COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING 7 … · Five (5) panel antennas at a centreline...

COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING7 February 2017

AGENDABUSINESS ITEM – 8.1

Applicant: NBN Co Limited Landowner: R L Scrase

Agent: Aurecon Australasia Pty Ltd Ward: Marble Hill WardDevelopment Application: 16/467/473 Originating Officer: Doug Samardzija

Application Description: Telecommunications facility comprising lattice tower (maximum height45m), associated infrastructure & associated earthworks (non-complying)

Subject Land: Lot:21 Sec: P16 DP:110304CT:6169/802

General Location: 9 Jennings Drive Ashton

(Refer to Locality Plan Attachment 1)Development Plan Consolidated : 28 April2016Map AdHi/3 & 15

Zone/Policy Area: Watershed (PrimaryProduction) Zone & Water Protection (MarbleHill) Policy Area

Form of Development:Non-complying

Site Area: 10 Hectares

Public Notice Category: Category 3 NonComplying

Notice published in The Advertiser on 25November 2016

Representations Received: 6

Representations to be Heard: 4

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this application is to construct a 45m high telecommunication facility comprisinglattice tower and associated infrastructure to support the roll-out of the fixed wireless NationalBroadband Network (NBN) high speed internet services to Ashton and surrounding areas.

The subject land is located within the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone and the WaterProtection (Marble Hill) Policy Area and is a non-complying form of development. Five (6)representations in opposition were received during the Category 3 public notification period.

As per the CDAP delegations, the CDAP is the relevant authority for a non-complying developmentwhen opposing representors wish to be heard.

The main issues relating to the proposal are potential visual impacts and health impacts.

Following an assessment against the relevant zone and Council Wide provisions within theDevelopment Plan, staff are recommending that CONCURRENCE from the DevelopmentAssessment Commission be sought to GRANT Development Plan Consent.

Council Development Assessment Panel Meeting – 7 February 2017Aurecon Australasia2016/467/473

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposal is for the following:

A new 45m high galvanised steel lattice tower;

Five (5) panel antennas at a centreline height of 45m;

Ten (10) 381mm high remote radio units (RRUs), mounted behind panel antennas;

One (1) 600mm diameter parabolic antenna, at a centreline height of 42m;

One (1) GPS unit;

One (1) equipment shelter (measuring 3000mm x 2500mm x 2760mm); and

2.4m high security fencing and associated ancillary equipment.

Existing access point to be utilised.

The proposed plans and reports are included in Attachment 2.

3. HISTORY

Whilst there is an existing dwelling and outbuildings on the subject land, council has no recordsof any previous development applications on the subject land. The buildings are likely to pre-date planning legislation.

4. REFERRAL RESPONSES

EPAThe EPA commented that provided soil erosion and drainage management isappropriately implemented during the construction of the development, the EPA issatisfied that the proposal would not impact on water quality within the Mount LoftyRanges Water Protection Area and can be undertaken in a manner that is consistent withthe Water Quality Policy.

(refer to recommended condition 3).

A copy of the referral response is included as Attachment 3.

5. CONSULTATION

The application was categorised as a Category 3 form of development in accordance withSection 38(2)(c) of the Development Act 1993 requiring formal public notification and a publicnotice. Six (6) representations were received and one (1) submission was received out of time.All of the representations are opposing the proposal and all were from adjacent and nearbyproperties.


The following representors wish to be heard:

Name of Representor Representor’s PropertyAddress

Nominated Speaker

Robert and Patricia Blanks 57 Jennings Drive, Ashton Robert and Patricia BanksKevin Bilstein 10 Monomeith Road, Ashton Kevin BilsteinJohn Bowley 14 Stony Rise Road, Ashton John BowleyGuy Daly 7 Jennings Drive, Ashton Guy Dale

The applicant(s) or their representative – Lauren Nicholson and Matt Evans will be inattendance.

The issues contained in the representations can be briefly summarised as follows: Visual impacts of the proposed 45m tower in the locality Electromagnetic Energy (EME) and health impacts Noise levels Property values Impacts of the tower on television reception

These issues are discussed in detail in the following sections of the report.

Copies of the submissions are included as Attachment 4 and the applicant’s response to theseis provided in Attachment 5.

6. PLANNING & TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

This application has been evaluated in accordance with the following matters:

i. The Site’s Physical CharacteristicsThe subject land is approximately 10 hectares in area an irregular shape, with theprimary frontage to Jennings Drive, and frontages also to Stony Rise Road and CollinsRoad.

The allotment contains one dwelling, nurseries and associated horticulture buildings.There is also scattered vegetation throughout the property and a water courserunning north to south through a section of the allotment.

ii. The Surrounding AreaThe locality contains allotments of various shapes and sizes and with the exception ofthe adjoining allotment to the south which is used by the residents for sporting andcommunity purposes, all of the other allotments in the immediate locality are usedfor primary production and/or rural living purposes.

The proposed facility will be approximately 130m from the nearest dwelling on theadjacent allotment at 16 Jennings Drive, Ashton. The closest existingtelecommunication facility is approximately 3.2km southwest of the proposedlocation at 404 Mount Lofty Summit Road Cleland, and is a Telstra facility.


iii. Development Plan Policy considerationsa) Policy Area/Zone Provisions

The subject land lies within the Water Protection (Marble Hill) Policy Area of theWatershed (Primary Production) Zone and these provisions seek:

Water Protection (Marble Hill) Policy Area- No intensification of urban development- Protection of the surrounds of the townships of Summertown and Uraidla

The following are considered to be the relevant Policy Area provisions:

Objectives: 4 & 5PDCs: 8, 9, 10 & 11

Objective 4 envisages no intensification of urban development. While to some extentthe telecommunication tower in its appearance may be viewed as structure morecommonly associated with urban areas, it has none the less become a feature of therural landscape as a necessity to provide the appropriate services to the local andwider community. The total area of the proposed NBN compound is 120m² and in thecontext of the allotment and the locality, it is not considered as a substantial area ofland. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is consistent withObjective 4 and will not result in intensification of urban development.

Principles of Development Control (PDCs) 10 and 11 refer to the size and the locationof the buildings and in particular state that buildings should not exceed ten metres inheight above natural ground level and should not be obtrusively located, particularlywhen near public roads and scenic vantage points. Objective 5 also envisages theprotection of the surrounds of the townships of Summertown and Uraidla to enhancethe country town atmosphere and character. Whilst regard must be given to PDC 10in relation to maximum height for buildings within the Marble Hill Policy Area,telecommunication facilities rely on their height in order to provide the best possibleservice to the surrounding area but also to connect to the wider network. Thelocation of the tower is well screened from the public roads and nearby properties byexisting dense vegetation (as shown on the photo montage) but it is accepted that itis not possible to screen the entire structure, firstly due to its size but also becausethe service relies on line of sight to other facilities in the wireless network. As such itis considered that the applicant has selected a location which best satisfies PDC 11.Whilst Ashton might not be classified as part of the surrounds of townships ofSummertown and Uraidla, part of the structure might still be visible from certainsections of those towns and as such some regard must be given to Objective 5. Itmust however be recognised that all telecommunications facilities need to have clearline of sight to surrounding areas and will therefore have some visual impact on thelocality. This is an unavoidable and an inherent part of such facilities. The key issue iswhether such facilities are located and designed to minimise such impacts. In thisinstance the proposed siting is considered to be appropriate, and accords withObjective 5.


The Watershed (Primary Production) Zone- Maintenance and enhancement of the natural resources of the south Mount

Lofty Ranges.- The enhancement of the Mount Lofty Ranges as a source of high quality

water.- The long-term sustainability of rural production in the south Mount Lofty

Ranges.- The preservation and restoration of remnant native vegetation in the south

Mount Lofty Ranges.- The enhancement of the amenity and landscape of the south Mount Lofty

Ranges for the enjoyment of residents and visitors.

The following are considered to be the relevant Zone provisions:

Objectives: 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5PDCs: 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 29, 30, 32, 37, 39 & 44

Form of DevelopmentZone Objective 5 seeks the enhancement of the amenity and landscape of the southMount Lofty Ranges and this is supported by PDC 1 which calls for buildings to belocated in unobtrusive locations. PDC 2 seeks buildings to be unobtrusively designedand PDCs 11, 14 and 39 state that buildings should not detract from, or impair thenatural and rural landscape character of the region by way of scale or siting.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed lattice tower is of an obtrusive designdue to its 45m height, the applicant was asked during the assessment if the monopolecould be used instead of lattice tower to minimise the visual impact. The responsethat was given is that the minimum height of 45m was required to allow the antennasto operate effectively and constructing monopoles higher then 40m in height isdifficult and as such a lattice tower is required. The applicant has provided a photomontage to represent the visual impact of the proposed tower.

The montage depicts views of the tower from the south with indicator 1 showing theviews from Jennings Drive standing at the entry point to the sport club and indicator 2at the southern end of the club rooms showing how the structure would sit amongstthe existing trees and vegetation. The montages show that a significant portion of thelattice tower is going to be screened by existing trees and vegetation surrounding theselected site. As previously mentioned, it would not be possible to screen the entirestructure due to its height, but also due to the clear line of sight required for theeffective operations of the facility. It is therefore considered that whilst the proposedlattice tower is an obtrusive design and not consistent with PDC 2, in this instance it isgenerally accepted that there is not much that could be done to the design of thestructure to improve its overall appearance and the use of monopole is notconsidered acceptable once the height of the structure exceeds 40m.Notwithstanding this, the proposal is not considered to be in an obtrusive locationand is therefore not at variance with PDC 1. The proposal is also considered topartially accord with Zone Objective 5 and PDCs 11, 14 and 39.


ConservationPDC 29 does state the buildings should not be located within areas of nativevegetation.

The site selected does not contain any native vegetation. A search was alsoundertaken to determine if there were any possible natural flora, fauna andendangered species of significance on the site and it was concluded that there werenone. Existing non-native vegetation within the proposed facility will be retained andact as a partial screen to the proposed structure. The proposal is thereforeconsidered to be consistent with PDC 37.

PDC 32 provides that (amongst other matters) the provision of access and powershould be over areas already cleared of native vegetation.

The NBN facility will be accessed via an existing crossover to Jennings Drive and willutilise part of the existing track within the site with an additional 50m of tracktowards the south is proposed to be upgraded to a gravel surface, which will also notrequire any native vegetation removal.

Power to the facility will be provided by a new group meter panel to be locatedadjacent to existing access track which is approximately 100m from the NBN facilityand would be connected to the facility via the new underground route. These worksare still subject to the approval from SA Power Networks. In the event that this is notpossible, power to the facility would be provided via a generator in the interim withthe upgrades to the existing power facilities to be at NBN’s expense. The proposal isconsidered to be consistent with PDC 32.

The proposed location of the NBN facility is also on a portion of the land which is notused for any primary production purposes and will not result in the loss of any futureprimary production land. The necessary area to accommodate the NBN facility is120m² with an additional 50m long track proposed to the facility. In the context of thesite and the locality this is not considered to be a substantial amount of land. Theproposal is therefore considered to accord with Objective 3 and PDC 44.

Non-complying DevelopmentAs per PDC 70, telecommunications facilities are non-complying forms ofdevelopment if they have a height greater than 30 metres.

As telecommunications facilities are referenced in this PDC this is considered toindicate that they are an anticipated form of development in the Watershed (PrimaryProduction) Zone, despite the inherent visual obtrusiveness of such structures.

The applicant has provided advice that the 45m height of this proposed tower isrequired to allow effective relay transmission to other NBN telecommunicationfacilities. Due to the requirement to have the structure at 45m in height the option ofusing a monopole which would result in less visual impact is not possible due to thestructural reasons already discussed.


The 45m height of this proposed tower is consistent with the height of other NBNtelecommunications facilities that have been approved, or are still undergoingassessment in the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone.

b) Council Wide provisions

The Council Wide provisions of relevance to this proposal seek (in summary):- Orderly and economic development.- Provision for increased employment opportunities.- The amenity of localities not impaired by the appearance of land, buildings and

objects.- Buildings or structures unobtrusively sited and of a character and design which

blends naturally with the landscape.- Protection of watersheds from pollution.- Telecommunications facilities provided to meet the needs of the community.- Telecommunication facilities located and designed to minimise visual impacts on

the amenity of the local environment.

The following are considered to be the relevant Council Wide provisions:

Objectives: 1, 8, 20, 87, 88, 100, 103PDCs: 1, 2, 3, 9, 13, 22, 23, 25, 228, 231 233, 234, 237, 240, 244, 295, 297, 341, 342,343 & 345

Form of DevelopmentObjective 1 and PDC 2 seek development to be orderly and economic.

The proposal is considered to be economic and consistent with Objective 1 & PDC 2,as it will assist in providing an essential high speed internet service to Ashton and thewider community. The provision of a higher speed internet service is considered toassist with the efficiency and productivity of local businesses with possible flow-oneffects, such as providing increased employment opportunities, which is sought byObjective 8. PDC 3 seeks development to be established on land which is suitable forits intended purpose, relative to the location of the land and the Zone objectives. Theapplicant has provided comments on the site selection procedure and whilstoperational and geographical aspects are primary considerations, other aspects suchas visual amenity, the possibility of co-location, health and safety, construction,access, environmental impacts and the willingness of the site provider are alsoconsiderations during the site selection procedure. The proposal is not consideredto offend the primary objectives of the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone toprotect water resources from pollution and retaining primary production. Theproposal is considered to be consistent with PDC 3.

PDC 13 does provide that development should (amongst other matters) not prejudicethe amenity of the locality by emissions or unsightly appearance. In the context ofPDC 13 this is generally understood to be emissions in the form of noise or light spill.The applicant has addressed in their report the issues of noise and have identifiedthat the biggest noise emission would be during the construction stage. Oncecomplete the only other noise that would be omitted would be the ongoingoperations of air conditioning equipment which is comparable to that of a domestic


air conditioning unit. Other noise that could be associated with the developmentwould be the use of a generator as a temporary measure until an electricityconnection is established. Light spill from possible security lighting is to be controlled(recommended condition 4).

In regards to appearance, the tower will be galvanised and will in time dull. Paintingthe structure is not considered appropriate as that would result in the structure beingmore visible. The site that has been selected is also surrounded by mature pine treeswhich will block out and screen a large portion of the structure.

PDC 23 provides setback guidance and details that structures should be deeply set-back from the road frontage to enable retention of the beauty and wooded characterof the locality. The proposal satisfies this requirement given that the closest publicroad (Jennings Drive) is 110m away from the proposed structure and the structure islocated within a wooded area, which will assist in screening a large portion of thetower and associated infrastructure. During the site selection process, Candidate Asite which was the preferred site would have been more exposed then the CandidateB site. Whilst candidate A site was not selected due to the potential lease acquisitiondelays, the resulting selection of Candidate B site means that the visual impacts aregreatly reduced.

Appearance of Land and Buildings and Visual ImpactsVisual impacts from telecommunication facilities are generally unavoidable due totheir size and design. PDC 228 provides that development should not take placein areas which are prominently visible from other land or which are frequented bythe public. The applicant has provided a photo montage which represents the likelyappearance of the structure in the locality should it be approved in the nominatedlocation. The montages show that the bottom half of the tower along with theassociated equipment will be screened by the existing pine trees with the top sectionremaining exposed. Whilst the visual impacts are acknowledged, it is considered thatthe impact has been reduced due to the existing vegetation around the site. Topportion which is approximately half of the structure as shown on the montagesprovided would remain exposed which is not considered to be unreasonable. TheNBN tower is proposed on a privately owned allotment which is located next to therecreation grounds. Whilst the site is not visited by the public, the adjacent site isused by the wider community. The visual impact to this site is reduced due to thevegetation along the boundaries. The proposal is therefore partially consistent withPDC 228. One of the representors raised a question about additional structures thatcould be attached to the structure in the future. The applicant has advised that it ispossible for other carriers to install their equipment on existing facilities provided thatcorrect protocol is followed, but at this stage the facility is only intended to provideNBN equipment.

PDC 234 states that no development should impair the natural character of the southMount Lofty Ranges or the skyline of the south Mount Lofty Ranges. It isacknowledged that the proposed tower will intrude upon the skyline due to its 45mheight. However, as noted above the 45m height of the tower is required toensure an effective transmission relay. Also as mentioned earlier, the use of amonopole to reduce the visual impacts is not possible due the requirements for thestructure to be 45m high. The closest scenic route is Greenhill Road which isapproximately 1.8km from the proposed site and the visual impact should thereforebe minimal. The proposal is considered to be consistent with PDC 237.


Environmental/Public Health IssuesIt is quite well established in planning case law that EME impacts cannot be a relevantconsideration in the planning assessment of development applications fortelecommunications facilities. There are no relevant Development Plan policies whichguide the assessment of EME levels arising from such facilities as it is governed byother legislation.

Notwithstanding this, the applicant has provided an EME Report which calculates theexpected EME levels from the proposed facility. The summary of this assessment isthat the maximum predicted level of EME equates to approximately 0.042% of themaximum allowable exposure limit at a distance of 379.39 metres from the facility.This is significantly below the relevant radiation standard set by the AustralianRadiation Protection & Nuclear Safety Agency (ANSARPA).

Watershed Protection and ConservationObjective 103 seeks the protection of the watershed protection area from pollution.The EPA was satisfied that the proposal will not impact on water quality in the MountLofty Ranges Watershed Protection Area, provided that a soil, erosion &drainage management plan (SEDMP) is provided by the applicant (refer tocondition 3). The proposal is considered to accord with Objective 103.

The site is relatively clear and would not require removal of any vegetation. Thenominated site is surrounded by existing mature pine trees which will be retained toact as a partial screen for the proposed structure.

Telecommunication FacilityObjective 114 states telecommunications facilities should be provided to meet theneeds of the community, whilst Objective 115 seeks that telecommunication facilitiesbe located and designed to minimise visual impacts on the amenity of theenvironment noting that such facilities are appropriate in non-residential zones. Thisis further enforced in PDC 341. During the site selection process three possible siteswere identified with the Candidate B site being selected due to the potential delayswith negations of lease over Candidate A site. As far as the use of Candidate C site onCoach Road which was also raised as one of the options by one of therepresentations, the applicant has advised that Candidate C site would have requiredremoval of four large Pine Trees but also the location of the site is considerablyfurther to the west of Ashton and would have impacted on the proposed facility’sability to deliver Fixed Wireless to the premises within the identified coverage area. Itis considered that the selection of Candidate B site is consistent with Objective 114and part (a) of PDC 341 as it will assist in providing the residents and localbusinesses of Ashton with access to the NBN network which will facilitate a highspeed internet service. The applicant has carefully selected the subject land toaccommodate the facility noting the required transmission line of sightrequirements to other facilities in the NBN network to Ashton and the widercommunity. The subject land is in a non-residential rural zone, with the facilitysited amongst mature pine trees which would act as a screen for the base of thelattice tower and associated infrastructure compound. The proposal is thereforeconsidered to be consistent with Objective 115 and the remaining parts of PDC 341.In addition to the Candidate A site being located adjacent to the existing communityfacilities, it would be more exposed then the selected Candidate B site.


Co-locationCo-location is one of the first options that is explored in these sorts of proposals. Thisis also enforced by the PDC 342 which states that where technically feasible co-location of telecommunications facilities should primarily occur in industrial,commercial, business, office, centre and rural zones. During the preliminary siteselection process only one existing site was identified within the locality. The site islocated approximately 3.2km southwest of the proposed location and consists ofthree different structures and each of the structures currently supports Telstraequipment. Due to the distance of the site from the target area of Ashton, theservices it would provide would be poor and unreliable and it’s was therefore notconsidered as a viable site.

Other MattersDuring public notification there were concerns raised by representors in relation toproperty values, community engagement, impacts on the operations of CFS andinterference with television reception. These issues while being of concern to residentare not relevant planning considerations and therefore Adelaide Hills CouncilDevelopment Plan does not have any development plan policies which would guidethe assessment of such issues. The applicant in their response to the representationshas provided comments in relation to the above points which are part of theAttachment 5.

7. SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

The proposal is for a NBN telecommunications facility comprised of 45m high lattice towerand associated infrastructure in the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone. The facility if installedwill provide high speed internet to residents of Ashton and the wider community. The facility isconsidered to provide an essential service and has been located in an appropriate non-residentialzone. Whilst is acknowledged that the proposed will result in visual impact to the locality due to itsheight , the need to have a clear line of sight for the signal to be transmitted to surrounding areasand also to achieve transmission chain with other NBN towers, these visual impacts are consideredto be unavoidable. The applicant has demonstrated that a site has been selected which wouldminimise those impacts as much as practically possible and a site where the bottom section of thetower and associated infrastructure is going to be screened by existing vegetation.

Accordingly, the proposed facility is not considered to unreasonably impair the visual amenity ofthe rural surrounds, or the nearby townships of Summertown and Uraidla. Whilst ideally thisfacility would be co-located with another telecommunications facility, due to the distance of theclosest telecommunication facility this option was not possible. The proposal is considered to besufficiently consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, despite its non-complying nature, and it is considered the proposal is not seriously at variance with theDevelopment Plan. In the view of staff, the proposal has sufficient merit to warrant consent. Stafftherefore recommend that CONCURRENCE from the Development Assessment Commission besought to GRANT Development Plan Consent, subject to conditions.


8. RECOMMENDATIONThat the Council Development Assessment Panel considers that the proposal is not seriouslyat variance with the relevant provisions of the Adelaide Hills Council Development Plan, andseeks the CONCURRENCE of the Development Assessment Commission to GRANTDevelopment Plan Consent to Development Application 16/467/473 by NBN Co Limited forTelecommunications facility comprising lattice tower (maximum height 45m), associatedinfrastructure & associated earthworks (non-complying) at 9 Jennings Drive Ashton subjectto the following conditions:

(1) Development In Accordance With The PlansThe development herein approved shall be undertaken in accordance with thefollowing plans, details and written submissions accompanying the application,unless varied by a separate condition:- Statement of Effect, reference number NBN-5STZ-5LEN-5102-Ashton, dated 16

November 2016 and date stamped as received by Council 21 November 2019- Cover sheet, drawing number 5LEN-51-02-ASHT-T1, revision B dated 26.10.16

and date stamped as received by Council 21 November 2016- Site specification notes, drawing number 5LEN-51-02-ASHT-C1, revision B dated

26.10.16 and date stamped as received by Council 21 November 2016- Overall site plan, drawing number 5LEN-51-02-ASHT-C2, revision B dated

26.10.16 and date stamped as received by Council 21 November 2016- Site setout plan, drawing number 5LEN-51-02-ASHT-C3, revision B dated

26.10.16 and date stamped as received by Council 21 November 2016- Site elevation and details plan, drawing number 5LEN-51-02-ASHT-C4, revision B

dated 26.10.16 and date stamped as received by Council 21 November 2016- Site earthworks plan, drawing number 5LEN-51-02-ASHT-C5, revision B dated

26.10.16 and date stamped as received by Council 21 November 2016- NBN antenna configuration & setout plan, drawing number 5LEN-51-02-ASHT-

A1, revision B dated 26.10.16 and date stamped as received by Council 21November 2016

REASON: To ensure the proposed development is undertaken in accordance withthe approved plans.

(2) External FinishesThe external finishes to the building herein approved shall be as follows.Lattice Tower: Galvanised grey steel or similarEquipment shelter and fencing: Light to Mid Grey or similar

REASON: The external materials of buildings should have surfaces which are of alow light-reflective nature and blend with the natural rural landscape and minimisevisual intrusion.

(3) Prior to Building Rules Consent Being Granted - Requirement for Soil Erosion AndDrainage Management Plan (SEDMP)Prior to Building Rules Consent being granted the applicant shall prepare andsubmit to Council a Soil Erosion and Drainage Management Plan (SEDMP) for thesite for Council’s approval. The SEDMP shall comprise:-


• a site plan and design sketches with details of erosion control methods thatwill prevent:a. soil moving off the site during periods of rainfall and detail installation ofsediment collection devices to prevent the export and sediment from the site; andb. erosion and deposition of soil moving into the remaining native vegetation;andd. soil transfer onto roadways by vehicles and machineryThe works contained in the approved SEDMP shall be implemented prior toconstruction commencing and maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of Councilduring the construction period.

REASON: Development should prevent erosion and stormwater pollution before,during and after construction.

(4) Provision of Power to SiteThe provision of power to the proposed site shall minimise impact on the root zonesof trees and vegetation in the road reserve to the reasonable satisfaction of Council.

REASON: The provision of services should cause minimal interference ordisturbance to native vegetation.

(5) Commercial LightingFlood lighting shall be restricted to that necessary for security purposes only andshall be directed and shielded in such a manner as to not cause nuisance to adjacentproperties.

REASON: Lighting shall not detrimentally affect the amenity of the locality.

NOTES(1) Development Plan Consent

This Development Plan Consent is valid for a period of twelve (12) monthscommencing from the date of the decision (or if an appeal has been commenced,the date on which the appeal is determined, whichever is later). Building RulesConsent must be applied for prior to the expiry of the Development Plan Consent,or a fresh development application will be required. The twelve (12) month periodmay be further extended by written request to, and approval by Council.Application for an extension is subject to payment of the relevant fee.

(2) Erosion Control During Construction

Management of the property during construction shall be undertaken in such amanner as to prevent denudation, erosion or pollution of the environment.

(3) EPA Environmental Duty

The applicant is reminded of his/her general environmental duty, as required bySection 25 of the Environment Protection Act 1993, to take all reasonable andpractical measures to ensure that the activities on the whole site, including duringconstruction, do not pollute the environment in a way which causes, or may cause,environmental harm.


The applicant is advised that the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy2015 came into effect on 1 January 2016. and all reasonable and practicablemeasures must be put in place to prevent or minimise environmental harm duringthe construction process. The Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2015can be found at:https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/POL/Environment%20Protection%20(Water%20Quality)%20Policy%202015.aspx.

(4) Department of Environment, Water & Natural Resources (DEWNR) – NativeVegetation Council NoteThe applicant is advised that any proposal to clear, remove limbs or trim nativevegetation on the land, unless the proposed clearance is subject to an exemptionunder the Regulations of the Native Vegetation Act 1991, requires the approval ofthe Native Vegetation Council. The clearance of native vegetation includes theflooding of land, or any other act or activity that causes the killing or destruction ofnative vegetation, the severing of branches or any other substantial damage tonative vegetation. For further information visit:www.environment.sa.gov.au/Conservation/Native_Vegetation/Managing_native_vegetation

Any queries regarding the clearance of native vegetation should be directed to theNative Vegetation Council Secretariat on 8303 9777. This must be sought prior toFull Development Approval being granted by Council.

9. ATTACHMENTS1. Locality Plan2. Proposal Plans and Details3. EPA Response4. Representations5. Applicant’s response to representations

Respectfully submitted Concurrence

___________________________ _______________________________

Doug Samardzija Deryn AtkinsonStatutory Planner Manager Development Services

ATTACHMENT 1

LOCALITY PLAN

ATTACHMENT 2

PROPOSAL PLANS AND DETAILS

ATTACHMENT 3

EPA RESPONSE

ATTACHMENT 4

REPRESENTATIONS

ATTACHMENT 5

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING7 February 2017

AGENDABUSINESS ITEM – 8.2

Applicant: Kersbrook Hill Wines & Cider Landowner: P A Clark

Agent: N/A Ward: Torrens Valley

Development Application: 15/790/473 Originating Officer: Morgan Georg

Application Description: Vineyard addition (9750m²)

Subject Land: Lot:10 Sec: P6146 DP:57862CT:5866/146

General Location: 157 Bagshaw Road Kersbrook

(Refer to Locality Plan Attachment 1)Development Plan Consolidated : 9 January2014Map AdHi/3

Zone/Policy Area: Watershed (PrimaryProduction) Zone

Form of Development: Merit Site Area: 10.90 hectares

Public Notice Category: Category 2 Representations Received: Two

Representations to be Heard: One

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this application is to gain retrospective approval for an extension to an existingvineyard.

The subject land is located within the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone and is a merit formof development. Two representations in opposition to the proposal were received during theCategory 2 public notification period.

As per the CDAP delegations, the CDAP is the relevant authority as one of the representorswishes to be heard.

The main issue relating to the proposal is the potential for land use conflicts associated with theexpansion of the vineyard closer to the northern boundary of the subject land.

In consideration of all the information presented, and following an assessment against therelevant zone and Council Wide provisions within the Development Plan, staff are recommendingthat the proposal be GRANTED Development Plan Consent, subject to conditions.

Council Development Assessment Panel Meeting – 7 February 2017Kersbrook Hill Wines & Cider15/790/473

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposal is for the following:

Extension of existing vineyard by 9750m², incorporating 2,500 additional plants (1,200Tempranillo and 1,300 Shiraz).

The vineyard extension is located in the central north portion of the subject land.

The vineyard extension is currently setback 3.8m from the northern side boundary, but thiswill be increased to 6m in accordance with the amended site plan. One vine row will beremoved to facilitate this increased setback.

The vineyard extension is 68m from the southern boundary and in excess of 100m from theeastern side boundary.

The proposed plans are included in Attachment 2.

3. HISTORY

January, 2017 Enforcement action for non-compliancewith condition of Development Approval01/295/473

January 27, 2016 15/819/473 Council approved a domestic outbuilding– garage and home office/studio

September, 2015 Enforcement action for vineyardexpansion without DevelopmentApproval

August 26, 2002 02/600/473 Council approved a farm building – horseshelter

September 29, 2001 01/295/473 Council approved a change of land use tohorticulture (viticulture)

4. REFERRAL RESPONSES

DEWNRDEWNR is not opposed to the Planning Authority approving the development applicationand it is noted that the applicant will not be seeking an increase in the current waterallocation.

No conditions are recommended, however DEWNR have recommended a group of notesbe attached to the approval (refer notes 6-8).



PIRSAWhile PIRSA have advised they no longer formally assess individual developmentapplications, they have briefly reviewed the application and conclude there is no obviouscause for concern. They have recommended a standard note regarding the use of ruralchemicals (refer note 9).


5. CONSULTATION

The application was categorised as a Category 2 form of development in accordance withWatershed (Primary Production) Zone PDC 72 requiring formal public notification. Twoopposing representations from adjacent property owners were received, one of which hasrequested to be heard.

The following representor wishes to be heard:

Name of Representor Representor’s PropertyAddress

Nominated Speaker

Andrew Levett 35 Osborn Road, Kersbrook Andrew Levett

The applicant or their representative may be in attendance.

The issues contained in the representations can be briefly summarised as follows: Vineyard extension too close to the northern side boundary of the subject land, and

because of this an adequate buffer in accordance with Council’s Buffer Policy cannot beinstalled to protect against the impact of spray drift.

Buffer plantings have not been planted in accordance with previous approval for anothersection of vineyard on the subject land located near the south-western portion of theland.

These issues are discussed in the following sections of the report.

Copies of the submissions are included as Attachment 5 and the applicant’s response to theseis provided in Attachment 6.

6. PLANNING & TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

This application has been evaluated in accordance with the following matters:

i. The Site’s Physical CharacteristicsThe subject land is 10.90 hectares in area and is irregular in shape. The land has beendeveloped with vineyard plantings in the south-eastern portion of the land, alongwith associated access tracks. A dwelling has been developed on the western portionof the allotment.

Natural features of the land include two dams and scattered native vegetation.Native vegetation on the land was damaged during the Sampson Flat Bushfire.


The subject land is on the eastern side of Bagshaw Road.

ii. The Surrounding AreaThe subject land is flanked on the northern, eastern and southern sides by a large 183hectare allotment that is used for cattle grazing purposes.

Smaller rural living allotments are clustered towards the south of the subject land,and to the west on the opposite side of Bagshaw Road.

iii. Development Plan Policy considerations

a) The Watershed (Primary Production) Zone

The subject land lies within the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone and theseprovisions seek (in summary):

- Maintenance and enhancement of the natural resources of the south MountLofty Ranges

- Long-term sustainability of rural production in the south Mount Lofty Ranges- Enhancement of the amenity and landscape of the south Mount Lofty Ranges

The following are considered to be the relevant Zone provisions:

Objectives: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5PDCs: 14, 16, 17, 31, 36, 41, 42, 43, 70 and 72

Objectives

The proposal does not involve the removal of any native vegetation, and there will beno increase to the current water allocation. As such, the proposal is sensitive of thearea’s natural resources, in accordance with Objectives 1, 2 and 4.

Objective 3 seeks the long term sustainability of agricultural activities. The proposal isconsistent with this Objective, as it will assist in the retention of a long standingcommercial vineyard.

Objective 5 seeks the protection of the south Mount Lofty Ranges landscape. Theproposal does not offend this Objective as it will assist in the retention of acommercial vineyard, which will in turn prevent the intensification of urbandevelopment.

Principles of Development Control

The proposal is for extension of an existing vineyard and viticulture. Therefore, theproposed activity is unlikely to have an impact on the existing rural landscapecharacter of the locality, in accordance with Zone PDC 14.

PDCs 16, 17 and 42 seek the continuation of primary production activities within thezone. The proposed horticultural use is a desired rural activity in the area.


PDC 31 states that no change of land use should occur if it is likely to have adverseimpacts on native vegetation. The proposed vineyard addition is located on landwhich has previously operated as a chestnut orchard and has since remained clearedland. As such, no native vegetation is required to be removed.

The proposed vineyard will utilise existing water allocations and will not require anyadditional water resources in accordance with PDCs 36 and 41. This is supported bythe referral from DEWNR.

The applicant has provided details of the management practices for the vineyard.These include a spray management program prepared by Magdalene ViticulturalConsulting P/L (MVC) which specifies the exclusive use of environmentally sensitivechemicals which benefit soil health. All rows have also been planted with nativegrasses to eliminate soil erosion and filter ground water prior to entering the dam. Assuch, the proposal is considered to accord with PDC 43 which seeks sustainable landmanagement practices.

PDCs 70 and 72 are procedural, relating to classification type and public notification.

b) Council Wide provisions

The Council Wide provisions of relevance to this proposal seek (in summary):- Orderly and economic development- The retention of rural areas primarily for primary production and the

maintenance of the natural character and rural beauty of such areas- Sustainable management of horticultural activities to minimize negative

impacts

The following are considered to be the relevant Council Wide provisions:

Objectives: 1, 6, 61 and 62PDCs: 1, 2, 3, 9, 174 and 385

Land Use

Objective 1 and PDCs 1, 2 and 3 call for orderly development that is suitable havingregard to the condition of the land and the zone in which it is located.

In particular, Objective 6 encourages the protection of rural land for primaryproduction activities.

The proposal is considered to be orderly as it is a logical expansion of an existingvineyard in a zone which encourages and protects primary production. The additionwill help to ensure its long term economic viability.

Objectives 61 and 62, along with PDC 174, seek the retention of rural areas forprimary production and agriculture, especially land that is suitable for high rates offruit and vegetable production.


The land has been used for a long time as part of a commercial vineyard. The land istherefore highly suitable for viticulture, and the proposed expansion will assist in theretention of production by increasing yields.

Objective 62 in particular notes that the retention of, and protection of existingagricultural activities is fundamental to the economic wellbeing of the area.

Interface between Land Uses

PDC 9 states that “development should not take place in a manner which will interferewith the effective use of other land in the locality and which will not prevent theattainment of the objectives for that other land.” The portion of the land proposed tobe used for viticulture is located close to the northern allotment boundary, makingthe adjacent property to the north the most susceptible to land use conflict. Theneighbouring property is used for grazing cattle. There is a dwelling in the north eastcorner of this adjacent allotment, approximately 1 kilometre away from the proposedvines.

To ensure the proposed viticulture expansion will not interfere with the ongoing useof adjoining land appropriate management practices are required. PDC 385 seeksthat ‘planning, design and undertaking of primary industry, rural, horticulture, horsekeeping or animal keeping development should minimize impacts that ensureacceptable outcomes relating to:

(a) stormwater management and disposal or reuse;(b) waste management and disposal;(c) chemical storage and handling;(d) emissions of dust, noise, odour or spray drift;(e) fire management;(f) vegetation management;(g) use of appropriate buffers;(h) land sustainability and protection from denudation; and(i) watercourse protection.

As the proposal is for an addition to an existing vineyard, established managementpractices will continue. Notably the proposed vines do not require any additionalwater allocations.

A key issue resulting from the additional vines will be the potential emission of spraydrift and the provision of appropriate buffers due to their close proximity to thenorthern allotment boundary.

The applicant has provided detail on their proposed spraying techniques and thechemicals to be used. The solution contains oil which results in spray drift at groundlevel of no more than 2m and the equipment is designed to operate at close range tofurther minimise drift. With the techniques proposed the spray drift emissions arenot considered detrimental to the ongoing operation of surrounding properties.


No quantitative requirement is provided in the Development Plan in regards to bufferdistances. The vines are currently separated from the northern boundary by adistance of 3.8m. The applicant, however, is proposing to remove one row of vineswhich will result in a setback of 6m. In order to assess whether the proposed 6mopen buffer (not vegetated) is appropriate Adelaide Hills Council has developed aCouncil Buffer Policy.

iv. Council Policy: Buffers

A critical aspect of the assessment of this application includes the buffer distancebetween the proposed vineyard and the northern boundary, and importantly, thepotential for negative impacts on the adjacent grazing lands. The policy providesguidance on distances, dimensions and types of buffers in order to resolve potentialexternal impacts from one land use to another.

The policy seeks that a proposal for a new land-use which will introduce sprays toprovide buffer protection and a minimum buffer width of 5 metres is prescribed forall change of land use developments. In the case of spraying the policy describes amore likely minimum separation distance of 10 metres that includes a 5 metrevegetative buffer portion. While a separation distance of 10 metres would beoptimal, the policy does emphasise that when interpreting these guidelines a numberof variables need to be considered, including the frequency and potency of sprays,and the provision of newer and ‘cleaner’ technology and techniques and proximity tosensitive receptors.

The proposal exceeds the 5m minimum requirement, and the applicant has sought tominimise the negative impacts of spray drift through sound management techniques.On this basis, and given the nearest dwelling is some 500 metres from the northernboundary, the proposed buffer distances are considered satisfactory.

7. SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

The proposed change of use to viticulture supports the continuation of primary productionactivities which are encouraged in the zone. The vineyard extension can be facilitated without theremoval of native vegetation, and there will be no increase to the current water allocation.

By facilitating best practice techniques the spray distance is reduced to 2m and the frequency andpotency of the chemical spray is minimised. The spray techniques proposed are consideredappropriate to manage potential impacts on adjoining properties, and combined with provisionof an open buffer the proposed change of use is not considered to have a detrimental impact onthe continuation of cattle grazing on the adjacent land.

The proposal is sufficiently consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, andit is considered the proposal is not seriously at variance with the Development Plan. In the viewof staff, the proposal has sufficient merit to warrant consent. Staff therefore recommend thatDevelopment Plan Consent be GRANTED, subject to conditions.


8. RECOMMENDATION

That the Council Development Assessment Panel considers that the proposal is not seriouslyat variance with the relevant provisions of the Adelaide Hills Council Development Plan, andGRANTS Development Plan Consent to Development Application 15/790/473 by KersbrookHill Wines & Cider for Vineyard addition (9750m²) at 157 Bagshaw Road Kersbrook subjectto the following conditions:

(1) Development In Accordance With The PlansThe development herein approved shall be undertaken in accordance with thefollowing plans, details and written submissions accompanying the application,unless varied by a separate condition:

- Amended Site Plan, dated 20 December 2016- Aerial Photo Plan- Correspondence from Mark Whisson, dated 20 December- Correspondence from Paul Clarke, dated 4 May 2016

REASON: To ensure the proposed development is undertaken in accordance withthe approved plans.

(2) Requirement for a 6 metre Separation BufferA buffer width of 6m on the northern boundary must be provided. This shall beestablished within 3 months of the date of Development Approval.

REASON: To minimise spray drift and potential impact on adjoining land.

(3) Maintenance of BufferThe buffer area must be slashed or mown and kept weed free. It should not be usedfor storage of plant or machinery.

REASON: To minimise the risk of environmental nuisance and potential land useconflict.

(4) Grassed Swales between Vineyard Rows & WatercoursesAdequate grass coverage maintained between the vineyard area and the dams andwatercourses on the eastern, western and southern sides.

REASON: To reduce the possibility of chemical trespass transferring into thewatercourse system.

NOTES

(1) Development Plan Consent ExpiryThis Development Plan consent (DPC) is valid for a period of twelve (12) monthscommencing from the date of the decision (or if an appeal has been commenced thedate on which it is determined, whichever is later). Building Rules Consent must beapplied for prior to the expiry of the DPC, or a fresh development application will berequired. The twelve (12) month time period may be further extended by Councilagreement following written request and payment of the relevant fee.


(2) Erosion Control During ConstructionManagement of the property during construction shall be undertaken in such amanner as to prevent denudation, erosion or pollution of the environment.

(3) EPA Environmental DutyThe applicant is reminded of his/her general environmental duty, as required bySection 25 of the Environment Protection Act 1993, to take all reasonable and practicalmeasures to ensure that the activities on the whole site, including during construction,do not pollute the environment in a way which causes, or may cause, environmentalharm.

(4) DEWNR Native Vegetation CouncilThe applicant is advised that any proposal to clear, remove limbs or trim nativevegetation on the land, unless the proposed clearance is subject to an exemptionunder the Regulations of the Native Vegetation Act 1991, requires the approval of theNative Vegetation Council. The clearance of native vegetation includes the flooding ofland, or any other act or activity that causes the killing or destruction of nativevegetation, the severing of branches or any other substantial damage to nativevegetation. For further information visit:www.environment.sa.gov.au/Conservation/Native_Vegetation/Managing_native_vegetation

Any queries regarding the clearance of native vegetation should be directed to theNative Vegetation Council Secretariat on 8303 9777. This must be sought prior to FullDevelopment Approval being granted by Council.

(5) Works On BoundaryThe development herein approved involves work on the boundary. The onus ofensuring development is in the approved position on the correct allotment is theresponsibility of the land owner/applicant. This may necessitate a survey being carriedout by a licensed land surveyor prior to the work commencing.

(6) Natural Resources ManagementThe applicant is reminded of their duty to act reasonably in relation to themanagement of natural resources within the State, in accordance with Section 9 of theNatural Resources Management Act 2004 (NRM Act).

(7) Water ResourcesThe development approval does not include the taking of any water from the WesternMount Lofty Ranges Prescribed Water Resources Area in addition to that currentlyauthorised under the NRM Act.

(8) Water LicenceIf any changes to water licence number 115507 are intended at any stage, theapplicant should contact the Department of Environment, Water and NaturalResources to ascertain relevant requirements under the NRM Act. Contact details areavailable from:

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/manaaing-natUral-resourCes/water-uselWaterplanning/water-licences-and-permits


(9) Rural ChemicalsThe use of rural chemicals, including sprays, is subject to the Agricultural andVeterinary Products Act (Control of Use) Act 2002. Further information can be foundat:

http://pir.sa.gov.au/biosecurity/rural_chemicals

9. ATTACHMENTS1. Locality Plan2. Proposal Plans and Details3. DEWNR Response4. PIRSA Response5. Representations6. Applicant’s response to representations

Respectfully submitted Concurrence

___________________________ _______________________________

Morgan Georg Deryn AtkinsonStatutory Planner Manager Development Services

ATTACHMENT 1

LOCALITY PLAN

ATTACHMENT 2

PROPOSAL PLANS AND DETAILS

ATTACHMENT 3

DEWNR RESPONSE

ATTACHMENT 4

PIRSA RESPONSE

ATTACHMENT 5

REPRESENTATIONS

ATTACHMENT 6

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING 7 … · Five (5) panel antennas at a centreline...

Documents

Transcript of COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING 7 … · Five (5) panel antennas at a centreline...