Planning Committee Agenda - 1 October 2015€¦ · Thursday 1 October 2015 . held at Murwillumbah Cultural and Civic Centre . commencing at 5.00pm . Planning Committee: Thursday 1

Mayor: Cr K Milne Councillors: G Bagnall (Deputy Mayor)

C Byrne B Longland W Polglase P Youngblutt

Agenda

Planning Committee Meeting Thursday 1 October 2015

held at Murwillumbah Cultural and Civic Centre

commencing at 5.00pm

Planning Committee: Thursday 1 October 2015

Page 2

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 - SECT 79C 79C Evaluation (1) Matters for consideration-general In determining a development application, a consent

authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application:

(a) the provisions of:

(i) any environmental planning instrument, and (ii) any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public

consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Director-General has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and

(iii) any development control plan, and (iiia) any planning agreement that has been entered into under section 93F, or

any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F, and

(iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), and

(v) any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979 ),

that apply to the land to which the development application relates,

(b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,

(c) the suitability of the site for the development, (d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, (e) the public interest. Note: See section 75P (2) (a) for circumstances in which determination of development application to be generally consistent with approved concept plan for a project under Part 3A. The consent authority is not required to take into consideration the likely impact of the development on biodiversity values if:

(a) the development is to be carried out on biodiversity certified land (within the meaning of Part 7AA of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 ), or

(b) a biobanking statement has been issued in respect of the development under Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 .

(2) Compliance with non-discretionary development standards-development other than

complying development If an environmental planning instrument or a regulation contains non-discretionary development standards and development, not being complying development, the subject of a development application complies with those standards, the consent authority:


Page 3

(a) is not entitled to take those standards into further consideration in determining the development application, and

(b) must not refuse the application on the ground that the development does not comply with those standards, and

(c) must not impose a condition of consent that has the same, or substantially the same, effect as those standards but is more onerous than those standards,

and the discretion of the consent authority under this section and section 80 is limited accordingly.

(3) If an environmental planning instrument or a regulation contains non-discretionary

development standards and development the subject of a development application does not comply with those standards:

(a) subsection (2) does not apply and the discretion of the consent authority under

this section and section 80 is not limited as referred to in that subsection, and (b) a provision of an environmental planning instrument that allows flexibility in the

application of a development standard may be applied to the non-discretionary development standard.

Note: The application of non-discretionary development standards to complying development is dealt with in section 85A (3) and (4).

(4) Consent where an accreditation is in force A consent authority must not refuse to grant

consent to development on the ground that any building product or system relating to the development does not comply with a requirement of the Building Code of Australia if the building product or system is accredited in respect of that requirement in accordance with the regulations.

(5) A consent authority and an employee of a consent authority do not incur any liability as

a consequence of acting in accordance with subsection (4). (6) Definitions In this section:

(a) reference to development extends to include a reference to the building, work, use or land proposed to be erected, carried out, undertaken or subdivided, respectively, pursuant to the grant of consent to a development application, and

(b) "non-discretionary development standards" means development standards that are identified in an environmental planning instrument or a regulation as non-discretionary development standards.


Page 4

THIS PAGE IS BLANK


Page 5

Items for Consideration of Council: ITEM PRECIS PAGE

REPORTS FROM THE DIRECTOR PLANNING AND REGULATION 6

1 [PR-PC] Development Application DA15/0422 for a 65 lot subdivision at Lot 1147 DP 1115395; Seabreeze Boulevard Pottsville

6

2 [PR-PC] Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd - Draft Major Development Plan - SUBMISSION

28

3 [PR-PC] Planning Proposal PP13/0001 Border Park Raceway, Tweed Heads, being Amendment No 2 to the Tweed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014

35

4 [PR-PC] Variations to Development Standards under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards

61


Page 6

REPORTS FROM THE DIRECTOR PLANNING AND REGULATION

1 [PR-PC] Development Application DA15/0422 for a 65 lot subdivision at Lot 1147 DP 1115395; Seabreeze Boulevard Pottsville

SUBMITTED BY: Development Assessment and Compliance

FILE REFERENCE: DA15/0422 Pt2 Valid

LINKAGE TO INTEGRATED PLANNING AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK: 1 Civic Leadership

1.2 Improve decision making by engaging stakeholders and taking into account community input

1.2.1 Council will be underpinned by good governance and transparency in its decision making process

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council has received a development application for a 65 lot residential subdivision of Lot 1147 DP 115395 being the 'Potential School Site' pursuant to Section B15 Seabreeze Estate, Pottsville. The application was reported to Council’s Planning Committee Meeting dated Thursday 6 August 2015 seeking direction on the assessment of the subject application. Council resolved that the application be finalised based on the information provided to date by the applicant, including Council’s resolution of 14 February 2013 and be reported back to Council for determination. The application was notified for a period of 30 days from Wednesday 17 June 2015 to Friday 17 July 2015. Council has received 41 submissions objecting to the proposal. The application was referred to the Department of Education and Communities for comment, with the Department advising that there was not sufficient demand for another government secondary school in the Tweed local government area. The Department’s projections to 2020 indicate that demand will be relatively stable, with continued surplus capacity. The application is integrated development under the Rural Fires Act 1997 and the Water Management Act 2000. Comments from the NSW Rural Fire Service have not yet been received. Approval cannot be provided until the NSW Rural Fire Service provides conditions. However, the Department of Primary Industries – Water have provided General Terms of Approval. The following outstanding matters in relation to the Development Application include: non-compliance with agricultural buffers (150m), Sewer Pump Station buffers (50m), retaining wall around SPS, water and sewer infrastructure, and minimum frontage requirements to


Page 7

proposed lots, access to proposed lots, non-compliance with 50% road frontage to the proposed Park. Pedestrian and cycle access to the proposed Park, potential streetscape impact and anti-social behaviour are also of concern. RECOMMENDATION:

That Development Application DA15/0422 for a 65 lot subdivision at Lot 1147 DP 1115395; Seabreeze Boulevard Pottsville be refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is not consistent with Section B15 of Council's Development

Control Plan, which identifies the site as a potential school site; 2. The proposal is not consistent with Council's resolution dated 14 February 2013

which states the earmarking of the 'Potential Future School Site' in the existing Section B15 to be reviewed, if requested, no earlier than 2018;

3. The proposal is not consistent with Section B21 of Council's Development

Control Plan, which identifies the site as a potential school site; 4. The proposal is not consistent with Section A5 of Council's Development

Control Plan, which identifies a 150m buffer to Agricultural lands; 5. The proposal is not consistent with Section A5 of Council's Development

Control Plan, which requires a 50% road frontage to local parks; and 6. The proposal is not consistent with Council's Development Design

Specifications D12 – Sewerage System, which identifies a 50m buffer to Sewer Pump Stations.


Page 8

REPORT:

Applicant: Newland Developers Pty Ltd Owner: Metricon Qld Pty Ltd Location: Lot 1147 DP 1115395; Seabreeze Boulevard Pottsville Zoning: R2 Low Density Residential Cost: $2,308,116 Background: Council has received a development application for a 65 lot residential subdivision of Lot 1147 DP 115395 being the 'Potential School Site' pursuant to Section B15 Seabreeze Estate, Pottsville. The proposed subdivision is to occur in two stages being Stage 18A and Stage 18B the details of the stages are:

• Stage 18A is located adjacent to Stages 15 and 16, to the western side of the drainage reserve. Stage 18A will provide 14 residential lots.

• Stage 18B is located on the eastern side of the drainage reserve. Stage 18B will provide a total of 50 residential lots and 1 drainage reserve lot.

Stages 1 to 14 of Seabreeze Estate, comprise approximately 500 allotments. These stages have been completed pursuant to Development Consent No. K99/1837 (as modified). On 2 June 2013, Tweed Shire Council issued Development Consent No. DA13/0577 for an 88 lot subdivision of Stages 15 to 18. Under that approval Stage 18 comprised a Master Lot being the 'Potential School Site'. Stages 15 to 18 are currently under construction. It is noted that Council resolved the following at the Council Meeting dated 14 February 2013:

1. Receives and notes the further advice received from NSW Department of Education and Communities that the site is not required for departmental education purposes at this time; and

2. Receives the proponent's request to amend the Development Control Plan

thereby retaining the existing Section B15 of the Tweed Development Control Plan; and

3. Reviews the education infrastructure strategies and controls contained within

Tweed Development Control Plan, Section B21 Pottsville Locality Based Development Code and this be undertaken as part of the Planning Reform Unit's general maintenance program endorsed in its Work Program 2012-2015, and

4. Notes the earmarking of the 'Potential Future School Site' in the existing Section

B15 to be reviewed, if requested, no earlier than 2018. The application was notified for a period of 30 days from Wednesday 17 June 2015 to Friday 17 July 2015. Council has received a 41 submissions objecting to the proposal. The application is integrated development under the Rural Fires Act 1997 and the Water Management Act 2000, comments from these authorities have not yet been received. The Department of Planning and Environment determined pursuant to clause 18(2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy 71 - Coastal Protection (SEPP 71), that the requirement for a master plan in clause 18(1) be waived.


Page 9

The application was referred internally to Council’s Environmental Health officers, Development Engineer, Flooding Engineer, Traffic Engineer, Water Engineer, Open Space Officer and Natural Resource Management Unit for comment. To date requests for further information have been received from Council’s: Water Engineer, Development Engineer, Environmental Health officer, and include matters in relation to non-compliance with agricultural buffers (150m), Sewer Pump Station buffers (50m), retaining wall around SPS, water and sewer infrastructure, and minimum frontage requirements to proposed Lots 1801, 1834, 1835, access to proposed lots 1813, 1815 and 1816, noncompliance with 50% road frontage to the proposed Park (lot 1866), pedestrian and cycle access to the proposed Park. The proposal raises a potential streetscape impact on Tom Merchant Drive, by proposing a 1.2m high retaining wall combined with a potential 2.m high timber fencing for the rear of lots 1840-1848. The proposal has the potential to increase existing anti-social behaviour within the existing drainage reserve lot 1539, which contains an existing 3m high retaining wall at the rear of proposed lots 1826-1835, combined with a potential 2.m high timber fencing for the rear of lots increases isolation of this area. An increased APZ buffer (if requested by the NSWRFS) may trigger further information request from Council’s Natural Resource Management unit. Given Council’s resolution in relation to the potential school site and non-compliances with Section B15 of the Consolidated Development Control Plan, a formal request for further information has been put on hold until such time that Council has provided direction as to how to proceed with assessment of the application. The application was reported to Council’s Planning Committee Meeting dated Thursday 6 August 2015 seeking direction on the assessment of the subject application. Council resolved that the application be finalised based on the information provided to date by the applicant, including Council’s resolution of 14 February 2013 and be reported back to Council for determination.


Page 10

SITE DIAGRAM:


Page 11

DEVELOPMENT/ELEVATION PLANS:


Page 12


Page 13

Considerations under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979: (a) (i) The provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2014 Clause 1.2 – Aims of the Plan Insufficient information has been provided to enable determination that the development complies with the aims of the plan. Clause 2.3 – Zone objectives and Land use table The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone are:

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the

day to day needs of residents. The proposed subdivision is permissible with consent and is considered consistent with the zone objectives as it will provide housing needs for the community. Clause 4.1 to 4.2A - Principal Development Standards (Subdivision) A minimum lot size requirement of 450m2 is required for the subject site and development. The proposed subdivision complies with the minimum lot size requirement. Clause 4.3 - Height of Buildings A 9 metre building height applies to the subject site. No buildings are proposed as part of this application. Clause 5.5 – Development within the Coastal Zone The site is located 1.5km from the coastal foreshore and does not have frontage to the foreshore, as such the proposal is considered not to be in conflict with the clause. The following comments are made in response to the considerations within the clause:

(2) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority has considered: (a) existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore for

pedestrians (including persons with a disability) with a view to: (i) maintaining existing public access and, where possible,

improving that access, and (ii) identifying opportunities for new public access, and

The proposal will not alter the existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore, as the site does not have frontage to the foreshore. No opportunity exists to provide new public access to the foreshore.


Page 14

(b) the suitability of the proposed development, its relationship with the surrounding area and its impact on the natural scenic quality, taking into account:

(i) the type of the proposed development and any associated land uses or activities (including compatibility of any land-based and water-based coastal activities), and

(ii) the location, and (iii) the bulk, scale, size and overall built form design of any building

or work involved, and The development is suitable for the locality and is compatible with the character of the area.

(c) the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the coastal foreshore including: (i) any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore, and (ii) any loss of views from a public place to the coastal

foreshore, and The proposal will not create any detrimental impact on the amenity of the coastal foreshore, particularly in the form of overshadowing or loss of views from a public place.

(d) how the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands, can be protected, and

The scenic qualities of the NSW coast will remain unchanged.

(e) how biodiversity and ecosystems, including: (i) native coastal vegetation and existing wildlife corridors, and (ii) rock platforms, and (iii) water quality of coastal waterbodies, and (iv) native fauna and native flora, and their habitats, can be

conserved, and The proposal will not impact on biodiversity and ecosystems.

(f) the cumulative impacts of the proposed development and other development on the coastal catchment.

The proposal will not create a cumulative impact on the coastal catchment. No significant adverse impacts on the environment are expected.

(3) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority is satisfied that: (a) the proposed development will not impede or diminish, where

practicable, the physical, land-based right of access of the public to or along the coastal foreshore, and

The proposed development will not impede the physical, land-based right of access of the public to or along the coastal foreshore due to the large separation of 1.5km between the proposal and the coastal foreshore.


Page 15

(b) if effluent from the development is disposed of by a non-

reticulated system, it will not have a negative effect on the water quality of the sea, or any beach, estuary, coastal lake, coastal creek or other similar body of water, or a rock platform, and

The proposal is to be connected to Council's reticulated sewerage system.

(c) the proposed development will not discharge untreated stormwater into the sea, or any beach, estuary, coastal lake, coastal creek or other similar body of water, or a rock platform, and

The proposal is to be connected to Council's reticulated stormwater system.

(d) the proposed development will not: (i) be significantly affected by coastal hazards, or (ii) have a significant impact on coastal hazards, or (iii) increase the risk of coastal hazards in relation to any other

land. The proposed development will not be significantly affected by coastal hazard or significant impact on coastal hazards or increase the risk of coastal hazards in relation to any other land due to the large separation of 1.5km between the proposal and the coastal foreshore. Clause 5.9 – Preservation of Trees or Vegetation The clearing of vegetation is not required. Clause 5.11 - Bush fire hazard reduction Bushfire hazard reduction is not proposed in conjunction with this application. However, the application is integrated development with the NSW Rural Fire Service as the site is bushfire prone. Comments and conditions have not yet been provided by the Department. Approval cannot be provided until the Department provides conditions. Clause 7.1 – Acid Sulfate Soils The site is identified as having class 3 Acid Sulphate Soils, with works relating to the installation of services might be located greater than 1 metre below the natural ground level. The application provided an Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan, which was reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health officer. Appropriate conditions have been recommended if the application were to be supported. Clause 7.2 - Earthworks The proposed earthworks are minor and considered not to have a detrimental impact on the site and neighbouring property. The proposal is considered consistent with the clause.


Page 16

Clause 7.3 – Flood Planning The site is identified as being affected by flooding with small portions of the site affected by the Q100 requiring a flood level of 3.1m AHD and minimum floor level of 3.6m AHD. However, the majority of the site is not affected by the Q100 but large portions of the site are affected by the Probable Maximum Flood level. It is noted that previous approval DA13/0577 required the area subject to this application to be filled to a level of 3.1m AHD, therefore this development application would also be required to be filled to the designed flood level of 3.1m AHD. Flooding is considered not to be a constraint for the proposal due to the above, however, a suitable condition would be recommended to ensure that the site is filled to 3.1m AHD, should the application be approved. Clause 7.4 - Floodplain risk management The proposal is not a type of development with particular evacuation or emergency response issues. Clause 7.5 - Coastal risk planning The site is not land identified as Coastal Risk. Clause 7.6 - Stormwater Management The objective of this clause is to minimise the impacts of urban stormwater on land. Stormwater concerns may be dealt with via conditions of consent, if the application was to be approved. Clause 7.10 - Essential Services Reticulated water, sewer, power and telephone services will be provided to the site to create the proposed lots. Council’s Water and Wastewater Engineer requires further information in relation to water and sewer infrastructure in order to finalise their assessment. State Environmental Planning Policies SEPP No. 14 - Coastal Wetlands An area mapped as SEPP 14 wetland is located approximately 300m to the north and approximately 330m to the south of the subject site. The proposed subdivision is therefore not considered to raise any implications in respect of SEPP 14. SEPP No. 55 - Remediation of Land The aim of SEPP 55 is to provide a State wide planning approach to the remediation of contaminated land and to require that remediation works meet certain standards and conditions.


Page 17

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the application and advised that the application includes correspondence from Gilbert & Sutherland, Dated 5 August 2013 that concludes “following extensive prior investigation the proposed subdivision area would be free from contamination. In accordance with Clause 7 of the SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land, the site is suitable for the proposed uses”. It is considered the prior investigations and current statements provided have been prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant and no further considerations are required. On this basis no further consideration is required in respect to contaminated land. SEPP No 71 – Coastal Protection This Policy aims to, amongst other things, protect and manage the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of the NSW coast; protect and improve existing public access to and along the coast; to protect and preserve Aboriginal cultural heritage; to ensure visual amenity of the coast is protected; to protect beach environments and beach amenity as well as coastal vegetation and the marine environment; to manage the coastal zone in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development; to ensure the type, bulk, scale and size of development is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area; and encourages a strategic approach to coastal management. The site is located within a 'sensitive coastal location' due to the location being within 100m of the mapped high water mark of Cudgera Creek. As the subdivision of land is located within a residential zone a Master Plan or waiver is required by Clause 18(1) of the SEPP. The Department of Planning and Environment waived the need for a Master Plan. The proposed development will not alter the existing public access arrangements to the coastal foreshore or along Cudgera Creek. The proposed development would be unlikely to have any adverse impact on the amenity of the coastal foreshore in respect of overshadowing or loss of views as the site is located approximately 1.5km from the coastal foreshore. The site has been previously cleared of substantial vegetation and has been highly disturbed. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be unlikely to impact on Threatened Species, wildlife corridors or habitats. Further, the site does not comprise any marine vegetation. Conditions will be applied to any Development Consent in relation to sediment and erosion controls to ensure no impact to water quality. As the site has been previously cleared and filled it is unlikely that the proposal would impact on matters relating to the conservation and preservation of items of heritage or archaeological significance. It is generally considered that the proposal is in accordance with the provisions of the SEPP.

(a) (ii) The Provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instruments There are no known Draft LEPs that affect the proposal.


Page 18

(a) (iii) Development Control Plan (DCP) Tweed Development Control Plan A2-Site Access and Parking Code Council’s Development Engineer assessed the proposal and has requested further information in order to determine the application in relation to the following items: Minimum frontage Council’s Development Engineer has advised that a minimum lot frontage of 9m is required to accommodate a driveway and parked vehicle. The proposed allotments numbered 1801, 1834 and 1835 do not comply and are to be widened to a minimum of 9m in order to comply. Access – location of existing intersections opposite proposed lots The applicant is to demonstrate that a driveway can be provided in accordance with Tweed Shire Council’s Driveway Access to Property – Design Specification policy for proposed Lots numbered 1813, 1815 & 1816 due to the proximity of the existing intersections at Ballina Street and Watego Drive located opposite the proposed allotments. Access – Driveway gradients Demonstrate that vehicular access can be provided in accordance with Tweed Shire Council’s standard drawing SD017 Driveway access to properties fronting roads with kerb and gutter for proposed allotments 1812 – 1814 and 1848. The detail is to include a gradient transition of 12.5% from the 2.5% gradient across the road reserve. Council’s Traffic Engineer raised no concerns regarding the proposal, from a traffic generation and sightline perspective. A3-Development of Flood Liable Land The site is identified as being affected by flooding with small portions of the site affected by the Q100 requiring a flood level of 3.1m AHD and minimum floor level of 3.6m AHD. However, the majority of the site is not affected by the Q100 but large portions of the site are affected by the Probable Maximum Flood level. It is noted that previous approval DA13/0577 required the area subject to this application to be filled to a level of 3.1m AHD, therefore this development application would also be required to be filled to the designed flood level of 3.1m AHD. Flooding is considered not to be a constraint for the proposal due to the above, however, a suitable condition would be recommended to ensure that the site is filled to 3.1m AHD, should the application be approved. A5-Subdivision Manual Council’s Development Engineer assessed the proposal and has requested further information in order to determine the application in relation to the following items:


Page 19

Geotechnical advice It is noted that Stages 15 & 16 of Seabreeze adjacent to Stage 18 had site settlement issues due to the consolidation of underlying compressible clay material when the site was filled. Geotechnical advice is to be provided for Stage 18 to advise if the filled material is susceptible to settlement and how this will affect the proposed infrastructure and potential dwellings. Retaining wall detail Provide finished level detail for the top and bottom of the proposed retaining wall located along the rear of future Lots 1835 – 1839 and the proposed public reserve. Local Parks - Development Standards The proposal does not comply with Table A5-8.2.1 Local Parks Development Standards, which requires more than 50% of the perimeter of the park to be road frontage. Streetscape The proposal does not provide detail of the streetscape elevation of proposed allotments backing onto Tom Merchant Drive. There appears to be a 1.2 metre high retaining wall proposed along the property boundaries along Tom Merchant Drive (proposed Lots 1847 to 1840), which most likely have a 2 metre high timber will fence on top of the 1.2 metre retaining wall. Buffers Section A5 states that there is a requirement to buffer areas between subdivisions and other specified landuses to minimise landuse conflicts. A number of lots within Stage 18 of the proposal do not comply with the minimum buffer requirement of 150m and have the potential to encroach upon the rural activities to the north and expose future residential occupiers to a potential public health risk. Council’s Environmental Health officer has requested further information in relation to buffers to agricultural land and that the current subdivision configuration is not supported. Council’s Environmental Health officer has requested further information relating to anti-social behaviour (burning of vehicles) and illegal dumping on Lot 1539 DP 1207462 Drainage Reserve, due to isolation and the 3 metre retaining wall separating Lot 1540 and Lot 1539. The proposed lot configuration has the potential to further isolate this area particularly when rear fencing of proposed lots 1826-1835 is place on top of the existing 3 metre high retaining wall. Whilst a perimeter road would not result in negating all impacts in association with the anti-social behaviour and illegal dumping, it would contribute to mitigation of these issues as well as provide an increase setback/buffer to agricultural land.


Page 20

A11-Public Notification of Development Proposals The application was notified for a period of 30 days from Wednesday 17 June 2015 to Friday 17 July 2015. Council has received a 41 submissions objecting to the proposal. Details of the submissions are addressed within this report. A13-Socio-Economic Impact Assessment The threshold trigger for the preparation of a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report for a subdivision (under the guidelines of Section A13 of the Tweed DCP 2008) is 50 lots. The proposed subdivision comprises 64 residential lots and 1 drainage reserve and accordingly a SIA has been prepared by the applicant. The SIA considers that the proposal would be consistent with Section B 15 - Seabreeze Estate and would result in a positive social and economic outcome. It is considered that the proposal is not consistent with the provisions of Section B 15 - Seabreeze Estate, as the subject site is identified as a future school site. The proposal would be likely to create an adverse social impact due to the inconsistency of Section B 15 – Seabreeze Estate and the number of submissions received objecting to the proposal. A15-Waste Minimisation and Management A Waste Management Plan has been provided with the submitted details. It is considered that the proposal does not raise any specific concerns in respect to waste management. Council’s Waste unit advised that the submitted WMP is suitable for the proposal. B15-Seabreeze Estate, Pottsville The subject site is Lot 1147 DP 115395 is identified as the 'Potential School Site' pursuant to Section B15 Seabreeze Estate. The proposal seeks to create 65 lots within the subject site and therefore is inconsistent with Section B15 of Council's Development Control Plan. The Structure Plan shows the indicative layout for development of the estate (Map 7A as shown below) and indicates the preferred location and siting of major elements of the estate such as the potential school site. The proposal is not consistent with the Structure Plan.


Page 21

Map 7A - Structure Plan Stage 2 blue is potential school site.

B21-Pottsville Locality Based Development Code The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the code, as the code identifies the subject site within the Seabreaze Estate as one of three potential school sites. Development control requirements are provided within Section 3.5 should Council receive an application over these identified sites which do not include the provision of a school facility. Any development application is to detail, to the satisfaction of Council, the circumstances as to why a school cannot or should not be provided on the site, with respect to, but not limited, to the following criteria:

• Building and Urban Design • Siting of the school • Recreation Areas • Parking and servicing • Traffic and pedestrians • Noise generation • Landscaping

The application has not provided detail with respect to the above mentioned criteria. Therefore the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with Section B21.

(a) (iv) Any Matters Prescribed by the Regulations Clause 92(1)(a)(ii) Government Coastal Policy The subject site is designated as Coastal Land and therefore this clause applies. As previously detailed within this report the proposal will result in any overshadowing or restriction of public access to the coastal foreshore. The development is considered consistent with the clause.


Page 22

Clause 92(1)(b) Applications for demolition There is no demolition proposed. Clause 93 Fire Safety Considerations Clause 93 is not applicable to the proposed subdivision. Clause 94 Buildings to be upgraded Clause 93 is not applicable to the proposed subdivision.

(a) (v) Any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), Tweed Shire Coastline Management Plan 2005 This Plan applies to the Shire’s 37 kilometre coastline and has a landward boundary that includes all lands likely to be impacted by coastline hazards plus relevant Crown lands. The subject site is not located on the coastal foreshore and is not affected by coastal hazards. As such the proposed subdivision does not negate the objectives of the plan. Tweed Coast Estuaries Management Plan 2004 The subject land is located in close proximity to the Cudgera Creek however the proposal is unlikely to impact on matters relating to habitat or biodiversity values of the waterway given it does not propose any clearing of vegetation or earthworks in the immediate vicinity of the creek system. Conditions will be applied to the Development Consent in respect of sediment and erosion control, if the application was to be approved. Coastal Zone Management Plan for Cobaki and Terranora Broadwater (adopted by Council at the 15 February 2011 meeting) As the subject site is not located within the Cobaki or Terranorra Broadwater (within the Tweed Estuary), this Plan is therefore not considered relevant to the proposed development.

(b) The likely impacts of the development and the environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments and social and economic impacts in the locality Context and Setting The proposed subdivision will provide a predominantly low density residential environment that consists primarily of detached dwellings, which is consistent with the existing context and setting of the existing built development within the Seabreeze Estate as well as the broader Pottsville locality. However, due to the site being a potential school site the proposal is considered to create a likely social impact on the locality.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Dact%20AND%20Year%3D1979%20AND%20no%3D13&nohits=y

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Dact%20AND%20Year%3D1979%20AND%20no%3D13&nohits=y


Page 23

Access, Transport and Traffic The existing traffic network has the capacity to cater for the increase in traffic as a result of the subject subdivision. Utilities The proposal will have access to all necessary infrastructure. Flora and Fauna The site is clear of vegetation. Council’s Natural Resource Management Unit raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions. Agricultural Buffers A Land Use Conflict/Agricultural Land Use review has been carried out by Gilbert & Sutherland dated 17 June 2013. The review included the consideration of the NSW Living and Working in Rural Areas Handbook prepared by NSW DPI and Northern Rivers CMA dated 2007. Council’s Environmental Health officer reviewed the proposal and advised the following.

“The proposed separation distance is approximately 70m and does not strictly comply with the recommended distance of 300m within the NSW Living and Working in Rural Areas Handbook (Table 6) which is a guiding document based on best practice. The Tweed Shire DCP A5 Subdivision Manual recommends a buffer of 150m including a biological buffer of 30m however allows a reduction to 80m where the application of chemicals is not undertaken from aircraft activities. It is anticipated that the application of chemicals from aircraft on the adjacent sugar cane cropping land will occur from time to time and exposure to future residential occupiers may occur creating a potential public health risk. It is acknowledged that an alternative Queensland Guideline (DNR – Planning Guidelines: Separating Agricultural and Residential Land uses., Brisbane 1997) has been referenced to provide justification for the reduced buffers. The Land Use Conflict Review concludes that sufficient protection is provided by the proposed buffers which comprise of the following components:

• A minimum 40m wide vegetated buffer zone along Cudgera Creek (including the creek flow line and component riparian vegetation).

• A minimum 30m open space buffer zone between the vegetated buffer and the boundary of residential allotments within the proposed subdivision.

The NSW Living and Working in Rural Areas Handbook 2007 and the DCP A5 Subdivision Manual are considered the most appropriate and recent reference documents for assessment purposes. An assessment against this document has been undertaken and it is determined that the proposed subdivision layout does not achieve adequate separation distances between


Page 24

the subdivision and the adjacent sugar cane cropping land and potential public health concerns may arise and restrict future use of the agricultural land. The relaxation of the buffer distance beyond that of the Tweed Shire DCP A5 Subdivision Manual is not supported.”

In summary, the proposal does not provide a compliant setback to the adjacent agricultural land. The required setback is 150 metres in accordance with Section A5 of Council’s DCP. The application proposes a setback of 70 metres. Council’s Environmental Health officer determined that the proposed subdivision layout does not achieve adequate separation distances between the subdivision and the adjacent sugar cane cropping land and potential public health concerns may arise and restrict future use of the agricultural land. Amenity Council’s Environmental Health officer has requested further information relating to anti-social behaviour (burning of vehicles) and illegal dumping on Lot 1539 DP 1207462 Drainage Reserve, due to isolation and the 3 metre retaining wall separating Lot 1540 and Lot 1539. The proposed lot configuration has the potential to further isolate this area particularly when rear fencing of proposed lots 1826-1835 is place on top of the existing 3 metre high retaining wall. Dewatering A site specific Dewatering Management Plan has been prepared by Precise Environmental Pty Ltd dated December 2014. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 3.6m and 3.9m below ground level and dewatering is anticipated to be required for various components of the subdivision. Council’s Environmental Health officer advised that the Dewatering MP is considered adequate to mitigate potential environmental impacts and has been prepared but a suitably qualified and experienced consultant. Standard conditions to be applied. It is to be noted that the application required an integrated referral to the Department of Primary Industries – Water, for General Terms of Approval. The department has provided a response issuing General Terms of Approval. Sewer and Water Infrastructure Council’s Water and Wastewater Engineer requires the following information in order to undertake an appropriate assessment: Sewer • Several lots do not meet the 50 meter buffer requirement as per D12.20.3(d),

in particular, Lot 1814. • Pipelines for road crossings must have a minimum class of 12 as per

D12.10.2(a). • There is no information to show how lot 1826 will be serviced. Also lots 1808,

1809 & 1813 are missing junctions on plan. • Sewers greater than 3m in depth shall be trunk sewers and trunk sewers shall

be routed away from the built environment & house connections are not permitted as per D12.30.1 to 3. This impacts lines 6/S3 to 3/S2, S/62 to 2/S1, 5/S1 to 2/S1, 5/S9 to 2/S9.


Page 25

• Unless approved by TSC, manholes should not be less than 10m apart. • As mentioned above in General – there are several sewer lines already

constructed to lot 1540 DP1207462 that have not been utilised within this design. Please amend design to include existing sewer infrastructure. The report states that it has been included but the design does not demonstrate this.

• Proposed retaining wall around sewer pumping station not acceptable. • Rain water swale and grate drainage shall not be located within sewer

easements. • Note: due to the high amount of non-conforming design issues within this

proposed Development Application, only high level analysis of the design has been undertaken. Should an RFI with a new design be provided, further analysis will be completed at this time.

Water • The proposed water layout plans are difficult to read and some infrastructure

cannot be seen on the plans. Please update plans so that the water pipelines can be seen.

• As highlighted in the sewer comments, the existing water connections to lot 1540 DP1207462 appear not to have been utilised within this design. These are to be include and shown on plans.

Open space/Park Council’s Open Space officer assessed the application and advised that the proposal needs to consider a suitable pedestrian/cycle access path to the proposed Park (lot 1866) with options provided to be either:

1. A suitable pedestrian/cycle road crossing facility on Tom Merchant Drive connecting the park to the shared user path location on the eastern side of Tom Merchant and;

2. Consider the suitability of an additional footpath or shared user path on

the western side of Tom Merchant Drive between Seabreeze Boulevarde and the park.

The park design (L1866) and the streetscape of the stage 18B internal road is also to encourage access to the park via the cul-de-sac that ends at the park.

(c) Suitability of the site for the development Surrounding Landuses/Development The subject land is located within the Seabreeze Estate, a low density residential subdivision that comprises primarily detached dwellings. Due to the site being a potential school site the site is considered not to be suitable for the proposed residential subdivision. Flora and Fauna The site is clear of vegetation. Council’s Natural Resource Management Unit raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions.


Page 26

Topography The site is relatively level due to previous approvals requiring earthworks. No concerns are raised. Tweed Coast Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management The subject site is within the Southern Tweed Coast Koala Management Area. The site is not within a Koala Plan of Management Precinct and is not identified as containing Preferred Koala Habitat. The site is devoid of any vegetation and no clearing will be required. Council’s Natural Resource Management Unit did not raise any concerns with regard to the proposal and the Tweed Coast Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management. No further assessment under this Plan is considered necessary.

(d) Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulations NSW Rural Fire Service The application required an integrated referral to the Rural Fire Service due to its siting within a bushfire protection area. A response from the RFS has not been received issuing a bushfire safety authority for the subject proposal. Approval cannot be provided until the NSW Rural Fire Service provides conditions. Department of Primary Industries – Water The application required an integrated referral to the Department of Primary Industries – Water, for General Terms of Approval. The department has provided a response issuing General Terms of Approval. Department of Education and Communities The department of Education and Communities provided the following advice on 30 July 2015, stating that there is not sufficient demand for another secondary school within the Tweed local government area, with continued surplus capacity to 2020.

“In December 2012 the Department advised Council that a needs analysis for the Pottsville area indicated that there was not sufficient demand for another government secondary school in the Tweed local government area. This analysis has been reviewed a number of times over the past few years, confirming that enrolment demand can readily be met within existing high schools. Secondary students from Pottsville and surrounds are within the Kingscliff High School designated intake area. In 2015 there are 14 spare teaching spaces at Kingscliff High School. Our projections to 2020 indicate that demand will be relatively stable, with continued surplus capacity.”

Public Submissions Comment The application was notified for a period of 30 days from Wednesday 17 June 2015 to Friday 17 July 2015. Council has received a 41 submissions objecting to


Page 27

the proposal. The main issue raised in the submissions was a strong objection to the development of the potential school site for anything other than a school. A copy of the submissions were sent to the applicant for comment on 28 July 2015, a response to this submission has not been received.

(e) Public interest The proposal is considered not to be in the public interest.

OPTIONS: 1. Refuse the development application, subject to reasons for refusal: or 2. Support the development application in principle and request a further report and

conditions to be reported to Council for determination. Council Officers recommend Option 1. CONCLUSION: Taking into consideration that the proposal is inconsistent with both the Section B15 of Council's Development Control Plan and Council's resolution; no new information has been provided by the applicant to demonstrate that the use of the site should be reviewed; the number of submissions received by Council objecting to the proposal; and issues raised by units within Council, it is considered appropriate that the application be refused on the information provided to date. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable c. Legal: The applicant may lodge an appeal in the Land and Environment Court in respect of Council’s determination. d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.


Page 28

2 [PR-PC] Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd - Draft Major Development Plan - SUBMISSION

SUBMITTED BY: Strategic Planning and Urban Design

Valid


1.5 Manage and plan for a balance between population growth, urban development and environmental protection and the retention of

economical viable agriculture land

1.5.2 Land use plans and development controls will be applied and regulated rigorously and consistently and consider the requirements of

development proponents, the natural environment and those in the community affected by the proposed development

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

At the time of writing this report Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd (GCAPL) was publically exhibiting a Preliminary Draft Major Development Plan (the Plan) which proposes redevelopment of the Airport’s terminal and apron and construction of temporary construction access to the Pacific Highway. A submission has been prepared and is attached to this report for endorsement of Council prior to forwarding to GCAPL. While the Plan discusses a diverse range of issues related to the project, the attached submission addresses the following key matters identified by Council officers:

• Clearing of native vegetation; • Roads and traffic, and • Drainage and Acid Sulfate Soil.

GCAPL operates under Commonwealth legislation and as such, while officers have raised concerns about the potential or probable impact of the proposed development Council has a limited ability to influence the assessment of these issues. While Council’s submission will be delivered after the close of the public exhibition period, on Wednesday 30 September, GCAPL have agreed to accept the submission. RECOMMENDATION:

That the attached submission on the Gold Coast Airport Preliminary Draft Major Development Plan July 2015 be forwarded to GCAPL for their consideration.


Page 29

REPORT:

At the time of writing this report Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd (GCAPL) was seeking feedback on a publically exhibited Preliminary Draft Major Development Plan July 2015 (the Plan) which proposes redevelopment of the Airport’s terminal and apron and construction of temporary construction access to the Pacific Highway. This report seeks Council’s endorsement to forward the attached submission to GCAPL. While public exhibition period for the Plan will close at 5:00pm on Wednesday 30 September 2015, GCAPL has agreed to accept the submission after the official close of public exhibition on the basis of previous notification of a delay resulting from the timing of Council’s meeting.

Regional Significance

Gold Coast Airport arguably represents the most significant private infrastructure in the broader NSW and QLD Region providing an essential logistics centre for business, trade and investment, as well as passenger transportation. It is essential to the tourism market of Far North NSW and South-east Qld.

The following text is taken from Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd; Instrument Landing System – Preliminary Draft Major Development Plan (April 2016):

Gold Coast Airport is currently one of Australia’s fastest growing airports and forecast by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) in 2013 to be one of the top two (2) fastest gr owing airports (alongside Perth) over the next 20 years. It is the fifth (5) busiest international airport in Australia and the sixth (6) busiest airport overall. It currently services 6 million passengers a year and is forecast to grow to 16.3 million passengers by 2031. It lies within one of the fastest growing areas in Australia being south east Queensland and northern New South Wales coastal strip.

Gold Coast Airport is significant as an economic driver of the region, in terms of employment, direct and indirect economic impact and the facilitated impact arising from the flow on benefits of the visitor economy which includes tourism, education and major events. Gold Coast Airport is a significant infrastructure asset to both south east Queensland and northern New South Wales. The economic impact of Gold Coast Airport is expected to reach $368 million by 2016/17, having grown significantly from $269 million in 2009/10. This equates to an average growth rate of 4.6 percent per annum. Within the 5 year period up to 2016/17, employment levels at Gold Coast Airport are forecast to increase by 37 percent to 2,350 individuals in a full-time or part-time role at GCA, representing the equivalent of 1,803 full time r oles. By 2016/2017 Gold Coast Airport will facilitate 2.61 million visitors to the region, which represents a 36 percent increase on 2010, or an additional 690,000 visitors over 2010, equating to an average annual growth rate of 4.5 percent.

Proposed development

The area affected by the Plan covers heavily vegetated land in the south eastern corner of the Airport property within the Tweed as seen in Figure 1.


Page 30

The Plan states that the proposed redevelopment will increase the Airport’s terminal and apron capacity to meet forecast busy hour demand to 2023, and deliver faster and more efficient service for travellers, and more retail choice.

Key aspects of the proposed redevelopment include:

• Redevelopment of the existing terminal building;

• Five additional aircraft parking stands with associated taxiways;

• Site preparation, including drainage, earthworks and clearing of native vegetation, and

• Construction of construction road to Pacific Highway.

The following work requires approval via the Major Development Plan process under the Airports Act 1996, which when approved, will be completed in two stages:

• Stage one – Commencing early 2016, this will include site preparation, vegetation clearing, drainage realignment, three new Code E aircraft parking stands and terminal redevelopment. Stage one is due to be substantially completed by late 2017, and

• Stage two – Commencing in late 2020, this will include an additional two aircraft parking stands and is due for completion in early 2021.

Approvals Process As a Commonwealth leased airport, Gold Coast Airport is regulated under the Airports Act 1996 by the Federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD). The project is currently in the planning stages and is subject to approval by the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. As part of the planning process, GCAPL has undertaken a comprehensive series of technical studies and identified potential impacts and mitigation strategies where possible to manage the project’s impacts. These studies form the basis of the Preliminary Draft Major Development Plan for the project. Following the consultation period, the Major Development Plan will be lodged with DIRD for consideration against the requirements of the Airports Act 1996. The project’s environmental impacts will be assessed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 via the Major Development Plan process. Approval of the Preliminary Draft Major Development Plan will allow the proposed redevelopment to continue through to design and construction approvals.


Page 31

Figure 1: Location of proposed development Issues identified While a diverse range of issues relevant to the expansion and operation of the Airport are discussed, issues of most concern to Council officers and addressed in the attached submission relate to:

• Clearing of native vegetation; • Roads and traffic, and • Drainage and Acid Sulfate Soil.

Native Vegetation The Plan proposes the clearing of approximately 32.5 hectares of native vegetation, much of which is of State significance, including 16 hectares of Swamp Sclerophyll Ecologically Endangered Community, significant areas of heathland and known habitat for threatened species. This environmental impact is acknowledged and is seemingly to be managed via an offset strategy however, no details have been provided.

Council does not have a regulatory role in relation to the proposal. Nevertheless, the proposed Council submission, as attached, which needs to be read in conjunction with this


Page 32

report, recommends that the vegetation be retained due to its very high significance, and the irreversible long-term nature of the impact. Roads and Traffic Council officers are currently working on rezoning of the Border Park Raceway for a proposed Bunnings hardware store and reduced ‘Greyhound’ racing track which will require construction of a signalised intersection on the adjoining Pacific Highway. The Major Development Plan prepared by GCAPL proposes construction of a temporary construction road which accesses the Pacific Highway immediately to the west of the proposed intersection servicing the Border Park site. While this access road is noted as being temporary and no connection to the proposed signalised intersection is proposed in the Plan, correspondence has been received on behalf of GCAPL which advises of their intent to connect to the signalised intersection at some time in the future making the road a permanent feature rather than for construction purposes only, as noted in the Plan. It is understood that the NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is investigating the traffic generating impacts of further development surrounding the proposed intersection including further development of the Airport which may change the status of the current proposed temporary road configuration and may include connection to the signalised intersection. The Pacific Highway is a State highway and while Council may only have a concurrence role in approval of any traffic generating development affecting the proposed intersection or Highway, the submission to GCAPL proposes discussion with Council and RMS early in the planning process to ensure that design and potential traffic generating impacts are identified and addressed at an early stage. Drainage and Acid Sulfate Soils The groundwater table will be permanently drawn down at some locations by construction of the new drainage channel which will cause a draw down in the surrounding water table of up to 2.3 metres. While the plan notes that the potential impact would largely occur during construction, oxidation of Potential Acid Sulfate Soil currently submerged under the water table will have long lasting impact well beyond the construction phase of the operation. While monitoring is proposed, avoidance in the first instance is the preferred option. Dewatering operations, mainly associated with the construction of the proposed drainage channel, are of concern and raise the need for management of Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) to prevent contamination of surface and Groundwater. While an ASS Management Plan, Dewatering Management Plan, and Construction Environmental Management Plan are proposed, the ability to mitigate the ongoing effects of a 2.3 metre drop in the level of the water table is potentially a significant ongoing risk to the quality of surface and groundwater.


Page 33

Figure 2: Location of proposed construction access OPTIONS: 1. Forward the submission attached to this report to Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd, or 2. Defer to a meeting with Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd, or 3. Raise no objection to the expansion and development of the Gold Coast Airport. Option 1 is the officer’s preferred option. While deferral to a meeting with GCAPL is presented as Option 2, it is understood that the timeframe for public notification and response to the Federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development is set under Commonwealth legislation, and will operate to limit the effectiveness of this option. CONCLUSION: Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd has placed a Preliminary Draft Major Development Plan July 2015 on public exhibition and sought feedback on the Plan. The Plan proposes redevelopment of the Airport’s terminal and apron and construction of a temporary construction road to the Pacific Highway which will have significant, permanent and irreversible long term impact on endangered ecological communities and numerous threatened species of State significance, being approximately 32.5 hectares of native vegetation.


Page 34

By the same token, the proposed redevelopment and expansion will increase the Airport’s terminal and apron capacity to meet forecast busy hour demand to 2023, and deliver faster and more efficient service for travellers, and more retail choice. In this regard it is noted that the Airport is a major employer and economic driver for the broader NSW and QLD region, and its wider potential is limited only by its capacity to meet growing and project demand.

Because the land in question is Commonwealth leased property, Council has no regulatory role. However, the proposed Council submission to GCAPL recommends retention of this vegetation and notes that while an offset strategy is proposed, no details have been provided for consideration. Potential acid sulfate soils occur on the site which will be impacted by the construction of a drainage channel resulting in a drop the level of the water table by up to 2.3 metres leading to the potential oxidation of these soils and result in long-term ongoing concerns for the quality of surface and groundwater. While traffic matters have been discussed as they relate to a current planning proposal for the Border Park Raceway site, Council will most likely only have a concurrence role in assessment of any traffic generating development on land surrounding the proposed signalised intersection on the Pacific Highway. Pending resolution of Council the submission attached to this report will be forwarded to GCAPL for their consideration. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Inform - We will keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1. Submission on a Preliminary Draft Major Development Plan July 2015 to Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd (ECM 3801115)


Page 35

3 [PR-PC] Planning Proposal PP13/0001 Border Park Raceway, Tweed Heads, being Amendment No 2 to the Tweed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014

SUBMITTED BY: Strategic Planning and Urban Design

FILE REFERENCE: PP13/0001 Pt5 Valid


1.5 Manage and plan for a balance between population growth, urban development and environmental protection and the retention of

economical viable agriculture land

1.5.3 The Tweed Local Environmental Plan will be reviewed and updated as required to ensure it provides an effective statutory framework

to meet the needs of the Tweed community

3 Strengthening the Economy

3.4 Provide land and infrastructure to underpin economic development and employment

3.4.1 Ensure an adequate supply of industrial and commercial lands to promote employment and business opportunities

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The ‘Border Park’ Planning Proposal has been publically exhibited and relevant State Agencies consulted, with feedback received. The proposal has been assessed as having the requisite strategic planning justification and is capable of future development, the design and scale of which will be determined and assessed at the development application stage. Consequently, the proposed LEP instrument is seen as suitable to be made and requires referral to the Minister for Planning for that purpose. A preference for preparing a site specific development control plan is also acknowledged and discussed within the report and arises from several sites, and hence development related, constraints that will require thorough examination and appropriate design at that later stage. This Plan will comprise a section within the current Tweed Development Control Plan (DCP) Section A17 Business, Enterprise Corridor and General Industrial Zones; its primary purpose being the minimising of risk of environmental harm, and to ensure optimum network performance associated with any new road construction. In recognition of the importance of guiding the future development of the site over the longer-term, and for raising awareness of key site constraints, the Proponent has committed to funding the DCP amendments by entering into a Costs Agreement with Council.


Page 36

RECOMMENDATION:

That: 1. Planning Proposal PP13/0001 is to be updated to incorporate the

recommendations contained within this report and referred to the Minister for Planning and Environment to be made under Section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2. Tweed Development Control Plan 2008, Section A17, is to be amended to include

site specific controls, as discussed within this report, and publically exhibited for a period not less than 28 days.

3. In accordance with Clause 21(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment

Regulation 2000 a further report addressing any public submissions duly made be submitted to the earliest meeting of the Council.


Page 37

REPORT:

Background At the Planning Committee Meeting of July 2013 Council resolved to proceed with a planning proposal request to rezone the Border Park Raceway site from the current RE2 Private Recreation to enable employment uses and refer to the plan to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for a Gateway Determination. The Planning Proposal was issued with a Gateway Determination on 5 May 2014 requiring:

• A minimum public exhibition of 28 days; • The exhibition include the economic assessment; traffic and access study;

stormwater management plan; infrastructure services feasibility investigation; biodiversity and habitat study; acid sulphate soils study; acoustic and lighting study;

• Updating of the s117 Directions to reflect the outcomes of the studies; • Consultation with:

o Office of Environment and Heritage o Transport for NSW – Roads and Maritime Services o Department of Commonwealth responsible for lessee of the aerodrome o Tweed Byron Local Aboriginal Land Council o Tweed Aboriginal Advisory Committee o Gold Coast City Council o Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads o Gold Coast Airport

• Completion within 12 months (5 May 2015). At the commencement of preparing the planning proposal it was expected that key constraints likely to delay the proposal would be: water and waste-water supply; traffic access to the Gold Coast Highway, which had received in-principle support from RMS and the Proponent had agreed to ‘identifying’ within a site specific DCP a future road connection with Ourimbah Road. The highly disturbed and utilised nature of the majority of the site did not raise any preliminary environmental concerns. However, by March 2014, it was evident from the issues arising and the delay incurred by the RMS’s insistence to do traffic modelling and analysis for an undetermined, albeit hypothetical, expansion of the Gold Coast Airport, that the planning proposal would not be completed by the Gateway deadline of 5 May 2015, and a Gateway extension was subsequently sought and granted, with a new deadline of 12 November 2015. This planning proposal is subject to a Costs Agreement allowing an external consultant, PSA Consulting Australia Pty Ltd, to undertake the review and assessment process in consultation with Council officers. The key issues addressed are further discussed in the report. Summary of the planning proposal (Tweed LEP 2014 Amendment No 2) The planning proposal seeks to rezone the site from the current RE2 Private Recreation to a mix of B7 Business Park and RE2 Private Recreation to facilitate the development of employment land uses, as show in Figure 1. The resulting Local Environmental Plan (LEP) Amendment No 2 includes amendment to the Building Height Map from 10 metres to 40 metres in the B7 zone and retaining the height of 10 metres in the RE2 zone, inclusion of


Page 38

the Key Sites Map (triggering Clause 7.13 of the LEP) and inclusion of the Additional Permitted Uses to Schedule 1 to permit the Border Park Raceway recreational use (Recreational Facility (Major)). The maximum 40 metre height limit is applied to facilitate reasonable built forms consistent with the B7 zone. The height will encourage incremental development of the site towards a Business and Research Park and facilitates a mix of uses such as short term accommodation (serviced apartments), commercial office space and research space that will establish a strong nexus with the Gold Coast Airport and Southern Cross University.


Page 39

Figure 1 Proposed land zoning Amendment No 2


Page 40

Consultation The Tweed Local Environmental Plan - Amendment No 2 for Lot 644 DP 755740 and Lot 21 DP 518902 Ourimbah Road Tweed Heads, being Border Park Raceway PP13/0001, was publicly exhibited, in accordance with the Gateway Determination, for a period of 36 days from 24 March to 6 May 2015. The public exhibition material was available at Council’s Tweed Heads and Murwillumbah offices and on Council’s website and included:

• The Planning Proposal Version 2 for Exhibition • Council Report of 18 July 2013 • Gateway Determination, dated 5 May 2014 • Concept layout • Traffic and Access Assessment • Water and Sewer Servicing Assessment • Cultural Heritage Assessment • Preliminary Site Contamination Assessment • Economic Analysis • Ecological Assessment • Stormwater Management Plan • Acoustic Assessment • Lighting Assessment

As required by the Gateway Determination, the Planning Proposal was referred for review and comments to:

• NSW Rural Fire Service • Office of Environment and Heritage • Transport for NSW - Roads and Maritime Services • Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd • Queensland Airports Ltd • Tweed Byron Aboriginal Land Council • Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development • Aviation & Airports • City of Gold Coast • Queensland Government - Department of Transport & Main Roads • Tweed Council Aboriginal Advisory Committee

Notification letters (513 in total) were sent to adjoining residents of both Tweed Shire and the Gold Coast City Council (GCCC), and with the assistance of GCCC. Submissions A total of 25 submissions were received in response to the public exhibition, comprising 9 agency submissions and 15 general public submissions, representing a total return on direct notification of 4.8% (2.9% representing the public submission) General submissions: The majority of submissions could be grouped thematically into the following themes:


Page 41

Issue Traffic (submissions 1, 3, 6, 13, 17, 20)

Summary of comments

Access to the Gold Coast Highway and Surrounding Road Network

Generally concern regarding an increase in traffic on Binya Avenue and the impact on the road, increased noise and the wellbeing of residents. Requests there is no vehicle access off Binya Avenue and access should only be from the Gold Coast Highway. Related concern about the impact on Kirra Shores. One submission is very supportive of the proposal, specifically: the provision of road connection to the Ourimbah Rd industrial estate.

Currently the Gold Coast Highway is a poor entry to the Tweed and RMS is not maintaining the road to the same standard as the Qld side and request this is addressed. Concern that connection to Ourimbah Road will dramatically increase traffic with negative effects on air quality, noise and safety for local residents. Related concern that the Ourimbah Road connections can be made independent of the redevelopment of the Border Park site.

Concern that the redeveloped Border Park Raceway is new development and will increase traffic.

Planning Response Access to the site is not proposed to be limited to Miles Street or Ducat Street as a new vehicular access to the Gold Coast Highway is proposed as part of this Planning Proposal.

The intent is for the Gold Coast Highway access to be the primary access to the site. The RMS has provided in principle support and a more detailed investigation with regard to the location of the access to inform the development application stage is currently being undertaken by RMS in order to understand an manage local traffic impacts outside of the scope of the planning proposal.

Binya Avenue is proposed to have a significantly reduced role. Although the intent is for the Binya Road access to be retained in a reduced capacity, there is scope for either:

• the complete removal of the Binya Road access once the access to the Gold Coast Highway has been established,

• or the retention of the Binya Road access for emergency only, i.e. access for Emergency Services.

The retention of emergency vehicle only access to Binya Avenue would address the concerns of residents regarding road traffic impacts whilst retaining a secondary access to the site that can be used in emergency situations. The redevelopment of the Raceway would be subject to a future development application (DA) and traffic assessment at the time it is lodged.

Summary of comments

Ourimbah Road Connection

Submission acknowledges and supports the longer term strategic intent and would welcome the redevelopment of the Ourimbah Rd industrial area and the simultaneous rezoning of the Ourimbah Rd industrial estate.


Page 42

Issue Traffic (submissions 1, 3, 6, 13, 17, 20)

Planning Response Note the support for the potential future redevelopment of Ourimbah Road. Simultaneous rezoning of the Ourimbah Road industrial estate is not sought as part of this Planning Proposal. The potential redevelopment of Ourimbah Road is earmarked for the medium to long term, once a critical mass of employment generating uses is achieved on the Border Park site.

Summary of comments

Delivery Hours

Request the delivery hours be limited to 6am to 10pm to reduce noise impacts on the Binya Avenue and Kirra Beach Caravan Park residents.

Planning Response Limitation of delivery hours cannot be managed as part of a Planning Proposal. Operational matters such as these will managed as part of a future DA process and conditioned where appropriate.

Summary of comments

Current Use of Ourimbah Road

An issue for the residents of Kirra Shores is the high number of buses, trucks and light commercial vehicles that use Ourimbah Road which use this area as a temporary parking, rest area to pass time and do paperwork. Idling buses cause unnecessary air and noise pollution, day and night.

Planning Response Addressing current issues of existing land uses on Ourimbah Road is outside the scope of the Planning Proposal.

Summary of comments

Pedestrian Crossing of Ducat Street

Whilst traffic has continued to grow on Ducat Street there remains no safe designated pedestrian crossing along this road other than the Kennedy Drive intersection and it is hoped this will be addressed in the very near future.

Planning Response Noted – however, general traffic issues on Ducat Street are outside the scope of this planning proposal.

Recommendations 1. Recommend that Development Control Plan (DCP) specifies that any vehicular access to the site from Binya Avenue can only be for emergency access i.e. emergency vehicles.

2. Incorporate provisions to manage delivery times in the DCP to minimise noise impacts on surrounding residents and achieve required standards.

Issue Building height and urban design (Submissions 7, 9, 10 and 20)

Summary of comments

Building Height and Interface Issues

Request the height of building for Bunnings be reduced from 40 metres to 20 metres. Concern the proposed height is not compatible with the scale of


Page 43

Issue Building height and urban design (Submissions 7, 9, 10 and 20)

development permitted on the adjacent sites and provides no transition between them.

Planning Response The site has been identified for employment uses since 2009 within the Tweed Urban and Employment Land Use Strategy. The proposed 40m height limit for the Border Park site has been carefully considered. The 40 metres building height is required to encourage a greater mix of employment generating uses to establish on the site in the longer term. An increase of building height from 10 metres to 40 metres will facilitate a mix of uses such as short term accommodation, commercial offices and research space that will allow for the development of the site as a Business and Research Park with a strong nexus to the Gold Coast Airport in the long term. Interface issues that result from the proposed increase in height will be managed at the Development Assessment stage through architectural, urban design and landscaping elements to minimise impacts on surrounding residents.

Summary of comments

Entrance Statement and Urban Design

The site is an entry to the Tweed from the airport and the north. Future rail terminus near this airport will reinforce this site as a prominent gateway to the Tweed area. For all international travellers and those heading into Tweed form the north the Tweed is planned to be demarcated by a characteristic big green box. This is an underdevelopment of the site.

Planning Response The site is in a strategic location in relation to the Gold Coast Airport and is considered to be underutilised at its current zoning. Applying the B7 zone over the site is consistent with the Tweed Urban and Employment Land Release Strategy (TUELRS) 2009 and will allow for the site to be developed for commercial uses that have the capacity to support the Gold Coast Airport and generate employment. The design and urban design of the site will be guided by the Development Control Plan for the site and assessed within future development applications.

Recommendations 3. Incorporate provisions within the DCP to manage interface issues, such as urban design, overlooking, bulk and scale, for buildings within 10m of the site boundary.

Issue Alternate uses and other concerns (Submissions 3, 8, 12, 17, 18, 24)

Summary of comments

Alternate Use of Site and future uses

A number of submission suggested alternate uses for the site, including: the Border Park site be converted into an indoor velodrome for cyclists and the stables could be converted into bike team rooms; objection to the B7 zone; and suggestions that the uses should occur within already zoned industrial land as this removes recreation areas.

Submission suggest that if the site is to be developed it should be for a more productive use, such as an integrated convention centre, exhibition, sports centre with hotel / airport accommodation and related facilities as this would have enormous spin offs for the community.


Page 44


Support for Plan and retention of green buffer

Fully supports the PP as it may bring jobs. Supports the green buffer around the edge. Any development is an improvement on the current state of the site. Support for RE2 Zone

Support for the RE2 zone but not the B7 zone due to the proximity to the residential zones.

Withholding Development of Site

With the already thriving Tweed South homeware and building supplies businesses and the current approval for the former Boyd’s Bay Garden World the need for another is questioned.

With the growing international airport, developing university, world class beaches and the coming Commonwealth Games and the international spotlight on the area withholding development of the site may serve the community better in the future

Impact on Enterprise Park

Concern for the fragmentation of employment uses and the severe impact of the key driver at Enterprise Park. Reference to the impact of the relocation at Burleigh Heads and the loss of trade for businesses.

Suggest that Bunnings Tweed Heads South is one of the most profitable enough though it is smaller without the full range of products.

Planning Response Council is seeking a B7 Zone over the site to encourage employment generating uses, as identified in the 2009 Tweed Urban and Employment Land Release Strategy. Other uses, such as a velodrome , are a commercial decision separate to the Planning Proposal and the broader land use planning system.

Rezoning of the site is considered essential to encourage employment generating land uses to establish on the site. The B7 zone permits a wide range of commercial uses and ‘Hardware and Building Supplies’ is one of many.

The Enterprise Park location permits a wide range of retail and trade uses which would be permitted to fill the void should Bunnings move out.

There is a current identified need for additional land zoned for employment and no strategic basis to withhold development of the site.

Transitioning part of the site from RE2 - Private Recreation to B7 – Business Zone will provide for development of the site for employment generating uses and will not significantly affect resident’s open space and private recreation areas as the site is currently a commercially operated private recreation space. It is not considered that the site is an essential element of the network of public open space and private recreation areas in Tweed Shire.

It is considered that the Planning Proposal has provided strong justification for the rezoning of the site to accommodate B7 land uses


Page 45


Summary of comments

Loss of Private Recreation Area

Concern the proposal is impinging on residents' open space or private recreation areas that are essential as population increases.

Concern for the proposed loss of open space in addition to the loss of the Pony Club Crown Reserve through the airport runway expansion.

Council’s own Sports field Policy has identified a lack of lands for sporting purposed in the northern part of the Shire and suggest this use would be more suitable.

Planning Response Transitioning part of the site from RE2 - Private Recreation to B7 – Business Zone will provide for development of the site for employment generating uses and will not significantly affect resident’s open space and private recreation areas as the site is currently a commercially operated private recreation space. It is not considered that the site is an essential element of the network of public open space and private recreation areas in Tweed Shire.

It is acknowledged that the Northern Region of the Shire is identified in the 2014 strategy as lacking lands for sporting purposes. Notwithstanding, the Tweed Urban and Employment Land Release Strategy has identified the site for employment purposes since 2009. The sports field strategy identifies a need for a large site (approx. 20 hectares) which can accommodate multiple sports uses. This site is not sufficient in size.

Recommendations No further action

Issue Drainage (submission 23)

Summary of comments

Owners Corporation of Strata Plan SP35574 “Kirra Shores” 20 Binya Avenue (2 Ourimbah Road) Tweed Heads raises an issue with drainage for Lot 644 DP 755740 and Lot 21 DP 518902.

Units 21, 23 and 25 (lots 11,12 and 13) can experience flooding as a result of heavy rain due to the existing drainage easement adjacent these units being unable to cope with the large volume of water.

Request that TSC acknowledge the drainage issue and request that during the construction of the proposed Bunnings store that TSC ensure there is no increase in current volumes into the stormwater system in Binya Avenue. (Submission 23)

Planning Response Stormwater runs off the back of Kirra Hill on the Gold Coast side, flows through the unit complex, where it needs to be managed by their internal drainage, which then discharges to the TSC stormwater system to the south.

As the PP does not propose any increased discharge to Binya Avenue, and proposes to formalise a legal point of discharge on RMS land (the Gold Coast Highway), this should have no negative impact on the Kirra Shores drainage.



Page 46

Issue Retail Strategy and competition (Submissions 16, 18)

Summary of comments

Bunnings is defined as "hardware and Building supplies" and that the proposed showrooms are intended to be "bulky goods premises". Both uses are permitted in the B7 zone. It is noted that "retail premises" other than "neighbourhood shops" are prohibited.

The RPS Economic Analysis makes specific reference to the Draft Tweed Retail Strategy noting there will be no impact on the existing or planned retail centres. Based on this assessment, the submitter is satisfied that the planning proposal remains consistent with the draft Tweed Retail Strategy.

Considers the development is to establish a competitive facility within the opposition's facilities catchment area and the need is not demonstrated.

The only positive benefit alluded to are additional employment provision, however, Bunnings intend to relocate from Tweed South, giving no marginal benefit; and linking to Ourimbah Road, which has greater benefits to Bunnings and may be detrimental to residential areas feeding off Ourimbah Road.

Concern the uses is not actually need and the development benefit to the applicant is inequitable.

Planning Response The site is in a strategic location in relation to the Gold Coast Airport and is considered to be underutilised at its current zoning. Applying the B7 zone over the site is consistent with the Tweed Urban and Employment Land Release Strategy (TUELRS) 2009 and will allow for the site to be developed for commercial uses that have the capacity to support the Gold Coast Airport, the Southern Cross University and generate employment.

Recommendations No further action Agency submissions: The following is a summary of the agency submissions received.

Agency Qld Department of Main Roads (submission 2)

Summary of comments

As the site is within Qld there is no formal comment regarding the PP.

Planning Response Noted



Page 47

Agency NSW Rural Fire Service (submissions 5 and 15)

Summary of comments

The RFS has reviewed the plans and documents and raises no concerns or issues in relation to bushfire.



Agency Department of Infrastructure & Regional Development (Submission 14)

Summary of comments

Notes that the draft documents considers the Gold Coast Airport OLS and ANEF contours between 20 and 30 concluding there is no further need for Council to investigate acoustic issues relating to aircraft noise.

Notes that Council considers the proposed building height of 40 metres will not result in intrusions to the prescribed airspace of the Gold Coast Airport.

Notwithstanding, the inclusion of a lighting assessment there is no reference to the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) in the exhibited documents. The NASF comprises guidelines for regulating and managing the risks associated with aircraft noise, building generated windshear at airports, wildlife strikes in the vicinity of airports, wind turbine farms as physical obstacles to air navigation, lighting distractions in the vicinity of airports and intrusions into the operational airspace.

The NASF was developed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments and the Australian Local Government Association. The aims include the improvement of safety outcomes in land use planning decisions. In 2012 all governments agreed to implement NASF. TSC may wish to consider whether it is prudent to reference the NASF in its planning documents while they are being reviewed.


Reference to the NASF was not included in the Planning Proposal as the proposed zoning and height limit are not considered to impact on the safe operations of Gold Coast Airport. This is evidenced by the Gold Coast Airport’s own submission which raises no substantive issue with regard to either

Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS); and

Procedures for Air Navigational Services—Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS) surface

The DCP may reference the Airports Act 1996 and the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996, as these establish a framework for the protection of airspace at and around airports.

Recommendations 4. The DCP incorporate a reference to the protection of airspace legislation and a requirement that any significant development be referred to the Gold Coast Airport for their review and comment.


Page 48

Agency Ian Rigby Consulting Pty Ltd on behalf of Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd (GCAPL) (Submission 19)

Summary of comments

Has been asked to make representation on behalf of the Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd (GCAPL). The GCAPL raises no objection concerning the proposed land use of the physical form of the development of the site. There are no airport related constraints affecting the proposed development relating to airspace restrictions or aircraft noise.

GCAPL advises that it is appropriate and desirable for provision to be made for the proposed signalised intersection to be adapted for 4-way movement, including a route of access to the airport property.

It is requested that provision of the Border Park proponents of a link to the airport property from the 4 way signalised intersection be made as a condition of approval of the planning proposal and that further the proponents be required to consult with the GCAPL during the design phase in relation to the configuration of the intersection, to ensure the airports needs may be accommodated.

Planning Response A new vehicular access to the Gold Coast Highway is proposed as part of this Planning Proposal. RMS has provided in principle support and a more detailed investigation with regard to the location of the access is currently being undertaken by RMS. It is understood that RMS are considering long term arrangements such as a 4-way intersection.

There are no conditions of approval placed on Planning Proposals as a planning proposal seeks a revised zone not development consent. While future vehicular access to the Gold Coast Highway is identified as part of this Planning Proposal the final design parameters and contributions are subject to assessment by Council and RMS at the time a Development Application is submitted.

Recommendations No further action.

Agency NSW Roads and Maritime Services (submissions 11, 22, 25)

Summary of comments

The first submission requested additional time. The second submission reiterated the in principle support for access to the Gold Coast Highway and provided a copy of the RMS engaged review of the proponents Traffic Assessment raising concerns with the adequacy of the information.

Concerns included inadequate assessment of the Ourimbah Road connection and the cumulative impacts of development within the Tweed Region, including the Gold Coast Airport, Cobaki Lakes, and Boyds Bay Garden World.

Advice was provided that the RMS has engaged further traffic analysis to examine the extent of any access necessary to manage traffic from the site and carry out wider network analysis to measure possible wider traffic impacts. This is undertaken at the RMS cost and is estimated to require an additional 8 weeks.

Follow up submission has confirmed in principle support for access to the Gold Coast Highway. The submission also states that the additional assessment has been postponed pending other development information related to Cobaki and that at this stage the RMS only supports the rezoning


Page 49

Agency NSW Roads and Maritime Services (submissions 11, 22, 25)

of Stage 1.

Planning Response The in principle support for access to the Gold Coast Highway is noted.

Whilst understanding the strategic and cumulative impacts of the planning proposal is critical the level of assessment undertaken needs to be balanced with the level of information currently available.

The planning proposal stage needs to ensure that future development of the site, as permitted through the rezoning, will be achievable through access to the Gold Coast Highway. In principle support has been provided in this regard.

The size, scale and detailed design of the signalised intersection will be subject to assessment and detail design at the DA stage. Further discussion on this matter is provided.

The reporting of the planning proposal has been delayed some four months to allow the RMS to undertake additional assessment, which is now postponed.

The comments relating to approval of Stage 1 are noted, however, the stage 1 and Stage 2 proposals are concept plans only and are used to inform assessment of the proposed impact of the Planning proposal. The assessment of future impacts is undertaken in detail at the Development Applications stage, where future development may occur in stages. The planning proposal is not determined in stages.


Agency Office of Environment and Heritage (Submission 21)

Summary of comments

OEH has reviewed the planning proposal and provided comments in [their] attachment 1, with regard to Aboriginal Cultural Heritage (ACH), biodiversity values and threatened species, OEH estate flooding, coast and estuaries.

The planning proposal is supported by OEH on the basis that areas with potentially important ACH as identified by the Everick Due Diligence Assessment are zoned E2 Environmental Conservation unless further detail investigations at the planning proposal stage demonstrate the absence of ACH values in these areas. (If the DP&E do not permit the inclusion of E2 then an alternate suitable zone to protect the land is to be applied in conjunction with an appropriate land management agreement to protect and maintain the ACH).

Planning Response Conditional support is noted. It is also noted that the site is identified in the Tweed Urban and Land Release Strategy 2009 as employment land. The site is strategically located in the Tweed / Gold Coast Urban area and adjacent to the Gold Coast Airport and Southern Cross University.

ACH is discussed following.

Summary of comments

Conservation value and EEC


Page 50


The areas of high conservation value, such as the endangered ecological communities (EEC), swamp sclerophyll forest on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions and freshwater wetlands of the NSW North Coast Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions are protected from inappropriate land uses through the application of appropriate and effective environmental protections zoning such as E2. The E2 zone should incorporate a buffer to the Swamp Sclerophyll Forest EEC and the Freshwater Wetlands EEC with a minimum width of 20m to be re-vegetated so that indirect impacts of future development to be enabled by the planning proposal are appropriately mitigated. The E2 zone should also be applied to the 2 Freshwater Wetlands EEC remnants encircled by the racetrack, which connect to each other and the Swamp Sclerophyll Forest EEC. (If the DP&E do not permit the inclusion of E2 then an alternate suitable zone to protect the land is to be applied in conjunction with an appropriate land management agreement to protect and maintain the ACH).

If the planning proposal cannot apply land zones to protect and maintain the Swamp Sclerophyll Forest EEC and the Freshwater Wetlands EEC then an appropriate offset is identified and set aside in perpetuity prior to the approval of the planning proposal. OEH recommends using the Biobanking Assessment Methodology (BBAM) to calculate the type and quantum of offsets required. Consideration should be given to a suitable legal agreement between Council and the proponent to ensure the offsets are implemented.

Consideration is to be given to requiring the establishment of a suitable legal agreement between Council and the proponent at the planning proposal stage to ensure that mitigation measures detailed in the flora and fauna report are implemented.

If the planning proposal proceeds OEH recommends:

a) Further information is sought from the proponent at the development applications stage for the assessment of significance in relation to potential for genetic exchange between the suite of organisms that comprise the Freshwater Wetland EEC on the site and elsewhere identifying the EECs local occurrence, given that the wetland vegetation communities to the west of the site are likely to be isolated from the subject site by the Gold Coast Highway.

b) Any future clearing of the Swamp Sclerophyll Forest EEC associated with the development applications, such as provision of a new access road link with the industrial area to the south, is offset. OEH recommends use of the BBAM to determine the type and quantum of offsets.

Planning Response The areas of swamp sclerophyll forest are to be retained. Given the Environmental Zone review currently being undertaken by the Department of Planning, Council does not have the ability to apply the E2 zone and, therefore, the existing RE2 Private Open Space zone is to be retained over the swamp sclerophyll forest.

Two areas identified as freshwater wetland fall within the proposed future development footprint of the concept plan. A critical factor in the determination of these areas as EEC wetland is a sound understanding of the substrate history. This has not been fully determined and therefore, a


Page 51


precautionary approach has been taken to their identification as EEC.

Notwithstanding, should these areas be impacted, compensatory offsets will need to be agreed. Detailed assessment is appropriate at the development application stage where the details, footprint and scope of the development type, size and impacts is assessed. Assessment at the rezoning stage is appropriate to identify potential environmentally significant areas and to understand the any future development impacts. This assessment was undertaken by Cumberland Ecology and resulted in a range of recommendations, significantly redesign of the concept plan to minimise impacts on the swamp sclerophyll forest and removal of these sites from the future development footprint by retention of the RE2 zone. The assessment recommends development of a compensatory wetland adjoining the south-western swamp sclerophyll forest.

These areas will be subject to offset agreements should the future development impact on these areas.

The assessment also recommends: development of a Vegetation Management Plan, options to modify the design of the wetland, design stage actions and a balance of controlled access integrated with public appreciation opportunities.

The application of a 20 metre buffer around the swamp sclerophyll forest and freshwater wetlands would significantly limit the future development of the site, which is identified within the Tweed Urban Employment and Land Release Strategy for employment uses, is strategically located adjacent the growing Gold Coast Airport and within the urban area of Tweed Heads / Coolangatta.

Whilst the OEH recommends that offsets be undertaken prior to the completion of the Planning Proposal and be subject to a [voluntary] planning agreement, it is considered this level of detailed assessment can be suitably addressed at the DA stage.

As part of the planning proposal and Local Environmental Plan (LEP) amendment, the key sites mapping layer is to be amended to include this site. This triggers Clause 7.13 of the LEP, whereby preparation of a development control plan (DCP) is required prior to granting any development consent.

The recommendations of the Cumberland Ecology Ecological Assessment, as well as the Recommendations of the Everick ACH Assessment will be embodied within the DCP. The requirement for Offsets, including further assessment of habitat and species, based on the Biobanking Assessment Methodology, will be part of these requirements.

Summary of comments

ACH

OEH states it is critical that tangible and intangible ACH is fully assessed and considered. The Due Diligence assessment identifies two areas (sections 3 and 5) of potential ACH significance within the site. OEH recommends these be zoned E2 unless further detailed assessment demonstrates the absence of ACH (or other appropriate zone as above). Any future ground disturbance works must comply with Part 6 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act.


Page 52


Planning Response The Draft Tweed Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Mapping (endorsed by the Aboriginal Advisory Committee (AAC)) does not identify any known or predictive Aboriginal cultural heritage on the site, however, the neighbouring Airport site contains significant known and predictive Aboriginal cultural heritage.

The Due Diligence Assessment recommends an Aboriginal Sites Officer be given sufficient notice to attend the site to monitor initial earthworks in Areas 1 and 3, noting that no ground disturbance is planned for Area 5. Notwithstanding, should ground disturbance occur then the same requirement would apply.

It is also recommended that Cultural induction, by the TLALC, be provided to all plant operators.

Should any Aboriginal human remains or other cultural material be found then the legislative stop work requirements will prevail.

The Tweed Aboriginal Advisory Committee have been consulted during the planning proposal process and have requested investigative test pits be undertaken in Areas 3 and 5; site monitors be present for any ground disturbance below the fill level in areas 1 and 2; and Investigation test pits be undertaken in Area 4 if there is subsurface work planned.

Council does not currently have the ability to apply an E2 zone. Notwithstanding, the preference (through the draft Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan) is to undertake a due diligence assessment and minimise any impact of development. Potential ACH may be suitably managed by proceeding in a cautious manner and compliance the above recommendations for a sites officer and cultural induction rather than an environmental zoning.

Given that the E2 cannot be used, the approach taken in the interim is to apply an alternative suitable zone. Within the Border Park PP the environmentally significant areas are proposed to retain the RE2 Private Recreation zone. Areas 3 and 5 will predominantly be captured in the retained RE2 Private Recreation zone (used as an alternative to the E2 zone). All areas will be subject to the above recommendations.

Summary of comments

Biodiversity

OEH has reviewed the Cumberland Ecology Report and maintains the high level conservation value should be protected and land zoned E2 (or other appropriate zone as above). This applies to both the Swamp Sclerophyll Forest EEC and the Freshwater Wetland EEC. A buffer of a minimum of 20m to be revegetated so that edge effects are appropriately mitigated. This should be applied so that the 2 x EEC wetlands encircled by the racetrack are connected to each other and to the Swamp Sclerophyll Forest EEC.

OEH noted the Cumberland Ecology Report provides an assessment for the Freshwater Wetland EEC and other threatened entities. The need for such assessment is questionable as planning proposals do not trigger section 5A of the EP&A Act 1979. Nevertheless, the assessment indicates that the proposed development to be enabled by the planning proposal is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the Freshwater Wetland EEC such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction due to the proximity of similar habitat immediately west of the planning area, and the


Page 53


expectation that seed and pollen can be transferred between this area and the subject site. Definition of the EEC local occurrence as per the Assessment of Significance Guidelines pursuant to s5A of the EP&A Act is a key requirement upon which significance is based for EECs in the Assessment of Significance. Hence, OEH recommends that Council seeks further information from the proponent at the development applications stage in relation to the potential for genetic exchange between the suite of organisms that comprise the Freshwater Wetland EEC on the site and that elsewhere given the wetland vegetation communities to the west if the site are likely to be isolated from the subject site by the Gold Coast Highway.

Threatened species

OEH recommends appropriate environmental protections as discussed above

Mitigation measures

The planning proposal is supported by mitigation measures, which are supported by OEH. Consideration should be given to the establishment of a suitable legal agreement between Council and the proponent to ensure the measures are implemented.

Planning Response Addressed above

Summary of comments

OEH estate

The planning proposal should adequately demonstrate that the proposal will not result in any direct or indirect impacts on OEH estate.

Planning Response There is no State owned land within the immediate vicinity of the site other than the Gold Coast Airport land (NSW). This proposal does not impact on this land.

Summary of comments

Flooding, coasts and estuaries

OEH has identified that the southwest corner of the site is impacted by the 1% AEP flood. The minor nature of the impact does not affect the development potential of the site.

Planning Response Noted, and supported by the additional studies.

Recommendations 5. The DCP outlines the environmental constraints and attributes of the site, the recommendations of the Cumberland Ecology Ecological Assessment as well as the requirements for Offset agreements and/or environmental requirements where areas of EEC may be impacted.

6. The Requirements for ACH test pits, site induction and site

monitors, endorsed by the AAC, be included within the DCP.

No submissions were received by a Member of Parliament in respect of this Planning Proposal.


Page 54

Key agency issues Two key considerations arise from the agency submissions, being traffic impacts and Ecological Endangered Communities. Traffic The RMS initial submission (20 April 2015) provides in principle support for an intersection to the Gold Coast Highway from the site and was seeking an additional eight weeks to undertake further traffic assessment. This request was based on their peer review of the proponent’s traffic assessment as insufficient in a number of areas and the request of the Gold Coast Airport regarding their potential access to the in principle intersection. This was followed up with a second submission which reiterated the same concerns, provided a copy of the traffic Assessment Peer Review undertaken to inform the need for further traffic assessment, and requested a meeting with Council. Council staff and the Consultants assessing the proposal met with the RMS and their traffic consultant on 27 July 2015. At this time the distinction between the level of traffic assessment required for the possible suite of uses that may arise out of the rezoning of the site, based on the applicant’s submitted concept plans stage 1 and 2, and the detailed traffic assessment required at a development application (DA) stage was discussed. Agreement was reached that whilst the traffic assessment at DA stage is based on the potential uses arising out of the planning proposal, there is a need to understand the greater impact of the development in the future should the Ourimbah Road connection be provided and the cumulative impacts of surrounding proposals in this network, including: the Boyd’s Bay Garden World future redevelopment, the Cobaki Lakes future development and the Gold Coast Airport future development. It was acknowledged by RMS Consultants that conceptually, the envisaged traffic arising from the Border Park planning proposal is able to be accommodated within acceptable traffic parameters; and the form, size and scale of the intersection will be informed by the future development applications. Notwithstanding, agreement was reached that the RMS would undertake further traffic assessment based on two scenarios: stage 1 being a future Bunnings and redeveloped Border Park Raceway; Stage 2 being the highest potential uses of the zoning and including a connection to Ourimbah Road. RMS envisaged that this would take approximately one week to complete. Subsequently the RMS met with Gold Coast Airport (GCAPL). RMS confirmed by email 28 July 2015 that the GCAPL requested that the traffic assessment in association with the Border Park planning proposal consider a full fourth leg access to this intersection and GCAPL and that GCAPL would provide data on traffic generation (note: this does not include data on future land uses to inform traffic generation). The RMS noted this would delay the modelling being undertaken. A request was made to the RMS by email of 28 July 2015 seeking clarification as to the revised timeframe.


Page 55

It is noted that the GCAPL Draft Preliminary Major Development Plan (GCAMDP) is currently on public exhibition. It is also noted that GCAMDP identifies a “Development Footprint” in red outline on Figure 16.10 (as well as others) and the Plan states in 16.7 Impact Assessment - Figure 16.16 that the road proposed to connect to the Gold Coast Highway subject intersection is for proposed “construction access”. A report on the GCAMDP is also included within this business paper. Whilst it is acknowledged that the wider traffic implications are an important consideration for the future development of the site and the wider traffic catchment planning, the purpose of the planning proposal is to determine the suitability of the site for the intended zoning and therefore, future permitted land uses. It is not considered reasonable to delay consideration of the planning proposal by Council due to a desire of Gold Coast Airport to also connect to the Gold Coast Highway when there is significant uncertainty as to the potential land uses on the GCAPL land. If the proponent lodges a Development Application with Council there will be opportunity for Gold Coast Airport to work with proponent at that stage to facilitate an access to their site. Undertaking detailed SIDRA traffic modelling in anticipation of development provides a cautionary, though not necessarily appropriate approach; given the development scenarios are speculative at this stage. This level of assessment is suited to the DA stage, whereby the intersection may be designed to the appropriate capacity. The RMS provided verbal advice (3 September 2015) that they are delayed with the additional traffic modelling. This was confirmed in writing, received 14 September. RMS stated they would prefer the planning proposal be delayed until further traffic analysis is undertaken, however, they acknowledge this may not be possible. RMS agrees to the rezoning of stage 1 of the site only. It is, however, noted that the rezoning is for the entire site and that future development applications may be in stages. RMS would have the opportunity to undertake further analysis to inform their understanding prior to any future DA being submitted. It is recommended that the detailed traffic assessment, whilst of merit, may suitably be considered at the DA stage. Therefore, given that the RMS have provided in principle support for an intersection to the Gold Coast Highway it is suggested there is no significant benefit in continuing to hold the progress of the planning proposal at bay based on the possible future traffic demands of the GCAPL. Ecological Endangered Communities The Ecological Assessment by Cumberland Ecology identifies areas of swamp sclerophyll forest along the southern, eastern and south-western boundary and two areas of freshwater wetland within the dog track. Both are endangered ecological communities (EEC). The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) maintains these areas should be conserved and protected through an Environmental (E2) zoning. If any impact is envisaged to the EEC then the OEH suggests consideration of establishing the amount of offset required, based on the Biobanking Assessment Methodology and establishing this requirement through a legal agreement between Council and the proponent, a [voluntary] planning agreement prior to the approval of the planning proposal. In addition the OEH recommends a 20 metre buffer around the areas of EEC.


Page 56

The areas of swamp sclerophyll forest are to be retained. As the DP&E has not yet provided determination or advice on the use of environmental zones for the North Coast, Council does not have the ability to apply the E2 Environmental Conservation zone and, therefore, the existing RE2 Private Open Space zone is to be retained over the swamp sclerophyll forest, as shown on the zoning map, Figure 1 and aerial photograph, Figure 2. The areas of freshwater wetland, as shown encircled red in Figure 2, are proposed within the planning proposal to be compensated in the south west of the site and integrated with the existing swamp sclerophyll forest. Notwithstanding, these areas will be subject to additional detailed assessment and offset agreements through the DA process should the future development impact on these areas. As part of the planning proposal and Local Environmental Plan (LEP) amendment, the key sites mapping layer is to be amended to include the site. This triggers Clause 7.13 of the LEP, whereby preparation of a DCP is required prior to granting any development consent. The OEH requests consideration of offset requirements prior to the approval of the planning proposal and offsets to be established in a legal agreement between Council and the proponent. Whilst this precautionary approach is reasonable for understanding and mitigating any environmental impacts or losses, the extent of required offsets is determined by the scope, size, location and impact of future development, which is more accurately determined through the assessment of a detailed development proposal. The planning proposal uses the concept plan as a basis for the assessment of the site’s suitability for rezoning. This assessment identifies potential impacts and servicing or other issues, as is the case with the areas of EEC. Where it is appropriate these areas are protected through zoning, which is managed through the planning proposal. If the management is through other methods, such as offsets, vegetation management plans or the like, then this requires the detail of the future development plans. The application of protective zoning of the freshwater wetlands and a 20 metre buffer around the swamp sclerophyll forest and freshwater wetlands would significantly limit the future development of the site, which is identified within the Tweed Urban Employment and Land Release Strategy for employment uses, is strategically located adjacent the growing Gold Coast Airport, Southern Cross University and within the urban area of Tweed Heads / Coolangatta. As such the project planning to date has proceeded on the basis of protecting the swamp sclerophyll forest through the retention of the RE2 zone and the acknowledging there may be offsets required for the freshwater wetland should this not be suitably compensated within the development of a compensatory wetland adjoining the south-western swamp sclerophyll forest. This would also be the approach to the future construction of the roadway connecting to Ourimbah Road. The recommendations of the Cumberland Ecology Ecological Assessment, as well as the recommendations of the Everick ACH Assessment will be embodied within the DCP. The requirement for offsets, including further assessment of habitat and species, based on the Biobanking Assessment Methodology, will be part of these requirements.


Page 57

This report recommends deferring the offset requirements of the planning proposal to the first (subdivision) DA, where a greater level of detail will assist in more accurate determination of the offset requirements.

Figure 2 Aerial photograph of the Border Park site showing two areas of freshwater wetland within the dog track encircled in red.


Page 58

Koala Plan of Management The Koala Plan of Management (KPoM) was adopted by Council 19 Feb 2015, just prior to this planning proposal going on public exhibition. Whilst the matter of koalas has not been raised throughout the progress of the planning proposal, it is noted that the site falls within the Tweed Heads Koala Management Area. There is a very small area of koala vegetation in the south western corner of the site, which has been identified as significant vegetation to be protected. Given that Council is unable to use the E2 Environmental Conservation zone, this area, as part of a larger retained vegetation zone, is to be retained as its current RE2 Private Recreation zone. A comprehensive Flora and Fauna Assessment was undertaken by Cumberland Ecology, December 2014. Whilst this plan finds there are koala feed trees on the southern western corner of the site, it does not raise any issues for impact on koalas. Notwithstanding, should a future development application include removal of trees within the Tweed Heads Koala Management Area, the provisions of the KPoM will apply. This may result in the additional offset considerations. Development Control Plan As part of the planning proposal and Local Environmental Plan (LEP) amendment, the key sites mapping layer is to be amended to include the site. This triggers Clause 7.13 of the LEP, whereby preparation of a development control plan (DCP) is required prior to granting any development consent. The Tweed DCP Section A17 Business, Enterprise Corridor and General Industrial Zones provides general business zone provisions. The Tweed DCP A17 is to be amended to provide, but not be limited to, more site specific detailed planning, design and environmental guidance, address the requirements of Clause 7.13 and to include the recommendations of the report as follows:

1. The DCP specifies that any vehicular access to the site from Binya Avenue can only be for emergency access i.e. emergency vehicles.

2. Incorporate provisions to manage delivery times in the DCP to minimise noise impacts on surrounding residents and achieve required standards.

3. Incorporate provisions within the DCP to manage interface issues, such as urban

design, overlooking, bulk and scale, for buildings within 10m of the site boundary.

4. The DCP incorporate a reference to the protection of airspace legislation and a requirement that any significant development be referred to the Gold Coast Airport for their review and comment.

5. The DCP outlines the environmental constraints and attributes of the site, the

recommendations of the Cumberland Ecology Ecological Assessment as well as the requirements for Offset agreements and/or environmental requirements where areas of EEC may be impacted.


Page 59

6. The Requirements for ACH test pits, site induction and site monitors, endorsed by the AAC, be included within the DCP.

The applicant has entered into a Costs Agreement for the preparation of the DCP amendment. Consistent with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the DCP amendment is to be exhibited for a minimum period of 28 days. OPTIONS: 1. Council endorse the recommendations of this report and resolve to proceed with the

LEP Amendment and refer the planning proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment to be made under s59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979;

2. Council resolve not to proceed with the planning proposal, outlining the reasons for this

decisions, to be forwarded to the proponent and the Department of Planning and Environment; or

3. Council defer a decision on this matter pending further advice or Councillor workshop. Option 1 is recommended. CONCLUSION: The planning proposal, LEP 2014 Amendment No 2 for the Border Park Raceway site, Tweed Heads has been prepared over a two year period and has taken a balanced approach to enabling the future use of the site, both in the short term and without limiting longer term options. The site is identified within the framework of the Tweed Urban and Employment Land Release Strategy, 2009 and its proximity to the growing Gold Coast Airport and potential as employment generating land has been considered whilst acknowledging the environmental values on the land and protecting a significant area of land with environmental values. The planning proposal has been exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination. The exhibition of the planning proposal has not raised any critical issues which cannot be suitably addressed through the associated development control plan (DCP) and further detailed assessment at the DA stage. The planning proposal will facilitate, in the short term, the development of the site for employment uses, whilst allowing the retention of the current Border Park Raceway. In the longer term the planning proposal, and associated DCP, will facilitate the a mix of business park uses appropriate for the urban location and proximity to the Gold Coast Airport as well as future connection to the Ourimbah Road industrial area. The site has the in principle support of the RMS for a signalised intersection to the Gold Coast Highway, critical to the future redevelopment of the site.


Page 60

The site has the in principle agreement of the OEH, subject to the determination and agreement of any required environmental offsets, which may be managed through the DCP and the future DA. The proposal highlights a number of strategic benefits in the redevelopment of the site: • Establishing employment generating uses on the subject site; • Activating the frontage of the site to the Gold Coast Highway; • Reducing traffic going through residential streets; • Providing a connection to the Gold Coast Highway that may ultimately connect through

Ourimbah Road; • Opportunities for increases in height over the subject site; and • The ability to retain and enhance the operation of a longstanding raceway facility and

keep it active in the Tweed. The proposal is consistent with the strategic urban framework for the Tweed, has addressed social, environmental and economic considerations. It is considered the B7 Business Park zone and the RE2 Private Recreation zone as shown on the zoning map in Figure 1 and as exhibited, are a suitable outcome, therefore it is recommended that the amendment proceed to be made. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: There is no budget allocated to this project. The project is externally resourced and funded through cost recovery under a Costs Agreement with the applicant. c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Consult - We will listen to you, consider your ideas and concerns and keep you informed. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Attachment 1. Summary of submissions (ECM 3801433)


Page 61

4 [PR-PC] Variations to Development Standards under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards

SUBMITTED BY: Director

Valid


1.4 Strengthen coordination among Commonwealth and State Governments, their agencies and other service providers and Statutory

Authorities to avoid duplication, synchronise service delivery and seek economies of scale

1.4.1 Council will perform its functions as required by law and form effective partnerships with State and Commonwealth governments and

their agencies to advance the welfare of the Tweed community

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

In accordance with the Department of Planning's Planning Circular PS 08-014 issued on 14 November 2008, the following information is provided with regards to development applications where a variation in standards under SEPP1 has been supported/refused. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council notes there are no variations for the month of September 2015 to Development Standards under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards.


Page 62

REPORT:

On 14 November 2008 the Department of Planning issued Planning Circular PS 08-014 relating to reporting on variations to development standards under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP1). In accordance with that Planning Circular, no Development Applications have been supported/refused where a variation in standards under SEPP1 has occurred. COUNCIL IMPLICATIONS: a. Policy: Corporate Policy Not Applicable b. Budget/Long Term Financial Plan: Not Applicable c. Legal: Not Applicable. d. Communication/Engagement: Not Applicable. UNDER SEPARATE COVER/FURTHER INFORMATION:

Nil.

Documents

Planning Committee Agenda - 1 October 2015€¦ · Thursday 1 October 2015 . held at Murwillumbah Cultural and Civic Centre . commencing at 5.00pm . Planning Committee: Thursday 1