11.2 Sustainable Development · crescent loop westringia bottlebrush drive westringia drive loop callistemon pimelia drive caladenia rise park ent hibbertia terrace morelia parade

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVER ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 13 DECEMBER 2017

11.2 Sustainable Development 11.2.1 BROOKFIELD STRUCTURE PLAN – FOR FINAL DETERMINATION

Attachment 1 – Schedule of Submissions Attachment 2 – Brookfield East Structure Plan Attachment 3 – Schedule of Modifications

SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS – P214177 Lot 9007 Brookfield Estate, Margaret River

SUB-

MISSION NO.

SUBMITTER (Name & Address)

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS OFFICER COMMENT RECOMMENDATION

1. Dell Bolton

PO Box 1259, Margaret River WA 6285 Affected Property Sandalwood Drive, Margaret River

Concerned with impact of increased housing, traffic and children. Request additional road connection with Rosa Brook Road into the estate.

A range of impacts (both positive and negative) are an intrinsic part of the growth of the Margaret River urban area. The location of such growth has been planned for many years in publicly available documents such as the LNRSPP (1998) with greater detail being provided by the Shire’s LPS (2010). An additional connection with Rosa Brook Road is provided for by the advertised Structure Plan as requested by the submitter.

No changes are necessitated by the submission.

2. Johanna Bolognini PO Box 2165 Margaret River WA 6285 Affected Property 11a Pimelia Drive, Margaret River

Concerned with impact of increased traffic on Brookfield Ave. Request that public transport be provided to and from Margaret River town centre.

Brookfield Ave is an important connector road which has been designed to cater for increased levels of traffic. The Shire does not provide public transportation services. It is generally understood that Margaret River’s population is not sufficient to make state Government funded public transport services feasible.

That a splitter island be installed at the junction of Brookfield Avenue and Bussell Highway to improve safety at this intersection.

3. Jade Gamble PO Box 1610, Margaret River WA 6285 Affected Property Lot 639 Abelia Avenue, Margaret River

Concerned with: Noise pollution from construction Destruction of grazing land and the natural environment Impact on scenery and serenity Density of development is too high Negative impact on home values.

See response to Submission No. 1. In respect to the density of development, this is proposed to be consistent with the existing density experienced within the Brookfield estate (where the submitters property is located).


4. Christine Finney 40A Kembla Circle, Madeley WA 6065 Affected Property 89 Brookfield Avenue, Margaret River

Concerned with: Increased traffic and congestion. Too much property for sale

See response to Submission No. 1. In respect to the amount of property for sale in Margaret River, the subject structure plan will not result in additional property being immediately available for sale. Subdivision approval and construction will occur in stages over



SUB-

MISSION NO.



time by the developer in order to match market demand.

5. Malcolm Finney 40A Kembla Circle, Madeley WA 6065 Affected Property 89 Brookfield Avenue, Margaret River

Concerned with: Increased traffic and congestion. Too much property for sale

See response to Submission No 1 See response to Submission No 4.


6. Aaron Smith 16 Dryandra Drive, Margaret River

Concerned with: Impact on views Noise Loss of trees resulting in lack of oxygen Contribution to global warming

See response to submission No. 1. In respect to vegetation removal, the subject land is substantially cleared of vegetation and those trees that do exist will be protected within POS.


7. Halsall & Associates on behalf of John and Richard Cooper Affected Property Lot 15 Rosabrook Road, Margaret River

Request that the road link to future residential development on the eastern side of the Darch trail be moved further north to avoid intersecting with the location of a ‘hamlet core’ on submitters land as shown on draft EMRDSP.

Detailed planning for land on the eastern side of the Darch trail has no commenced and hence the exact location of the hamlet core is unknown. However, the proposed road link is consistent with the high level structure planning articulated by the EMRDSP.


Government Agencies a. Department of Water The Local Water Management Plan submitted

should be modified to include details regarding extension of the recycled water network before being resubmitted for approval. Support preparation of a foreshore management plan for tributary of the Darch Brook.

The DoW have since confirmed that the LWMS has been approved.


b. Telstra No objection Noted No changes are necessitated by the submission.

c. Water Corporation Confirms that the development is able to be serviced with water/waste water infrastructure subject to upgrades which will be required as development progresses.

Noted. No changes are necessitated by the submission.


SUB-

MISSION NO.



d. Department of Aboriginal

Affairs There is one known Aboriginal site registered with DAA within the northern portion of the subject area. The developer should be made aware of this and the DAA’s Cultural Heritage Guidelines which will assist in planning and considering Aboriginal Heritage during site works.

The proponent has undertaken and provided the outcomes of a consultation and site visit with representative Aboriginal custodians. The outcomes agreed as part of this process have been embedded in the subdivision design and proposed implementation ‘conditions’.

That a condition be added which ensures foreshore management plans and works reflect the outcomes of the Aboriginal heritage consultation process.

e. Department of Agriculture and Food

No objection Noted No changes are necessitated by the submission.

f. State Heritage Office No comment Noted No changes are necessitated by the submission.

g. Main Roads Request upgrade of intersections with Bussell Highway being both Rosa Brook Road and Brookfield Avenue.

Since the Main Roads submission was received, it has become apparent that Rosa Brook Road will be terminated at the Perimeter Road, thus reducing traffic using the Rosa Brook/Bussell hwy. intersection. As such it has been agreed with the Shire’s Infrastructure staff that an upgrade of the Rosabrook/Bussell intersection is not required. A condition requiring upgrade of the Brookfield Bussell intersection will be applied.

That a splitter island be installed at the junction of Brookfield Avenue and Bussell Highway to improve safety at this intersection as part of the first stage of subdivision within the structure plan area.

h. Western Power Sufficient capacity exists to service the proposed development with electricity.


i. Department of Fire and Emergency Services

Supports inclusion of Structure Plan requirement for preparation of a Bushfire Management Plan

A condition requiring preparation of a BMP will be included.

That a condition requiring preparation of a BMP be included.

j. Department of Health Lots are required to connect to reticulated water and waste water system.


k. Department of Parks and Wildlife

Support the proposed retention of bushland areas in POS.


CEDR

US

BROOKFIELDTAMARIX

JANS

ONIA

AVENUE

TERRACE

TIPUANA

LESC

HENA

ULTI

A

NEMCIA LANE

FUCHSIA LANE

WISTERIA

DRYANDRA DRIVE

BROOKFIELD

SANDALWOOD DRIVE

AVENUE

AVEN

UE

DRIVE

BOULEVARD

CALLISTEMON

AVENUE

BROOKFIELD

LOOP

MELALEUCA

KUNZ

EA

HOVEA LANE

LESC

HENA

ULTI

A

AVEN

UE LANE

CRESCENT

LOOP

WES

TRIN

GIA

BOTTLEBRUSHDRIVE

WESTRINGIA

DRIVE

LOOP

CALLISTEMON

PIMELIA DRIVE

CALA

DENI

A

R

ISE

PARK ENT

HIBBERTIA TERRACE

MORELIA PARADE

SEDGE WAY

LOBELIA WALK

HAKEA LANE

FUCHSIA LANE

CR

OLEARIA

BUSSELL HIGHWAY

PLATANUS CR

MALA WALK

PLATANUS CRESCENT

CR

552

558 559

562567

568

574

576

582586

551

550

553554

555

556

557

561560

563564 565

569

566

572

570571

575

573

577578

579

580

581583585

584

8000

CEDR

US

TAMARIX

NEMCIA LANE

FUCHSIA LANE

DRYANDRA DRIVE

BROOKFIELD

SANDALWOOD DRIVE

AVENUE

LANE

CRESCENT

PIMELIA DRIVE

HIBBERTIA TERRACE

MORELIA PARADE

SEDGE WAY

LOBELIA WALK

FUCHSIA LANE

CR

OLEARIA

PLATANUS CR

MALA WALK

PLATANUS CRESCENT

581

POS6465m²

POS10840m²

ROSA BROOK ROAD

REMNANT VEGETATIONPROTECTION

POS / Existing Water Body

10m Landscape Buffer


28940m²

36504m²

SAN

DAL

WO

OD

DR

IVE

BROOKFIELD

AVENUE

POS1449m²


CLIENT

Scale

not permitted. Please contact the author.Unauthorised reproduction or amendment

COPYRIGHT PROTECTS THIS PLANC +61 8 9211 1111 +61 8 9211 1122

PO Box 170, West Perth WA 6872

Level 2, 27-31 Troode StreetWest Perth, WA, Australia, 6005ACN 140 292 762

ABN 44 140 292 762

TFW

RPS Australia East Pty Ltd

rpsgroup.com.au

Sheet

Plan Ref Rev

PROJECT BROOKFIELD ESTATE PTY LTDBROOKFIELDRESIDENTIAL ESTATE

BROOKFIELD EAST STRUCTURE PLANLOT 9007 BROOKFIELD AVENUE,

MARGARET RIVER 1 : 2500 A2 114537-2-001 G

Legend:

Estate Boundary

Structure Plan Boundary

R10 Lots

R20 Lots

R25 Lots

R30 Lots

Landscape Buffer / Linear POS

Parks and Recreation Reserve

Indicative Drainage Basin Locations

Existing Vegetation to be Retained

Darch Road Pedestrian Network

Neighbourhood Connector B (20/22m wide road)

Access Street B (18m wide road)

Access Street D (15m wide road)

Drainage Line / Existing Water Body

Dual Use Footpath

Key Map: ESTATE CONTEXT

1 : 15000

Indicative connectioninto DIA M3 pending

detailed design

Structure Plan Conditions

1. This Structure Plan provides a framework for future subdivision and development of the land. Actualsubdivision may vary from the Structure Plan subject to support from the Local Government and WAPC. Suchvariations may include minor adjustments to road alignments and widths, cell configuration, residentialdensity and public open space boundaries providing that the variations do not compromise the fundamentalprinciples of the Structure Plan;

2. All areas of public open space to be ceded free of cost to the Local Government;3. The subdivider is to prepare an erosion management and sediment control plan;4. The subdivider is required to prepare a compliance strategy to facilitate the provision of rainwater tanks for

each new dwelling;5. The subdivider is required to install the necessary infrastructure to allow treated wastewater to be returned

to areas of POS for irrigation;6. As a condition of subdivision, the proponent will be required to prepare and implement the following:

• Undertake investigations into Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS) and include mitigation measures through thepreparation of an ASS Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Department of Environment andRegulation (DER) and the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River;

• A Foreshore Management Plan to address the interface between future development, existingdrainage lines and the tributary of Darch Brook to the satisfaction of the Department of Water (DoW)and the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River;

• Prepare a comprehensive Urban Water Management plan to the satisfaction of the DoW and theShire of Augusta-Margaret River; and

• Prepare a detailed Landscape Plan for the POS areas, existing drainage lines, road reserves, interfacewith Darch Road pedestrian network and buffer to Rosa Brook Road to the satisfaction of the Shire ofAugusta-Margaret River. Planting shall consist of predominantly endemic native species;

4. At the detailed engineering stage fill and earthwork programmes for the land are to demonstrate thatexisting vegetation will be protected where possible;

This is the Structure Plan adopted by the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River pursuant to Part 6 of Local PlanningScheme No 1 on the day of 2017.

Chief Executive Officer

Date

R10

R10

R10

R10

R10

R10

R10

R25

R25

R25R25

R30

R30

R30

R30

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA - MARGARET RIVER

DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY

Total Area Total Lots

Residential 24.95 ha 400

R10 1.98 ha 14

R20 21.98 ha 357

R25 0.81 ha 20

R30 0.36 ha 9

PUBLIC OPEN SPACE PROVISION

Total Structure Plan Area 45.65 ha

Less - Remnant Vegetation Protection 3.65 ha

- Landscape Buffer 0.75 ha

- Drainage (Q100) 0.69 ha

Total Deduction 5.09 ha

Net Subdivisible Area 40.56 ha

10% P.O.S. Requirement 4.06 ha

Total P.O.S. Provided (10%)

4.07 ha

SCHEDULE OF MODIFICATIONS

1 Widen landscape buffer along Rosa Brook Road (where the side of lots abut buffer) to 20m

Consistent with existing buffer to Rosa Brook road.

2 Identify all lots adjacent to the Darch trail as R10 Consistency, and to maintain the existing Darch trail walking and cycling experience.

3 Increase separation between lots and Darch trail by instating a 5m wide landscape buffer and offsetting the local road within its reserve to increase capacity for landscaping abutting the Darch trail.

As above.

4 Update structure plan document with latest Transport Assessment report information and sustainability matrix.

As required

5 Include land previously identified as an ‘eco village’ with the structure plan boundary and include in ‘remnant vegetation protection’ area

To address environmental degradation and bushfire risk issues associated with the lands existing designation.

6 Reformat structure plan document such that it is consistent with the WAPC’s structure plan guidelines.

As required.

7 Remove ‘structure plan conditions’ from structure plan and insert the following text at the ‘Implementation’ section of the document: Subdivision and development requirements Subdivision As a condition of subdivision, the proponent will be required to: • Implement an approved Bushfire Management Plan; • Implement all recommendations of the Sustainability

Framework (see appendices); • Undertake an upgrade of the Bussell Hwy/Brookfield Avenue

intersection, as per the recommendations of the Transcore Consultants Technical note 1a for Project no t17.119 dated May 5, 2017 (see appendices) as part of the first stage of subdivision within the Structure Plan area;

• Undertake investigations into Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS) and include mitigation measures through the preparation of an ASS Management Plan;

• Prepare and implement a Foreshore Management Plan for existing drainage lines and the tributary of Darch Brook which ensures consistency with the outcomes of the Aboriginal heritage assessment;

• Prepare and implement a sediment and erosion management plan to mitigate against the impact of sediment on the Darch Brook;

• Prepare a comprehensive Urban Water Management Plan; • Design and implement the extension of the recycled water

network to provide for irrigation of POS throughout the site; • Cede and reserve land identified for POS and remnant

vegetation protection free of cost;

Ensures the implementation of key planning outcomes.

• Prepare a detailed Landscape Plan for POS areas. Planting on the periphery of the site at the interface with the Darch trail / Rosa Brook Road is to be designed to screen future development; and

• Ensure fill and earthwork programmes protect existing vegetation where possible.

• Prepare a compliance strategy for the provision of rainwater tanks to dwellings

Development • Water tanks of 2000lt (min) are to be connected and plumbed

to all dwellings. • Retaining walls of greater than 500mm are not permissible

unless they have been installed by the subdivider as part of the subdivisional works.


11.2 Sustainable Development 11.2.2 AMENDMENT 47 AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURE PLAN

– ASHTON STREET, MARGARET RIVER – FOR FINAL DETERMINATION

Attachment 1 – Advertised Structure Plan Attachment 2 – Schedule of Submissions Attachment 3 – Schedule of Modifications

ASHTON STREET

Ma r g a r e t

Ri

ve

r

HERMITAGE DRIVE

17.16

72.07

105.8

3

65.95

78.63

4340m²

1130m²

2393m²

2095m² 2035m²

2022m²2032m²

2411m²

2037m²

2019m²

2002m²

2014m²

2056m²

1135m²

2.5

Scale:

Date:

Revision No:

Title:

D

1:2,500@A3

subject to final survey.All areas and dimensions shown on this drawing are

this drawing.person acting on any visual impression gained from for any loss or damage which may be sustained by any Liability is expressly disclaimed by Halsall & Associates

The right is reserved to change the plan at any time.disclaim any responsiblity for any errors or omissions. associated with the proposed property development this document by Halsall & Associates, all parties Although care has been taken on the compilation of

part thereof) of any kind whatsoever.constitute an invitation, agreement or contract (or any meeting client specifications. The drawing does not This concept has been prepared for the purpose of

N

100250

metres

land development & visuals0408 820 001

[email protected]

50 75

LEGEND

ASHTON STREET MARGARET RIVER

14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 431, 432 & 433

DRAFT STRUCTURE PLAN - LOTS 11, 12, 13,

2035m²

MAY 2017

73

50

50

143

88

139

156

5

250

321

5

221

2225006m²

1.427ha

66

CONSULTATION PERIOD

INVESTIGATION DURING THE

WIDENING PENDING FURTHER

FORESHORE REQUIREMENT FOR

INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE

STRUCTURE PLAN BOUNDARY

PROPOSED BOUNDARY

PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE

EXISTING BUILDING ENVELOPE

PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT TO BENEFIT LOT 221, 222 & 20

BUILDING ENVELOPE AREA

18 19

20

22

431

432433

11

12

13

14

15

201 202 203204

206

12356

SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS – P217002 & P217003 Scheme Amendment No. 47 and Associated Structure Plan

Lots 11-15, 431-433, 18-20 & 22 Ashton Street, Margaret River

SUB-MISSION

NO.



Private Submissions 1. Jeremy Merchant

PO Box 14, Margaret River Affected Property 4 Carignane Court, Margaret River

Supports Support for the proposal is noted. The submission does not necessitate any change to the proposal.

2. Gary & Karen Leigh PO Box 1255, Margaret River Affected Property Lot 22 Ashton Street, Margaret River

1. Concern with subdividing Lot 22 that already has tourist accommodation and manager’s residence and to then create Lot 222 is cause for concern because then both properties have the opportunity to construct further tourist accommodation to proposed Lot 222 and another managers residence to existing Lot 22.

2. Is it possible to have tourist accommodation without a manger’s residence and is it still ‘low density’ development on lots of this proposed size?

3. For future development, the properties will have to comply with the BAL Assessment, meaning more native bush removal.

4. Is the proposal supported by a bushfire management plan that demonstrates compliance with SPP3.7?

5. How can subdivision approval be given to a property in “Extreme Bushfire Hazard Area” with only battleaxe access and not be provided with two different escape routes that connect to public roads?

6. If route connections are proposed this would mean further native bushland being removed and severely changing the character of the area.

Development intensity The proposal is designed around the existing development on site. As requested by DFES, a provision can be added to LPS1 to ensure no further substantial development occurs on the sites once subdivided. Bushfire Management The building construction requirements arising from SPP3.7 are not applied retrospectively. As such, no changes to the existing structures are required. However a Bushfire management plan has been prepared and is supported by DFES.

The submission does not necessitate any change to the proposal.



SUB-MISSION

NO.



3. Lorraine & Terry McGill

PO Box 1650, Margaret River Affected Property Lot 15 Ashton Street, Margaret River

1. No objection to the concept of what Lot 22 are trying to achieve.

2. Object to the change in size of the building envelope for Lot 15.

3. Lot 15 has not been developed yet, the current building envelope position does not consider the layout of the land and extends close to boundaries west/east requiring additional clearing, and new fire building regulations would require further setbacks, would like an alternative building envelope to be considered (map attached).

4. The alternative envelope we proposed takes into consideration the layout of the land, further setbacks, provide less clearing and allows for development within the associated provisions of the structure plan, as with Lot 22.

5. Alternative building envelope we have proposed while reduced from original allows flexibility but still provides privacy and setback from neighbours.

The alternative building envelope provided by the submitter is supported.

That a modification to the structure plan be required to modify the building envelope shown for Lot 15, to accord with that provided by the submitter.

4. Phillip McCann, Felicity Davis, Karangen P/L 10 Lupin Hill Grove, Nedlands Affected Property Lot 432 Ashton Street, Margaret River

Supports as it won’t affect the existing land usage. Correction of the Foreshore POS Anomaly.

Support for the proposal is noted. The submission does not necessitate any change to the proposal



SUB-MISSION

NO.



Government Agencies A. Main Roads No objections Noted The submission does

not necessitate any change to the proposal

B. State Heritage Office No objections Noted The submission does not necessitate any change to the proposal

C. Department of Health 1. Future developments are to comply with the draft Country Sewerage Policy and is to have access to a sufficient supply of potable water.

2. Approval is required for any on-site waste-water treatment process and is to be in accordance with DOH publications.

Noted The submission does not necessitate any change to the proposal

D. Water Corporation 1. Reticulated water is available. Lot 22 will require a new water meter.

2. Reticulated sewerage not available. Onsite disposal will be required to be approved by Local Authority.

3. Buildings within Structure Plan area will require approval by our Building Section prior to commencement of works.

Noted The submission does not necessitate any change to the proposal

E. Department of Water and Environmental Regulation

1. Determination of appropriate foreshore buffer width should be guided by the ‘Operational Policy 4.3: Identifying and establishing waterways foreshore areas (September 2012)

2. Foreshore Management Plan (FMP) prepared to the satisfaction of Shire on advice from DWER, noting the FMP should be revisited concurrently with the Bushfire Management Plan (assistance of a Level 2 or 3 bushfire practitioner) to ensure there is no conflict between documents.

Policy 4.3 advocates for a flexible approach to foreshore widths with a generic 30m provided as a guide. A foreshore management plan is not recommended in this instance as it would relate only to a very small section (abutting Lot 22) of the foreshore. The Shire are currently reviewing foreshore management on a whole of river basis.

That an extension of the foreshore width as detailed at Attachment 3 be required to be ceded free of cost and shown as such on the Structure Plan



SUB-MISSION

NO.



F. Aboriginal Heritage

Directorate of the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage

1. Review of Register of Places and Objects and Aboriginal Heritage Database concludes Aboriginal Site ID4495 (Margaret River) intersects slightly within Lots 18 and 20 of proposal. ID4495 is an Aboriginal site of mythological significance under Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA).

2. The site that intersects within Lots 18 and 20 Ashton Street, AHD recommends developers contact the Department once plans have been finalised.

3. AHD recommends that any future works the Developers should refer to State’s Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Guidelines.

The proposal does not provide for any physical works upon lots 18 and 20 or within the Margaret River Foreshore. The proposal will result in the widening of the river foreshore which will provide a greater level of protection for the Margaret River heritage site.

The submission does not necessitate any change to the proposal

G/H Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES)

Original Submission Not supported. The proposal is an intensification of land use. Therefore SPP 3.7 is relevant. The proposal does not comply with SPP 3.7 because it introduces additional people into an area where an extreme bushfire hazard exists. Revised Submission Acknowledge that the proposal may not be intensification of land use because two dwellings exist on the land. Shire / WAPC need to make decision relating to this aspect. Shire should also consider measures to limit further development.

It is recommended that the proposal does not constitute intensification as future subdivision will not allow for a greater number of people to be accommodated on the site. The Shire can ensure this be imposing a requirement that both lots are limited in their future development potential (no further development beyond one single dwelling).

That an additional provision be added to Schedule 11 which limits Lot 22 (once subdivided) to one single dwelling per strata lot.

I Parks and Wildlife Services No comments. Noted The submission does not necessitate any change to the proposal

SCHEDULE OF MODIFICATIONS – AMENDMENT NO. 47 AND RELATED STRUCTURE PLAN, ASHTON STREET MARGARET RIVER.

NO. MODIFICATION REASON Scheme 1. Add a provision in the associated provisions

column of scheme 9, relating to the subject land which states: Lots created from the subdivision of Lot 22, are limited in their development to a single dwelling with associated outbuildings and permitted uses, which utilise existing structures only.

In order to address submission from DFES received during the consultation period.

Structure Plan 2. Modify the building envelope applicable to Lot 15

in accordance with the diagram below. Addresses submission received during the consultation period.

3. Identify a foreshore reserve to be ceded from Lot 22 of 7m in width on the northern boundary of the lot only.

As previously directed by council.


11.2 Sustainable Development 11.2.3 RAPIDS LANDING DISTRICT OPEN SPACE

Attachment 1 – Proposed Layout of POS


11.2 Sustainable Development 11.2.4 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO.58 – EXMOOR DRIVE /

BOODJIDUP DRIVE, FOR CONSENT TO ADVERTISE

Attachment 1 – Scheme Amendment Map Attachment 2 – Draft Structure Plan


11.2 Sustainable Development 11.2.6 PRPOSED CARAVAN PARK EXTENSION – 232 (LOT

2275) BRAMLEY RIVER ROAD, OSMINGTON

Attachment 1 – Development Plans Attachment 2 – Schedule of Submissions

Schedule of Submissions – P217436 (PTY/5014) Proposed Caravan Park Extension – 232 (Lot 2275) Bramley River Road, Osmington Submission No. & Submitter

Summary of Comments Summary of Owner / Applicant Responses

1. Private Submitter

Object to the proposal. • Since the parks opening vehicle movements

from the property have increased, generators have operated well into the night, dogs have roamed the area and barked for hours and daily quadbike operations have cause nuisance;

• Extension of the park would conflict with the

original intent, characterised by being low key, low impact, well screened nature based park with the retention of existing vegetation etc;

Response to increase in vehicles has been provided below. In respect to dogs barking and roaming, the applicant has advised that the park has a strict ‘dogs on leads’ policy as neighbours use 1080 baits and to ensure no livestock is worried / stressed on the site or neighbouring farms. The only dog off lead is the owners’ Kelpie who is a working sheep and cattle dog, who does bark when working as a part of the agricultural operations on site. In respect to generator noise, there is a strict generator policy where only ‘silent run’ petrol generators are permitted to operate from 8 AM to 8 PM. Most patrons are 100% solar powered and set-up to be off grid for extended periods. The park is part of a working farm and a quad bike is used for day-to-day operations. Patrons have not used a motor bike in the nature based park, or the remainder of the farm. The applicant has argued that the expansion remains consistent with the intent of the Scheme based on the following: • It is a low-impact, well-screened park that retains the existing

vegetation and enhances the primary agriculture undertaken on the property (still producing olives and grazing sheep and cattle).

• There are currently 10 camping bays in approximately 5 ha of mature olive grove. There is ample space to expand (while complying with the existing and proposed bush fire management plan) while maintaining a relationship with the agricultural operations on site a tourism opportunities in the region more broadly.

• The proposal will exacerbate the degradation of gravel road fronting the property.

Bramley River Road is a gazetted road with a constructed surface over 6.5 m wide in good repair, and is therefore capable of handling all forms of traffic. This has being reinforced through the Shire’s use of the road as a detour route when bridge repairs and maintenance was occurring on Osmington Road. The Shires policy on the construction and maintenance of its road and infrastructure requires that the Shire: • maintain roads in a timely and cost-effective manner according to

documented service levels and within budget constraints; and • make safety of paramount importance in construction and

maintenance of roads and associated infrastructure. If there are potholes in the road, exposed clay etc. it should be the responsibility of all landowners on Bramley River Road to report this to the infrastructure division of the Shire, such that is programmed to be fixed. The applicant asserts that degradation would more reasonably be attributed to local people who are more familiar with the roads and travel at greater speeds, which results in corrugations, dust, road noise and hazard to other motorists. Visitors are unfamiliar with the roads and are towing caravans or are in motor homes, therefore much less inclined to travel at higher speeds.


Object to the proposal. • Consider that the road is not suitable for the

traffic volume and vehicles towing caravans/trailers;

See response to submitter 1.

• Located on prime agricultural land and should be used as such;

• Visually the development is not appealing.

The land is currently used for agricultural purposes and it is intended that this will remain the case. The grass in the campground is still grazed as a paddock by the same sheep that grazed the area prior to its commencement. The olive trees are still managed as they were before, producing table olives for sale locally. The campground has had no negative effect on primary agriculture, only a positive impact, as the owners now sell produce from the approved smokery and deli direct to campers. Patrons of the nature park are also educated in agriculture as a part of their stay. They also have access and use of nature walk on the farm, viewing many different types of wildlife, trees and livestock on the farm. The predominant use of the site remains agricultural. The park cannot be seen from the road as it is nestled in an olive grove aside from the entrance given the screening effect of the olive grove that the sites are located within.


Object to the proposal. • Road is not of a suitable standard or

maintained enough to be used by tourists, caravan drive near the centre of the road due to bends and corrugations and have had several near misses as a result;

• Impacts associated with dust generated by additional traffic and noise from vehicles and caravans on corrugations will be exacerbated.

• The area is not considered suitable for a caravan park or increase in present numbers.

See response to submitter 1. See response to submitter 1 in respect to road conditions. Consider that dust from within the nature-based park is negligible as there is a strict 10km per hour policy. See response to submitter 2 providing justification on the location.

4. Private

Submitter

Object to the proposal. • Dangerous road for tourists and caravans,

already creating noise and dust pollution for nearby residents;

• Concern in respect to putting more people at risk of fire with increased population on site;

• Consider potential for 52 people and pets being accommodated is no longer small scale;

• Concern regarding increased traffic associated with expansion.

See response to submitter 1 & 3in respect to road conditions and dust. There is already a bushfire management plan (BMP) and a bushfire evacuation (response) plan (BERP) approved for the property by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES). This plan has been implemented by the owners, who are also the farm / tourist park managers. Park management are prepared as much as they can be for all eventualities, and they conduct regular ‘dummy run’ procedures for a direct bush fire threat and or a regional fire event. See response to submitter 2 in respect to scale of proposal in relation to agricultural operations on site. See response to submitter 1.


11.2 Sustainable Development 11.2.8 ADDITION OF OUTBUILDINGS (SHED AND LEAN TO) TO

EXISTING DWELLING

Attachment 1 – Elevation, Site and Floor Plan

Documents

11.2 Sustainable Development · crescent loop westringia bottlebrush drive westringia drive loop callistemon pimelia drive caladenia rise park ent hibbertia terrace morelia parade