DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT Minutes of the Development Assessment Unit

Shire of Augusta Margaret River On 10 September 2019

ATTENDANCE Lucy Gouws, Chris McAtee, Hilary Metcalfe, Chris Wenman, Leigh Medlen, Clare Hamilton PLANNING APPLICATIONS RECEIVED

Date Rec’d

Assess No.

Address Proposal DA No.

02/09/2019 A7997 46 (Lot 157) Grunters Way, Gnarabup Outbuilding (Shed) P219529 02/09/2019 A12091 43 (Lot 2661) Tonkin Boulevard,

Margaret River Bed and Breakfast (Renewal) P219530

02/09/2019 A7674 29 (Lot 125) The Boulevard, Margaret River

Dwelling Addition P219531

02/09/2019 A10295 22 (Lot 12) Lloyd Loop, Margaret River

Cancellation of Family Day Care Approval (P218266)

P219532

03/09/2019 A12812 321 (Lot 111) Wallis Road, Witchcliffe Building Envelope Variation P219534 03/09/2019 A12029 3 (Lot 233) Frohawk Loop ,Margaret

River Bed and Breakfast (Renewal) P219535

04/09/2019 A5392 Lot 167 Caves Road, Karridale Dwelling Outbuilding & Associated Clearing

P219537

05/09/2019 A8267 2 (Lot 160) Bottlebrush Drive, Margaret River

Bed and Breakfast P219539

BUILDING LICENCE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED Date Rec’d

Assess No.

Address Proposal BLDG No.

03/09/2019 A7869 55 (Lot 401) Harrington Road, Margaret River

Shed and Rainwater Tank 219373

04/09/2019 A3777 44 (Lot 26) Merchant Street, Margaret River

Swimming Pool 219374

05/09/2019 A12461 6 (Lot 350) Duncan Street, Margaret River

Outdoor Patio 219376

05/09/2019 A7929 49 (Lot 553) The Boulevard, Margaret River

Shed 219377

05/09/2019 A3303 22 Victoria Parade, Augusta Patio 219378 SUBDIVISIONS DETERMINED

Date Rec’d

Officer DA No. Address Description of Matter Recommendation

13/08/2019 Lara Hoole

P219484 Lots 121 and 94 Caves Road, Margaret River

Subdivision / Amalgamation

Supported

LEVEL 1 APPLICATIONS determined under delegation

Date Rec’d

Officer Address Proposal Outcome DA No.

01/05/2019 Leigh Medlen

8120 (Lot 20) Bussell Highway, Cowaramup

Winery Approved

P219284

04/07/2019 Leigh Medlen

Unit 2, 40 (Strata Lot 2 of Lot 154) Grunters Way, Gnarabup

Dwelling Approved P219413

19/08/2019 Leigh Medlen

158 (Lot 569) Bussell Highway, Margaret River

Farmer's Market - Amendment to Planning Approval P214329 (Amended Operating Hours)

Approved P219486

19/08/2019 Leigh Medlen

410 (Lot 104) Bussell Hwy, Margaret River

Grouped Dwelling at Margaret River Lifestyle Village (Site 4 Pinot Way)

Approved P219487

LEVEL 2 APPLICATIONS for determination

Date Rec’d

Officer Address Proposal Outcome of DAU Meeting

DA No.

4/7/19 Leigh Medlen

212 Patmore Road, Warner Glen

Dam (Retrospective) Approve P218397

9/8/19 Clare Hamilton

98 (Lot 38) Albany Terrace, Augusta

Amendment to Planning Approval P219186 (Change to Patron Numbers from 108 to 120 for Restaurant/Takeaway Food Outlet & Small Bar)

Approve P219474

15/10/19 Lucy Gouws

1078 (Lot 1907) Rosa Brook Road, Rosa Brook

Reception Centre Refuse P218633

MANAGEMENT OF VEGETATION ON SHIRE RESERVES Nil LOCAL LAW PERMITS Nil OTHER APPLICATIONS determined under delegation Nil ELECTED MEMBERS ATTENTION Nil CLOSURE OF MEETING

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ASSESSMENT (DAU) Report to Manager Planning and Development Services Proposed Dam (Retrospective) at No. 212 (Lot 4) Patmore Road, Warner Glen Major (Level 1) P218397; PTY/3893

REPORTING OFFICER : Leigh Medlen DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST : Nil

General Information Lot Area 53 Hectares Zone Priority Agriculture Proposed Development Retrospective Planning Approval is sought for the expansion of a

Dam. The dam involves the following characteristics: • 161,000m2 storage volume; • 71,591m3 surface area; • Dam wall height 5m; • Dam Wall length 195m; and • Spillway 3.5m by 80m in length.

The landowner has confirmed the water supply is proposed to support the development of an irrigation system for dairy production on the site. It is clear from the aerial photography below the centre pivot irrigation system is already in place on the property which in close proximity to waterways and the Blackwood River. The pivots do not however, form part of this development application.

Permissible Use Class Permitted – ‘P’ subject to a planning application. Heritage/Aboriginal Sites The development is located within 100m to the Blackwood River

and intersects a tributary of the Blackwood River which is identified as having Aboriginal Heritage Significance. Please see comment section below from Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Encumbrance None Affected. Date Received 04/07/2018

This Pivot should be setback 100m from the Blackwood River in accordance with Clause 4.16.1 c) of LPS1.

Centre-Pivot irrigating agricultural pasture. Not subject of this application.

Retrospective Dam, the subject of this application.

Policy Requirements Is the land or proposal referred to in any Council Policy? ☐ Yes √ No Structure Plans and Local Development Plans (DAP) Is the land in any Structure Plan Area or subject to a DAP? ☐ Yes √ No Advertising/Agency Referrals Has the application been referred to adjoining landowners/agency?

☐ Yes √ No ☐ N/A The proposal involves a variation to development standard 4.31.1 of LPS1 which requires a 100m setback distance for development from the Blackwood Riverbank. The application has been referred to DWER regarding varying the development standard however, not to adjoining neighbour downstream of the site as the downstream property is owned by the same landowner.

Has a submission been received by Council? ☐ Yes √ No ☐ N/A Have agency or authority comments been received? √ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A Nature of Submission

Officer Comment

Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER)

• The proposal is for a 161ML dam that has been established at the northern portion of the subject property.

• The proposal states that the purpose of the dam is to support the development of an irrigation system to support dairy production on subject lot.

• Our GIS mapping shows that this dam drains into the Blackwood River and is in the vicinity of a draft proposed RAMSAR wetland (Spearwood creek) to the north.

• The area is located within the Lower Blackwood River Surface Water areas as proclaimed under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914.

Noted. The Dam has received the relevant license for the taking of water from the Department. The dam designs submitted with the development application are consistent with information assessed by the Department when authorising the appropriate licenses to be granted.

Tributary of the Blackwood River. Identified as having Aboriginal Heritage Significance.

• The property is also located within the Lower Blackwood Groundwater Area as proclaimed under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914.

• The original application requested a license for irrigation on pasture, there was no mention of dairy. There has been an amendment to the license for ‘horticultural’ purposes. The proposal mentions the dam is to ‘support the development of an irrigation system to support dairy production.’ Hence, the proponent may be required to amend his license and contact the Department licensing branch.

• To ensure the long term sustainability of the dam

water resource, the proponent is advised to refer to the Department Water Quality Protection Note. Practices encouraged by the Department to improve water quality outcomes include the use shallow-rooted vegetation cover, such as endemic species of perennial shrubs or grasses on dam embankments.

Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH)

• The matter is currently being dealt with by the DPLH compliance section and they are looking at the possible breach by the proponent under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.

• As the dam has already been constructed, any future works with the Dam that intersect with ID20434 (Blackwood River) could be subject to approvals under the AHA. The proponent is advised to contact DPLH for future works.

Noted. The landowner uses centre pivots to irrigate pasture for agricultural use. No dairy or intensive agricultural use is being considered as part of the development application and this advice has been referred to the landowner. Noted. A landscape plan is recommended to be required as a condition of any planning approval granted. Shire Officers have been in discussion with DPLH Compliance Officers and it was considered unlikely DPLH were able to take compliance action due to the breach occurring over 12 months ago. This advice has been forwarded to the landowner.

Has the application been referred to internal departments? √ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

Assessment of Application Is the land referred in the Heritage Inventory? ☐ Yes √ No Are there any Contributions applicable? ☐ Yes √ No Are there any compliance issues in relation to existing development?

√ Yes ☐ No

The development of the Dam came about as a compliance matter and is considered to be unauthorised development on the basis that the construction/expansion of the Dam occurred without the prior approval from the Shire. A history of aerial imagery is shown below, which demonstrates the development of the Dam. Between 2004 – 2013 it appears a small pool of water was naturally forming on the property within a low lying area. The presence of water during 2004-2013 may vary depending on time of year the aerial photography was taken and the rainfall for that year. In 2017 however, the aerial imagery shows a dam far greater in size than what had previously occurred on site which would also correspond to the dating of the DWER approvals granted for the development.

2004 - A small ‘dam’ or soak exists on site approximately 170m from the Blackwood River.

2007 – No standing water appears to have pooled in the dam location.

2010 – A small ‘soak’ or pool of standing water occurring.

2012 – No water appears on site.

2013 - No water appears on site.

2017 – A Dam was present on the property far larger in size than previous years and with the removal of vegetation.

It is clear from the above photography that the development of the dam in 2017 is far greater than what may have naturally occurred on site previously. The landowner has advised that the existing dam was ‘cleaned out’ however, the dam is over 200% greater in size than what existed on site in 2004. Native Vegetation:

2004 Aerial 2017

The areas of the Site above as highlighted in red are areas of the Site that have been modified for the development of the dam. It is not clear as to if these works constituted clearing of vegetation, as there

is no evidence to determine what works have been undertaken given the time in which the works were undertaken, and over a long period of time. If vegetation has been removed, Clause 5.20 of LPS1 specifies the exemptions that apply for vegetation removal, and if it was found that clearing works had been undertaken, planning approval would have required approval. The development of the dam was generated as a compliance matter, which required the proponent to submit a development application for the retrospective works undertaken. The landowner lodged the subsequent application for determination. On this basis and the length of time that has passed since the development has been constructed (i.e. 2015 - 2016) prosecution for the works undertaken has not been pursued. Generally, prosecutions need to be commenced within 12 months of the development being carried out, given the development only involves a works component a prosecution would have been required to commence by 2017. The landowner was requested to lodge a retrospective development application for the works which is considered an appropriate method of legitimising the unauthorised works that were undertaken in excess of 12 months ago. R Codes Are R Codes applicable? ☐ Yes √ No Development Standards (Schedule 9) Are the development Standards applicable? √ Yes ☐ No

Officer Comment Standard Requirement Provided Officer Comment

Front 30m 490m Complies Side (West) 20m 140m Complies Side (East) 20m 140m Complies Blackwood River 100m 70m Variation

Clause 4.33 – Development Adjoining the Margaret River and Blackwood River Foreshore. The proposal involves a variation to the development standard required for separation to the Blackwood River. The following comments are made regarding the variation proposed:

• There is no existing precedent along the Blackwood River whereby the 100m setback distance has been varied for the development of a Dam.

• Approving the dam, may lead to an undesirable precedent and pattern of development for dams in close proximity to the Blackwood River.

• The application is retrospective. If the development was new and not existing on site, it would be likely that officers may have sought compliance with the required setback distance from LPS1.

• No justification for the setback variation has been provided from the applicant to warrant support. Given that the Dam is an on-stream dam, it is considered that the Dam could have been developed with a compliant setback and still been ‘on-stream.’

• The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation have issued their licenses for the taking of water for the dam in its existing location.

• The Dam Wall intersects a site listed as having Aboriginal Heritage significance.

• The 100m setback standard was initially included within LPS1 to manage waste water separation distances from development to waterways.

• Upon advice from the Shire’s Environmental Officers, there may be limited impact on the Blackwood River as a result of the reduced setback. If stock are not accessing the area and vegetation is included surrounding the dam to help strip nutrient and settle out nutrients then a reasonable outcome could be achieved.

• Shires Environmental Officers have advised that the removal of the Dam would be likely to result in a greater impact to the environment than the reduced setback. The removal of the dam would be likely to release a lot of sediment and nutrient into the River which would be very difficult to stabilise. One positive outcome is to require the applicant to rehabilitate and revegetate the area around the dam, to create a vegetated wetland that can help strip nutrients and provide some habitat value.

• Revegetation and fencing would be valuable, and are recommend as conditions of the approval.

On the basis the development is existing and it is not the intent to cause environmental harm by requesting the dam be removed, the proposal is considered acceptable subject to additional measures (landscaping, fencing). From the site visit undertaken, the spillway has been constructed on site and is rock-lined. The banks have returned to pasture. The site is considered to be relatively stable and not resulting in any adverse environmental impact due to the reduced setback. There is vegetation along the river foreshore which would assist in reducing any visual amenity impacts from the river.

Spillway Constructed – Photograph facing Blackwood River.

Dam Constructed.

Building Height Scheme / Policy Requirement Wall - 7m Roof - 8m State the proposed building height

Wall - 5m Roof - 5m

√ Complies ☐ Doesn’t Comply

Clause 67 A. In the opinion of the officer, would approval of the planning consent be appropriate under Clause

67 of the Deemed Provisions of the Scheme? Officer Comment

Is the development acceptable in its locality? When considering the Dam against the development standards of the Scheme it may not be considered appropriate in its location due to proximity to the River. The aims of the Scheme however, encourages protecting environmental values. When considering the development in this respect, the location may be considered appropriate on the basis that requiring the Dam to achieve compliance with the setback distance would result in an adverse impact to the environment more so, than the reduced setback. Does the Dam meet the objectives and aims of the zone? The primary objectives and intent of the agricultural zone is to encourage and protect agricultural land in order for that farming land to be used to support sustainable agricultural industries. The Dam is used to support the irrigation of pasture which is consistent with the primary objectives and purpose of that land. DWER have issued the appropriate licenses for the Dam which has found that the proposal to be a sustainable taking of water. On this basis, the Dam would be considered to meet the objectives of the Scheme.

When considering the above two points, the development is recommended for conditional approval on the basis that removal of the Dam would result in a greater environmental impact than the setback variation proposed.

A. In the opinion of the officer: i. Are utility services available and

adequate for the development? Yes

i. Has adequate provision been made for the landscaping and protection for any trees or other vegetation on the land?

Vegetation was removed for the development of the Dam. Additional landscaping around the permiter of the Dam is recommended to be included as a condition on any approval granted.

ii. Has adequate provision been made for access for the development or facilities by disabled persons?

N/A

iii. Is development likely to cause detriment to the existing and likely future amenity of the neighbourhood?

The development is visible from the Blackwood River however it is considered that the dam is consistent with the purpose of the land and with the implementation of landscaping may further soften any visual impact from the foreshore reserve.

iv. Is the development likely to comply with AS3959 at the building permit stage?

N/A

Other Comments Any further comments in relation to the application? Officer Comment

Centre Pivots: The pivots are not included as part of the current application however, present a variation to the setback requirement of the Scheme under Clause 4.16.1 c). Advice regarding the location of the pivots (particularly the north-western) pivot has been sought from the Shire’s Environmental Team. The following comments were made:

• There would be concern regarding fertiliser etc being applied to pasture under the centre pivot and the area underneath being grazed as there is likely to be a higher amount of nutrients and effluent coming off the site.

• There may also be run-off from periods you would not normally expect such as summer. If large amounts of water is used and the excess is running off the irrigated area via creek lines or drains in summer when there is less dilution, the impact may be greater.

• Some sort of bio-filter systems on areas that drain the centre pivot would be ideal. Grass weeds may also be an issue along the drainage lines or near the centre pivot as the grass would thrive on the additional nutrients which could spread into foreshore areas.

Given the above advice, it is recommended it is reiterated to the landowner that the pivots are not included as part of the application and this can be dealt with as a separate planning application or via compliance. Conditional Approval is recommended.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That the Manager of Planning and Development Services Grants Planning Consent under Delegated Authority Instrument No. 16 pursuant to Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 for at Dam (Retrospective) subject to compliance with the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. The development is to be carried out in compliance with the plans and documentation listed below

and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent.

Plans and Specifications P1 received at the Shire’s Offices on 4 July 2018.

2. Earthworks or modifications are only permitted in the area approved for development as shown

on the approved plans.

3. Residual earthworks and spoil shall not be left in the setback area between boundaries or stockpiled on site. Residual spoil from Dam construction shall be respread or reused on the subject site in such a way as to not cause an adverse visual impact, nuisance to neighbours or environmental harm.

4. The Dam wall, the subject of this planning approval, is permitted up to a maximum height of 5m

above natural ground level. 5. All Dam waters are to be incorporated into the lot boundary such that the Dam water level when

maintained at its maximum height shall not cause waters to pond outside that boundary. 6. The storage capacity of the Dam shall not exceed 161,000m3 (please refer to advice note ‘c’). 7. A revegetation plan or costed works program shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Shire by

a suitably qualified and/or experienced landscape consultant and shall be submitted within 30 days of this consent. The landscape plan or the costed works program shall be drawn to scale and show the following:

a) The location, name and mature heights of existing and proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers around the perimeter of the Dam;

b) Weed control program; c) Any existing vegetation areas to be retained; d) A planting and works schedule and maintenance program (please refer to advice note‘d’).

8. Certification from a structural engineer shall be submitted to the Shire within 30 days of this

consent to verify the structural integrity of the Dam, the subject of this approval (please refer to advice note ‘b’).

9. The Dam shall be fenced at all times to prevent stock access across the entire Dam site. One

stock water access point shall be provided if required. ADVICE NOTES a) You are advised of the need to comply with the requirements of the following other legislation:

(i) This is not a Building Permit. A Building Permit must be issued by the relevant Permit Authority before any work commences on site as per the Building Act 2011;

(ii) Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911 and Department requirements in respect to the development and use of the premises; and

(iii) The Bush Fires Act 1954 as amended, Section 33(3), Annual Bush Fires Notice applies to this property.

b) The landowner is responsible for ensuring the structural integrity of the Dam at all times. Any

issues arising from the Dam are the responsibility of the landowner. c) If the Dam is found to exceed the total storage capacity granted by this approval, a further

development application will be required to be lodged to amend the application. d) The vegetation buffers are to be provided along the banks of the Dam and water course in

accordance with Water Quality Protection Note No: 53 Dam construction and operation in rural areas’ (June 2018). In accordance with the Water Quality Protection Note, the Department encourage the use of shallow-rooted vegetation cover (such as endemic species of perennial shrubs and grasses on the Dam embankments) where appropriate. Deep rooted vegetation on the Dam wall must be avoided due to the potential for roots to interfere with the structural integrity of the Dam wall.

e) The site is registered within the Aboriginal Heritage database and the development will impact

upon Aboriginal site ID20434 (Blackwood River). It is recommended that the applicant contact the South West Land and Sea Council and Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage and seek their comments on the development.

f) Clearing of native vegetation is prohibited, unless clearing is authorised by a clearing permit

obtained from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, or is of a kind that is exempt in accordance with Schedule 6, or Regulation 5 (contained in the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004). Please note, any development which causes water to pond or inundate a stand of native vegetation may constitute clearing and be subject to the relevant clearing permit.

g) Please be advised that the use of Centre Pivots is consistent with an ‘Agricultural-Intensive’ land

use which pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 1 requires the prior development approval of the local authority. Please be advised that pivots are recommended to be setback 100m from the edge of any permanent stream of watercourse on or near the property and 30 metres from any

natural water course that flows intermittently. Please be advised that the centre pivot on your property at Lot 5 and Lot 3980 Patmore Road, Warner Glen would not meet these separation distances and does not have a valid planning approval currently in place.

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ASSESSMENT (DAU) Report to Manager Planning and Development Services Proposed Amendment to Planning Approval P219186 (Increase Patron Numbers from 108 to 120 for Restaurant/Takeway Food Outlet & Small Bar) at 98 (Lot 38) Albany Terrace Augusta

Major (Level 2) P219474; PTY/724 REPORTING OFFICER : Clare Hamilton DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST : Nil

General Information Lot Area 1794m² Zone Town Centre (Restricted Use of Restaurant, Shop, Takeaway

Food Outlet and other ancillary uses as determined by the Shire)

Proposed Development Amendment to Planning Approval P219186 to consieder an increase in patron numbers from 108 to 120 for the approved Restaurant /Takeaway Food Outlet & Small Bar. The subject application seeks to increase patron numbers from 108 to 120 without increasing the parking bays on site, the total bays to remain at 22. The proposal involves an increase in 12 patrons, which corresponds to a further parking requirement of 3 bays, therefore requiring 25 overall. The proposal involves a shortfall of 3 bays.

Permissible Use Class ‘P’ permitted with approval Heritage/Aboriginal Sites n/a Encumbrance Not impacted Date Received 09/08/2019

Background A summary of the background to the site is provided below: 19 May 1988 – Proposal presented to the Ordinary Meeting of Council that approved a 50-seat restaurant with a condition requiring the provision of 13 parking bays. 20 January 1989 (P424) – Approval granted for a restaurant with a limit for 44 patrons. A condition was included on the approval that required the provision of 18 parking bays. It is to be noted that the existing takeaway was annotated as a shop in this application. 17 October 2001 (P21409) – Approval granted for an ‘eating house’ (44 seats) which included a toilet area. 18 parking bays were required as a condition of the approval. 7 April 2005 (P25056) – Change of use granted for the conversion of the ‘eating house’ to restaurant. Review of this approval appears that the number of patrons and parking allocated to the site was not changed. 18 July 2005 (P25235) – Section 40 Certificate Issued. 6 August 2018 (P218041) - Planning approval granted for additions and alteration to the existing Restaurant/Takeaway Food Outlet. The approval included the following works, • Removal of asbestos, lightweight external structures and prefabricated toilet facilities, • Expansion of the restaurant to cater for 120 patrons, including increased floor area to the dining

area, kitchen and toilet facilities, additions are predominantly to the northern and southern sides of the existing building, and

• Extension of the existing car park to cater for up to 28 vehicles. 18 December 2018 (P218575) – Planning approval granted for the partial change of use of the Restaurant and Small Bar (approved as a part of P218041). The change of use related to a 72sqm of the Small Bar floor area (25%) with the number of patrons to be maintained at 120. Total parking area on site shown to be 28 with 1 additional bay for disabled parking. 3 May 2019 (P219186) – Planning approval granted for Amendment to Planning Approval P218575 (Small Bar). This involved a modification to the layout of the approved parking area, with a commensurate change in patron numbers. The parking area was reduced from 28 bays to 22, with the patrons changing from 120 to 108. Policy Requirements Is the land or proposal referred to in any Council Policy? √ Yes ☐ No If yes, state the Policy/Policies State Planning Policy 3.7 – Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas

(SPP3.7) Officer Comment

A Bushfire Management Plan and an Emergency Evacuation Plan were prepared and endorsed in support of application P218041. Section 5 of Planning Bulletin 111/2016 provides the following guidance around exemptions from the application of SPP 3.7, specifically where the proposal does not: • Result in the intensification of development (or land use), • Does not result in an increase of residents or employees; or • Does not involve the occupation of employees on site for any considerable

amount of time. The proposed amendment does not result in any material change to the proposal from a bushfire planning perspective and for this reason does not require re-assessment against SPP3.7.

Structure Plans and Local Development Plans (DAP) Is the land in any Structure Plan Area or subject to a DAP? ☐ Yes √ No Advertising/Agency Referrals Has the application been referred to adjoining landowners/agency? √ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

Has a submission been received by Council? √ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A 4 submissions received (2 x objection & 2 x support). Details provided below.

Comments received Support

Noted.

Justifications as listed in the Shire letter (note - justifications provided by proponent) plus proximity to both town caravan/camping sites Support There is in excess of 10 bays around Colourpatch only used during school holidays if at all in morning and evening. Close proximity to caravan parks and town which are within walking distance

Noted. Noted.

Objection Planning approval was granted in December 2018 for 108 patrons and 22 on-site parking bays. I assume this was asked for and deemed to be satisfactory for both the Shire and the applicant. What has changed in the meantime to justify an increase in anticipated patronage? Would it not be ‘more certain’ to wait until ‘business commences’ before this application is made? Cannot assume that Albany Terrace is clear for the parking of Colourpatch patrons in the evenings. Other commercial premises in Augusta town and the hardware store have all provided sufficient off street parking. I believe the ‘issued approval’ for the Colourpatch should remain. Keep in mind that Augusta has an aged population.

Planning approval P218575 granted 18 December 2018 for the partial change of use of the Restaurant and Small Bar. The change of use related to a 72sqm of the Small Bar floor area (25%) with the number of patrons to be maintained at 120. Total parking area on site shown to be 28 with 1 additional bay for disabled parking. Subsequently planning approval P219186 granted 3 May 2019 for amendment to planning approval P218575. This involved a modification to the layout of the approved parking area. The parking area was reduced from 28 bays to 22, with a commensurate change in patron numbers from 120 to 108 to comply with parking requirements. The subject application seeks permission for a total of 120 patrons with consideration of a reduced parking requirement. As outlined below, the proposed increase in patron numbers from 108 to 120 would generate a requirement for a total of 25 parking bays. The proposal for 22 bays involves a shortfall of 3 parking bays, a variation to parking standards of Local Planning Scheme No.1 (LPS1) clause 5.8. LPS1 clause 5.5 allows the local government to consider an application to vary development standards following consultation with adjoining owners and having regard to any expressed views prior to making its determination to grant the variation. It is considered that the proposed short fall of 3 on-site parking bays is negligible in light of:

• Location of the site within walking distance to the town site’s population;

• Street parking which is not considered to be utilised in the evening; and

• Historic under utilisation of onsite parking

It is not considered that the proposal to increase patron numbers to 120 and vary the on-site parking requirement will cause any significant adverse impact to the amenity of adjoining neighbours or other users of the vicinity. Applications are assessed on their individual merits. Noted.

Augusta’s population and housing is spread over an area of at least 3km of the colourpatch re-development. How does the applicant see the location of the Colourpatch to be within ‘walking distance’ of the town site’s population? Turner Street and other nearby roads leading to Colourpatch have no footpaths. The Riverfront walkway which passes the Colourpatch is well made and maintained, however, at night time it is difficult to negotiate due to the many twists and turns made during its construction in an endeavour to avoid mature paperbark trees.

The site is located adjacent to a mixture of both residential areas, caravan parks. The location to these Sites are all within a walking distance to the Site and to the main street of Augusta. Noted. Noted.

Objection The useable floor area for patrons is insufficient for the increase in patron numbers Does the requirement for a courtesy bus still apply? There is no provision for staff parking Albany Terrace (in the Colourpatch precinct) is a narrow road with parallel parking on one side only, and provides the only public access to the river beach. All parking is fully utilised during busy times. Additional parking could be provided by making end-in parking on the NW side near the boat ramp, and reconsidering the area of ‘the Swings’, with a roundabout. I understand that developers are sometimes required to provide funds in lieu of shortfalls in parking spaces. Is there provision for a loading zone? The driveway to the rear of the building is too narrow for delivery trucks.

The calculation to determine that a commercial premises such as a Small Bar has sufficient floor area for patrons is calculated under the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. This is calculated by the Shires environmental Health Officers, and to date no concerns have bene raised that the floor area is not sufficient in size to cater for the patron numbers.. Should planning approval be granted the proponent is required to separately apply to the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor requirements for Standards of Licensed Premises. The proponent has provided an Active transport Plan as per the requirements of previous planning approvals. The car parking calculations of the Site include the provision of parking for staff in the overall parking calculations. During the day time when members of the public access the foreshore it is anticipated that the small bar and restaurant will be at its quietest times. It is during the evenings when the surrounding area will be at its quietest that it is expected patrons will utilise the surrounding on street parking. Clause 5.8.8 of LPS1 allows the local government to accept either cash-in-lieu payment for additional parking not provided on site or additional parking provided in a position nearby as determined by the Local Government. Based on the reasoning above the Local Government considers that the shortfall in spaces required can be accommodated in the local vicinity. Cash-in-lieu payment is therefore not considered to be required. A loading bay is provided at the front of the site immediately from the street. This has been

There is currently no provision for vehicles to safely turn around on the narrow road. Notes cars currently use private driveway to turn around. It would be particularly disturbing late at night. The southern side of Albany Terrace needs to be clearly marked ‘no parking or standing’.

approved under previous planning approval for the site and remains as previous approved. The layout of the development of the Site has been approved as per the subject of previous applications. This application is purely to consider the increase in patron numbers, and it is outside the scope to request the proponent to redesign a development that had already planning approval. Noted.

Have agency or authority comments been received? ☐ Yes ☐ No √ N/A Comments received Officer Comment

Asset Services The applicant submitted a stormwater management plan for the revised carpark area to the Shire, which was referred to the Shires Asset Services. The Shires Asset Services advised that the submitted plan is acceptable.

Noted.

Health Services Recently issued planning approvals related to this redevelopment shows that the maximum number of patrons has been 120 in all applications until P218186, which relates to a reduction in car parking bays. This is not a Health matter. Maximum accommodation numbers are calculated under the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992 based largely on floor area, exit numbers and widths, and toilet numbers. Previous Health comments and Planning approval advice notes have referred to these regulations. Maximum accommodation numbers will be assessed under the Public Building regulations when the applicant submits the Form 1 and Form 2 application forms (referred to above) to the Shire’s Environmental Health Unit. Recommend conditions and advice notes as per previous planning approval.

Recommend inclusion of the conditions and advice notes.

Assessment of Application Is the land referred in the Heritage Inventory? ☐ Yes √ No Are there any Contributions applicable? ☐ Yes √ No Are there any compliance issues in relation to existing development?

☐ Yes √ No

Development Standards (Schedule 9) Are the development Standards applicable? √ Yes ☐ No Officer Comment No change to built form previously approved. Car Parking LPS1 / R Codes Requirement

Car Bays Required - 25 Car Bays Proposed -22

Dimensions 2.5 x 5.5m √ Complies ☐ Doesn’t Comply Turning Bay/Circles and vehicle manoeuvring √ Complies ☐ Doesn’t Comply

Disabled Bays Disabled Bays - 1 √ Complies ☐ Doesn’t Comply Officer Comment

In the case of the subject application, there is no proposal to increase on site parking above 22 bays currently provided. Parking calculations for the subject application are provided as follows:

Use Bays Floor Area Parking

Ratio Patrons

Small Bar 5.5 (25% of 108)

72m² (25% of patron area)

1:6 patrons 33

Café/Restaurant 16.5 218m² 1:4 seats 66 Total capacity 22 290m² n/a 99 Active Transport 10%

reduction = 9

Total 108 Based on the 22 bays currently provided and if the requirement for an active transport plan is maintained (in accordance with clause 5.8.9 of the Scheme) the use can accommodate 108 patrons. The subject application proposes an amendment to previous approval(s) to allow an additional 12 people in the Restaurant (equates to 3 tables of 4 seats) to reach a maximum capacity of 120. Therefore retaining the capacity approved under P218041 and P218575. The proposed increase in patron numbers would generate a requirement for a total of 25 parking bays. The proposal involves a shortfall in 3 parking bays. The proposal is required to be considered pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 1 clause 5.5 discretion to modify the parking standard. The short fall of 3 on-site parking bays is negligible in light of:

• Location of the site within walking distance to the town site’s population, • Street parking which is not considered to be utilised in the evening, and • Historic under utilisation of onsite parking.

It is not considered that the proposal would cause any significant adverse impact to the amenity of adjoining neighbours or users of the vicinity.

Clause 67 A. In the opinion of the officer, would approval of the planning consent be appropriate under Clause

67 of the Deemed Provisions of the Scheme? Officer Comment

Yes

B. In the opinion of the officer: i. Are utility services available and

adequate for the development? Yes

ii. Has adequate provision been made for the landscaping and protection for any trees or other vegetation on the land?

Yes

iii. Has adequate provision been made for access for the development or facilities by disabled persons?

Yes

iv. Is development likely to cause detriment to the existing and likely future amenity of the neighbourhood?

No

v. Is the development likely to comply with AS3959 at the building permit stage?

n/a

Other Comments Any further comments in relation to the application? Officer Comment

Conditional approval recommended consistent with P219186 subject to the following changes: • Modification of Condition 1 to reference updated site plan P1,

• Modify condition 3 to increase patron numbers from 108 to 120, • Renumbering conditions accordingly, and • Modifying any advice notes to accord with the above changes to the

conditions. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That the Manager of Sustainable Development GRANTS Planning Consent under Delegated Authority Instrument No. 16 pursuant to Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 for Amendment to Planning Approval P219186 (Increase in Patron Numbers from 108 to 120 for Restaurant/Takeway Food Outlet & Small Bar) at 98 (Lot 38) Albany Terrace, Augusta subject to compliance with the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. The development is to be carried out in compliance with the plans and documentation listed below

and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent.

Plans and Specifications

P1 received at the Shires offices on the 28 March 2019; and P2 received at the Shire Offices on the 13 September 2018

2. If the development, the subject of this approval, is not substantially commenced within two (2)

years from the date of this letter, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect. Where an approval has lapsed, development is prohibited without further approval being obtained.

3. The Restaurant and Small Bar is permitted to accommodate no more than 120 patrons at any

one time.

4. The development shall function as an integrated facility. The Small Bar shall at all times operate in a combined facility with the Restaurant and shall not be operated independently.

5. Information is to be provided to demonstrate that the measures contained in the bushfire management plan (version 3, 4 July 2018) have been implemented prior to commencement of the use, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Shire.

6. Certification is to be provided to the Shire by an accredited Bushfire Consultant that all bushfire management actions detailed in the approved Bushfire Management Plan have been implemented prior to commencement of use.

7. Stormwater Management shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved stormwater management plan prepared by Civil/Structural Solutions on the 15 April 2019, or alternative plan approved by the Shire.

8. Prior to practical completion of the development, stormwater management systems on the

subject site shall be constructed in accordance with the accepted Stormwater Management Plan referred to in condition 7 and shall be thereafter maintained.

9. Prior to occupation of the development, vehicle parking areas shall be designed, sealed, drained and thereafter maintained in accordance with accepted Vehicle Parking Construction Plan(s), the Australian Standard AS 2890 and he Shire’s Standards and Specifications.

10. Prior to occupation of the development, crossovers shall be designed, constructed, sealed, and

drained in accordance with the Shire's standards and specifications. 11. Works are prohibited within the road reserve including any pruning or clearing of vegetation

without prior written approval of the Shire. The Proponent shall submit and implement a Traffic Management Plan prepared by a licenced Traffic Manager in accordance with MRWA Traffic Management Code of Practice and Australian Standards AS1742.3-2002 for any works on or within the road reserve (including road).

12. Disabled parking bay and statutory signs shall be located convenient to the building entrance to

the satisfaction of Local Government.

13. The Landscaping of the carpark shall incorporate a minimum of 5 shade trees in accordance with clause 5.8.5(c) of Local Planning Scheme No.1.

14. Prior to occupation of the development, the site shall be connected to a reticulated sewerage service.

15. The use is not permitted to operate outside the following hours:

a) Sunday to Thursday - 7am to 10pm. b) Friday and Saturday - 7am to 11pm. c) New Year’s Eve - 7am to 2am New Year’s Day. d) Functions – 7am to 12 midnight

16. No more than 20 functions may be held per calendar year.

ADVICE NOTES a) You are advised of the need to comply with the requirements of the following other legislation:

(i) This is not a Building Permit. A Building Permit must be issued by the relevant Permit Authority before any work commences on site as per the Building Act 2011;

(ii) Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911 and Department requirements in respect to the development and use of the premises; and

(iii) The Bush Fires Act 1954 as amended, Section 33(3), Annual Bush Fires Notice applies to this property.

b) Engineering plans are required to be submitted to the Shires Asset Services department (Ph

9780 5274)

c) The proposed activity must comply with the Food Act 2008 and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code

d) Noise emissions (sound levels) shall comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise)

Regulations 1997.

Noise emissions resulting from the development or use of the land shall not exceed the assigned levels in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, and shall not unreasonably interfere with the health, welfare and amenity of an occupier of another premises.

e) The applicants will be required to comply with the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor

requirements for Standards of Licensed Premises. The applicants will need to apply for a Section 39 certificate (liquor licence) prior to operating. f) The proposed development is defined as a Public Building in accordance with the Health (Public

Building) Regulations 1992. The enclosed Form 1 Application to construct, extend or alter a public building and Form 2 Application for Certificate of Approval - Application for Certificate of Approval shall be completed and submitted to the Shire for approval together with the appropriate fee, prior to use of development as a Public Building. Application forms are available on Shire website.

g) Rubbish enclosure areas adequate to service the development are to be constructed and provided in accordance with the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Health Local Laws 1999 prior to the occupation or use of the development to the satisfaction of the Local Government.

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ASSESSMENT (DAU) Report to Manager Planning and Development Services Proposed Reception Centre at 1078 (Lot 1907) Rosa Brook Road, Rosa Brook Major (Level 2) P218633; PTY/5957

REPORTING OFFICER : Lucy Gouws DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST : Nil

General Information Lot Area 48ha Zone General Agriculture Proposed Development The proposal is to use the Site as a ‘Reception Centre’ for the

purpose of holding primarily weddings, but does include functions or ceremonies as they arise. The proposal it to allow:

- Use of the Site for functions / weddings for up for 52 weekends per year.

- Use of the existing 2ha garden for hosting functions. - Allow a maximum of 200 guests. - Specific hours have not been provided. It is indicated that

some functions will finish by 12pm. - Use of the dwelling as part of the functions, for example

by the bridal party, wedding guests, caterers to prepare food etc.

- Provision of 50 car parking spaces within the front (north western) portion of the Site, along with a further 20 for overflow parking when required.

- Erection of a 2m high fence along the front boundary adjacent to Rosa Brook Road.

Permissible Use Class ‘A’ discretionary use that is subject to advertisement Heritage/Aboriginal Sites Nil Encumbrance Nil Date Received 15/10/2018

Policy Requirements Is the land or proposal referred to in any Council Policy? ☐ Yes √ No Structure Plans and Local Development Plans (DAP) Is the land in any Structure Plan Area or subject to a DAP? ☐ Yes √ No Advertising/Agency Referrals Has the application been referred to adjoining landowners/agency? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

Has a submission been received by Council? √ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A 2 x Support, 1 x Indifferent, 20 x Objections

Have agency or authority comments been received? √ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A Health

- Sufficient water will be required to be supplied to service sanitary facilities and kitchen.

- Sanitary facilities for 200 plus staff requires a number of toilets to be provided.

- Onsite treatment and disposal of wastewater will be required.

All noted.

Building Access for people with disability will be required with a certified building permit application.

Noted.

Infrastructure No issues raised, conditions would require crossovers upgraded, no works permitted within the road reserve and a traffic management plan would be required.

Noted.

Support Summary of Comments Officer Comments • Great way to bring people into the east side of Margaret

River, great for other accommodation providers, generating more income and bring more knowledge of the area.

Noted.

Objections Summary Comments Officer Comment

Noise / Management Concerns with impact of noise from amplified music and large number of guests at 200 and how this will be managed after 10pm to minimise impacts to neighbouring landowners.

Owner has run previous events / parties at the Site and the noise was incredible, sounded like a concert. Owner had no regard for neighbours and the impact of the noise. Only dwelling on the property is to be used by the bridal party, therefore events will be unsupervised. Concerns with reception running till 12 pm. Who will policy and monitor the receptions for numbers of guests and hours. Fire Risk Concerns with the risk of fire from 200 guests. No fire breaks on the property and the risk this presents to neighbours and guests. Site is heavily vegetated and high fire risk, concerns with future fire safety and limited access to control and fight fire safely. Property has been ‘Red Flagged’ by the Rosa Brook Bush Fire Brigade, meaning it’s too dangerous to enter the Site.

Noise / Management The applicant has advised that noise emissions from the Site will not exceed the assigned levels specified in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, and will not interfere with the health, welfare and amenity of occupiers of another premise. The Shires Health Department has provided advice notes that would require that the use does not exceed the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. It is noted that although the applicant is confident noise will not exceed the noise regulations, significant concerns are raised with ceremonies / functions being held for up to 200 guests and how the high number of guests on the Site will have impact upon the rural character of the locality. Whilst it is acknowledged that noise levels may be kept to a minimum, the impact will arise from the cumulative impact of up to 200 guests arriving, leaving from the Site, the noise arising from closing opening car doors, people congregating outside given ceremonies and functions are to be held in the garden and from the likelihood of amplification / speakers. The impact will continue until late in the night, when the applicant wishes to allow ceremonies / functions to run until12pm. The applicant has advised that the owner has held a number of private parties and gatherings over the past 15 years. The landowner has never received notification from the Shire of any noise complaints from excessive noise from the property. At any time the Shire were to receive a noise complaint, this matter would be required to be investigated by the Shires Health Officers. To date this has not occurred. The applicant has advised that staff will be present on Site during functions and ceremonies. Concerns are noted, please see officers response above. It will be the responsibility of the landowner to adhere to maximum numbers of guests and hours of operation. Fire Risk The applicant has submitted a bushfire management plan (BMP) and emergency evacuation plan (EEP). The documents have been reviewed by DFES and the Shires Emergency Services Officer and have been approved with some minor modifications to the EEP. The BMP (Rev 1) indicates that: Upgrade, install and maintain fire breaks in accordance with the local government firebreak notice. The developer and property owner must comply with the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Fire Break Notice at all times The BMP is required to be implemented, and once implemented is required to be certified by the assessor to ensure any works, like installing fire breaks have been undertaken.

Services Concerns there is insufficient waste water treatment for 200 guests, what toilets are to be provided. Management of rubbish / recycling from 200 guests for 52 weekends of the year. Concerns with the impacts to the creek line that runs through the property. Traffic / Parking Concerns with traffic management along Rosa Brook Road, which is a quick stretch of road. Lack of adequate parking for 200 guests, and buses. Increase in amount of traffic on local roads for 200 guests. Other Matters What liquor licensing is required? Structural integrity of the machinery shed / storage area proposed to be utilised for weddings. What commercial food premises / catering to be provided? Ability to hold weddings for 52 weeks of the year is excessive in a rural setting. Concerns with the conflict between agricultural operations on neighbouring Sites and weddings. Neighbours carrying

If the Site does not comply with the Shire Fire Break Notice in regards to fire breaks, this matter will be brought to the attention of the Shires Rangers to investigate and take action as and when required. Services The Shire Health Officers has advised that the landowner will be required to provide • Male – 2 x WC and 3 urinals (or equivalent in

pedestals) and 2 hand basins; and • Female – 4 x WC and 2 hand basins. At least 2 facilities must be wheelchair accessible, either 1 for each sex or 2 unisex facilities. The applicant has advised that adequate toilet facilities will be provided, but no details have been provided with the application. The applicant has advised that commercial waste recovery will be in place for dealing with rubbish and recycling, but no details have been provided with the application. As identified by the Shire Health Officers the sensitive location of the Site is within the Ten Mile Brook Catchment Area and classified as a Priority 3 protection zone, all waste water will be required to be treated to secondary treatment quality. The proponent will need to ensure that the waste water disposal point is at least 2 metres above the highest known winter water table as determined by a site soil assessment conducted by a suitably qualified person in accordance with Australian Standard AS/NZS 1547:2012 On-site Domestic Wastewater Management. The disposal point must not be within 300m of a well head used for human drinking water. Noted. The applicant would be required to provide parking for up to 50 cars. This is shown to be provided at the front of the Site. Detailed parking plans have not been provided to demonstrate the Site is of adequate size to cater for up 50 cars. Noted. If a liquor license was required this would be determined by Racing Game Liquor, the applicant believes that no license would be required. Any buildings used will be required to meet the Public Buildings regulations. Catering and food caters would be addressed as part of the event permit process, whereby any food vendor would be required to be a registered food vendor. Noted. Concerns are raised at the frequency the applicant wishes to operate, and the impact this would have on the rural amenity of the locality. Noted.

out rural tasks should not be required to reschedule around weddings. Rosa Brook does not have the infrastructure to cater for 200 guests. The zoning of the Site is agriculture, which is not suitable for a permanent event centre.

Noted. Noted. Proposals within land zoned agriculture that involve a tourism component are required to demonstrate that the proposal is both ‘incidental to the principle use of the land, and the visual and rural character of the property are not adversely affected’. The application is lacking this information, and this is discussed later in the officer report.

Has the application been referred to internal departments? √ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

Assessment of Application Is the land referred in the Heritage Inventory? ☐ Yes √ No Are there any Contributions applicable? ☐ Yes √ No Are there any compliance issues in relation to existing development?

√ Yes ☐ No The Shire was advised during the consultation period that three (3) ceremonies took place at the property. Photos were provided showing a number of cars being parked along the road verge. The applicant advised that only private, family celebrations have taken place at the Site.

R Codes Are R Codes applicable? ☐ Yes √ No Development Standards (Schedule 9) Are the development Standards applicable? √ Yes ☐ No Officer Comment The proposal presents a variation to the 30m front setback requirements of

Local Planning Scheme No.1 (the Scheme) for the location of car parking area within the front 30m setback area. The location of the parking at the front of Site will abut Rosa Brook Road, creating a prominent parking area visible from the road. Only small pockets of vegetation exist along the road frontage, and no additional landscaping has been proposed. The view of the parking area from the front of the Site, will be prominent and likely have an impact upon the rural character of the area.

Figure 1: Illustrating the 30m front setback from Rosa Brook Road The use of the Site for a reception centre within the garden that surrounds the dwelling presents a further variation to the 30m front setback. Use of this area of the Site may include temporary marques and siting of food trucks. This area of the Site benefits from an area of mature vegetation that assists in screening the eastern portion of the garden from views from Rosa Brook Road. A proposed 2m high fence is proposed to be erected along the front road frontage of the Site. A 2m high fence is not considered acceptable nor suitable on the frontage of the rural locality, and is not supported.

Car Parking

LPS1 / R Codes Requirement

Car Bays Required - 50 Car Bays Proposed – Site plan indicates that 50 are provided, however no layout, dimensions of the parking area have been provided.

Dimensions 2.5 x 5.5m Unknown as details on parking layout / dimensions have not been provided.

Turning Bay/Circles and vehicle manoeuvring Unknown, not shown.

Disabled Bays Accessible Bays – Not shown Officer Comment

A ‘Reception Centre’ requires 1 car bay per 4 people that the use is intended to accommodate. Accessible bays will need to be provided in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.

Clause 67 A. In the opinion of the officer, would approval of the planning consent be appropriate under Clause

67 of the Deemed Provisions of the Scheme? Officer Comment

Amenity Concerns Concerns have been raised in respect to the frequency of the use at 52 weekends of the year, for a maximum number of 200 guests and allowing functions / weddings to be hosted until 12 pm. The scale of the proposal and the intensity of the use is contrary to the objectives of the zone, and has little regard to the amenity of the locality. The scale is not considered to operate as incidental capacity to the existing agricultural operations of the Site, or is of a Low Impact Tourist Development. Low Impact Tourist Development is not expressly applicable under the Scheme, as it only applies to tourist accommodation, but provides applicable policy guidance under the Local Planning Strategy. Low Impact Tourist Development is described as:

• Development is designed in such a manner that is does not detract from the rural and natural amenity of the locality;

• Location to avoid fridge lines, escarpments or visually exposed Sites, where screening vegetation or landform can be utilised;

• Location is to minimise impact on vegetation, watercourse, soil quality and existing land uses;

• Being of a scale and nature to be self-sustaining, without significant modification of infrastructure;

• Being of a scale, design, colours and materials to have minimal impact to Site and surrounding areas; and

• Minimising off site consequences.

The need to deliver a development that minimises impacts upon the Site and to the wider environment is a re-occurring theme though the definition and associated policy, reinforcing the overarching principles of the LPS. The number of functions / weddings proposed is significant, allowing some form of function / wedding to operate on any given weekend. It is acknowledged that generally these types of events would be limited to the Spring/Autumn months of the year, but by allowing the use of the Site for this purpose with no limitations in terms of numbers of functions / weddings, the flexibility the applicant wishes would allow functions / weddings to be held as and when they arise. This flexibility and scale has the potential to allow concentrated periods of activity at the Site within the space of any given month. A function / wedding could be held at the Site on every weekend throughout the Spring and Summer for up to 200 guests. The scale of the proposal is not considered to be low key nature, nor low impact tourist development and is considered that is will have an impact to both adjoining properties, and the setting of the rural locality. Agricultural Operations Planning approval was granted at the Site in 2011 for Intensive Agriculture for a Trufferie. The approval entailed the planting of 5,000 trees over a 10ha area

of the Site. To date, trees have not been planted at the Site, however the applicant has advised that “great efforts have been made on the Site, and truffle trees are expected in the following 24 – 36 months”. The applicant has not been able to provide any further details on the agricultural operations that are already in operation on the Site, as the applicant has advised this as being “highly confidential”. It is difficult to address those concerns raised through the consultation process and to demonstrate that there is an intent to establish a genuine agricultural use of the land given this is not evident, nor has the applicant been forthcoming in providing any further information on providing this information, other than those details provided about the future use of the Site as a Trufferie.

B. In the opinion of the officer: i. Are utility services available and

adequate for the development? Services such as sanitary facilities would be required to be provided each time a function / wedding was held at the Site. Given the sensitive nature of the Site which is located within the Ten Mile Brook water catchment, waste water would be required to be treated on Site.

ii. Has adequate provision been made for the landscaping and protection for any trees or other vegetation on the land?

Other than installing of fire breaks no other trees or vegetation is indicated as being required to be removed.

iii. Has adequate provision been made for access for the development or facilities by disabled persons?

These would be required to be provided by a planning condition.

iv. Is development likely to cause detriment to the existing and likely future amenity of the neighbourhood?

The scale, frequency and numbers is considered to have an impact on the amenity of the rural locality.

v. Is the development likely to comply with AS3959 at the building permit stage?

A BMP has been prepared and amended to address comments from DFES and the Shire. This will be required to be implemented as a condition of approval.

Other Comments Any further comments in relation to the application? Officer Comment

Amenity Concerns Consistency of the use with the objective of the zone and in regard to the amenity of the locality the proposal is not considered to be incidental capacity to the agricultural operations that exists on the Site. Allowing 52 weddings / functions on the Site per year is not considered low impact tourism. The application is recommend for refusal for the following reasons.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That the Manager of Planning and Development Services REFUSE Planning Consent under Delegated Authority Instrument No. 16 pursuant to Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 for Reception Centre at 1078 (Lot 1907) Rosa Brook Road, Rosa Brook for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the General Agricultural zone, as the proposal:

a) does not serve to preserve the established rural character and amenity of the land within the zone, and is inconsistent with the ongoing use and development of that land for productive agricultural purposes; and

b) is inconsistent with the presumption that non-agricultural use will be incidental and complementary to established agricultural use;

c) will result unreasonable adverse impact on the rural amenity of the area due to noise, traffic and visual impacts; and

d) will have an adverse impact to the landscape attributes of the area due to the location of the parking area and the view of vehicles parked onsite within the front setback area.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the Deemed Provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 1, Matters

to be Considered, at clause 67 with specific regard to the following subclauses: n) The proposal would have an unacceptable adverse impact to the character of the area

and would have adverse social impacts arising from noise, traffic and visual impacts as a consequence of the use; and

t) The proposal for 200 guests is considered to generate an unreasonable and excessive volume of traffic for the area beyond the anticipated traffic volumes considered acceptable in a rural locality.