

· The building height variation does not generate overshadowing impacts on the surrounding properties.

· The proposal is consistent with the desired future character of Willinga Park.

· The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the height standard, to ensure that the height of development is appropriate to the condition of the site and its context.

When dealing with a variation to a development standard under cl 4.6, the council must also consider the following five part test (as outlined in the Guide) to determine if the variation is acceptable:

a) The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding noncompliance with the standard;

The objective of the Height of Buildings clause are:

a) to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of existing and desired future character of the locality,

b) to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development,

c) to ensure that the height of building on or in the vicinity of a heritage item or within a heritage conservation area respect heritage significance.

The proposal is consistent with bulk and scale of the existing development and the desired future character of the locality. The proposed height of the development is appropriate to the context and is compatible with the prevailing pattern of buildings, feature gates and landscaping in the locality.

The proposal positively responds and satisfactorily addresses the particular characteristics of the site and its broader context. The proposal is of a height and scale that is sympathetic to its immediate context.

a) The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary - The underlying objectives of the standard are not relevant to the proposed height variations as the entry gate and tree will not be visible to any other premises outside the site and the structures are remote from any other property.

b) The underlying object or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable - Not relevant to the proposal.

c) The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable - Not relevant to the proposal.

d) The compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or inappropriate due to existing use of land and current environmental character of the particular parcel of land. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the zone. – Not relevant to the proposal.

Planning Assessment

The application will be fully assessed under s79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 following determination of the variation to development standards.

Consultation and Community Engagement:

The application was still in notification at time of preparing this report. The proposed works are located more than 400m away from nearest neighbouring property and more than 900m away from the nearest neighbouring dwelling not affiliated with the applicant. One submission has been received in support of the proposal and any additional submissions received by the expiry of the notification period (1 August) will be provided at the meeting and discused.

Development Committee – Tuesday 08 August 2017

Page 82

DE17.59 Exhibition outcomes - Planning Proposal LP406 and DCP Chapter N16 - Falls Creek / Woollamia Deferred Areas

HPERM Ref: D17/187131

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Strategic Planning

Attachments: 1. DCP Chapter N16 - post exhibition version (track changes) (under separate cover) ⇨

2. Supporting Map 1 (post exhibition) Woollamia Road DCP Chapter N16 ⇩

3. Traffic Unit Assessment ⇩

4. Post exhibition lot size map - Woollamia Road - LP406 ⇩

5. Post exhibition lot size map - Seasongood Road - LP406 ⇩

6. Supporting Map 2 (post exhibition) Seasongood Road DCP Chapter N16 ⇩

Purpose / Summary

To detail and consider feedback received as a result of the exhibition of the Falls Creek / Woollamia Deferred Areas Planning Proposal (PP) LP406 and supporting draft Development Control Plan (DCP) Chapter N16.

Recommendation

That:

1. Council adopt the Falls Creek / Woollamia Deferred Areas Planning Proposal (LP406) as exhibited, with the minor changes outlined in this report and issue the second (and final) invoice to landowners, subject to confirmation that:

a. The owner of No. 111 Woollamia Road has surrendered the consent for three tourist cabins (DA00/2847) in accordance with MIN16.945 (part 1.b).

b. If the consent for DA00/2847 is not surrendered by 5 September, amend LP406 and DCP Chapter N16 to reduce the number of lots that can be subdivided from three to two in line with the other properties within the subject land.

c. The two invoices issued to landowners to recoup costs incurred by Council in preparing the planning proposal have been paid in full.

2. If part 1c is not fully resolved within 60 days of issuing the second invoice, remove the relevant properties from the LEP amendment and the draft Chapter N16 - Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (DCP) 2014 and refund any monies paid by the owner(s).

3. Subject to the outcome of parts 1 and 2:

a. Liaise with the NSW Department of Planning and Environment regarding the finalisation of the required amendment to the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014.

b. Adopt the attached version of Chapter N16 of the Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 and give public notice in the appropriate local newspaper/s to enable it to become effective upon commencement of the LEP amendment.

4. Ensure that funding improvements at the Jervis Bay Road / Seasongood Road intersection are considered in the FY18/19 budget.

Options

1. Adopt the recommendation.

Implications: This will enable the PP to be finalised with minimal delay while ensuring that issues relating to cost recovery and uncertainty around the consent for tourist cabins at No. 111 Woollamia Road are resolved.

2. Make changes to the PP and/or DCP Chapter N16 as directed by Council.

Implications: Further changes to PP and DCP Chapter N16 are not recommended but if considered, they should be consistent with the intended outcomes described in the exhibition documents.

3. Adopt an alternative approach to resolving issues around the payment of Council’s costs for preparing the PP and/or the consent for the tourist cabins at No. 111 Woollamia Road.

Implications: It is important that these issues are resolved prior to the finalisation of the PP.

Background

The Falls Creek / Woollamia Deferred Areas Planning Proposal (PP) - LP406 was first initiated in 2011 to address an action in the Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy 2003 (JBSS) to investigate the potential for increased rural residential densities.

Finalisation of the PP will conclude this longstanding strategic planning project. Background reports and Council resolutions relating to LP406 can be viewed on a dedicated webpage for this project via:

https://shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/Planning-amp-Building/Strategic-planning/Paper-subdivisions

Most recently on 9 May 2017, it was resolved that:

1. Council endorse the updated Falls Creek / Woollamia Deferred Areas Planning Proposal and draft Development Control Plan Chapter N16 for public exhibition and proceed to exhibit for a minimum period of 28 days.

2. Council staff be authorised to make any necessary minor changes to improve readability/usability of the draft Development Control Plan Chapter prior to exhibition.

3. Report the outcomes of the exhibition period back to the Development Committee for final consideration.

No. 111 Woollamia Road - Consent for tourist cabins (DA00/2847)

The Council resolution of 6 December 2016 (MIN16.945) included the following requirement related to this property that is part of the PP:

In respect of 111 Woollamia Road, to potentially enable a three lot subdivision based on establishment of a reciprocal right of way between Woollamia Road and Falls Road as outlined in the report prepared by SET Consultants, subject to the owner surrendering the consent for three tourist cabins (DA00/2847) which have not yet been constructed.

As outlined in the report to Council on 6 December 2016:

The cumulative impacts (and conflicts) of the tourist cabins and a three lot subdivision on local amenity could be significant, e.g. noise, dust and visual impacts on adjoining properties. Hence, it is recommended that in relation to 111 Woollamia Road, the PP seek to allow a three lot subdivision on the basis that the approval for the cabins be ‘surrendered’ and that this be done prior to finally amending Shoalhaven LEP 2014. This could be done without delaying the LEP amendment for the other lots within the PP.

A submission has been received on behalf of the owner of the property who wishes to proceed with the three-lot subdivision. However, the landowner has not surrendered DA00/2847 at this point in time. This issue is discussed later in the report.

Public Exhibition Details

The PP and draft DCP Chapter N16 (Amendment No. 17 - Shoalhaven DCP 2014) were publicly exhibited for 31 days from 24 May to 23 June 2017. The exhibition display was located at Council’s Nowra administrative building and the documents were available for viewing online via the ‘Documents on Exhibition’ portal.

The exhibition package included the following documents. (Note: the hyperlinks will remain active for 3 months after exhibition close.)

Planning Proposal LP406 - Planning Proposal Report - (1,140kb)

Planning Proposal LP406 - Explanatory Statement - (1,196kb)

Planning Proposal LP406 - Newspaper Advertisement - (62kb)

DCP 2014 Draft Amendment No 17 - Chapter N16 - Falls Creek Woollamia Rural Residential Areas - (3,282kb)

DCP 2014 Draft Amendment No 17 - Chapter N16 - Supporting Map 1 - (291kb)

DCP 2014 Draft Amendment No 17 - Chapter N16 - Supporting Map 2 - (241kb)

The public exhibition was advertised widely, including advice to landowners within the PP area and those adjacent to it. Relevant Government Departments/Agencies were also informed of the exhibition arrangements.

Submissions

As a result of the exhibition, three (3) landowner / community submissions were received:

· One (1) submission on behalf of a landowner within the PP;

· One (1) submission from an adjoining landowner with specific concerns in relation to the neighbouring property within the PP; and

· One (1) submission from a member of the community with more general concerns.

The issues raised in each submission are summarised below. Copies of the actual submissions will be available in the Councillors’ room prior to the meeting.

Table 1: Summary of landowner / community submissions

Author: Concerned Community Member	Doc Ref: D17/193889
Issue	Staff Comment
Proposal will change traffic flows along Woollamia Road due to the proposed plan to open Falls Road to the public. Traffic will exit/enter Falls Road at the Princes Highway and continuing along Falls Road onto the Woollamia Road.	No change is proposed to Falls Road, a section of which is unformed. Traffic cannot drive directly from the Highway to Woollamia village via Falls Road. Note: comments from Council’s Traffic Unit have been incorporated into the PP.
Proposal will increase traffic flows along Woollamia Road and through Woollamia village.	The proposal would result in up to five additional dwellings along Woollamia Road. The resulting increase in vehicle movements would not be significant in the context of the overall locality.
Proposal will set a precedent for further subdivision of the remaining Rural Residential Deferred Areas.	Finalisation of the PP will complete the action in the JBSS to investigate the potential of these areas to accommodate further subdivision. This process started with a much larger area under consideration and has resulted, through detailed investigations, in a much reduced area being identified for additional subdivision.
Other landowners will seek to have their land rezoned. Precedent will ultimately create a ribbon development that will have adverse impacts on natural and cultural heritage values.	These concerns relate to hypothetical PP’s and subdivision(s). Given the process that has been followed, any additional land would need to be considered through separate and subsequent PP’s. Landowners would need to prepare their own PP and submit to Council with the appropriate fee. Any such PP would need to be supported by a number of studies, be funded by the landowner(s) and have a strategic basis.
The proposal will not meet the aim of the Jervis Bay Regional Environmental Plan 1996 (JBREP) to protect the natural and cultural heritage values of Jervis Bay.	Notwithstanding that JBREP was repealed on 5/8/2016, The PP was informed by a strategic environmental assessment. Areas with important biodiversity habitat are proposed to be added to the terrestrial biodiversity map. The PP and supporting DCP Chapter N16 are designed to protect riparian corridors and land with important natural and cultural heritage values.
Proposal will further fragment the forest and understory habitat as well as increase nutrient and turbidity into the riparian areas within the catchment of wetlands and Jervis Bay Marine Park.	DCP Chapter N16 requires a 30 metre riparian buffer to be provided along the watercourses, and each subdivision application will need to be supported by a Neutral or Beneficial Effect (NorBE) Assessment to ensure receiving waterways are protected. Minor changes made to Acceptable Solutions A7.1 and A7.4 enhance protection of riparian areas (see Attachment 1). Note: the Jervis Bay Marine Parks Authority provided comments and these are discussed below
Proposal will result in localised extinction of threatened flora and fauna species	In addition to the comments provided above, potential impacts on threatened biodiversity will need to be further assessed as part of each development application. Targeted surveys for relevant threatened species will need to be undertaken as part of each application.
Habitat at the corner of Seasongood and Jervis Bay Roads will be fragmented.	Development of No. 1 Seasongood Road would be confined to cleared land within 200 metres of the road. The triangular lot at the corner of Seasongood and Jervis Bay Roads (Lot 8763 DP 1189732) and adjoining lots to the North, West and South are not part of the PP.
Proposal will fragment the wildlife corridor that connects Currambene Creek to Woollamia Nature Reserve to Parma Creek Nature reserve into the Great Eastern Escarpment and the Budawang Wilderness.	The proposal seeks to minimise disturbance of biodiversity habitat and requires riparian areas to be protected. Will have negligible impact on habitat connectivity in the broader landscape.
Creek lines provide habitat for threatened species and the Swamp Sclerophyll Forest Endangered Ecological Community	See comments above.
Proposed new bridges, roads, drainage and land clearing will change the natural hydrology and water quality that in turn will impact on microclimates and frog habitats.	A Strategic Water Cycle Assessment recommended measures to ensure that the natural hydrology and water quality regimes are maintained. These recommendations have been incorporated into DCP Chapter N16. This includes that requirement that each subdivision application is supported by a NorBE Assessment.
Rural land must be protected for its environmental and health benefits to society as a whole as well as the food that is produced within the catchment and out into the Jervis Bay Fisheries that provides Seafood as a Primary Industry	The proposal will have a negligible environmental impact and no impact on food production (terrestrial or aquatic).
Author: Adjacent Landowner	Doc Ref: D17/197305
Issue	Staff Comment
Adjoining owner concerns relating to No. 111 Woollamia Road: as previously stated have no objection to the proposed 3-lot subdivision, but have grave concerns concerning the through road.	The concerns previously raised were circulated to Councillors prior to the Development Committee meeting in December 2016.
Proposed road / right of way is 36 metres from front door, 20 metres from garage and 35 metres from pool area.	Note: These dimensions are based on the exhibited alignment, i.e. a 4-metre buffer between the road shoulder and boundary (to accommodate a vegetation screen). Further detailed comments in this regard are provided below.
Would prefer if the access road runs along the western boundary and crosses to the eastern boundary behind the second dam. This would eliminate the need to enter into the low lying sensitive wetlands area and the construction of a raised bridge.	The watercourse crossing may still need to be below the 1 in 100 year flood extent. Furthermore, the length of road suggested would be significantly longer than the proposed alignment along the eastern boundary, which is largely cleared. No change is recommended.
If the above option is not considered, request that the access road be moved further into the centre of paddock to reduce noise, light and dust pollution	The exhibited DCP Chapter N16 included a suite of measures in an attempt to limit future noise, light and dust pollution, including requirements for the road to be sealed within 50 metres of the dwelling, and for a 3-4 metre high vegetation screen to be established between the road and the boundary. Minor adjustments are proposed to strengthen these provisions (see Attachment 1). The level of use of this section of road is likely to be very limited: vehicles are more likely to access the property directly from Woollamia Road rather than travel a much longer route via Falls Road. Given the measures that have been included in the DCP, It is not considered necessary to increase the setback of the road from the boundary given the other proposed provisions. The issues in this regard can be given further detailed consideration in any future development application for subdivision.
Road should be sealed from Falls Road to 50 metres past our dwelling	DCP Chapter N16 has been revised to require the access road to be sealed 50 m either side of the adjacent dwelling (see Attachment 2)
Plant spacing for screening hedge should be 1 metre (centres) to ensure density is adequate and 2.5 – 3 metres from the boundary fence to allow maintenance of the fence etc.	Advice from Council’s Landscape Architect is that 1 metre may be insufficient for some species. The wording in the DCP has been changed to read “1-2 metres spacing between plants depending on species, 2 metres from boundary” (see Attachment 2).
Author: SET Consultants (on behalf of the owner of No. 111 Woollamia Road)	Doc Ref: D17/205929
Issue	Staff response
The site currently has development approval for the construction of three (3) tourist cabins (DA00/2847) in two stages: · Stage one was for the construction of ‘Cottage 1, one car parking space and landscaping’ and · Stage two - ‘Cottage 2 & 3, two additional car parking spaces, access, bushfire mitigation works and landscaping’. Stage 2 was deferred, subject to additional information being provided. The owner proposes that he retain Stage 1 and surrender only Stage 2 of the existing approval, prior to the registration of any subdivision of the land.	This request is not supported. Council previously resolved that progression of the PP is based on the owner surrendering the consent and this was stated in the exhibited PP and supporting material. The cumulative impact of two additional dwellings (3 dwellings total) and Cabin 1 has not been considered by the community or assessed through the PP process. Cottage 1 would be positioned on a 1 ha lot and be within close proximity of the access road and new dwellings. This will create potential impacts on local amenity within the subject the lot (e.g. impacts on the dwellings and access road on the privacy of the cabin) as well as on adjoining land. Note: If DA00/2847 is not to be surrendered, it is recommended that the PP be modified to allow a two-lot subdivision (2 dwellings total). This requires clear direction prior to finalising the PP.
Council has acknowledged that “suitable commencement” has occurred for stage 1. As such, believe it is unreasonable to request that the owner forfeit this part of the consent. Cottage 1 is located within close proximity to the existing dwelling and would remain with the dwelling in any future subdivision. The cottage will not be located on its own lot and will continue to be utilised as a tourist cabin in accordance with the Consent.	Notwithstanding the advice Council has provided, the cabins themselves have not yet been constructed. If Cabin 1 had been constructed, a maximum of two lots (one additional dwelling) would be supported. It is recommended that if the consent is not surrendered by a specified date, the PP be amended to reduce the number of new dwellings from two to one, in accordance with the exhibited PP.
Request that Council amend the minimum lot size map to align with their proposed revised minimum lot size map based on: · 2 ha at the front of the site; · 1 ha in the middle of the site; and · 3 ha at the rear of the site.	Overall requested change is not supported: 3 ha is too small for the rear lot as it would result in development overlapping into the riparian buffer. The exhibited lot size map has however been amended slightly to ensure that the boundary between the middle and rear lot is well to the north of the dam. The revised lot size map is attached (Attachment 4)
Has invested a significant amount of money in developing the site in a specific manner to ensure all sections of the site retain their own infrastructure and water supply.	The decision to proceed with a subdivision rests with the owner. For example, they could stage or delay the subdivision to suit their personal circumstances.
The ‘kink’ in the Lot Size Map between the 2ha and 1ha areas is to ensure that the large dam located on the site is retained within the front lot. This dam forms part of the critical infrastructure relating to the operation of the miniature horse stud.	See above comments.
The proposed building areas are within the Council investigation area.	The curtilage of the dwellings (APZ) would overlap substantially into the riparian buffer and the building envelope (15 metres x 15 metres) would be too small in this context.

Three (3) Government agencies provided submissions – NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS), NSW Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) and the Department of Primary Industries – Jervis Bay Marine Park (DPI- JBMP). These are summarised below. Copies of the actual submissions will be available in the Councillors’ room prior to the meeting.

Table 2: Summary of Government agency submissions

Agency / Doc Ref	Issue	Staff response
RFS D17/197015	Suggested rewording of DCP Chapter acceptable solution A3.5 to ensure that the new dwellings at No’s 21 and 23 Seasongood Road are constructed to BAL 29.	This is consistent with previous verbal advice from the RFS and is considered appropriate given the proximity of the dwellings to the public road. Suggestion has been incorporated into the revised DCP Chapter N16.
	Has no objection to the progression of the PP subject to incorporation of the above suggestion.	Noted.
RMS D17/198677	Recognise that the lot/dwelling yield has been reduced from 37 to 16.	Noted.
	The PP is unlikely to generate significant traffic, however it will intensify the use of intersections at the Princes Highway and Jervis Bay Road.	Noted.
	Council needs to determine if any upgrades are required to these intersections as an outcome of the PP - however consider that the PP is unlikely to greatly impact on the Princes Highway.	Council’s Traffic Unit has advised that the intersection of Jervis Bay Road and Seasongood Road is at or near capacity (refer to Attachment 3). The traffic assessment shows that the additional dwellings that are proposed to have access to Seasongood Road would result in a 29% increase in turning movements at the intersection with Jervis Bay Road (albeit from a relatively low base). This increase in traffic volumes would trigger the need for an upgrade to the intersection of Seasongood Road and Jervis Bay Road. An upgrade to this intersection would enhance both safety and capacity, by providing a higher level of protection both for traffic turning to and from Seasongood Road, and for through traffic in Jervis Bay Road. The assessment also shows the intersection, based on current conditions, requires some improvements. Accordingly, this report includes a recommendation for these works to be considered in the 2018/2019 FY.
DPI - JBMP D17/199003	Affects lands within the Currambene Creek catchment which is classed as Type 1 Key fish habitat and is within sanctuary, habitat protection and special purpose zones of Jervis Bay Marine Park.	Noted.
	Not supportive of new development without provision of adequate sewerage infrastructure because of the likelihood of detrimental impacts on water quality and receiving waters of the marine park. Water sampling suggests that excessive faecal coliforms are entering Jervis Bay via Currambene Creek during heavy rain events.	A strategic onsite wastewater assessment was completed as part of the strategic water cycle assessment commissioned by Council. The assessment concluded that the risk of nutrients and pathogens being exported can be managed by: · requiring treatment to secondary standard · appropriate design, construction and management of subsurface irrigation · preventing stormwater ingress · establishing/managing vegetation cover These requirements have been incorporated into DCP Chapter N16.
	Highlight that: “The NorBE test is only applied to sediment, phosphorous and nitrogen loads and concentrations. It is accepted that overall flows will increase with an increase in effective imperviousness.” (SEEC, Strategic Water Cycle Assessment, p.34) Increase in overall flows will likely increase pollution from existing effluent disposal systems.	Practical measures to minimise pollution arising from the new onsite systems are proposed in DCP Chapter N16, including: · Requiring treatment to secondary standard before land application. · Applying the treated effluent to a pressurised or dose-loaded subsurface application area · Requiring a diversion swale/trench to prevent stormwater and groundwater ingress. · Adhering to Council’s required buffer requirements
	Thus it is recommended that the draft DCP 2015 Chapter N16 be amended as follows: · Amend A 10.1 to read – Existing systems will be upgraded at the subdivision stage	This cannot be required unless the existing onsite system is failing. Onsite effluent systems are already currently regulated under section 68 of the Local Government Act and are typically inspected by Council every three years. DCP Chapter N16 will require an assessment of the existing system to be undertaken as part of the subdivision application, and that it be upgraded if there is evidence of failure.
	· APZ's must not be permitted to overlap onto riparian buffers or any other environmental buffers relating to protection of water quality. It is essential that good quality vegetation cover is maintained to provide effective buffers that are being relied on to provide environmental protection benefits as part of the overall stormwater and effluent management system/s. If an adequate buffer cannot be maintained whilst accommodating the APZ, the lot is not appropriate for subdivision.	The PP will significantly increase protection of watercourses by requiring a 30 metre riparian buffer (comprising a 20 metre core riparian zone and a 10 metre vegetated buffer) to be provided on both sides of the watercourse. The riparian buffer will need to be fenced off and maintained as native bushland (including regeneration of cleared areas). Overlap of the APZ is only proposed to be allowed to the extent shown on the Supporting Maps, effectively limiting it to No. 49 Woollamia Road, within the outer 10 metre vegetated buffer. Furthermore, this will need to be offset by increasing the buffer provided elsewhere on the lot.

Summary of Changes

To respond to the relevant items identified in the submissions and discussed above adjustments and changes are proposed to the PP and the DCP Chapter.

Planning Proposal

The following minor adjustments are proposed to the lot size maps within the PP:

· No. 111 Woollamia Road – decrease the area shown as 4 ha minimum lot size area to be consistent with the revised suggested subdivision boundary shown on the revised Supporting Map 1 for DCP Chapter N16. This change responds to the submission from SET Consultants (Table 1).

· No’s 18 and 20 Seasongood Road - change the alignment of the boundary between the 2 ha and 1 ha minimum lot sizes to be consistent with the suggested subdivision boundary shown on the revised Supporting Map 2 for DCP Chapter N16. This change addresses an anomaly identified by staff during the exhibition.

The revised lot size maps for Woollamia Road and Seasongood Road are provided in Attachments 4 and 5 respectively.

DCP Chapter N16

Other than minor formatting and editorial changes, the changes proposed to DCP Chapter are:

· Change to Acceptable Solution A3.2 incorporating the suggestion from the RFS to ensure dwellings at No’s 21 and 23 Seasongood Road are constructed to BAL 29.

· Minor changes to Supporting Maps 1 and 2 and Acceptable Solutions A7.1 and A7.4 to limit disturbance of riparian buffers in response to concerns about impacts on riparian corridors and downstream environments in the Jervis Bay Marine Park.

· Minor change to Acceptable Solution A10.1 to clarify the nexus between assessment of existing onsite effluent systems and subdivision proposals, responding to feedback from Council’s Subdivisions section.

· Addition of a requirement for any stormwater treatment devices required as part of the subdivision process to be identified on the property title so that subsequent owners are aware of their management obligations, responding to feedback from Council’s Subdivisions section.

· Addition of a note under Acceptable Solution A16.3 to ensure that any clearing of vegetation to improve sight distances (in relation to new driveways) is included and assessed as part of the subdivision application, responding to feedback from Council’s Subdivisions section.

These changes are highlighted in the ‘track-changes’ version of Chapter N16 provided as Attachment 1 (see separate folder).

The following changes have been made to Supporting Map 1 concerning No. 111 Woollamia Road:

· Additional detail in the inset map to clarify the extent of sealing required for the property access road to minimise impacts on local amenity, responding to submission from the adjoining landowner.

· Additional detail in the inset map concerning the vegetation screen requirements to minimise impacts on local amenity and privacy, responding to submission from the adjoining landowner.

· Adjustments to the building line for the rear-most dwelling. The submission from SET Consultants prompted a review of the slope mapping and APZ calculation between the dwelling and the watercourse. As a result, the APZ is reduced from 39 metres to 32 metres.

· The suggested subdivision boundary between the middle and rear lot was moved further north of the dam (consistent with the change to the minimum lot size map) in response to the submission from SET Consultants.

The revised Supporting Maps are provided as Attachments 2 and 6 for Woollamia Road and Seasongood Road respectively.

Community Engagement

The Falls Creek / Woollamia Deferred Areas PP and draft DCP Chapter N16 are rated as “local area – high impact” using Council’s community engagement matrix. The engagement methods employed as part of the public exhibition process are consistent with this rating. As detailed in this report, minor changes are proposed in response to submissions received.

Financial Implications

Consistent with part 4 of Council’s resolution on 6 December 2016, an invoice for 50% of Council’s costs ($1,423.50 including GST) was issued to each landowner on 16 May 2017. Payment was due on 15 June 2017. As at 11 July 2017, six landowners owe a total of $8,301.75. This highlights the need to require full payment of the PP invoices before the PP is finalised.

If the recommendations of this report are adopted, invoices for $1,423.50 (per property) will be sent to each landowner after Council has resolved to adopt the PP. It is proposed to require payment within 60 days rather than the standard 30 days, in recognition of the financial circumstances of some owners.

It is important that Council set a firm date by which all fees must be paid. Hence, any properties with outstanding fees after 60 days of issuing the second invoice would be removed from PP and DCP Chapter N16.

Correspondence will be sent to the landowners to ensure they are aware of this deadline and the implications of not paying their invoices. Any monies paid by these owners will be refunded.

Conclusion

Adopting the recommendations of this report will enable this legacy planning project to be resolved. Submissions on the PP and DCP Chapter N16 have been carefully considered and changes recommended where appropriate to address the issues raised.

The recommendations seek to enable the PP to be finalised in a timely manner whilst recovering Councils costs.

Development Committee – Tuesday 08 August 2017

Page 98

DE17.60 Development Application – 23 Seasongood Road, Woollamia – Lot 113A DP 15266

DA. No: DA16/1433/4

HPERM Ref: D17/230792

Group: Planning Environment & Development Group

Section: Development Services

Attachments: 1. Revised Site Plan - Proposed Building Envelope - 23 Seasongood Road, Woollamia ⇩

2. s79C assessment report (under separate cover) ⇨

3. Statement of Environmental Effects ⇩

4. Original Bushfire Risk Assessment (under separate cover) ⇨

5. Bushfire Building Solutions response to RFS September 2016 ⇩

6. RFS 79BA Response 20 June 2017 ⇩

Description of Development: Demolition of an existing dwelling house and the construction of a replacement dwelling house in two stages. Stage 1 of the proposal, the subject of the development application, involves the demolition of the existing dwelling house, detached garage and swimming pool and the nomination of a ‘building envelope’ for the construction of a future dwelling house (stage 2 of the proposal).

Owner: Gregory & Robyn Watson

Applicant: Lee Carmichael Town Planning

Notification Dates: 21^st April to 6^th May 2016

No. of Submissions: Nil in objection

Nil in support

Purpose / Reason for consideration by Council

In accordance with Council’s adopted policy for Dealing with Development Applications Lodged by Council Staff or Councillors (POL16/235), where the applicant or land owner in respect of a development application is a Council staff member or Councillor and where the development application seeks a substantive variation to any performance-based Development Control Plan (DCP) or Council Policy, the development application (DA) is to be reported to Council for determination.

Recommendation (Item to be determined under delegated authority)

That Council resolve to refuse Development Application DA16/1433 for the Staged Construction of a Replacement Dwelling House – Stage 1 Nomination of Building Envelope and Demolition of Existing Dwelling House at Lot 113A DP 15266 No.23 Seasongood Road, Woollamia for reasons relating to:

1. The proposed building envelope is not consistent with the provisions of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006;

2. The NSW Rural Fire Service does not support the building envelope in its proposed location;

3. Based on the proposal’s inconsistency with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 and the NSW Rural Fire Service’s opposition to the development proposal, the development application is unsatisfactory with regard to Section 79BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979; and

4. The development proposal is inconsistent with the draft Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (Planning Proposal LP406) and provisions of supporting draft Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 – Amendment No.17 – draft Chapter N16 Falls Creek / Woollamia Rural Residential Areas.

Options

1. Decline to support the proposal as currently presented in the development application and refuse the development application for the reasons stated in the Recommendation.

Implications: This would be consistent with Council resolutions in relation to draft Planning Proposal LP406 and provisions of supporting draft Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 – Amendment No.17 – draft Chapter N16 Falls Creek / Woollamia Rural Residential Areas The applicant would be entitled to appeal against Council’s refusal in the Land and Environment Court.

2. Resolve to support the proposal as currently presented in the development application and set out the reason(s) to justify this determination, and call for a further report from staff with draft conditions of consent for consideration.

Implications:The development as currently proposed is not consistent with draft Planning Proposal (see separate item in the Development Committee Business Paper) and supporting draft Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 – Amendment No.17 – Draft Chapter N16 Falls Creek / Woollamia Rural Residential Areas and has received opposition from the Rural Fire Service on the basis that it is inconsistent with the provisions of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006. Council would need to provide reasons to justify this determination and a further report would be required with draft conditions of consent for consideration by Council. Councillor’s protection from liability under Section 733 of Local Government Act may be compromised where a decision is not considered to be ‘in good faith’ if is not consistent with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 as set out in Sections 733 (4)&(5).

3. Decline to support the proposal as currently presented in the development application, but issue a deferred commencement consent pursuant to sub-section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 requiring the applicant to amend the development proposal to be consistent with the provisions of the draft Planning and Proposal and supporting draft Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 – Amendment No.17 – Draft Chapter N16 Falls Creek / Woollamia Rural Residential Areas.

Implications: The applicant would need to redesign the development proposal and submit the revised plan to Council for review before an operative development consent could be issued. If dissatisfied with the decision, the applicant would be entitled to appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

4. Adopt an alternative recommendation and provide direction to staff.

Location Map

Figure 1 – Location Map – No. 23 Seasongood Rd, Woollamia

Background

Proposed Development

Development consent is being sought under the provisions of s80(4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), for the carrying out of a development involving the demolition of an existing dwelling house and the construction of a replacement dwelling house in two stages.

Stage 1 of the proposal, the subject of the development application, involves the demolition of the existing dwelling house, detached garage and swimming pool and the nomination of a ‘building envelope’ for the construction of a future dwelling house (Stage 2 of the proposal).

The proposed building envelope measures 40m x 20m (800m²) and is located 43m from the southern property boundary, 43m from the eastern boundary and 43m from the western boundary. The building envelope sits within an existing clearing, on very gently sloping land, and is located some 165m from the nearest neighbouring dwelling house at No.21 Seasongood Road as shown in Attachment 1.

Access to the proposed building envelope will be maintained from the existing access point off Seasongood Road, with the internal site access driveway to follow the route of an existing track. This track will need to be upgraded to provide access to the future dwelling house, with such works including upgrading to a minimum width of 4m and the provision of passing bays at 200m intervals along the route.

Full details of the proposal are provided in the Statement of Environmental Effects (Attachment 3).

Subject Land

The subject site is identified as Lot 113A in DP 15266. The subject site consists of a roughly rectangular-shaped allotment of land, situated on the southern side of Seasongood Road (see Figure 1). The site is an elongated property, some 607m to 622m deep and 105m wide, with an area of 6.51 hectares. The site currently contains a single storey rendered masonry dwelling house and detached garage together with a metal shed at its northern end, adjacent to Seasongood Road.

An intermittent watercourse and associated riparian vegetation passes through the property to the south of the existing buildings and links with established areas of vegetation located on the neighbouring properties to the west and east. The watercourse is subject to flooding. The southern portion of the site consists of approximately 3.7 hectares of cleared land with scattered, individual trees.

Figure 2 – Site Context

Site & Context

The subject site is located within a rural-residential area currently zoned R5 Large Lot Residential under the provisions of Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014. Surrounding allotments on the southern side of Seasongood Road are similar in configuration to the subject site (narrow and elongated), whilst allotments on the northern side of Seasongood Road are of similar width but shorter.

The land in the locality is largely vegetated, with some properties supporting larger cleared areas than others. Dwelling houses in the locality are located within cleared areas and tend to be positioned closer to Seasongood Road.

Strategic Context

Council has prepared and publicly exhibited a draft amendment to Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (SLEP 2014) and a draft amendment to Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014 (SDCP 2014).

The draft amendment to Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LP406) applies to certain lands at Falls Creek and Woollamia (including the subject site) and seeks to enable the further subdivision of the lands to create up to an additional 16 allotments. In respect of the subject site, the draft amendment seeks to amend the Lot Size Map to create a minimum allotment size of 1 hectare over the northern part of the subject site (taking in the existing dwelling house and outbuildings) and a minimum lot size of 5 hectares over the balance of the site.

The effect of the amendment to SLEP 2014 would be to enable the subject site to be subdivided into two (2) allotments, effectively enabling a new dwelling to potentially be approved on the rear lot, while retaining the existing dwelling on the front lot. The draft amendment will also amend the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map to include the riparian zone vegetation passing through the subject site and a small patch of vegetation in the south-western corner of the site as Biodiversity – significant vegetation.

The draft amendment to SDCP 2014 will insert a new chapter – Chapter N16 – into the DCP. The purpose of draft Chapter N16 is to incorporate more detailed planning controls to ensure that the objectives of the draft amendment to SLEP 2014 are achieved in relation to bushfire risk management, biodiversity, stormwater management and on-site effluent management for rural residential subdivision and development. Having regard to these objectives, a subdivision and development outcomes plan has been prepared and is illustrated in Figure 3 below. Further detail can be obtained in the related report concerning the Planning Proposal (LP406).

Figure 3 – Subdivision & Development Outcomes Woollamia

Issues

There are two issues which Council is being asked to consider with respect to this application.

Firstly, the development proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of the Draft SDCP 2014 – Amendment No.17 in that the proposed location of the building envelope is outside of the nominated building area shown on the map in Figure 3.

Secondly, the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) is opposed to the proposed building envelope location, due to its inconsistency with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, and has recommended that the building envelope be relocated to a position within the nominated building area shown in Figure 3. Figure 2 shows the location of the proposed building envelope which is at the rear of the property.

In considering this development proposal, Council will need to make a decision as to whether the advice of the RFS is to be accepted (Attachment 6), which would have the effect of implementing the provisions of Draft SDCP 2014 – Amendment No.17; or, allowing the variation to the provisions of Draft SDCP 2014 – Amendment No.17, which would be contrary to the advice of the RFS.

Planning Assessment

The Development Application has been assessed under s79C of the EP&A Act. A copy of the Section 79C assessment report is attached. As a result of that assessment, two issues remain unresolved – the development proposal’s inconsistency with Draft SDCP 2014 – Amendment No.17 and the RFS’ objection to the proposed building envelope location.

Policy Implications

Draft Shoalhaven DCP 2014 – Amendment No.17

The major policy implication arising as a result of this matter is the development proposal’s inconsistency with the provisions of Draft SDCP 2014 – Amendment No.17, which has been based upon strategic investigations undertaken to inform the enabling draft amendment to SLEP 2014.

Applicant’s Submission

As the provisions of the exhibited draft amendments to SLEP 2014 and SDCP 2014 are a matter for consideration in the assessment of the development application, a submission has been made in support of the development application seeking a variation to the provisions of draft SDCP 2014 – Amendment No.17, for the following reasons:

In the letter the RFS say, “to ensure building are sighted and designed to minimise the risk of bushfire attack, and to ensure firefighters and evacuating residents are not required to travel long distances through forested areas, the following conditions shall apply”.

If this is the basis of their recommended conditions the whole premise of the conditions is flawed because the property at both the RFS preferred location and our preferred site is totally cleared and is managed pasture, our preferred location is just over 100 meters past the line on the map referred to in the letter and provides for a minimum APZ 43m on three sides and 350m on the fourth, this complies with the verbal advice given to me by Ms Amanda Moylan last year.

Just to demonstrate how over the top some of the conditions are under General 2 for example:

“The development for the purpose of the proposed new dwelling should not commence until the demolition/decommissioning of the existing dwelling is complete”. So in other words we have to pitch a tent or arrange for other accommodation at significant cost while the building is being constructed….

….When the application was lodged the provisions of the draft DCP were unknown and in my opinion it is a strange coincidence the RFS did not make their recommendations until the draft DCP to be placed on exhibition then referencing the map in the draft DCP in their advice.

It is my understanding the draft DCP is a performance based document and the dotted line referred to in the map can be varied on a submission, it is our opinion the submission by our consultants ticks all the boxes and exceeds normal RFS requirements…..

Another major issue with the RFS’s preferred location coincides with a very large spring which remains continually wet for months after heavy rain and has an area of about 5000sqm and when the wet area is combined with a cut of about 1m ….our preferred site is flat and has no seepage issues.

The final is one of privacy and amenity we do not see why should be force to live in our next door residents pockets….”

Comments

Several points in the applicant’s submission require comment and/or clarification:-

· The development application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling house and identification of a building envelope for a future dwelling house. This is evident from the description of the development proposal in the statement of environmental effects:

Consent is sought from Council for the establishment of a building envelope on the property (otherwise known as ‘in-principle dwelling approval’). Further to this, consent is also sought for the demolition of the existing residential development located on the land.

It would be expected that a separate development application would be submitted for the construction of a specific dwelling house within the approved building envelope. Given that sub-clause 4.2D(5) only allows the construction of a new dwelling house on the subject site “if there is a lawfully erected dwelling house on the land and the dwelling house to be erected is intended only to replace the existing dwelling house”, there will need to be a mechanism incorporated into any consent issued which will ensure that the existing dwelling house is demolished.

This could include a condition to the effect that an Occupation Certificate for the new dwelling house is not issued until the existing dwelling house has been demolished. This would enable the existing house to be occupied during construction and demolition at the completion of the development.

· Whilst the provisions of SDCP 2014 are performance-based, with regard to development of bushfire prone land, Council cannot grant consent to development unless that development is consistent with the provisions of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, or the RFS has been consulted and has agreed to an ‘alternate solution’ to the provisions of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006. In this case, the RFS has not agreed to the applicant’s proposed ‘alternate solution’ but has agreed to the ‘alternate solution’ proposed by draft Chapter N16.

Having regard to the expertise of the RFS, it is considered imprudent to make a decision, which is contrary to their advice albeit there is scope to consent to development (see later in this report) pursuant to section 79BA.

· As outlined in the s79C assessment report (Attachment 2) the development proposal was considered to be satisfactory with regard to a range of planning and environmental matters including the ability for the site to be adequately accessed and serviced; the suitability of the site for on-site wastewater management; the absence of any detrimental impacts on native vegetation; and, the favourable aspect of the site (which promotes excellent solar access). The only issues of concern with the proposed envelope are the related matters of the proposal’s inconsistency with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, its inconsistency with draft Chapter N16, and the RFS’ unresolved objection to the proposed building envelope. It may be that if an alternate building envelope (compliant with draft Chapter N16 and the recommendations of the RFS) were proposed, the assessment of planning issues would result in the same overall acceptability of the site with the added benefit of RFS support.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979

Section 79BA Consultation and development consent – certain bush fire prone land states:

(1) Development consent cannot be granted for the carrying out of development for any purpose (other than a subdivision of land that could lawfully be used for residential or rural residential purposes or development for a special fire protection purpose) on bush fire prone land unless the consent authority:

(a) is satisfied that the development conforms to the specifications and requirements of the version (as prescribed by the regulations) of the document entitled Planning for Bush Fire Protection prepared by the NSW Rural Fire Service in co-operation with the Department (or, if another document is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph, that document) that are relevant to the development (the relevant specifications and requirements), or

(b) has been provided with a certificate by a person who is recognised by the NSW Rural Fire Service as a qualified consultant in bush fire risk assessment stating that the development conforms to the relevant specifications and requirements.

(1A) If the consent authority is satisfied that the development does not conform to the relevant specifications and requirements, the consent authority may, despite subsection (1), grant consent to the carrying out of the development but only if it has consulted with the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service concerning measures to be taken with respect to the development to protect persons, property and the environment from danger that may arise from a bush fire.

In relation to the development application, the proposed building envelope is located in a position which does not meet the relevant property access specifications of 4.1.3(2) of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, as it is located more than 200m from Seasongood Road and has not been provided with an alternate access route. Accordingly, as the proposal does not conform to the specifications and requirements of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, s79BA requires Council to consult with the RFS in relation to the development proposal. The applicant’s original bushfire report and response to the initial RFS comments are included as Attachments 4 and 5 respectively.

As detailed below (under “Consultation and Community Engagement”), the RFS does not support the proposed building envelope location and would prefer the building envelope be relocated to a position within the building area identified in draft Chapter N16 of SDCP 2014.

Although this building area is also located more than 200m from Seasongood Road, it has been identified in consultation with the RFS as an appropriate ‘alternate solution’ having regard to the need “to protect persons, property and the environment from danger that may arise from a bush fire” [sub-section 79BA(1A)]. In the Falls Creek / Woollamia Rural Residential Deferred Areas Planning Proposal (LP406) report this ‘concession’ was made however:

“In respect of 21 and 23 Seasongood Road, the new dwelling sites be positioned no further from the road than the existing dwelling at 21 Seasongood Road”

Having regard to the provisions of s79BA of the EP&A Act, the proposed development’s inconsistency with the relevant provisions of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, and the RFS’ objection to the proposed building envelope, it is considered that Council should not grant consent to the development application – unless the building envelope is relocated to a position consistent with draft Chapter N16 of SDCP 2014 as recommended by the RFS.

Additionally the protections provided for Councillor’s liability for decision making in relation to bushfire issues under Section 733 of Local Government requires the decision on a development application being made substantially in accordance with the principles contained in the relevant manual, which in the case of bushfire is Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 as provided by Sections 733(4)&(5). To make a decision that is not substantially in accordance with the manual and contrary to RFS advice may at some future time be deemed not to have been made ‘in good faith’.

Consultation and Community Engagement:

Rural Fire Service

As the subject site is mapped as bushfire prone land, in accordance with the provisions of s79BA of the EP&A Act, the development application was referred to the RFS.

The initial referral to the RFS was sent on 22^nd April 2016. The RFS responded by letter dated 16^th September 2016, advising that as:

“the proposed building envelope will result in a greater risk to both fire fighters and occupants entering and leaving the site without alternative access being available, and that there are other options for the siting of the dwelling, it is recommended that the applicant either relocate the future dwelling site to within 200 metres of Seasongood Road or provide alternative access, in a different direction to the primary access, to ensure consistency with the provisions of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.”

The applicant was advised of the RFS’ comments and responded with a submission prepared by the applicant’s bushfire consultant, Bushfire Building Solutions (Attachment 5). This submission was (re)referred to the RFS on 6^th October 2016. The referral response from the RFS (dated 30^th November 2016) reiterated its previous advice of 16^th September 2016.

The applicant was again afforded an opportunity to respond to the RFS’ concerns. Additional information was provided by the applicant, and consisted of an amended site plan (which increased the setbacks to the side and rear boundaries and reduced the area of the building envelope) and a submission from the applicant’s bushfire consultant. This information was again referred to the RFS on 1^st March 2017.

In a reply dated 20^th June 2017 (Attachment 6), the RFS recommended the issuing of a deferred commencement consent (pursuant to sub-section 80(3) of the EP&A Act) which requires the proposed building envelope to be relocated to a position within the building area identified in Draft SDCP 2014 – Amendment No.17 as a pre-requisite to the issuing of an operative consent.

Effectively, the RFS has indicated that the development application can be approved – but only if the building envelope is repositioned consistent with draft Chapter N16 of SDCP 2014. The applicant is aware of this, but does not wish to relocate the building envelope and is seeking to have the development application determined in its current form.

Neighbour Notification

Notification was carried out in accordance with Council’s Community Consultation Policy with letters sent to the owners of the adjoining and adjacent properties. The notification was for a 14 day period.

No submissions were received during the notification period.

Financial Implications:

There may be financial implications for Council if the matter is challenged via an appeal in the Land and Environment Court of NSW.

Legal Implications

If the application is refused, or if the applicant is dissatisfied with Council’s determination, the applicant is entitled to appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

Under limited circumstances, third parties may have a right to appeal Council’s decision to the Land and Environment Court.

Summary and Conclusion

The development application seeks Council’s consent for the staged construction of a replacement dwelling house, with Stage 1 involving the nomination of a building envelope and demolition of the existing dwelling house. The proposed building envelope measures 40m x 20m and is positioned towards the southern end of the subject site, 43m from each of the side and rear property boundaries.

Separate to this development application Council has prepared and publicly exhibited a draft amendment to SLEP 2014 and associated supporting draft Chapter N16 to be inserted into SDCP 2014. The effect of these amendments is to enable the subdivision of the subject site into two (2) allotments – one (1) with a minimum area of 1 hectare and taking in the northern portion of the site surrounding the existing dwelling house, and the other with a minimum area of 5 hectares taking in the balance of the subject site.

An acceptable designated building area has been identified in in draft Chapter N16 of SDCP 2014 in an area adjacent to the existing dwelling house on the neighbouring property at No.21 Seasongood Road. The location of this building area was in part due to the consultation with RFS in relation to the planning proposal.

The proposed building envelope is located further south of the identified designated building area and does not satisfy the provisions of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006. In response to Council’s consultation (undertaken in accordance with s79BA of the EP&A Act) the RFS has objected to the position of the proposed building envelope and recommended that it be relocated to a position consistent with the requirements of draft Chapter N16.

In its current format, bearing in mind the inconsistency with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, the RFS objection, and the provisions of s79BA of the EP&A Act, DA16/1433 is not supported.