9 July 2015

Page | 2

Application SummaryApplication No: 580/R010/15KNET Reference: 9587215Applicant: Mr Liu Hong Tao (Australian Group Investments)Proposal: Tourism Accommodation facilitySubject Land: Windsor Avenue, HahndorfRelevant Authority: Mount Barker CouncilRole of the Commission: Pursuant to Section 35(3) of the Development Act 1993,

the Commission has been requested to concur with theCouncil Development Assessment Panel’s resolution togrant Development Plan Consent.

Zone / Policy Area: Watershed Protection (Mount Lofty Ranges) ZoneCategorisation: Non-complyingNotification: Category 3Representations: Seventeen (17) lodged; 2 withdrawnLodgement Date: 21 August 2014Council: Mount Barker CouncilDevelopment Plan: Consolidated 24 October 2013Referral Agencies: EPA, SACFSOfficers Report: Simon NeldnerRecommendation: CONCUR

Executive Summary

The application seeks Development Plan consent to establish a tourism accommodationfacility on rural land to the east of the Adelaide Hills township of Hahndorf.

The subject land is within the Watershed Protection (Mount Lofty Ranges) Zone. The keyobjectives of the zone seek: the maintenance of catchment water quality, the protectionof the rural and scenic landscapes, the development of a sustainable tourism industry,the retention of native vegetation, the restriction on activities contributing to pollution orreduction in surface flows and the development of small scale agricultural industries.

All development is non-complying within the zone with the exception of a limited numberof land uses. Tourism accommodation is listed as an exception, but only if a number ofrestrictive criteria relating to the use or extension of existing buildings and/or heritageplaces and limited guest numbers within defined accommodation types. The currentproposal does not meet these exceptions and was therefore assessed as a 'non-complying' development. The Mount Barker Council was the planning authority.

The assessment is 'finely balanced', however the overall merit of the proposal and theability of the proponent to mitigate potential impacts - particularly in respect to theprotection of the Adelaide Hills watershed from new point sources of pollution - are inthe development's favour. If approved, the establishment of a value-adding, high qualitytourism facility and visitor experience will provide long-term, economic benefits to theregion. There will be some impacts - notably the scale and appearance of thedevelopment when viewed from within the immediate locality - but through optimalpositioning, adjusted site levels, landscaping and design - these have been minimised.

The application was referred to both the SA Country Fire Service and the EnvironmentProtection Authority and no objection was raised subject to the adoption of conditionalrequirements. The proposal was also publicly notified and seventeen representationsreceived. The majority of these representations were opposed to or raised matters ofconcern with the development. The response of the applicant and Council assessment

DAC AGENDA ITEM: 3.1

9 July 2015

Page | 3

have reasonably addressed or satisfactorily resolved these matters, when consideredagainst all relevant provisions of the Development Plan.

If the Commission resolves to concur with the Council's resolution, the Council canproceed to issue the Development Plan consent. If concurrence is declined, theapplication cannot be approved by the Council, and there is not right of appeal for theapplicant. Concurrence is recommended.

Assessment Report

1. Description of Proposal

The development application comprises:

Change of land use (and removal of 3ha portion of the existing vineyard). Construction of a five-star accommodation facility (comprising 8 accommodation

suites [4x1 bedroom; 4x2 bedroom] with a maximum capacity of 22 guests;reception area, restaurant, back of house and service dock).

Each accommodation suite is detached – accessible via a breezeway - but sharesa common roofline, predominately single-storey, but with a two level centralelement. Note: the proposed length of the built form is 225m and the width ofeach accommodation element is 7m.

Materials of construction: natural stone, aluminium cladding, colorbond roofing,low iron glazing, timber decks / soffit.

Associated carparking, drop-off and service areas. Civil works (include cut and fill), landscaping and new access road. Connection to sewer / water infrastructure; other services available. Installation of four water storage tanks (2x30KL, 2x144kl). Entrance signage.

Maximum restaurant seating for patrons and invited guests: 50Total employee numbers: 24 (12 per shift).

A comprehensive Statement of Effect was submitted by URPS (on behalf of theapplicant) with Hassell provided the architectural drawings and specialist engineeringreports from Resonate and KBR. These documents provide the full background to theproposal.

Letters of support for the proposal were also provided by the SA Coordinator General, SATourism Commission, Business Mt Barker and John Ashcroft (past President of theHahndorf Business and Tourism Association Inc).

A copy of the proposal plan and related documentation is contained in theATTACHMENTS.

2. Site and Locality

The subject land is described as follows:

Lot No Plan No Street Suburb Area CT Reference

A65 FP157100 Windsor Road Hahndorf 29.95ha CT 5657/135

The subject land is situated 1.2km east of the township of Hahndorf. The subject land isundulating in nature and currently planted out to vineyards. The land form rises up tothe east, allowing sweeping views to the west and south. The vineyard was established15 years ago. A watercourse is located 200m from the development site, whilst atransmission line traverses the land from north to south. The wider locality has scattered

9 July 2015

Page | 1

9 July 2015

Page | 2

homesteads and farms and has generally been cleared for primary production activities,however pockets of remnant vegetation remain (including on adjacent land) and alongexisting road reserves. The nearest residence is located 190m to the east (with a furthersix residences within 530m). A State Heritage place is located on adjacent land.

3. Procedural Matters

The Development application was lodged on 7 August 2014 with the Mount BarkerCouncil. The Council determined the application to be a non-complying form ofdevelopment in accordance with the procedural matters section of the WatershedProtection (Mount Lofty Ranges) Zone. A Statement of support was provided with theapplication. Following a consideration of this statement, the Council resolved toproceed to an assessment under delegated authority. A Statement of Effect wasrequested and received; then public notification of the proposal undertaken.

No procedural issues are raised in respect to the Council process.

4. Council Advice

The Mount Barker Council Development Assessment Panel considered the application atits meeting on 13 May 2015. A detailed planning report had been prepared by Councilstaff. Five representors and the applicant were heard by the panel. The panel resolved togrant Development Plan consent subject three (3) reserved matters, twenty one (21)conditions and the concurrence of the Development Assessment Commission.

In the report to the panel, the Council’s planning officer concluded that the applicationwas ‘finely balanced’ and summarised the elements both for and against the proposal.The rationale for supporting the proposal turned on several issues:

Creation of a high end tourism accommodation facility Innovative and landmark design, located below the adjacent ridgeline Can be connected to existing sewer and water infrastructure No outdoor resort or function activities are proposed (in-house dining only) No heritage impact – noting two listed places on adjacent land Expected traffic flows can be accommodated (and carparking provided). Positive employment and economic benefits. No state agency objection.

The Council officer’s report and DAP minutes are contained in the ATTACHMENTS.

5. Agency Referrals

SA Country Fire ServiceNo objection. The SA CFS has recommended that a number of conditional requirementsbe attached to any consent to ensure that mandated access, water supply, siting andvegetation clearance be incorporated into the construction and operation of thecompleted development. The Council’s recommended conditions reflect theserequirements.

Environment Protection AuthorityNo objection. The subject land is within the Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Protectionarea and the Mt Bold reservoir catchment area. The EPA considered matters of waterquality, wastewater and stormwater management. Due to the sensitivity of watercatchment areas, new development should be ‘located in areas serviced by adequatewastewater management schemes and other supporting infrastructure’. In this case, theapplicant proposes to connect the development to the SA Water reticulation sewer, witha 20KL holding tank to allow for off-peak’ discharge to the main. The EPA in their adviceto the Council has recommended this requirement be conditioned.

9 July 2015

Page | 1

Above: View from Windsor Avenue – development site below centre tree line.Below: View from entrance drive to adjoining property (looking southwards from

Windsor Avenue towards dwelling under construction (top left) and development siteamongst vines (top centre).

9 July 2015

Page | 2

Above and below : View along Windsor Avenue towards the west(proposed entrance to tourism accommodation facility would be located here).

9 July 2015

Page | 3

Above: View from the development site – view towards the north.Below: View from development site – view towards the west.

Hahndorf in centre background

9 July 2015

Page | 4

Above: View from the development site – towards the south.Below: View from development site – towards the south-east.

9 July 2015

Page | 5

Above: Views from adjoining land to the east (facility will be visible from this position)Below: Dwelling under construction - view from access driveway to the east. Theproposed accommodation suites will extend to just beyond the existing driveway

alignment (but situated below the residential dwelling)

9 July 2015

Page | 6

Referral responses are contained in the ATTACHMENTS.

6. Public Notification

The application was notified as a Category 3 development pursuant to Section 38(2) ofthe Development Act 1993. The type of development proposed could not be classified aseither a Category 1 or Category 2 development under the Mount Barker DevelopmentPlan or Schedule 9 of the Development Regulations 2008.

The proposal was assessed as a non-complying development and underwent Category 3notification and 17 representations were received. Two representations were resolvedand/or withdrawn prior to the panel hearing and 9 indicated a wish to be heard (with 5actually being heard).

The main issues raised in respect to the development:

Extent of departure from planning policy Adverse impact on rural character and amenity loss Unsympathetic design and length of structure Scale and size of tourism development – should be within a township Loss of primary production land, watershed impacts Impact on services, water resources, exiting infrastructure Traffic – safety and efficiency of road network Potential for future expansion? / precedence? No meaningful integration with primary production activities Insufficient screening

In their response to representations, the applicant noted the following:

A number of amendments had been made to the proposal (including moving thedevelopment further downhill, setting the driveway alignment off the boundary by6m, increasing the extent of landscaping (particularly along the interface),relocating the southern carpark closer to the main building.

The scale of the development is appropriate (when considering the small numberof suites, the maximum capacity (22 guests), the predominately single-storeybuilding height, and a development footprint of 2100m2 on a site area of 30ha.

The building is sited below the ridgeline, the curved nature of the building form‘flows’ with the land, the proposed external materials and finishes aresympathetic to the natural landscape.

The development seeks to provide a high end, luxury tourism experience. Construction and operational impacts will be managed and should not give rise to

any on-going nuisance or disturbance to adjoining residents. The loss of productive land has been minimised (3ha). The development site does not require the removal of native vegetation. The tourism accommodation use can be supported by existing infrastructure. No helicopter landings are proposed.

Copies of the representations and the applicant’s response are contained in theATTACHMENTS.

The proposed stormwater management system will include carpark area runoff beingdirected to an oil and sediment interceptor, roof area stormwater capture (to be used fortoilet flushing and landscape irrigation), with the remaining runoff from impervious areasbeing directed to the exiting downstream dam. Overall, the EPA considers that thedevelopment should have a ‘neutral or beneficial environmental effect’ in the Mount LoftyRanges Water Protection Area.

9 July 2015

Page | 7

7. Policy Summary

The subject land is within the Watershed Protection (Mount Lofty Ranges) Zone. Therelevant Development Plan at lodgement of the application was dated 24 October 2013.The main policy considerations for the assessment of the application with the zone areconsidered to be these:

Maintenance of catchment water quality Protection of rural and scenic landscape qualities Development of a sustainable tourism industry. Retention of areas of native vegetation Restriction on activities contributing to pollution or reduction in surface flows Development of small scale agricultural industries

Excerpts from the desired character reinforce these key objectives:

Tourism development will be small in scale and appropriate to the rural amenityand environment, including preservation of water quality. Larger tourismdevelopments and related retail activities are to remain primarily focused ontownships and centres.

Structures will be associated with existing clusters of buildings and will be ofcomplementary scale and massing to those buildings, while also being ofappropriate dimensions to serve their intended function … other structures will beof a form that blends with, and does not detract from the scenic qualities andprimary production function.

Development will maintain the rural landscape with buildings appropriately sited,designed and screened by vegetation. Buildings are to be constructed usingmaterials and low-light reflective natural colours that blend with the rurallandscape.

In respect to tourism development with the zone:

PDC11 Major tourism developments should be located within existing townships,settlements, urban areas or designated zones.

PDC25 Tourist accommodation should:

(a) only occur where it is within existing buildings, or it is an integral part of afarm complex in the form of at least one of the following (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv):

(i) farm stay(ii) guesthouse(iii) rural or nature retreat(iv) bed and breakfast accommodation

(b) be designed and sited to be compatible with and minimise the potential for,disturbance and disruption upon agricultural seasonal activities and industry inorder to ensure that the development envisaged within the zone remains thepredominant land use

(c) be staged in a co-ordinated manner to ensure consistency in appearance,building themes, materials, and links between buildings, vehicle parking andancillary uses on the site

9 July 2015

Page | 8

(d) limit ancillary uses such as recreation, leisure, conference/meeting rooms anddining facilities to the requirements of guests staying at the facility and notgenerate additional visitors

(e) not be located within 300 metres of an agricultural industry or mineral waterextraction and processing plant not on the same allotment.

Council-wide tourism development policies reinforce the need for environmentalsustainability, innovative accommodation forms, enhancement of local character,minimise impacts to or loss of primary production land and practices, develop functional/ locational links with surrounding land, and be of a scale, form and location that will notoverwhelm, over commercialise or detract from the intrinsic natural values of the land.

Other general policies of relevance relate to: hazard risk, access and carparking, naturalresources, water catchment, waste management, design and appearance, energyefficiency, infrastructure, interface between land uses, landscaping, fencing and wallsand orderly and sustainable development.

The subject land is within a High Bushfire Risk area (FIGURE BPA Map MtB/1). Allnew dwelling and tourism development land use applications will need to be referredto the SA Country Fire Service (who have a power of direction under Schedule 8 ofthe Development Regulations 2008).

The development site is also within the Mount Lofty Ranges Water Protection areaand the Mt Bold Reservoir Catchment Area.

Zone maps are contained in the ATTACHMENTS.

Relevant planning policies are contained in APPENDIX ONE.

8. Planning Assessment

The following planning policies are considered to be of relevance to the assessment ofthe proposal against Mount Barker Council Development Plan.

Mount Barker Council:

Watershed Protection (Mount Lofty Ranges) Zone: OB1-11, PDC1-3, PDC10-11, PDC15-17, PDC25, PDC37, PDC40.

Council Wide: Design and appearance: OB1-2, PDC2-5, PDC7,-9, PDC11-13, PDC15-16,PDC18; Energy Efficiency: OB1-OB3, PDC1-3; Hazards: OB1-2, OB4-6, PDC1-3, PDC8-11, PDC13; Infrastructure: OB1, OB5, PDC1--3. PDC10; Interface between land uses:OB1-2, PDC1, PDC5-11; Landscaping, fences and walls: OB1, PDC1, PDC3-6; NaturalResources: OB1-8, OB11, OB13, PDC1-3, PDC5, PDC7-8, PDC0-12, PDC15-18, PDC20-21, PDC23, PDC24, PDC40-42, PDC47, PDC51-55; Orderly and Sustainabledevelopment: OB1-5, OB8, PDC1-4, PDC7-8, PDC10-13; Tourism development: OB1-8,PDC1-6, PDC9-14, PDC17; Transportation and access: OB2, PDC1, PDC4, PDC8, PDC17,PDC28-29, PDC35, PDC38-39, PDC40, PDC43-45; Waste: OB1, PDC1-2 PDC6, PDC11,PDC13.

Land Use

The proposal seeks to establish a medium scale tourism accommodation facility within anallotment currently utilised for primary production (viticulture) purposes outside the hillstownship of Hahndorf. The subject land is within the Watershed Protection (Mount LoftyRanges) Zone where planning policies seek the protection of Adelaide's water catchmentarea from inappropriate development by restricting activities that individually, or

9 July 2015

Page | 9

collectively, contribute to increased pollution loads and/or reducing surface flows intoState reservoirs. The subject land is within the Mt Bold Reservoir catchment.

The development of tourism accommodation is an envisaged land use within the zone,but seen through the lens of current policy settings, such development should generallybe 'small' in scale, established amongst existing clusters of buildings (such as heritagelisted or other farm buildings), so as not to unduly detract from the scenic values of therural landscape, and be established in locations that minimise impacts to primaryproduction activities. New buildings should be constructed using materials and low-lightreflective natural colours. Larger tourism developments and related retail activitiesshould generally be located in townships and centres.

It is also recognised, however, that no Development Plan can control or account forevery form of envisaged land use (or their many and varied permutations). This isparticularly the case for the current proposal which does not fit into the typical farmstay, guesthouse, rural or nature retreat, or bed and breakfast accommodation modelreferenced by the Development Plan. It is instead a five-star, boutique tourismaccommodation facility which seeks to maximise rural views and visitor experiences, butexcludes resort style functionality (i.e. no outdoor recreation, pool or entertainingareas), which would not be appropriate outside of a designated centre.

In my opinion, current policies do not preclude the consideration of such high-endtourism developments outside of established centres, but rather seeks a moreperformance based approach in the assessment of potential impacts, where a particularproposal's design and operation should be carefully assessed in terms of its overallconsistency with (or extent of departure from) the key objectives of the zone: namelythe protection of the water catchment (including the quality of surface flows into theMount Bold Reservoir) and ensuring primary production lands are not compromisedthrough incompatible development (either to existing or neighbouring properties).

In this instance, the proposal is not directly associated with a 'farm experience'. Howeverits fundamental purpose as a tourist enterprise is to take advantage of a vineyard settingand surrounding rural landscape experience. Importantly, the retained vineyards willcontinue to be productively used both maintaining the underlying rural use of the landand authenticating the tourist experience.

The non-complying status is noted - particularly the threshold limitations on guestnumbers - which act as an initial 'filter' for the planning authority (i.e. 8 guests forhosted accommodation, 30 guests for accommodation associated with a listed heritageplace, and an upper limit of 75 dining seats in association with a cellar door), andindirectly relate to the ability to service such developments (without reliance on oraccess to reticulated water supplies, sewer mains etc) within a sensitive catchment.

The proposed development is not a significant departure from these thresholds (i.e.maximum of 22 guests, restaurant capacity of 50 persons), the main difference beingthat the development does not involve the use of an existing building or complex(although connections to available utilities can be made efficiently).

The current proposal does seek the establishment of a tourism accommodation use onan existing vineyard, removing land from primary production, which is at variance withthe policy, but sensitive siting will ensure the majority of the land (90%) will continue tobe used for this purpose. The overall building footprint is 2100m2, with additional areasprovided for access and parking, amenity landscaping and hard infrastructure. Thedevelopment has been positioned to minimise the loss of productive land (includingconsideration of appropriate setbacks and landscape buffers to adjoining land).

In these circumstances, the proposed land use is an appropriate one. The applicant thenneeds to demonstrate - on balance - a sufficient level of consistency with those policies

9 July 2015

Page | 10

that seek to prevent unreasonable visual impacts, such as the erosion of the ruralcharacter, and that the operation of the development can be achieved without undueloss of amenity or disturbance to neighbouring landowners and residents.

Built form and character impacts

The establishment of larger scale developments are not uncommon in rural areas: thesecan be agricultural processors, wineries, cellar door sales outlets, function centres,intensive animal keeping operations and tourism accommodation. A balance must bestruck between the character values that exist and the built form that is proposed - andthis is dependent on the siting, design, scale, height and materiality of the proposal.

In broad terms, the proposed development is positioned below the adjacent ridgeline(Prominent Hill), the buildings and structures are grouped together (mostly under acommon roofline), are well set back from adjacent public roads and sufficiently removedfrom notable tourist or scenic routes to not unduly undermine landscape values. Theseoutcomes are consistent with the provisions of the Development Plan.

However the main structural element - comprising an elongated building formapproximately 225m in length - will be a notable and visible feature in the immediatelandscape. The ‘horizontal spread’ is significant. The overall height of the facility -varying between 3.1 to 6.1m on the accommodation suites to 8.0m at the centre(containing the administration, service, amenity and restaurant functions) - is notdissimilar to the height of other rural developments, whilst the extended facade isbroken up by several voids (which provide for views and opportunities for additionalplantings, and contrasting periods of light and shadow through the structure).

The use of glazed facades and complementary materials is seen positively – as is thearticulation and detailing of the built form. External finishes have been reconsidered bythe applicant, with slightly darker colours being used on both the outer wall and roofareas, providing a more considered approach to the design when set against a naturalbackdrop. Additional landscaping is also proposed, particularly along the easternperimeter and southern service areas, that will assist in softening these harder edges.

There will be a significant level of cut and fill (up to 3m), mostly through the centralportion of the site, then less to the south, however the proposal does seek to utilise theexisting landform to achieve a lower profile than otherwise might be the case with a lessrefined or considered design. Following lodgement of the application, the proponent hassought to further lower the height of the development by 700mm.

Rural interface

The most directly affected property contains a private residence under construction -situated approximately 190m to the east (from the proposed building). This developmentwas approved prior to the current tourism accommodation application being lodged (buthad not commenced construction). This land owner has lodged a written representationobjecting to the proposal – with one of the main issues being a perceived loss of amenitydue to the close physical proximity, built form (scale and height) and disturbance ofadditional traffic movements and noise. Their concerns have been well argued.

However the principal views of this residence will be to the north, and whilst there will besome impact or loss of views to the west (noting that the floor level of this residence willbe higher than the tourism accommodation suites), the partial loss or interruption to theavailable panoramic views is considered to be acceptable. The applicant will alsoestablish additional screen plantings along the access road (adjacent the sharedboundary) to provide an expanded landscape buffer (which will have a 6m width).

9 July 2015

Page | 11

The Council officer's report has also considered issues of dust, noise and light overspill. Ibroadly concur with the assessment of these impacts. As a rural area, there will be arange of existing (background) noise sources within the locality that can impact on theamenity of rural living uses - such as the operation of farm equipment, food processingactivities, livestock, pest control and traffic noise. Nonetheless, an acoustic report wasprovided by the applicant (Resonate Acoustics) which identified the main source ofpotential noise as a result of the development being vehicle movements travelling to andfrom the tourism accommodation facility.

The report concluded that even in a worst case scenario, predicted noise levels wouldstill achieve the night time noise criterion. Whilst no details were provided on thepossible impact of noise from mechanical services, recommended Condition 7 requiressuch plant and equipment to be acoustically designed to meet the EnvironmentProtection (Noise) Policy 2007.

No lighting plan has been provided by the applicant, but as a detailed design matter,recommended Condition 8 seeks to ensure that the installation and operation of anyoutdoor lighting meets the relevant public lighting standard.

Sustainability

The development involves a number of sustainability features including: local buildingproducts, materials with low-embodied energy / sustainably harvested, beneficialbuilding orientation, low energy lighting and mechanical services, automatic controlsystems, water efficiency systems, dry-climate landscaping, and adoption of a wastemanagement strategy (to minimise, conserve, recycle where possible).

Infrastructure and Servicing

The development site can be connected to the SA Water mains supply and sewer – thelater involving an off-peak discharge option (with 20KL, 2-day storage capacity). Roofwater will be harvested and collected on-site for re-use in toilets and landscapeirrigation. Carpark runoff will be directed to an oil and sediment interceptor and thendischarged overland into downstream storage dams. All other required services areavailable to the development site (i.e. electricity, telecommunications).

Bushfire Protection

The subject land is within a High Bushfire risk area. The SACFS has reviewed thedocumentation and raised no objection to the proposal – subject to design andoperational requirements being adopted (in relation to access, water supply, siting andvegetation clearance minimums). These requirements were included in the DAPresolution, although the applicant has already included an on-site turning area for CFSvehicles (with indicative swept paths for the largest vehicle type).

Flood Risk

The development site is not at risk of flooding or inundation.

Transport, Access and Parking

The development will be accessed – via a new driveway entrance – from Windsor Avenue(at the north-eastern corner of the allotment). At this location, Windsor Avenue is aformed but unsealed roadway. The estimated level of current movements is around 250vehicles per day. The development would generate approximately 100 daily trafficmovements (mostly due to the operation of the restaurant). The additional vehicle flowswere assessed to be within the existing capacity of the roadway. The Council haveprovided in-principle support to this option which meets relevant standards for the safe

9 July 2015

Page | 12

and efficient movement of vehicles. However, the new entrance will need to be designedto allow simultaneous movements – including for emergency service vehicles. This hasbeen adopted as a reserved matter in the DAP resolution. An existing site entrance isavailable closer to the Windsor Avenue and Schroeder Avenue intersection, but with theexpected volume of traffic and minimal sightlines, this access will only be available forincidental vineyard use (no change over existing situation).

The proposal will include dedicated carparking for visitors, guests, staff and a loadingarea for service vehicles. A total of 30 spaces are to be provided (16 for visitors /guests; 14 for staff). The Development Plan seeks 1 vehicle space per guest room plusone per employee (refer Table MtB/2), which would equate to 11 spaces for the guestrooms (11 spaces) plus 11 spaces for employees for which a nominal surplus of 8 spacesis supplied by the overall development. It is assumed that these spaces would be utilisedby invited guests for the on-site 50 seat restaurant (requiring 1 per 3 seats). On theassumption only 24 seats could be allocated to non-guests (at 100% occupancy), thenonly a further 8 vehicle spaces would be needed. An additional four spaces (includingone accessible space) has been provided as a dedicated drop-off / valet parking area.

The development therefore provides sufficient on-site carparking for guests, visitors andstaff, even at peak times.

Heritage

The historic conservation area, encompassing the Hahndorf township and approaches,does not extend to the subject land. There are no separately listed places of heritagesignificant on the subject land. The nearest (listed) State Heritage Place is the Mooney(previously Reimann) Barnhouse located over 325m to the north of the development site(cnr Windsor Avenue and Schroeder Road). Built in 1854-60, this structure is a ‘tangiblereminder’ of German settlement and heritage in the area. The nearest (listed) LocalHeritage Place is a house and cottage situated over 500m to the north-east of thedevelopment site. The Council commissioned independent heritage advice fromFlightpath Architects. This advice concluded that the ‘development is not considered tomaterially affect the context of heritage interests in the vicinity’.

Native Vegetation

Native vegetation clearance has been kept to a minimum. The development site haspreviously been cleared for a primary production use, whilst some roadside vegetationmay need to be cleared to provide safe and efficient access to the site from WindsorAvenue. It is noted that the subject land (and much of the surrounding rural land) hasbeen significantly modified over time – i.e. vegetation clearance, grazing, planting ofvines, construction of a dam, installation of transmission lines. The majority of theexisting vineyard will be retained for a productive purpose.

Outdoor Advertisements

The proposal includes the construction of one entrance / wayfinding sign of a modestsize and dimension on the Windsor Avenue frontage (900mm H x 250mm W x 5.5m L)comprising a steel and stone base with brass lettering (“Prominent Hill”). Low intensityup-lighting will illuminate the signage from below. There is no set standard for signagewithin the zone, however Table MtB/4 (Design Guidelines for Advertisements) doesprovide support for freestanding signs in rural areas with a maximum area of 1m2, andheight of 2m and to be non-illuminated. The proposed signage element exceeds theseprovisions, however in the context of the overall site and development, a singleadvertising display is not out of place, nor would its size or location significantlycompromise the existing rural character.

9 July 2015

Page | 13

9. Conclusion

The key planning issues are the appropriateness of the tourism accommodation land use,the scale and form of development, the impact on rural character and amenity, andwhether or not the Adelaide Hills watershed will be impacted (in terms of an increasedrisk of pollution). The concerns of representors are noted, and the proposal - in terms ofits larger scale - is a marginal one when considered against current policies.

However, a tourism accommodation use is not a prohibited development within the zone,whilst the adoption of an innovative design solution that seeks to provide a high qualitytourism experience in the Adelaide Hills – and provides a significant economic benefit tothe region - is broadly supported by the Development Plan on the basis that otherplanning impacts can be suitably addressed.

More importantly, the development's ability to connect to existing water and sewerinfrastructure minimises a significant threshold issue in respect to the potential foradditional pollution loads and loss of water quality within a sensitive catchment. As aresult, the proposed tourism accommodation facility should have a ‘neutral or beneficialenvironmental effect’ in the Mount Lofty Ranges Water Protection Area (refer EPAadvice).

From a policy perspective, the proposed structure is a challenging one, as the scale ofthe building will have an impact on the scenic landscape, when viewed from adjoiningland and within the immediate locality. This creates a significant tension point in theassessment and needs to be reconciled.

In this case, the use of various design techniques to reduce and minimise the visual bulkof the ‘horizontal spread’ is noted, as are the curved surfaces, placement of vegetationbetween suites, revised colour scheme, and the considered use of cut and fill (whichallows a more thoughtful positioning of structural elements on the site), all of whichcontribute to a noteworthy and impressive development that will provide a uniquevisitation experience.

The Council’s assessment of the proposal is therefore supported and the recommendedconditions of consent are seen to be reasonable and appropriate for this development.For the above reasons concurrence can be supported.

10. Recommendation

It is recommended that the Development Assessment Commission:

1) RESOLVE that the proposed development is NOT seriously at variance with thepolicies in the Development Plan.

2) RESOLVE to CONCUR with the decision of the Mount Barker Council to grantDevelopment Plan consent to construct a tourism accommodation facility atWindsor Avenue, Hahndorf (DA 580/R010/15: Council Reference – 580/0637/14).

Simon NeldnerPrincipal Planning OfficerAssessment: Investment Management (DPTI)