2010-02-03 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes · 2013. 4. 1. · Planning & Development Committee Meeting – 3 February 2010 - 8 - Gympie Regional Council The proposed

Gympie Regional Council

MINUTES

of the

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

CHAIRMAN: Cr Ian Petersen

Held in the Boardroom Town Hall

2 Caledonian Hill, Gympie Qld 4570

On Wednesday 3 February 2010 at 9.00 a.m.

For Adoption at the General Meeting to be held on Wednesday 10 February 2010

Planning & Development Committee Meeting – 3 February 2010 - 1 -


PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Cr I.T. Petersen (Chairman), Crs R.J. Dyne, G.L. Engeman, L.J. Friske, R.A. Gâté,

D.R. Neilson, A.J. Perrett, J.A. Walker & J. Watt. APPOINTMENTS etc. Nil. CONTENTS LEAVE OF ABSENCE.......................................................................................................................................... 3 APOLOGIES .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS BY COUNCILLORS ................................................................................. 3 CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES.................................................................................................. 3 SECTION 1: STRATEGIC PLANNING MATTERS ........................................................................................ 4

1/1 STATUS OF THE LAND FOR WILDLIFE PROGRAM IN THE GYMPIE REGION .............................................. 4 SECTION 2: PLANNING APPLICATIONS ...................................................................................................... 5

2/1 DA10931 – MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE AND OPERATIONAL WORKS – MARINA AND ASSOCIATED MARINE FACILITIES – ESPLANADE, TIN CAN BAY – FRASER STRAITS MARINA PTY LTD ...................... 5 2/2 2009-0267 – MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – DISPLAY YARD (NURSERY AND LANDSCAPE SUPPLY CENTRE) – 246 MCINTOSH CREEK ROAD AND PERKINS ROAD JONES HILL – T & T KICKBUSCH ....... 18 2/3 2009-0779 – REPRESENTATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – GENERAL INDUSTRY (CRANE HIRE DEPOT) – LANGTON ROAD AND BAS LEWIS DRIVE MONKLAND – SAMRED PTY LTD T/A KG PROPERTY INVESTMENT TRUST.............................................................. 28 2/4 DA17646 – REQUEST TO CHANGE AN EXISTING APPROVAL – MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – SPECIAL INDUSTRY (CONCRETE BATCHING PLANT) – 9 KAROONDA ROAD, RAINBOW BEACH – BUCKLEY’S BULK HAULAGE ............................................................................................................... 37 2/5 2008-0745 – REPRESENTATIONS - MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – FOOD & ENTERTAINMENT VENUE (GOLF COURSE & ANCILLARY CLUBHOUSE) & ACCOMMODATION PREMISES (FOUR (4) GUEST CABINS) – 63 BARSBY ROAD, IMBIL – G & J. WALKER........................................................................ 52

SECTION 3: RECONFIGURING A LOT APPLICATIONS..........................................................................66

3/1 2009-0343 – RECONFIGURING A LOT – SUBDIVISION TO CREATE THIRTEEN (13) ADDITIONAL LOTS – WATSON RD. & EVELYN RD., SOUTHSIDE – P. & A. MARGETTS ............................................. 66 3/2 2009-0747 – RECONFIGURING A LOT – SUBDIVISION TO CREATE 61 ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS – 765 KANDANGA IMBIL ROAD, IMBIL – SPUNCHROME PTY LTD .............................................. 79 3/3 2009-0607 – RECONFIGURING A LOT – SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO (2) LOTS FROM TWO (2) EXISTING TITLES IN A COMMUNITY TITLES SCHEME – FULLERTON ROAD, KYBONG – R & D GRESHAM.................................................................................................................................. 97



3/4 2009-0004 – REQUEST TO CHANGE EXISTING APPROVAL FOR RECONFIGURING A LOT – SUBDIVISION TO CREATE FOUR (4) ADDITIONAL LOTS – LYNCH ROAD, EAST DEEP CREEK – D GEORGE.......................................................................................................................................... 106

SECTION 4: PLANNING APPLICATIONS PENDING ............................................................................... 110

4/1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS PENDING ................................................................................................... 110 4/2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS APPROVED......................................................................................... 129

SECTION 5: GENERAL MATTERS .............................................................................................................. 131

5/1 APPLICATION FOR DETACHED BOTTLE SHOP – SLEEPY LAGOON HOTEL – COOLOOLA COVE SHOPPING CENTRE, COOLOOLA COVE ............................................................................................... 131

SECTION 6: MATTERS FOR COUNCIL’S INFORMATION.................................................................... 134

NIL. .................................................................................................................................................................. 134 SECTION 7: “IN COMMITTEE” ITEMS..................................................................................................... 135

7/1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON RURAL LAND...................................................................................... 135



The meeting opened at 9.00 a.m. PRESENT: Crs I.T. Petersen (Chairman), R.J. Dyne, G.L. Engeman, L.J. Friske,

R.A. Gâté, D.R. Neilson, A.J. Perrett, & J.A. Walker. Also in attendance were Mr K.A. Mason (Chief Executive Officer), Mr M.

Hartley (Director of Planning & Development), Ms T.M. Stenholm (Manager Development and Compliance) and Ms K. Sullivan (Minutes Secretary).

Ms T.M. Stenholm was not present when the meeting commenced.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil. APOLOGIES P01/02/10 Moved: Cr A.J. Perrett Seconded: Cr R.A. Gâté That the apology from Cr J. Watt be accepted. Carried.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS BY COUNCILLORS P08/02/10 & P09/02/10 – Cr J.A. Walker declared a Material Personal Interest. P14/02/10 – Cr G.L. Engeman declared a Material Personal Interest. P14/02/10 – Cr A.J. Perrett and Cr R.A. Gâté declared a Conflict of Interest.

CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

P02/02/10 Moved: Cr R.J. Dyne Seconded: Cr R.A. Gâté

That the Minutes of the Planning & Development Committee Meeting held on 20 January 2010 be taken as read and confirmed.

Carried.



SECTION 1: STRATEGIC PLANNING MATTERS

1/1 Status of the Land for Wildlife Program in the Gympie Region

Re: Minute: P03/02/10 Status of the Land for Wildlife Program in the

Gympie region From: Environmental Planning Officer File: 6/5/12/0001 Date: 27th January 2010 Report: (Environmental Planning Officer– A.J. Gosley) 1.0 Introduction Council at its General Meeting held 25th November 2009 requested vide Minute G37/11/09 that staff provide a report regarding the status of the Land for Wildlife Program in the Gympie Region. 2.0 Healthy Habitats The Conservation Partnerships program was replaced by the Burnett Mary Regional Groups’ (BMRG) Healthy Habitats program. The Healthy Habitats program is aimed at assisting landholders to carry out conservation works on their properties. Landholders are required to register their properties as Land for Wildlife to be eligible for the Healthy Habitats program. The Land for Wildlife program is still running through the Healthy Habitats program for which BMRG have contracted Noosa and District Landcare as an internal Field Officer. 3.0 Threatened Ecological Communities and EPBC Act threatened

species The Healthy Habitats program and subsequently Land for Wildlife is now focused according to the Australian Governments targets which are protecting Threatened Ecological Communities – Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant); Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia; White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodlands and derived native grasslands. These communities only occur in a very limited extent within the Gympie Regional Council area. EPBC Act threatened species are a secondary target. Those properties containing relevant threatened communities or species will be targeted to sign up for Land for Wildlife which still includes a grants program. Existing Land for Wildlife properties containing the threatened communities or species will also be eligible for the grants.



Properties that do not contain such threatened communities or species are still encouraged to sign up for the Land for Wildlife program. However, BMRG does not currently have the resources to support these properties to the same extent as the previous Conservation Partnerships program. 4.0 Conclusion The Land for Wildlife program is still active in the Gympie region where it aligns with BMRG’s Healthy Habitats program. Funding is available to landholders with properties that have high biodiversity values. Properties that don’t have the aforementioned values only receive limited support through newsletters and some over the phone advice due to funding limitations.

Queries about the Land for Wildlife program should be directed to BMRG who will then provide the details of the appropriate Field Officer.

P03/02/10 Moved: Cr G.L. Engeman Seconded: Cr R.A. Gâté Recommend that Council notes the information.

Carried.

Ms T.M. Stenholm entered the meeting at 9.04 a.m. SECTION 2: PLANNING APPLICATIONS 2/1 DA10931 – Material Change of Use and Operational Works – Marina and

Associated Marine Facilities – Esplanade, Tin Can Bay – Fraser Straits Marina Pty Ltd FILE NO: Minute: P04/02/10 DA10931 APPLICANT: Fraser Straits Marina Pty Ltd RPD: Lot 111 MCH5158, Lot 101 MCH4879 &

Lot 80 MCH5383 SITE ADDRESS: The Esplanade, Tin Can Bay CURRENT USE OF LAND: Marine related activities PROPOSAL: Marina and Associated Marine Facilities EXISTING ZONE: Various Special Facilities Zones and

unzoned land LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT: Impact (1997 Scheme) APPLICATION ADVERTISED: 17 July 2009 (originally advertised 2005) ADVERTISING CLOSED: 2 September 2009 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED: 46 total



Report: (Director of Planning & Development – M. Hartley) 1.0 The Proposal

The proposed development involves the construction of 237 berth marina and associated marine facilities at the end of Norman Point on the southern bank of Snapper Creek. The proposal involves significant reclamation, and is located adjacent to the existing public boat ramp and trailer parking area.



Specifically, the proposal includes: 237 wet berths catering for vessels between 9.0 metres and 25 metres in

length. Dry storage facility for 120 vessels up to 9.0 metres high. Marine related retail and boat shed facilities adjacent to the dry storage

building. Approximately 300 new car parks. A new facility for the Tin Can Bay Yacht Club. New kiosk and marine services facility. A dredged material rehandling area to handle material from dredging

required to maintain navigational channels and basins.



The proposed marina layout is illustrated on the following plan.

2.0 The Development Application The development application was originally lodged with the former Cooloola Shire Council in March of 2005, under the previous (1997) planning scheme. The application consists of the following components:



Operational Work for tidal work or work within a coastal management district – tidal work, reclaiming land under tidal water and disposing of dredge spoil or other solid waste material in tidal water.

Material change of use made assessable against the planning scheme – Development Permit – Marine Facilities, Marine Industry (Marina), Shops, Food Establishments [with respect to the rock wall and boardwalk located within the existing Special Facilities (Houseboat Hire and Caretaker’s Residence) zone].

Material change of use for an Environmentally Relevant Activity – Development Permit – ERA # 11(a) – Petroleum Storage, ERA # 19(c) – Dredging and ERA # 73(c) – Marina (greater than 100 berths).

Material change of use where all or part of the premises involves contaminated land – Development Permit.

Operational Work that is the removal, destruction, or damage of a marine plant – Development Permit.

Apart from the material change of use made assessable against the planning scheme (second dot point), the remaining components of the application are entirely assessable by State agencies against relevant State codes. Council’s role in the application is discussed in more detail in a later section of the report.

3.0 Development History

The development site is located completely within the Snapper Creek State Boat Harbour. The establishment of a boat harbour at this location had its genesis in the 1960s and 1970s, as part of a commitment by the government of the day to promote and provide support for small craft activities along the Queensland coast. The State Boat Harbour at this location was formalised in 1975. The development application has remained live since its lodgement in early 2005. The proposal was the subject of much activity by the local community and the Council throughout 2006/07, the thrust of which centred on the desirability of the State Government undertaking a master planning exercise before agreeing to the proposed marina. In broad terms, such a master planning exercise would have determined a) the need for a marina of the scale proposed at Tin Can Bay and b) whether or not the proposed location within the Tin Can Bay inlet was the most appropriate site for such a facility. The State Government’s consistent response over the years (be it from Ministers or Senior Departmental officers) has been that the master planning was undertaken as a precursor to identifying the site as a State Boat Harbour, and that further planning at that level was not intended.



4.0 Council’s Role in the Application

Following some dispute about this issue after lodgement, Council’s role in the application was determined by the Planning and Environment Court in August of 2007. The Court decided that the only aspects of the proposal assessable against the planning scheme are a short length of boardwalk and a small section of rock wall, both within that part of the site zoned Special Facilities – Houseboat Hire and Caretaker’s Residence. The extent and location of the boardwalk and rock wall in question are illustrated on the following plan.



The Court also determined that the level of assessment for these aspects of the proposal was impact assessable, involving public notification of the entire application. Despite this, and despite the receipt of a significant number of submissions opposing the application, section 3.5.5 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA) limits Council’s assessment of the application to “any part of the application requiring impact assessment.” In short, Council’s assessment of the application is limited to an assessment of the impacts of the proposed short length of boardwalk and small section of rock wall as described above. The findings of the Planning and Environment Court and the decision making rules of the IPA place Council in a very difficult position. The impacts of the rock wall and boardwalk are immaterial compared to the impacts of the marina complex as a whole. The community is unlikely to fully apprehend Council’s limited assessment responsibility, and it would also be difficult to sustain a decision to refuse the application based on the impacts of the rock wall and boardwalk. Council’s role in the application is little more than a coordinator of the application process. Council’s concerns about its limited capacity to assess the impacts and merits of the application have been drawn to the attention of the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Departmental officers, however no support has been provided. As mentioned earlier, the vast majority of the proposal is assessable by State agencies against State codes. Those assessments have been completed and all agencies have agreed to conditional approval of the application (as opposed to directing Council to refuse). Despite Council’s limited assessment role, some comment is considered necessary in relation to the proposed marina’s ability or otherwise to satisfy the planning intent of the 1997 planning scheme. The Strategic Plan, which forms part of the planning scheme, includes a tourism strategy, the aim of which is “to identify and enhance the elements of the Shire which make it attractive to tourists and to provide for anticipated trends in tourist activity.” Tin Can Bay is specifically identified as an important tourism element because of its fishing village character and interface with Tin Can Inlet. The following implementation criterion is designed to enhance the tourist role for this part of the Cooloola Coast.



“Tin Can Bay’s character is that of a relaxed and scenic fishing village created by visual links to its local fishing industry and recreational boating opportunities, its setting on the enchanting Tin Can Inlet and its low rise built form. Little of the built environment currently dominates that character. The maintenance and enhancement of that character is recognised as being important by the Council and the local community……”

On the basis of this criterion, the construction of the proposed marina complex at this location is unlikely to be in gross conflict with the high level forward planning policy outlined in the 1997 planning scheme.

5.0 Submissions

A total of 30 submissions opposing the proposed marina were received by Council during the public notification period in 2009, with a further 16 submissions received when the application was originally notified in 2005. The submissions relate to concerns regarding the environmental and other impacts of the proposed development, including:

Loss of dolphins, which are currently a significant tourism draw card to this area.

Impacts on RAMSAR wetlands within the Great Sandy Marine Park from increased boat traffic and wash.

Destruction of sea grass beds. Impact on and loss of endangered species. Lack of public safety in Snapper Creek due to increased boat numbers.

These concerns are not exhaustive, and many of the submissions are lengthy and comprehensive in their analysis of the proposal and its perceived impacts. However, Council can only address concerns relating to those aspects of the application assessable against the planning scheme. Concerns relating to those parts of the rock wall and boardwalk within the Houseboat Hire and Caretaker’s Residence zoned area have not been specifically mentioned in any of the submissions and as such, the issues raised by the submitters are beyond the scope of Council to address. Many of the issues and concerns raised by the submitters relate to matters to be considered by State agencies as part of their assessment against relevant State codes. However, there is no legislative requirement for State agencies to receive or consider submissions as part of the assessment process. This highlights the inadequacy of the planning and development framework as it applies to this application. Public notification of the proposal inviting submissions was required, although no entity has the statutory responsibility to consider and address the concerns raised by the community and others (other than Council, in respect of the rock wall and boardwalk).



Submitters opposing the application would be right to consider their concerns have been largely ignored; however, this is the product of shortcomings in the legislation as described above. The situation is compounded by the fact that the grounds of any appeal instituted by submitters against Council’s decision can only relate to those parts of the application which are impact assessable against the planning scheme (i.e. the rock wall and boardwalk). Of some consolation to the submitters is the fact that the proposed marina has been deemed to be a controlled action under the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The proposal will need to be publicly notified as part of that process, and the responsible Government Department will be required to consider submissions before advising the Minister in respect to matters of national environmental significance. 6.0 State Agency Input The development application was referred to the following State agencies (as they were known at the time of referral):

Environmental Protection Agency Department of Main Roads Maritime Safety Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries

All concurrence agency responses have been provided. Apart from the Department of Transport and Main Roads, which had no requirements, all other agencies have comprehensively conditioned their approval of the application. All concurrence agency responses, including the conditions of approval, are required to be attached to Council’s decision notice. 7.0 Design Services Division Report

This engineering report is limited to the impacts on Council infrastructure only. Generally, although it is a relatively large development, its impact on Council infrastructure is not commensurate with the scale of the development and the impact on state owned infrastructure and facilities.



TRAFFIC All traffic to and from the site will be via the declared road system. Some traffic will disperse onto the local street network but not in any defined manner. The estimated peak day flows on weekends is 400-600 trips per day. This application was lodged under the previous urban contribution policy of (the equivalent of) so much per lot (currently $307 per lot). In cases where direct access was to a declared road with traffic dispersed to the local network a factor of 50% was applied to determine a reasonable contribution towards upgrading the Council's road network due to the increased traffic. This would result in a contribution of $6,140 to $9,210 being applicable. It is standard practice to apply this contribution amount towards footpath construction in the general vicinity. However, as the Department of Transport and Main Roads has no responsibility as regards footpaths, the 50% reduction should not apply. ACCESS Access to the expanded car park will be to the Department of Transport and Main Roads requirements. STORMWATER The drainage of the site is such that all runoff will be directed towards the Snapper Creek side of the development with pipe discharges into the State controlled Boat Harbour waters. WATER AND SEWERAGE The Water and Sewerage General Manager advises that the consultant’s responses to information requests contain numerous assumptions that are not supported by specific cases. As such there is considerable differences in assessing what water demands and sewage discharges will result from the development. As a result of these differences, certain non trunk works not previously identified in the Headworks Policies have been identified as necessary to accommodate the extra water demands and sewerage discharges. These works have been described in the appropriate special conditions. Council’s headworks charges should be based on the Planning Scheme criteria and this has been used to determine the headworks amounts conditioned. A Trade Waste Application will also be required which will need to address the impact on final discharges of effluent at the treatment plant. 8.0 Conclusion

Council’s lack of ability to undertake a comprehensive merits assessment of this application is problematic, and the legislative framework is considered to be responsible for creating false expectations in relation to the community’s ability to oppose the proposed development.



Refusal of the application based on the impacts of a short length of boardwalk and small section of rock wall is considered to be unrealistic, and given that no concurrence agency has directed Council to refuse the application, conditional approval has been recommended. The contribution amounts required by Conditions 7, 8 and 11 were still being calculated at the time this report was prepared, and will be provided at the meeting.

P04/02/10 Moved: Cr R.J. Dyne Seconded: Cr R.A. Gâté

Recommend that Council as Assessment Manager Approve development application DA10931 for Material Change of Use and Operational Works – Marina and Associated Marine Facilities over Lots 111 MCH5158, Lot 101 MCH4879 & Lot 80 MCH5583 located at The Esplanade, Tin Can Bay subject to the following conditions: Conditions to be Satisfied Prior to Commencement of the Approved Use 1. The approved plans are those plans referenced on pages 4 and 5 of

the Referral Agency Response from the Department of Environment and Resource Management dated 11 December 2009.

2. The development herein approved may not start until:

(i) the following development permit has been issued and complied with as required -

(a) Development Permit for Operational Work (for the rock wall and boardwalk within that part of the site zoned Special Facilities – Houseboat Hire and Caretaker’s Residence); and

(ii) development authorised by the above permit has been completed to the satisfaction of Council’s Chief Executive Officer.

3. A contribution is to be paid to Council towards the provision of

footpaths in the general area. The amount is currently assessed at $18,420 but will be based on Council’s policy and the rate applicable at the time of payment.

4. All necessary permits from the Department of Main Roads are to be

obtained for the purpose of constructing an access onto The Esplanade, Tin Can Bay.

5. The development herein approved may not start until written

confirmation is provided to Council that access to The Esplanade, Tin Can Bay is constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Main Roads.



6. All operations conducted on the site shall be carried out in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1994 and other relevant Acts, Regulations and Local Laws.

7. Contribution is to be made towards Water Supply Headworks in

accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 7: Water Supply and Sewerage Headworks Contributions, Works External and Works Internal. The contribution is currently assessed at $ 288,758.80, however, the actual amount payable will be based on Council's policy and the rate applicable, at the time of payment.

8. Contribution is to be made towards Sewerage Headworks in

accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 7: Water Supply and Sewerage Headworks Contributions, Works External and Works Internal. The contribution is currently assessed at $ 373,137.80, however the actual amount payable will be based on Council's policy and the rate applicable, at the time of payment.

9. Connection is to be made to Council’s existing Water Supply and

Sewerage reticulation systems at no cost to Council in accordance with a development permit for Operational Works approving the required plans and specifications for such works.

10. Water meter/s and service/s shall be installed to landscaped areas

approved in the development permit to the satisfaction of Council’s Chief Executive Officer.

11. Satisfy the requirements of Energex and Telstra in relation to any

existing services which currently traverse the subject site. Suitable arrangements shall be made to formalise any existing informal service arrangements to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities.

12. Undertake at no cost to Council, the alteration of any public utility

mains (eg. Electricity, water, sewerage, gas etc.) or other facilities necessitated by the development of the land or associated construction works external to the site.

13. Underground utility services are to be provided. If provided an “as

constructed” plan of all utility services is to be provided to Council upon completion of the approved development.

14. The method of treatment of any acid sulfate soils likely to be

encountered during construction of the works is to be in accordance with State Planning Policy 2/02 Guidelines and incorporated into the Operational Works plans submitted.



15. The internal driveway is to be constructed in a manner to provide suitable access for a refuse collection vehicle to the satisfaction of Council’s Chief Executive Officer.

16. Prior to commencement of the use the following are to be provided in

accordance with the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000: (i) approved refuse containers; (ii) a centralised refuse storage enclosure comprising an

imperviously paved area provided with a hose cock and hose; (iii) drainage designed to prevent stormwater entering Council’s

sewer. 17. In accordance with Planning Scheme Policy 11: Roadworks

Contributions a contribution is to be paid toward road improvements as a result of the increased traffic generated by this development. The amount is currently assessed at $9,210, however will be in accordance with Council’s Policy and the amount applicable at the time of payment.

18. Stormwater is to be disposed of on site so as to cause no scour or

damage to adjoining properties to the satisfaction of Council’s Chief Executive Officer.

19. Any plans for operational works, water supply and sewerage works,

drainage works and street lighting required by this development permit, are to be surveyed, designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s Infrastructure Works Code.

20. As the result of additional water demands generated by this

development, a new 150 diameter water main is to be constructed from Oyster Parade to the Marina development via Emperor Street, Cod Street and The Esplanade.

21. As the result of additional sewage discharges generated by this

development, a new rising main is to be constructed between Pump Station 2 to Pump Station 8 for a distance of approximately 800 metres with appropriate upgrading of all pumping equipment at Pump Station 2.

Carried.

Mr M. Hartley left the meeting at 9.29 a.m. and returned to the meeting at 9.30 a.m.



2/2 2009-0267 – Material Change of Use – Display Yard (Nursery and Landscape

Supply Centre) – 246 McIntosh Creek Road and Perkins Road Jones Hill – T & T Kickbusch FILE NO: Minute: P05/02/10 2009-0267 APPLICANT: T & T Kickbusch LANDOWNER: T & T Kickbusch RPD: Lot 7 SP 186024 SITE ADDRESS: 246 McIntosh Creek Road and

Perkins Road, Jones Hill CURRENT USE OF LAND: Dwelling PROPOSAL: Material Change of Use – Display

Yard (Nursery and Landscape Supply Centre)

EXISTING ZONE: Rural Residential LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT: Code SUBMISSIONS: Nil



KEY POINT SUMMARY

Application to establish a Display Yard (Nursery and Landscape Supply Centre).

Application lodged for assessment against Cooloola Shire Council’s Planning Scheme 2005.

Property is zoned Rural Residential for which a Display Yard (Nursery and Landscape Supply Centre) development is a code assessable inconsistent use.

Issues relating to amenity (noise, dust and area character), access road standard and other matters are dealt with in the report, with the conclusion that the application should not be supported.

MCU to establish a Display Yard (Nursery and Landscape Supply Centre) development at Lot 7 SP 186024 at 246 McIntosh Creek Road and Perkins Road Jones Hill is recommended for refusal.

Report:(GHD and Principal Planner – K.M. Toomey) 1.0 INTRODUCTION This application seeks Council’s approval for a Material Change of Use for the purpose of a Display Yard (Nursery and Landscape Supply Centre) at 246 McIntosh Creek Road and Perkins Road, Jones Hill formally described as Lot 7 SP 186024. 1.1 Site Description

The site is located at 246 McIntosh Creek Road and Perkins Road Jones Hill, measuring 1.428 hectares.

There is a dwelling on the property. The subject site is a rear access lot with the sealed driveway within the

handle access from McIntosh Creek Road. The site has a road frontage to Perkins Road, which is an unsealed rural road servicing about three (3) lots.

The site slopes from McIntosh Creek Road to the east. A drainage line, which flows east, runs through the middle of the site and there are two (2) dams over the drainage line. Site slopes in areas are moderate and are steeper adjacent to the main drainage line.

The site contains scattered trees and with grass ground cover. The vegetation is not regionally significant but does serve a local amenity role.

The adjoining sites contain dwellings and are at the interface of the rural and rural residential area on the fringe of the Jones Hill precinct. The area is best described as rural residential in character.



Significant development preparation works for the proposed use have been completed on site.

1.2 The Proposal The application seeks approval for a Display Yard (Nursery and Landscape Supply Centre). The proposed scale of the use has been reduced as a result of the issues raised in the assessment of the proposal, the further information request by Council and the resultant investigations. The revised site plan D-01060-01-C dated 19/10/09 shows the proposed development. The proposed development includes the following:

Retail display nursery 211m2; Shop and office 108 m2; Six (6) landscape supply bins each 6 m x 5 m; Six (6) customer car parks with access to Perkins Road; Customer toilet with new disposal area; Total use area of 500 m2; Retention of the dwelling and outbuildings with access to McIntosh

Creek Road; and Site landscaping and improvements.

Some of the operational characteristics of the proposed use, described in the proposal by the Applicant’s consultant, are as follows;

- The use will provide a local delivery service within a 25 km radius; with a maximum of 7 delivery trips per week and a maximum of 7 trips per week for delivery of supplies,

- The Applicants anticipate about 5 to 10 customers per week day and 15 to 20 per Saturday,

- Hours of operation are proposed to be 7 am to 5 pm Monday to Friday and 7 am to 12 noon on Saturdays,

- No storage of fuels or hazardous goods is proposed, - Screen fencing and landscaping is proposed in an attempt to limit visual

impacts to the neighbours, - Water for the use will be provided from the dams and tanks on site, - The dams on site will assist with sediment control, - One truck and one loader are proposed to be used and stored on site.

The applicant proposes dust reduced upgrading of Perkins Road from McIntosh Creek Road to the site access. Internal driveways and parking are proposed as dust reduced gravel. The application is supported by a;

1. Proposal plan, 2. Town Planning report, 3. Effluent disposal report, 4. Noise report.



The proposed layout is reproduced below.

1.3 Surrounding Land Uses The proposed development is within an area that is predominately rural residential in nature, at the interface of the rural residential and rural areas. The nearest non-residential use would be at the Jones Hill local shopping facility.



2.0 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS 2.1 Overall Outcomes / Desired Environmental Outcomes The subject site is zoned Rural Residential and this zoning is consistent with the surrounding land use. The introduction of an industrial/commercial activity of the nature proposed is not foreshadowed by the Planning Scheme within the rural residential zone. On this basis, the proposal is in direct conflict with the Planning Scheme and has the potential to impact negatively on the neighbourhood in relation to a range of issues, including:

- Loss of amenity and character, - Increased dust, - Problems with sediment and water quality, - Increased noise, - Poor external road standard.

Further discussion of these issues is outlined below. 2.2 Overlays / Natural Hazards / State Planning Policies 2.2.1 GQAL The site is identified as containing Class A and B GQAL. Given the existing lot size, nature of the land use, zoning and site constraints the loss of the site to any agricultural production is not significant and would not be a reason to refuse the proposal on its own. 2.2.2 Erosion Hazard The site falls within the very low to high erosion hazard category. Given that some of the proposed use is within the drainage line and the potential for erosion, some care would need to be exercised to ensure erosion and sediment discharge could be adequately managed. 2.3 Assessment Against Codes

Codes applicable to this application include:

- Gympie Planning Area Code - Infrastructure Works Code - Landscaping Code - Erosion and Sediment Control Code - Vehicle Parking & Access Code

A brief overview of the proposal’s compliance with the relevant Code provisions of the Scheme is provided in the following sections.



2.3.1 Gympie Planning Area Code Effects of Use The effects of the use in relation to light can be addressed by standard conditions. It is noted that night security lighting can be made to conform with the required standards but will be out of character with its setting. The effects of the use in relation to noise impacts have been addressed by a noise report submitted to support the application. In addition to the noise report the applicants’ Town Planner has suggested that the operation will aim to minimise noise generated by:

1. the use of muted vehicle reversing alert beepers; 2. rubber linings in the trays and buckets of onsite vehicles; 3. provision of screen fencing and landscaping around the landscape

supply area; and 4. limited hours of operation.

These restrictions are the minimum required to address the potential noise impacts. The restrictions would be difficult to enforce should complaints arise, suggesting that the site may not be appropriate to accommodate the proposed activity. Potential dust impacts (storage areas and internal driveways and parking) could be managed by the use of appropriate road surfaces and sprinklers over the landscape storage areas. Again, this would be a difficult requirement to enforce, and there is some concern regarding the adequacy of available on-site water for the use and required dust suppression during prolonged dry periods. Potential dust impacts on the external roads can be addressed by requiring Perkins Road to be sealed from the site access back to McIntosh Creek Road. The applicant has not offered to do this work (presumably because of the considerable expense involved), but it is considered to be warranted, should the application be approved. In short, the conditions required to address local amenity considerations would need to be overly onerous, and would more than likely lead to ongoing enforcement issues for Council in the future. Any risk that Council would not be able to maintain the expected level of amenity for the surrounding rural residential area should lead to refusal of the application on the basis of it constituting an unacceptable land use conflict at this location.

Scale, Siting and Provision of Buildings, Structures and Other Works The scale and siting of the buildings and uses are acceptable in relation to the boundaries of the site. There is some concern that they are located over the drainage line on site and there is the potential for drainage issues in times of heaviest runoff.



There is the need to reinforce the site perimeter landscaping to screen the use from the adjoining dwellings. 2.3.2 Infrastructure Works Code

Services

The new use proposes no connection to Council services. The proposed development has access to electricity and telecommunications infrastructure. No headwork charges are applicable to this proposal. Stormwater The site stormwater should be managed to flow through the site and its dams and this issue should be managed properly via a detail design. Frontage Road Perkins Road is a gravel road back to McIntosh Creek Road. The applicant has offered to upgrade the road with a dust reduced pavement, however as previously discussed, it is considered that Perkins Road should be sealed to facilitate commercial traffic accessing the site. McIntosh Creek Road is identified as an arterial road and is generally a two (2) lane sealed road, however the pavement is not full width and in areas there is evidence of vehicles running off the road on curves and other locations. This suggests that this road is operating to capacity and the introduction of additional commercial traffic may not be appropriate without associated upgrading. The applicants were requested by Council to provide a traffic report addressing this issue, however the request was declined. 2.3.3 Landscaping Code The Planning Scheme requires a minimum three (3), average four (4) meter wide landscape setback adjacent to Perkins Road. The current proposal incorporates this element. In addition it is recommended that a subsequent condition on any approval be imposed requiring the submission of a detailed landscape plan to Council for assessment and approval in accordance with Planning Scheme Policy 4: Landscape Plans and Plant Species.



2.3.4 Erosion and Sediment Control Code An approval condition requiring the preparation of a Construction and Operational Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be imposed for implementation prior to commencement of the use on site. 2.3.5 Vehicle Parking and Access Code Under Schedule 10: Minimum Parking Requirements, the proposed Display Yard attracts a parking rate of one (1) space per 100 m2 of total use area. The proposal includes parking provision for six (6) cars, which will be adequate for the use. 2.4 State Planning Policies The State Planning Policy relating to GQAL is addressed above (section 2.2.1) and no other State Planning Polices are applicable to this application. 3.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The application was not required to be publicly advertised in accordance with the Integrated Planning Act 1997. The application was referred to the adjoining properties for information and no public submissions were received. 4.0 CONSULTATION 4.1 Internal a) Design Services Division Report: (Infrastructure Planning Manager – A. Laszlo) This engineering report is based on the information submitted by applicant. TRAFFIC The traffic contribution is calculated as per rural residential charge rate of $11,159/lot. The applicant submitted traffic generation of 156 trips per week (ie. 156/5.5 = 28 trips per day). Therefore the proposed use is equivalent to 2.8 Rural Residential lots. Hence a contribution of $31,245 (2.8x$11,159) is justified.



FRONTAGE ROAD/ACCESS/CARPARKING The proposed development site has two frontages. McIntosh Creek Road is constructed and sealed while Perkins Road is gravelled and maintained for the entire length of the southern property boundary. The applicant has proposed for the existing sealed residential access off the McIntosh Creek Road battle axe handle be used for entry only to the proposed development with an exit point being located on Perkins Road. The access from McIntosh Creek Road should be restricted for non commercial use and all commercial use vehicles enter and exit via Perkins Road. Therefore, Perkins Road should be upgraded to 7.0m seal on 7.0m formation up to the development entrance and the remaining frontage to be upgraded to 4.5m seal on 7.0m formation. This will be at a relatively expensive cost at approximately $85,000. The access driveway, car parking and loading zone are to comply with AS2890.1 and AS2890.2, with all vehicles to enter and exit in a forward direction. The existing car park is a good quality dust reduced surface and should suffice. STORMWATER Run off from the car parking area and building should be discharged on-site and into the existing natural drain on-site. There is an existing natural drainage corridor through the site with two water storages already constructed. A stormwater management plan should be provided for the development to manage possible contaminants.

FLOODING The development site is above the Q100 flooding event. WATER/SEWERAGE Both services are provided for on-site and are not subject to any Headworks charges. SERVICES The developer will be required to provide electrical and communication services to the site with any upgrades at the developer’s costs. 4.2 External There are no external referral or advice agencies.



5.0 CONCLUSION The proposed Display Yard constitutes an inconsistent use at this location and is therefore in direct conflict with the Planning Scheme. The decision-making rules of the Integrated Planning Act restrict Council’s ability to approve the application to circumstances where there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict. In this instance, sufficient planning grounds have not been identified to justify support for the application based on planning merit. There is nothing particularly unusual or unique about the development site. Rather, it is a typical rural residential lot and considered to be unsuitable to accommodate the proposed use. The level of rural residential intactness and amenity in this locality is high, given the absence of any commercial/industrial intrusion over the years. The proposed development would be likely to affect existing amenity levels in an adverse way, and in the absence of compelling grounds to support the proposal, approval of the application may place Council in a difficult position when considering similar, equally undesirable proposals in the future. On this basis, refusal of the application has been recommended.

P05/02/10 Moved: Cr A.J. Perrett Seconded: Cr D.R. Neilson Recommend that Council, as Assessment Manager, REFUSE development application 2009-0267 for Material Change of Use – Display Yard (Nursery and Landscape Supply Centre) over Lot 7 SP186024 located at 246 McIntosh Creek Road and Perkins Road Gympie, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is an inconsistent use and therefore

conflicts with the Planning Scheme at this location; 2. Sufficient grounds to justify approval of the application, despite the

conflict have not been established; 3. Council considers the proposal will create unacceptable amenity

impacts on the surrounding properties; and 4. The use proposed is out of character with the locality and

surrounding properties. Carried.



2/3 2009-0779 – Representations for Development Approval for Material Change of Use – General Industry (Crane Hire Depot) – Langton Road and Bas Lewis Drive Monkland – Samred Pty Ltd T/A KG Property Investment Trust Re: Minute: P06/02/10 Representations for Development Approval for

Material Change of Use – General Industry (Crane Hire Depot) From: Samred Pty Ltd T/A KG Property Investment Trust c/- Martoo

Consulting File: 2009-0779 Date: 7 December 2009

Report: (Manager Development and Compliance – T.M. Stenholm) 1.0 Introduction Approval for a material change of use for a General Industry (Crane Hire Depot) was approved by Council at its General Meeting held on 4 November 2009.



The applicant submitted representations on 7 December 2009 in relation to conditions requiring amendments to the proposal plans, road upgrading, car parking and a standard condition in relation to any works.



2.0 Representations 2.1 Condition 1.1 (a) Council’s Condition ‘The development shall be generally in accordance with the plan/s submitted with the application (Plan No/s D-01096-01-C drawn by Martoo Consulting and dated 19/08/2009). except for the following amendments: (i) A 2.0 metre high screen fence shall be provided along the side boundary

of the site where no buildings are built to the boundary. (ii) Building elevations demonstrating that the building complied with a

maximum height of 9.5 metres above existing ground levels. (iii) The road frontage building setback is to be increased to a minimum of six

(6) metres. (iv) Ensure the required numbers of car parks are contained within the

development in accordance with the Planning Scheme provisions. This can be achieved by reducing the total use are or increasing the number of car parks or a combination of both. Please note that the crane parking spaces are considered to be part of use and not parking spaces for the purposes of the Planning Scheme interpretation.

Prior to lodging a development application for Building Works three (3) copies of amended development plans showing the above modifications shall be submitted to Council for consideration and approval. The approved plans, once endorsed by Council’s Chief Executive Officer, shall become part of this Development Permit.’ (b) Applicant’s Representations “The applicant accepts items (i) and (ii) but is concerned with items (iii) and (iv) of this condition as follows:- Item (iii) The applicant has requested that Council reduce the boundary setbacks to the office and WC to be below the 6 metres required by Council. To further assist these negotiations with Council the applicant has prepared the enclosed amended proposal plan numbered D-01096-01-D. Grounds that support such a request include but by no means limited to the following:- The six (6) metre road setback is a Probable Solution and not a Specific Outcome and therefore can easily be varied providing generally the proposal complies with the relevant Specific Outcome. The proposal is considered to comply with the relevant Specific Outcome which requires that . . . ‛Buildings, structures and access to the natural light and breeze of adjoining and surrounding premises and allow the provision of landscaping.’



The proposal is considered to comply with this Specific Outcome in that, among things:-

the encroachment within Council’s preferred six (6) metres road setback is only about 1.3 metres which represents a floor area of just 3.5m2;

the proposed office for the adjoining WC are articulated and in face only the corner of each structure protrude into the 6 metre road boundary setback;

the setback proposed can accommodate the minimum landscaping widths as preferred by Council’s planning scheme and the applicant is prepared to undertake tiered landscape in front of those two parts of the building positioned within the 6 metre road boundary setback;

the road (reserve) width at this location is wider and continues to increase in width as it extends towards Bas Lewis Drive;

the structures are located on the outside of a curve which further assists in minimising any impact of buildings marginally within the required 6 metres setback;

the proposed 4,7m wide road boundary setback does not adversely impact the ‘privacy and access to natural light and breeze of any adjoining and surrounding premises.’

Item (iv) The applicant considers the enclosed plans should be approved with respect to parking spaces and provides the following grounds in support:-

proposed GFA as shown the enclosed amended plan totals approximately 890m2 which would itself require 10 parking spaces under the 2005 Cooloola Planning Scheme. The proposed additional external area includes an area for the storage of attachment to cranes and the like. It is suggested that the storage of attachments for cranes would not normally be relied in calculating additional parking spaces as these areas not attract additional traffic as these are do not require additional staff or attract additional visitors to the premises.

the Council approval does not indicate whether the crane parking spaces are included noting that there are a total of 20 parking spaces are provided which in excess of the 18 stated. All cranes will be registered for road use and deemed to be vehicles not unlike trucks and the like. The cranes will be taken from the site whenever in use and thereby be regarded a “car parking spaces” in satisfying this condition.

the cranes are larger pieces of equipment and the proposed buildings have suitably large enough in terms of GFA so as to accommodate this larger equipment rather than to accommodate a larger number of staff.

a crane hire premises is not a use that attracts a high number of visitors or customers.

Refer also to those representations to condition 2.9 below for additional grounds.



Requested Amended Condition 1.1: The applicant requests that this condition is amended to allow the approval of the enclosed amended proposal plan numbered D-01096-01-D.’

(c) Assessment The amended plan is considered acceptable for the increased setback to the new 564m2 shed to three (3) metres. Whilst six (6) metres is not achieved to the Langton Road frontage for the eastern boundary, a three (3) metre landscaped strip is proposed and this frontage adjoins a widening of the road reserve that is unlikely to ever be constructed.



The proposed 29m2 office, however, should be located at the usual six (6) metre setback given the future likeliness of the frontage (Bas Lewis Drive) being constructed to access additional industrial land. Car parking requirements in the planning scheme for a General Industry are: ‘Either: (a) 2 spaces per tenancy plus 1 space per 100m2 of GFA; or (b) where the use involves external areas – 1 space per 100m2 of total use

area.’ As the use involves external display of cranes for hire the calculations were made on total use area and not GFA. The amended proposal plan submitted replaces previously allocated crane parking with an additional three (3) car parking spaces, totalling 14 for the development, and provides additional grounds for Council to consider a reduction to that required by the planning scheme. This reduces the total use area to less than 1 400m2 and results in compliant car parking. 2.2 Condition 2.1 (a) Council’s Condition ‘Langton Road is to be upgraded. Specifically the following works are to be undertaken in accordance with plans and specifications approved by Council’s Chief Executive Officer: (i) widen the pavement and seal on the north eastern side to 5 metres from

the centre line of the existing seal from the western boundary of Ettie Jane Street to the southern boundary of the development.’

(b) Applicant’s Representations ‘The applicant is concerned with the extent of road upgrading works as required by Council in this condition. The applicant is prepared to upgrade the roadway along the frontage of the subject side but is not supportive on extending back to Ettie Jane Street. Langton Road currently provides access for a considerable catchment and a range of industrial uses and activities. The subject site was previously used for mining related activities which would be expected to have generated traffic levels similar to many industrial type uses. The applicant considers that the construction of the roadworks from the site to Ettie Jane Street is not reasonable or relevant requirement under the Integrated Planning Act given any increase in traffic as likely to be generated by this particular application.



Requested Amended Condition 2.1: The applicant requests that this condition be amended to require the width of the upgrading works as currently specified to extend along the frontage of the subject site.’ (c) Assessment Original engineering comments made in relation to frontage roads were as follows: ‘Bas Lewis Drive is constructed as an unsealed carpark. Langton Road is a rural cross-section 6.5 metre seal from Langton Road; access to the property and Bas Lewis Drive is over a 450 diameter piped gravel driveway. It is considered unlikely that Council will upgrade the Eastern side of Langton Road to industrial access standard for the frontage of the Pulp Mill site. Industrial standard being 12 metre wide seal with kerb and channel and underground stormwater drainage. Therefore it is recommended that the applicant not be required to upgrade to this standard. Further, Langton Road carriageway is located very close to the western boundary, allowing room on the eastern side for an existing “service road” between the table drain and the boundary. It is suggested that widening the seal from Ettie Jane Street to the northern boundary of the site should give sufficient provision for the future. Access to site should be provided at the existing access point to Council Standard. This will provide about 115 metres (80km/hr) sight distance.’ The condition requires half width road upgrading and only to the point of access to the development which is considered reasonable. The estimated cost of this work is $34 000, and it is suggested a note be added to the condition allowing the developer to pay a contribution in lieu. 2.3 Condition 2.9 (a) Council’s Condition ‘Provide at least 18 off-street car parking spaces (including access and manoeuvring areas). Note: This number may be reduced if the total use area is reduced as a result of condition 1.1 amendments.’ (b) Applicant’s Representations ‘The applicant requests amends(sic) this condition to confirm that the parking numbers and concept as shown on the enclosed amended proposal plan numbered D-01096-01-D is suitable and also further amends or otherwise notes this condition to confirm that the six proposed crane parking spaces are to be considered as part of the 18 vehicle parking spaces as required by this condition.’



(c) Assessment As per comments for condition 1.1, car parking requirement can be reduced to 14 as shown on the amended plan. 2.4 Condition 2.12 (a) Council’s Condition ‘Any plans for operational works, water supply and sewerage works, drainage works and street lighting required by this development permit, are to be surveyed, designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s Infrastructure Works Code.’ (b) Applicant’s Representations ‘The applicant is aware that this is a standard condition listed on many development approvals as issued by Gympie Regional Council. However the applicant holds concerns that this condition references “street lighting” works especially when Council has also required a contribution of $1000 towards street lighting in Condition 1.4. Requested Amended Condition 2.12: The applicant requests that Council deletes reference to “street lighting” in condition 2.12.’ (c) Assessment This standard Council condition refers to ‘any’ street lighting required by this development permit, therefore if no street lighting is required it doesn’t apply. Whilst no objection is offered to its deletion, it is considered unnecessary and would be time consuming for all conditions to be tailored in this detail during the preparation of approval conditions.

P06/02/10 Moved: Cr L.J. Friske Seconded: Cr R.A. Gâté Recommend that in relation to development application (2009-0779) for Material Change of Use – General Industry (Crane Hire Depot) over Lot 357 on SP102746 located at Langton Road and Bas Lewis Drive, Monkland Council issue a Negotiated Decision Notice incorporating the following: (i) condition 1.1 amended to read: ‘The development shall be generally in accordance with the plan/s submitted with the application (Plan No/s D-01096-01-D drawn by Martoo Consulting and dated 18/11/2009) except for the following amendments:



(i) A 2.0 metre high screen fence shall be provided along the side boundary of the site where no buildings are built to the boundary.

(ii) Building elevations demonstrating that the building complied with a maximum height of 9.5 metres above existing ground levels.

(ii) The road frontage building setback of the 29m2 office on Bas Lewis Drive is to be increased to a minimum of six (6) metres.’

(ii) Condition 2.1 to read: ‘Langton Road is to be upgraded. Specifically the following works are to be undertaken in accordance with plans and specifications approved by Council’s Chief Executive Officer: (i) widen the pavement and seal on the north eastern side to 5 metres from

the centre line of the existing seal from the western boundary of Ettie Jane Street to the southern boundary of the development.

Note: Council will accept a monetary contribution of $34 000 (subject to indexation annually from the date of this approval in accordance with ABS ANZSIC Class 4121) as satisfactory compliance with this condition.’ (iii) Condition 2.9 to read: ‘Provide at least 14 off-street car parking spaces (including access and manoeuvring areas).’ (iv) Condition 2.12 to read: ‘Any plans for operational works, water supply and sewerage works and drainage works required by this development permit, are to be surveyed, designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s Infrastructure Works Code.’

Carried.



2/4 DA17646 – Request to Change an Existing Approval – Material Change of Use

– Special Industry (Concrete Batching Plant) – 9 Karoonda Road, Rainbow Beach – Buckley’s Bulk Haulage

Re: Minute: P07/02/10 Representations to Material Change of Use –

Special Industry (Concrete Batching Plant) – 9 Karoonda Road, Rainbow Beach

From: Martoo Consulting File: DA17646 Site: 9 Karoonda Road, Rainbow Beach RPD: Lot 11 RB96922

Report: (Planning Officer – M. K. Matthews) 1.0 INTRODUCTION

An application for Material Change of Use – Special Industry (Concrete Batching Plan) over Lot 9 RB96922, was approved by Council on 2 February 2009. Representations were lodged subsequent to this approval, and a report was written to Council with a Negotiated Decision Notice being issued 8 July 2009. A copy of this report can be found as Council Minute P08/07/09 and is reproduced overleaf.



Report: Planning Officer – M. K. Matthews) 1.0 INTRODUCTION Development approval for Material Change of Use for a Special Industry (Concrete Batching Plant) & Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA #62 – Concrete Batching Plant having a Design Capacity of More than 100t per Annum was issued on 02 February 2009. The proposal was approved as per the plans reproduced below.



The applicant suspended their appeal period on 04 February 2009 and lodged representations in relation to some of the conditions on 17 February 2009. The conditions requested to be reconsidered are outlined below. 2.0 REPRESENTATIONS Representations are submitted in relation to Condition numbered – 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 2.3.



2.1 Condition 1.2 Council’s Condition reads: ‘Contribution is to be made towards Water Supply Headworks in accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 7. The contribution amount is currently assessed at $211,672; however, the actual amount payable will be based on Council’s policy and the rate applicable to the time of payment.’ 2.1.2 Applicant’s Representations ‘The applicant is aware that Council have utilised the maximum design capacity figure rather than a relative production capacity figure to calculate Water Supply Headworks in this instance. This may be due to different agencies having different interpretations and definitions for the various “capacities” involved. As this development application is seeking an ERA, it is considered appropriate to rely on the EPA’s interpretation which is explained in some detail by that agency. The following information is therefore provided to clarify the proposed production capacity and assist Council’s understanding of the term ‘capacity’ as relevant to the assessment of this application under the Environmental Protection Act. The maximum design capacity of the proposed concrete batching plant at full operation, disregarding all operational parameters is 400m3 per day. This is based on the following calculations: Maximum design capacity of 16⅔m3 per hour x 24 hours x 365 days = 146,000m3 per annum or 400m3 per day. Importantly, the calculated maximum design capacity is not representative of the maximum production capacity of the plant given operational constraints, or the expected actual rate of production based on demand for the product in a serviceable area. The maximum production capacity of the proposed concrete batching plant, in consideration of all operational parameters including number of employees, capacity of concrete delivery trucks, hours of operation and expected number of operating days is 266.4m3 per week or 44.4m3 per day when averaged over a 300 day standard working year. This is based on the following calculations:

- Maximum employees – 3 casual part time staff; no (0) full time staff; - Maximum number of concrete trucks available for product delivery -2; - Maximum capacity of concrete trucks – 6m3 to 9m3; - Maximum production rate per hour – 9m3; - Maximum production hours per day – 8 hours out of 12 working hours;

and,



- Maximum operating days per year – 185 days out of 300 standard working days (50 working weeks) due to weather delays, plant maintenance plant break-down, staff availability and other factors.

Therefore, maximum production capacity = 9m3 per hour x 8 hours x 185 days = 13,320m3 per year or 72m3 per operating day (maximum 36.5m3 of concrete production per day over a 365 day period). However, the maximum production capacity far exceeds demand for concrete in the Rainbow Beach area and surrounding localities, and is therefore not representative of the actual amount of concrete production required to meet the demands of the local area. In consideration of the actual demand for concrete in the Rainbow Beach locality and surrounding areas, the expected actual rate of production for the proposed concrete batching plant can be described as follows:

- A maximum of 60m3 per week when producing concrete for a slab on ground house;

- A maximum of 20m3 per day when producing concrete for a slab on ground house;

- A Maximum of 9m3 per hour when producing concrete for a slab on ground house;

- An average production rate of 20m3 per week when averaged over the standard working year (50 weeks);

- An average production rate of 5.4m3 per day when averaged over the maximum operational days in a working year (3.7 days/week = 185 days); and

- An average of 0.675m3 per hour when average over the likely operational hours in a working year (8 hours/maximum operational day = 1480 hours).

The following list provides an indication of demand parameters considered to impact on the expected actual rate of production:

- Expected rate of demand – up to 12 slab houses per year @ approx 55m3 per house (including driveway) and up to 10 pole houses per year @ 20m3 per house (including driveway). This amount exceeds 2007 demand of 9 slab houses and 8 pole houses;

- Expected production rate per hour – 6m3; - Expected production hours per operating day – 6 hours (5am to

11am);



- Expected production hours per operating day – 3 hours (see Example

1 below);

- Expected operating days per month – average of 6 per month over a year due to demand and other factors outlined above (see Examples 2,3 and 4 below);

Example 3: 7 days per month May: Week 1 – Driveway poured

on Monday, no other jobs booked May: Week 2 – Residential slab

poured on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday

May: Week 3 –Driveway poured on Wednesday, Driveway poured on Thursday, Residential stumps poured on Friday

May: week 4 – Job booked, but rain ceases concrete pouring work

Example 1: Standard operating day Concrete production 5am to

6.30am, Concrete delivery 6.30am to

7.30am, Concrete production 7.30am to

9am, Concrete delivery 9am to 10am,

and Clean up 10am to 11am.

Example 2: 5 days per month April: Week 1 – Job booked, but

rain ceases concrete pouring work April: Week 2 – Residential slab

poured on Monday and Tuesday and driveway poured on Thursday

April: Week 3 – No jobs booked April: Week 4 – Residential half slab

on Tuesday and stumps on Wednesday



- Expected operating months per year – average 9.5 per year due to lack of construction demand during summer period.

Expected actual rate of production = 6m3 per hour x 3 hours x 57 days = 1026m3. This amount is equivalent to 18m3 of concrete production per operating day or an overall average of 2.8m3 of concrete production per day over a 365 day period. It is noted that this actual expected production capacity would still result in the production of concrete in excess of that required for residential development in the Rainbow Beach locality in 2007, but is considered to provide a good representation of the expected rate of concreted production required to meet projected residential demand over the next four (4) years. Importantly, the applicant expects 50% of any water utilised in concrete batching operations to be reused for various aspects of the operation, including the production of concrete for footings, driveways, footpaths and concealed slabs. The concrete industry and local governments such as Brisbane City Council embrace the benefit of water recycling at concrete batching plants. It is noted that Council staff have questioned aspects of such an approach however, no additional information has ever been provided and Council staff have not detailed their concerns to the applicant. Notwithstanding all of the above, the site comprises a lot zoned for Industrial use, which has a Water Supply Density of 7.0 under the relevant planning scheme policy. Accordingly, as per s7.14 of the relevant planning scheme policy, this equivalent population should be deducted from any contribution payable for Water Supply Headworks. Additionally, the site was previously utilised for similar concrete batching operations, and utilised the same water supply infrastructure which currently exists to service the subject site (refer to s7.9(4) of the relevant planning scheme policy).

Example 4: 6 days per month June: Week 1 – Residential

suspended floor slab poured Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday

June: Week 2 – No jobs booked June: Week 3 – Driveway poured

Tuesday June: Week 4 – Residential slab

poured Friday and Saturday



2.1.3 Council Staff Comments In accordance with Council’s water supply and sewerage headworks policy water headworks charges are levied according to cubic metre capacity, with the relevant EP charge nominated being 0.4ep per m3. The applicant indicates the plant has a maximum production capacity of 400m3 per day, however asserts the expected maximum production will be 20m3 per day. The maximum production capacity per day indicated when taking into consideration the operational parameters indicated in the application (ie employees, operating hours/days, capacity of trucks) is 72m3. This would equate to a contribution of 0.4EP x 72m3 = 28.8ep x $1 363.96 = $39 282 This figure would be consistent with those charged for the concrete batch plant at Old Imbil Road, Monkland and discussions with Council’s Water and Sewerage Manager indicate it would appropriately reflect the additional loading on Council’s infrastructure. 2.2.1 Condition 1.3 Council’s Condition reads: ‘Contribution is to be made towards Sewerage Headworks in accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 7. The contribution amount is currently assessed at $10,854; however, the actual amount payable will be based on Council’s policy and the rate applicable to the time of payment.’ 2.2.2 Applicant’s Representations Amended Condition 1.3 ‘The applicant is confused as to how Council calculated the abovementioned amount provided for Sewerage Headworks Contributions. As included in the staff report to Council and provided by the relevant planning scheme policy, the only relevant equivalent population relates to number of employees. This application proposes a maximum of three (3) casual, part time employees and calculation of the Sewerage Headworks contribution amount in accordance with the relevant planning scheme policy results in a contribution amount less than $2500, when the correct rate is applied (3 x 0.5 x $1662).



Accordingly, the applicant requests that Council re-calculate the Sewerage Headworks contribution amount in accordance with the relevant planning scheme policy and amend Condition 1.3 to include the correct amount for Sewerage Headworks. The applicant requests that Council provide information to allow calculated contributions to be independently verified prior to the issue of a negotiated decision notice.’ 2.2.3 Council Staff Comments

The recommendation originally presented to Council was not reflective of the associated report and it appears a typographical error was made. Sewerage contribution calculations are: 0.5ep/employee x 3 employees x $1 713.92 = $2 570 2.3.1 Condition 1.4 Council’s Condition reads: ‘In accordance with Planning Scheme policy 11, a contribution currently assessed at $2,688, is to be paid towards road improvements as a result of increased traffic generated by this development. This amount will be indexed to ABS ANZSIC Class 4121.’ 2.3.2 Applicant’s Representations Amended Condition 1.4: ‘The applicant seeks a reduction for the abovementioned Roadworks contributions based on the maximum production capacity as described previously. Based on the calculations included in the staff planning report and an average daily production capacity of 36.5m3, the resulting traffic generation would be 2 vpd or 0.25vph. Accordingly, a contribution of 0.25 x $298 is considered applicable based on production capacity. The applicant suggests that, including employee trips and deliveries to the site, the development will generate an average of 30 trips per week and a maximum of 45 trips in any one week, resulting in an approximate average of 8 trips per day and maximum of 13 trips per day. Accordingly, the minimum Roadworks contribution of $298.00 is considered applicable to this development application. However, it is noted that there is no scheduled formula for calculating Roadworks contributions and any calculation made by Council should rely on the identification of specific works resulting from the application. In this regard, the applicant considers that existing lead-in Council roads meet the appropriate standard.



Based on the information provided, the applicant requests that Council recalculate the Roadworks contribution amount in accordance with the relevant planning scheme policy and amend Condition 1.4 to include an appropriate amount for Roadworks contributions. The applicant requests that Council provide information to allow calculated contributions to be independently verified prior to the issue of a negotiated decision notice.

2.3.3 Council Staff Comments

Report: (General Manager Design Services Division– R. Chapman) This engineering report addresses only Condition 1.4 regarding a contribution towards road upgradings. The original report also nominated the high end of a contribution amount as well as the low end as selectively quoted by the Consultant. The amount set was the average of the two which is considered fair, reasonable and very relevant. The condition should remain.

2.4.1 Condition 2.3 (i) Council’s Condition reads: ‘A properly prepared Landscape Plan in accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme policy 4 is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Chief Executive Officer. The landscape plan is to denote areas of existing vegetation and/or existing trees proposed to be retained and proposed amenities to be provided for residents.’ 2.4.2 Applicants Representations Amended Condition 2.3: The applicant requests that Council deletes the reference to ‘proposed amenities to be provided for residents’ as this aspect is irrelevant to this application as it is not associated with residential land use. 2.4.3 Council Staff Comments Condition can be amended as requested. Recommendation: (Director of Planning and Development – M. Hartley) That in relation to development application (DA17646 for Buckleys Bulk Haulage over Lots 11RB96922, located at 9 Karoonda Road, Rainbow Beach Council issue a Negotiated Decision Notice incorporating the following:



(i) Condition 1.2 to be amended to read: ‘Contribution is to be made towards Water Supply Headworks in

accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 7. The contribution amount is currently assessed at $39 282; however, the actual amount payable will be based on Council’s policy and the rate applicable to the time of payment.’

(ii) Condition 1.3 to be amended to read: ‘Contribution is to be made towards Sewerage Headworks in

accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 7. The contribution amount is currently assessed at $2 570; however, the actual amount payable will be based on Council’s policy and the rate applicable to the time of payment.’;

(ii) Condition 2.3 to read ‘A properly prepared Landscape Plan in accordance with Council’s

Planning Scheme policy 4 is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Chief Executive Officer. The landscape plan is to denote areas of existing vegetation and/or existing trees proposed to be retained.’

This Material Change of Use Application sought the re-establishment and expansion of a previously ceased concrete batching plant. The applicant has already been granted a Negotiated Decision Notice, and therefore has made a Request to Change an Existing Approval in order to further amend conditions. Council’s reconsideration is requested for conditions relating to the contributions applicable to this development.

2.0 REPRESENTATIONS

The applicant requests amendment of Conditions 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 in order to decrease the amount of contributions payable for the development.

3.0 CONDITIONS

3.1.1 Condition 1.2 ‘Contribution is to be made towards Water Supply Headworks in accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 7. The contribution amount is currently assessed at $39 282; however, the actual amount payable will be based on Council’s policy and the rate applicable to the time of payment’.



3.1.2 Condition 1.3 ‘Contribution is to be made towards Sewerage Headworks in accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 7. The contribution amount is currently assessed at $2 570; however, the actual amount payable will be based on Council’s policy and the rate applicable to the time of payment’. 3.1.3 Condition 1.4 ‘In accordance with Planning Scheme Policy 11 – ‘Roadworks Contributions’ a contribution, currently assessed at $2,688, is to be paid toward road improvements as a result of the increased traffic generated by this development. The amount will be indexed to ABS ANZSIC Class 4121’.

3.1.4 Applicants Representations

‘The grounds on which the applicant makes this request include, but by no way are limited to, the following:- 1. The existing concrete batching plant has an interim approval which was

obtained by Mr Buckley (senior) due to the original proposal to establish this plant after the former Widgee Shire Council adopted its 1974 interim development bylaws and before the first 1982 planning scheme for the former Widgee Shire Council came into effect.

2. This concrete batching plant was never operated on a full time basis due

to seasonal and erratic demands for concrete on the Cooloola Coast. Mr Buckley (senior) is the previous landowner and operator and the father/father-in-law of the current landowners, two of whom trade as Buckley’s Bulk Haulage (the applicant).

3. Mr Buckley (senior) temporarily ceased operating his plant whilst

obtaining a divorce from his then wife as the site was the subject of the property settlement which was subsequently protracted. Eventually the current applicant acquired the site with the intentions to continue the operation of their father’s concrete batching plant.

4. The most recent development application was necessary because the

applicant wanted to upgrade the site management works and practices to bring them more into conformity with current standards and practices. The previous landowner and operator did not have the required ERA over the site and the upgrading was considered to be a standard requirement for any such ERA application under IPA and the Environmental Protection Act 1994.



5. The applicant considers that there are existing use rights under IPA (and

common law) over the site because development approval had been granted for use of the site as a concrete batching plant prior to the applicant’s development application, and such use had not been abandoned. At no stage did Mr Buckley (senior) intend to permanently cease the existing use.

6. It could have been possible to simply apply for an ERA and seek to

amend those plans approved under the interim development approval. However, the information held by Council for this application was limited but consistent with the practices in the 1970’s. It was considered that it would be easier and quicker to simply lodge a development permit that combines both the planning scheme and ERA applications.

7. As the site was previously utilised by Mr Buckley (senior) for concrete

batching operations, suitable water supply, sewerage and roads infrastructure already exists to service the site for the activity proposed by the applicant. The applicant considers that as the land use and the activity on site will be the same, the proposed development will place no additional service demand on such infrastructure than that proposed and contemplated by Council when assessing Mr Buckley (senior)’s original interim development application at first

Documents

2010-02-03 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes · 2013. 4. 1. · Planning & Development Committee Meeting – 3 February 2010 - 8 - Gympie Regional Council The proposed