CURRENT PLANS · Bradshaw, Annette (Strata Plan 7303 Inc) 2/2 Oleander St, South Brighton. Traffic...

CURRENT PLANS

Page 326 of 445

of 445

28 of 445

of 445

ED

W

AR

DS

ST

RE

ET

BR

IG

HT

ON

R

OA

D

D17973

D17973

S7303

1

2

6.04

44.50

43.59

235m²

1882m²

15.17

6 1.41

32.60

33.60

7

32.32

A

(6.50)

(8.50)

(5.00)

Development No. / /

City of Holdfast Bay

Proposed Plan of Division

Allotment 27 in F100766



Hundred of Noarlunga

in the area named

SOUTH BRIGHTON

C'sT 5746/652, 5106/147, 5106/146

Portion of allotment 2 marked A is to be subject to afree and unrestricted right of way in favour ofallotment 1.

Dimensions and areas are subject to survey.

W E

S

N

Alexander & Symonds Pty Ltd

11 King William Street Kent Town,

South Australia 5067

PO Box 1000 Kent Town, SA 5071

DX 209 ABN 93007 753 988

T (08) 8130 1666

F (08) 8362 0099

W www.alexander.com.au

E [email protected]

+ Property + Land Development +

+ Construction + Mining +

+ Spatial Information Management +

Surveying

Alexander

Symonds

Consultants

Original Sheet Size A3© ALEXANDER & SYMONDS PTY. LTD.

REF:

DWG NO.:REVISION:

A113014.00

A113014PROP(C)C

RHF 24.03.2015

Page 332 of 445

of 445

Ref Name Postal Address Summary Wish to be heardR1 Bradshaw, Annette (Strata

Plan 7303 Inc)2/2 Oleander St, South Brighton Traffic and traffic safety, amenity, noise,

safety and security 24/7 operationNo (however is included in R2)

R2 Bradshaw, A and J 2/2 Oleander St, South Brighton Traffic and traffic safety, amenity, noise, 24 hour operation, litter, odours, dwelling in a designated centre zone

Yes

R3 Hall, Rod 4/2 Oleander St East, South Brighton Odour, 24 hour operation, noise, traffic and traffic safety

No

R4 Hosking, Ross 3/2 Oleander St, South Brighton Light Spill, noise, truck deliveries, odours, 24 hour operation, smoking in car park, Amenity, vicinity to residential dwellings

Yes

R5 Hosking, Gill 3/2 Oleander St, South Brighton Noise, air pollution, parking, litter, amenity, traffic, light spill, patron behaviour, zoning

Yes

R6 Pearson, M 533-535 Brighton Road, South Brighton Residential development condradicts the zoning, Amenity concerns

Yes

R7 Saint, Bob 1/2 Oleander St East, South Brighton Traffic, noise, light spill, odour, amenity Yes

R8 Watts, P & J 7 Edwards St, South Brighton Extra traffic, odour, noise, 24/7 operation, signage - light spill and amenity, child obesity, overshadowing from the residential component

Yes

Ref Name Postal Address Summary Wish to be heardIR1 Loftus, Chloe 7 Rutland Ave, Brighton traffic, loitering, health issues,

environmental issues, community feelNo

IR2 McLeod, Ron 8 Adrian Court, Marion Suppotive No

IR3 Smith, Pauline - Noise, Traffic, Litter management Yes - however invalid

Valid Representations

Invalid Representations

Page 357 of 445

pluckd

Typewritten Text

At the conclusion of public notification the following Representations were Received

pluckd

Typewritten Text

of 445

pluckd

Typewritten Text

pluckd

Typewritten Text

R1

of 445

pluckd

Typewritten Text

R2

of 445

pluckd

Typewritten Text

R3

1 of 445

pluckd

Typewritten Text

R4

of 445

of 445

pluckd

Typewritten Text

R5

of 445

pluckd

Typewritten Text

R6

of 445

pluckd

Typewritten Text

R7

of 445

pluckd

Typewritten Text

R8

of 445

pluckd

Typewritten Text

IR1

of 445

of 445

pluckd

Typewritten Text

IR2

of 445

pluckd

Typewritten Text

IR3

07 April 2015 REF No.: 00035-004

Development Division - DPTI

Level 6, 136 North Tce ADELAIDE SA 5000

Attention: Daniel Pluck

By Email: [email protected]

Dear Sir,

RE: RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS - MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, RESTAURANT AND DWELLING – 1-5 EDWARD STREET, SOUTH BRIGHTON

We act for GIC Australia, who is the applicant for a proposed mixed use development involving demolition of an

existing office and dwellings and construction of a two (2) storey detached dwelling and a shop (restaurant) with

associated signage, car parking, and landscaping at 1, 3, & 5 Edwards Street, South Brighton (Application

Number 110/E001/15).

This correspondence seeks to provide the Development Assessment Commission with a written response to the

Category 2 representations received in relation to the proposed development. We are also in possession of the

City of Holdfast Bay referral comments dated 26 March 2015 and seek to respond to a number of the issues

raised in Council’s submission, the majority of which align with the issues raised within the representations.

We note that a total of eight (8) valid representations were received from persons entitled to be given notice of

the application as follows:

• Annette. Bradshaw - Strata Secretary, 2 Oleander Street East, South Brighton

• A Bradshaw & J Bradshaw – owner of 2/2 Oleander Street East, South Brighton

• Rod Hall – owner, 4/2 Oleander Street East, South Brighton

• Ross Hosking - owner, 3/2 Oleander Street East, South Brighton

• Gill Hosking - owner, 3/2 Oleander Street East, South Brighton

• Bob Saint - owner, 1/2 Oleander Street East, South Brighton

• Malcolm Pearson – owner, 533-535 Brighton Road, South Brighton

• Pam & John Watts – owner 7 occupier, 7 Edwards Street, South Brighton

We also note that three (3) ‘invalid’ representations have been made by persons who were not entitled to be

given notice of the application and that pursuant to Section 38(17) of the Development Act, 1993, these

representations are not permitted to be taken into account by the relevant authority in the assessment or

determination of the application. Further, the relevant authority has no obligation to allow the person the

opportunity to appear personally (or by representative) before it to be heard in support for the representation.

Page 372 of 445

In summary we identify that the following represents the key planning related issues raised by these

representations:

• Traffic congestion

• Proposed 24 hour operating hours and associated noise and amenity impacts on adjoining residential properties

• Sense of safety and security

• Litter generation caused by the restaurant

• Odour and fumes caused by the restaurant and impact on residential amenity

• Suitability of restaurant and residential land use in the zone

• Light spill amenity impacts

• Disturbance by delivery vehicles

In reviewing these submissions, it is apparent that a number of local property owners are not aware of the

change to the Holdfast Bay Development Plan which occurred in December 2014. Some of the comments raised

are reminiscent of features of the former District Centre Zone B provisions, rather than the current District

Centre zoning (consolidated 18 December 2014).

In addition to the Category 2 submissions, have also reviewed the Council’s comments to the DAC on the

proposal and note that the key issues raised by Council cover a number of those identified within the above

mentioned representations.

In collating these issues into key topics we respond as follows:

1. Traffic Congestion and Pedestrian Safety

Considerable detailed analysis of the traffic, access and parking that will likely be generated by the proposed

development has been undertaken throughout the course of this and the earlier development application as

well as the ERD appeal.

The proposed vehicle access/egress points from Edward Street and Brighton Road, including the shared, rear

vehicle access arrangements proposed for the dwelling, reflect the advice given by two highly-qualified traffic

engineers during the course of the ERD Court Hearing (in which one of the Engineers gave evidence on behalf of

Council and the other on behalf of the Applicant). The current plans evolved having taken on-board the

professional advice of these experts, as well as the views of the Commissioner in the ERD Court Judgment.

The various attachments provided in Appendix 5 of the Planning Report clarify the key issues related to traffic

and access and reaffirm that the arrangements comply with the relevant Australian Standard and reflect the

requirements of the joint expert statements prepared in relation to the earlier ERD appeal.

REF #00035-004 | 07 April 2015 2 Page 373 of 445

2. Operation Hours

An important change to the Holdfast Bay Development Plan was the emphasis the District Centre Zone now

places on generating a vibrant active hub which includes activity ‘after hours’. Specifically, ‘after hours’ uses as

proposed by the restaurant are encouraged within the zone, which calls for ‘Facilities within the zone… sited

and designed with a view to promoting after-hours use to reinforce the centre as the focus of social activity in

the district’ (Zone Principle 6).

As with all Hungry Jack’s stores, a Site Manager is responsible for excellence in the presentation and

management of the business and Hungry Jack’s requires all of its sites to be maintained, clean and of the

highest order of presentation on all occasions.

The security of staff and patrons is a fundamental consideration for all Hungry Jack’s restaurants, particularly

with the extended, 24 hour trade. Patron management, litter management and security and safety measures

put in place in accordance with the Hungry Jack’s ‘operational statement’ (dated 17 December 2013 and

included within Appendix 1 of the Planning Report) will mitigate against any behavioural or security issues.

It is noted that security will incorporate a fully remotely accessible closed circuit TV (CCTV) system to deter

undesirable activity and security alarms are provided which are directly connected to a specialist contracted

security company.

Twenty-four hour commercial operations have become common place in recent years and are particularly

suited to main arterial road locations within District Centre Zones. The perceived issues of all hour operations

are rarely a reality and it will be in Hungry Jack’s best interest to carefully manage the interface of the store with

surrounding properties and ensure they demonstrate excellent corporate citizenship.

3. Interface Amenity Issues

3.1 Noise

Resonate Acoustics have provided extensive advice and recommendation in relation to the proposed

development of the subject site and, most recently, reassessment of the revised proposal to confirm that the

proposed development is anticipated to comply with the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy, 2007 and has

been designed to protect existing residents in the adjoining Residential Zone (as well as future residents in the

propose new two storey dwelling) from noise generated by the proposed new restaurant.

REF #00035-004 | 07 April 2015 3 Page 374 of 445

3.2 Odour & Fumes

Hungry Jack’s intend to use an ‘Incendalyst’ smoke and odour management system at the proposed Brighton

Road store. The ‘Incendalyst’ is a broiler emission control system which essentially utilises heat to burn away

emission odour. It is installed directly above the broiler and captures up to 94% - 100% of the Particular Matter

and Non Methane Hydro-Carbons that would otherwise be expelled into the kitchen with most other systems.

Use of the ‘Incendalyst’ system will ensure the proposed Hungry Jack’s operation complies with Australian

Standard 1668 (Part 2: ventilation design for indoor air contaminant control).

In addition to this and as a result of the evidence provided in the ERD Court hearing by the air quality experts, it

is intended to also incorporate suitably designed and maintained carbon filtration system as an added measure

to further reduce odour emissions from the restaurant and ensure compliance with Section 25 of the

Environment Protection Act, 1993, which imposes an environmental duty on all persons undertaking an activity

that may emit odour to take all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent or minimise any resulting

environmental harm.

The applicant would be amenable to a suitably worded planning condition which confirms the use of and further

details of this technology.

3.3 Other Interface Issues

The proposal offers generous boundary fencing and landscaping and, in particular, incorporates a substantial

landscaping adjacent the Residential Zone boundary and retention of existing trees. Given the height of the

fencing adjacent the residential boundary (2.4 metres), the built form height of the restaurant (just in excess of

4.0 metres) and the physical separation of the restaurant from the Residential Zone boundary (in excess of 23

metres), the restaurant building is unlikely to be overly apparent from the existing neighbouring dwellings and

will be well screened by the existing (and proposed) vegetation and the proposed new dwelling.

Given the combination of boundary fencing and location of light sources which will be set back and face away

from adjoining residences, it is anticipated that there will be no adverse impact from light spill.

Litter management will be dealt with through regular litter patrols around the site and the suitable placement of

refuse bins. As mentioned, patron management, litter management and security and safety measures are put in

place in accordance with the Hungry Jack’s ‘operational statement’. It is not considered that the presence of

litter will impact the amenity of adjoining residents.

A range of design features, site layout arrangements, operational and management processes and specific

acoustic treatments have been employed to ensure the proposal will not unreasonably impact by way of visual

outlook, noise, fumes, waste, light spill, vehicle movements or functionality on the existing residential land uses.

The proposal is considered to satisfactorily achieve the Development Plan provisions relating to interface and

amenity.

REF #00035-004 | 07 April 2015 4 Page 375 of 445

4. Suitability of Restaurant and Residential Land Use

The District Centre Zone encourages a range of land uses which aim to achieve a lively, vibrant hub within the

Brighton area. Retail facilities, together with offices, consulting rooms, cultural, community, public

administration, entertainment, educational, religious and residential development are sought within the zone.

In relation to the suitability of the proposed land uses, both ‘shop’ and ‘restaurant’ are envisaged uses, as are

medium density dwellings constructed in conjunction with (either above or behind) non-residential

development, where the residential development does not prejudice the operation of existing or future non-

residential activity within the zone.

It is acknowledged that the land south of Edward Street is intended to be developed in a less intensive manner

than the land immediately surrounding the existing supermarkets and in considering the ‘intensity’ of

development, it is important to note that the proposed development seeks only a modest increase of 194m² in

retail floor space.

In relation to the dwelling, the proposed mixed use development will increase residential density within the

District Centre in close proximity to existing shops and public transport and will improve housing supply, choice

and diversity within the City of Holdfast Bay.

While we note Council has raised issues with certain design aspects of the residential dwelling we note that:

• The western side boundary setback of the dwelling at 1.4 metres does not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on the existing dwelling to the west (7 Edwards Street) such as bulk, mass, access to natural light or overshadowing.

• Council’s open space calculations fail to recognise the private front court yard provided for the dwelling, which, when combined with the rear courtyard, provided 40m² of functional private open space. Given the orientation of the dwelling to Edward Street and the rear vehicle access arrangements, the front court yard is both suitable and appropriate in the context of the dwelling design and should be acknowledged as private open space.

• The suggestion that the dwelling is not being developed in ‘conjunction’ with the restaurant is unsubstantiated and incorrect. The nature and form of development has been reaffirmed by the DAC, which confirmed the application has been correctly assigned as a ‘Consent on merit’, ‘Category 2’ application.

5. Advertising

The proposal incorporates a modest 6.0 metre high, free-standing, back lit, illuminated advertising sign together

with other facia and directional signage. The signage across the site is considered to be more than suitable and,

in fact, quite restrained for advertising within a District Centre Zone, which already incorporates a number of

free standing signs typical of a ‘centre’ character.

We note that Council previously advised ‘The signage is considered satisfactory provided that setbacks from the

boundaries of the land maintain suitable lines of sight for drivers of motor vehicles’ and that ‘Its scale and

appearance are considered appropriate in a District Centre Zone’ (Holdfast Bay DAP Report 108/14).

REF #00035-004 | 07 April 2015 5 Page 376 of 445

We trust that all outstanding information has now been provided in support of the proposed Development

Application and that the proposed development will now be processed, assessed and determined at the next

available Development Assessment Commission (DAC) meeting scheduled to occur on Thursday 23rd April 2015.

Should valid representors elect to present at this Development Assessment Commission meeting, we would

welcome the opportunity to address the Commission and respond and reply to any further representations or

questions that may be raised.

Please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned on 08 7231 0286 should you require any additional

information in support of the proposed development or should you have any questions or queries in relation to

this proposal.

Yours Sincerely

Rebecca Thomas Associate

REF #00035-004 | 07 April 2015 6 Page 377 of 445

The following additional representations were received from people/parties

that were not formally notified through the Category 2 notification process.

The Commission has no statutory obligation to consider the issues raised by

these submissions; however the issues are of a similar nature to those raised

by the valid representations.

These submissions have been included for the Commission’s information only.

Page 378 of 445

of 445

CURRENT PLANS · Bradshaw, Annette (Strata Plan 7303 Inc) 2/2 Oleander St, South Brighton. Traffic...

Documents

Transcript of CURRENT PLANS · Bradshaw, Annette (Strata Plan 7303 Inc) 2/2 Oleander St, South Brighton. Traffic...