agenda - no 10 - shire of augusta-margaret river.pdf

Version: 2

Southern Joint Development Assessment Panel Agenda

Meeting Date and Time: Monday, 1 February 2016; 2:00pm Meeting Number: SJDAP/10 Meeting Venue: Shire of Augusta-Margaret River

41 Wallcliffe Road, Margaret River

Attendance

DAP Members

Mr Ian Birch (Presiding Member) Ms Sheryl Chaffer (Deputy Presiding Member) Mr Anthony Casella (Specialist Member) Cr Kylie Kennaugh (Local Government Member, Shire of Augusta-Margaret River) Cr Ian Earl (Local Government Member, Shire of Augusta-Margaret River)

Officers in attendance

Mr Nick Logan (Shire of Augusta-Margaret River)

Local Government Minute Secretary

Ms Rebecca Kevill (Shire of Augusta-Margaret River)

Applicant and Submitters

Mr Rod Hamersley (Australian Development Capital) Mr Peter Gleed (PGPM) Mr Scott Bradley (Grounds Kent Architects) Mr Linton Hodsdon

Members of the Public

Nil

1. Declaration of Opening

The Presiding Member declares the meeting open and acknowledges the pastand present traditional owners and custodians of the land on which the meetingis being held.

2. Apologies

Nil

3. Members on Leave of Absence

Nil

Version: 2

4. Noting of Minutes

Note the Minutes of the Southern JDAP Meeting No.9 held on 14 January 2016.

5. Declarations of Due Consideration

Any member who is not familiar with the substance of any report or other information provided for consideration at the DAP meeting must declare that fact before the meeting considers the matter.

6. Disclosure of Interests

Nil

7. Deputations and Presentations

7.1 Mr Linton Hodson presenting against the application at Item 8.1. The presentation will address a variety of concerns.

7.2 Mr Peter Gleed (PGPM) and Mr Scott Bradley (ground Kent

Architects) presenting for the application at Item 8.1. The presentation will seek removal or re-wording of RAR Conditions 2,7,8,11, 18 & 22 and Advice Note (g).

8. Form 1 - Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Application

8.1 Property Location: Lot 783 Wallcliffe Road, Gnarabup Application Details: Proposed Resort Applicant: Australian Development Capital Owner: Wallcliffe Nominees Pty Ltd and Gnarabup

Beach Pty Ltd Responsible authority: Shire of Augusta Margaret River DoP File No: DAP15/00885

9. Form 2 – Responsible Authority Reports - Amending or cancelling DAP development approval

Nil

10. Appeals to the State Administrative Tribunal

Nil

11. General Business / Meeting Closure

Meeting No. 9 14 January 2015

Mr Ian Birch Presiding Member, Southern JDAP Page 1

Minutes of the Southern Joint Development Assessment

Panel Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, 14 January 2016; 10:30am Meeting Number: SJAP/9 Meeting Venue: City of Bunbury 4 Stephen Street Bunbury Attendance DAP Members Mr Ian Birch (Presiding Member) Ms Sheryl Chaffer (Deputy Presiding Member) Mr Anthony Casella (Specialist Member) Cr Betty McCleary (Local Government Member, City of Bunbury) Cr Murray Cook (Local Government Member, City of Bunbury) Officers in attendance Ms Laura Sabitzer (City of Bunbury) Mr Thor Farnworth (City of Bunbury) Ms Stephanie Addison-Brown (City of Bunbury) Mr Brad Brooksby (City of Bunbury) Mr Nigel Archibald (City of Bunbury) Local Government Minute Secretary Ms Narissa Hribar (City of Bunbury) Applicants and Submitters Mr David Caddy (TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and Heritage) Ms Mariska Van der Linde (TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and Heritage) Mr Ken Downs (Hames Sharley) Members of the Public

Nil 1. Declaration of Opening

The Presiding Member, Mr Ian Birch declared the meeting open at 10.30am on 14 January 2016 and acknowledged the past and present traditional owners and custodians of the land on which the meeting was being held.

The Presiding Member announced the meeting would be run in accordance with the Development Assessment Panel Standing Orders 2012 under the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011.



The Presiding Member advised that the meeting is being audio recorded in accordance with Section 5.16 of the Standing Orders 2012; No Recording of Meeting, which states: 'A person must not use any electronic, visual or audio recording device or instrument to record the proceedings of the DAP meeting unless the Presiding Member has given permission to do so.' The Presiding Member granted permission for the minute taker to record proceedings for the purpose of the minutes only.

2. Apologies

Nil

3. Members on Leave of absence

Nil

4. Noting of minutes

Minutes of the Southern JDAP meeting No. 8 held on 22 December 2015 were noted by DAP members.

5. Declaration of Due Consideration

All members declared that they had duly considered the documents.

6. Disclosure of interests

Nil

7. Deputations and presentations

7.1 Mr David Caddy (TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and Heritage)

addressed the DAP for the application at Item 8.1.



8. Form 1 - Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Application

8.1 Property Location: Lot 63 Sandridge Road, Lots 68, 69 and 70 Pennant Road and Lot 150 Strickland Street

Application Details: Shopping Centre Extension Applicant: TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and Heritage Owner: Challenger Life Nominees Pty Ltd Responsible authority: City of Bunbury DoP File No: DAP/15/00926

REPORT RECOMMENDATION / PRIMARY MOTION Moved by: Cr Murray Cook Seconded by: Mr Anthony Casella

That the Southern JDAP resolves to: Approve DAP Application reference DAP/15/00926 and accompanying plans DA03, DA04, DA04-1, DA05 and DA06 in accordance with the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 (TPS7) subject to the following conditions: Conditions:

1. This decision constitutes planning approval only and is valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of approval. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the two (2) year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. At all times, the development the subject of this planning approval must comply with the definition of ‘shop’, ‘restaurant’, ‘fast food outlet’, ‘recreation–private’, ‘service station’, ‘office’, ‘child care premises’, ‘lunch bar’, ‘betting agency’, ‘consulting rooms’ and ‘medical centre’ as contained in Schedule 1 of the City of Bunbury’s Local Planning Scheme.

3. All development shall be in accordance with the approved development plans which form part of this planning approval.

4. Before construction of the development commences, the subject land parcels must be amalgamated into the one certificate of title, with the new title issued and a copy of the new title provided to the satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

Or, alternatively the land owner must enter into a legal agreement with the City of Bunbury to secure the amalgamation of the subject land parcels into one certificate of title within a specified time frame. The legal agreement must be at the full cost of the landowner, to the specification of the City’s solicitor and to the satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

5. Before construction of the development commences, the developer shall contribute towards:

a. The traffic signal intersection upgrade at Pennant Road and Sandridge Road. The development contribution amount will be one-third of the total cost of upgrade works, up to a maximum of $250,000.



b. The upgrade of City of Bunbury drainage infrastructure that crosses Sandridge Road adjacent to the site and discharges into Horseshoe Lake. The development contribution amount will be for the total estimated cost of upgrade works, up to a maximum of $94,000.

6. Before construction of the development commences, a damage bond to the value of $100,000 must be paid to the City of Bunbury in accordance with the City of Bunbury’s Local Planning Policy: Bonds.

7. Before construction of the development commences, a Traffic Management Plan, prepared in accordance with Main Roads Western Australia Code of Practice, must be submitted for approval by the City of Bunbury.

8. Before construction of the development commences, detailed car park design plans for all vehicle access/egress, car parking, bicycle and pedestrian movement requirements and trolley bay provision is to be prepared in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards, Austroad Guidelines and City of Bunbury’s Local Planning Policy: Access and Parking for Pedestrians, Bicycles and Vehicles (incorporating the recommendations of the Transport Impact Assessment by ‘Uloth and Associates’), and must be submitted for approval to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

9. Before construction of the development commences, a Stormwater and Drainage Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the Department for Water’s Stormwater Management Manual and the City of Bunbury’s Local Planning Policy: Stormwater Disposal from Private Properties, must be submitted for approval to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury. The Stormwater and Drainage Management Plan will determine the drainage infrastructure required supporting the development and as a minimum it must address:

a. proposed development;

b. storm events to be managed;

c. onsite-retention for 1:1 year events;

d. onsite-detention for 1:5 year events;

e. overland flow path for larger events;

f. effect of groundwater;

g. application of water sensitive urban design principles;

h. standard of water quality;

i. pollution control devices;

j. protection of adjacent / nearby waterways and wetlands; and

k. conclusions / recommendations.



10. Before construction of the development commences, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted for approval to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

11. At all times, provision must be made onsite for the storage and collection of garbage and other solid waste. A waste storage and collection area must be graded, drained and screened from public view, and the garbage collected regularly, to the satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

12. Before construction of the development commences, a schedule of exterior materials, colours and finishes must be submitted for approval to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury. The subject development must be finished and maintained in accordance with any approved schedule of materials.

13. Before construction of the development commences, a Landscape Plan must be submitted for approval to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury. The Landscape Plan must address the following:

a. a site plan of existing and proposed development with natural and finished ground levels;

b. the location, species and size of existing vegetation and vegetation to be removed;

c. exact species, location and number of proposed specimens to be plants;

d. a key or legend detailing proposed species type grouped under the subheadings of tree, shrub and ground cover;

e. details of mulching or similar treatments of garden beds including edges;

f. details of reticulation of landscaped areas including the source of the water supply and proposed responsibility for maintenance;

g. details of treatment of paved areas (parking and pedestrian areas);

h. details of screening of car parking areas; and

i. details of fence material, height and treatment.

14. Before the development is occupied, the car parking areas must:

a. provide a minimum of 1,411 car parking bays;

b. provide car parking bays for the exclusive use of disabled persons in accordance with AS/NZS2890.6:2009.

c. be constructed, kerbed, graded, drained and finished with a sealed or paved surface, in accordance with the approved detailed car park design plans;

d. have line marking and parking signage installed, in accordance with the approved detailed car park design plans; and



e. have lighting installed to pedestrian accessways and parking areas, in accordance with the approved detailed car park design plans.

All car parking areas must comply with the above requirements for the duration of the development.

15. Before the development is occupied, bicycle parking spaces and end-of-trip facilities, including a minimum of three (3) male and three (3) female showers, are to be provided in accordance with the City of Bunbury’s Local Planning Policy: Access & Parking for Pedestrians, Bicycles and Vehicles.

16. Before the development is occupied, the following infrastructure must be upgraded to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury:

a. Recommended works as identified in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Uloth & Associates Transport Impact Assessment.

b. The Pennant Road and Strickland Street intersection is to be upgraded in order to accommodate swept paths for B-Double trucks.

c. The Pennant Road and driveway 5 intersection is to be upgraded to a similar standard as provided at the existing Pennant Road and driveway 4 intersection.

d. Modifications to Pennant Road are to be undertaken including the removal of the existing left turn lane to driveway 4, adjusting Pennant Road to a 4.5m southbound carriageway, the introduction of a bus embayment and provision of street lighting along the full length of Pennant Road to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

e. The Strickland Street access driveways are to be upgraded in order to accommodate swept paths as shown in Figures B.9 and B.10 of Uloth & Associates Transport Impact Assessment.

f. The Sandridge Road and driveway 9 intersection is to be upgraded such that it provides improved pedestrian crossing across driveway 9, reduces vehicles speeds onto driveway 9 from the left-turn lane through give-way control and provides an extended left-turn lane.

g. Dual use paths are to be provided for the full length of Pennant Road (east side) and Sandridge Road (north side). The dual use paths are to be connected to the existing pathway network to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

Detailed design plans of the infrastructure upgrades must be submitted to the City of Bunbury to its specifications and satisfaction for approval prior to construction commencing.

17. Before the development is occupied, any alterations, relocation and/or damage of existing infrastructure within the road reserve shall be completed and/or reinstated to the specification and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.



18. Before the development is occupied, all proposed crossovers as shown on the approved plans and detailed in the verge crossover permit are to be constructed and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Bunbury. Existing crossovers which are disused or redundant must be removed and the area reinstated to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

19. Before the development is occupied, all regulatory line marking and/or signage required to external roads is to be installed and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

20. Before the development is occupied, the recommendations of the approved Stormwater and Drainage Management Plan must be constructed and implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

21. Before the development is occupied, the following stormwater pollution control devices must be integrated into the stormwater and drainage system to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury:

a. sediment trap/s; and

b. gross pollutant trap/s.

22. Within thirty (30) days of practical completion of the development, the landscaped area(s) must be planted, established and reticulated in accordance with the endorsed Landscape Plan. These areas must be maintained as landscaped areas at all times and to the satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

23. Before the development is occupied, a Signage Precinct Plan prepared in accordance with the City of Bunbury’s Local Planning Policy: Signage and Advertisements is to be submitted to the City of Bunbury for approval.

24. Before the development is occupied, the property must be connected to the Water Corporation reticulated sewerage system.

25. All loading and unloading to take place within the boundaries of the premises, without restricting access to the site.

26. Goods or materials must not be permanently stored within the parking or landscaping area, or within access driveways.

27. The subject land is situated on the Preston River Flood Plain and is susceptible to flooding. Building construction shall have a minimum finished floor level of 2.7m AHD.

28. Existing trees located within the verge are a City of Bunbury asset and as such must be retained except where otherwise approved for removal by the City of Bunbury.



Advice Notes

1. This is a planning approval and it is not a building permit. The development the subject of this approval is also regulated by the Building Code of Australia and a separate building permit must be granted before the development commences. The owner is advised to liaise further with the City of Bunbury’s Building Certification team on (08) 9792 7000.

2. The Waste Management Plan is to detail how and where waste produced from the development will be stored, handled and removed.

3. Where new crossovers are proposed, and before construction of the crossover can commence, a separate verge crossover permit application must be submitted and approved. A verge crossover permit application form is available from the City of Bunbury’s website.

4. Car park ventilation is to comply with the requirements specified in the City of Bunbury Health Local Laws 2001, Part 5, Division 5, Car parks. Ventilation must be in accordance with AS1668.2 and certified by a suitably qualified mechanical engineer, with a copy of the certification provided to the City of Bunbury’s Environmental Health department prior to the car park being used.

5. The development is to comply with the requirements of the Health Act 1911 (as amended) and the City of Bunbury Health Local Laws 2001.

6. The development is to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 in relation to noise emissions and the Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Discharge) Regulations 2004 in relation to discharges into the environment.

7. In relation to the work Traffic Management Plan, the City of Bunbury advises that this condition is required to ensure traffic management provided within and out of the site will cause minimal disruptions to the surrounding road network during the construction period.

8. The owner, builder and applicant are reminded of their obligation to ensure that all sand drift, waste, building materials and equipment is contained within the boundaries of the site during the construction period.

9. The City of Bunbury advises that all regulatory line marking and signage within the road reserve also requires the approval of Main Roads Western Australia.

10. The City of Bunbury advises that the proposed development (i.e. awnings) located outside the lot boundaries are not included with this application and may require separate approval from the Department of Lands (WA).



AMENDING MOTION Moved by: Mr Ian Birch Seconded by: Ms Sheryl Chaffer To amend Condition 13 to read as follows: 13. Before construction of the development commences, a Landscape Plan must

be submitted for approval to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury, in accordance with the City of Bunbury Local Planning Scheme and relevant local planning policy. The Landscape Plan must address the following:









i. details of fence material, height and treatment. REASON: To ensure compliance with the scheme and that due regard is given to the City of Bunbury’s landscaping policies. The Amending Motion was put and CARRIED UNAMINOUSLY. AMENDING MOTION

Moved by: Mr Anthony Casella Seconded by: Mr Ian Birch To amend Condition 4 to read as follows: 4. Before occupancy of the new development, the subject land parcels must be

amalgamated into the one certificate of title, with the new title issued and a copy of the new title provided to the satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

REASON: To allow for flexibility and to not delay the commencement of the development whilst waiting for the amalgamations to go through. The Amending Motion was put and CARRIED (4 / 1).



For: Mr Ian Birch Mr Anthony Casella Cr Murray Cook Cr Betty McCleary Against: Ms Sheryl Chaffer PRIMARY MOTION (AS AMENDED)

That the Southern JDAP resolves to: Approve DAP Application reference DAP/15/00926 and accompanying plans DA03, DA04, DA04-1, DA05 and DA06 in accordance with the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7 (TPS7) subject to the following conditions: Conditions:

1. This decision constitutes planning approval only and is valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of approval. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the two (2) year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. At all times, the development the subject of this planning approval must comply with the definition of ‘shop’, ‘restaurant’, ‘fast food outlet’, ‘recreation–private’, ‘service station’, ‘office’, ‘child care premises’, ‘lunch bar’, ‘betting agency’, ‘consulting rooms’ and ‘medical centre’ as contained in Schedule 1 of the City of Bunbury’s Local Planning Scheme.

3. All development shall be in accordance with the approved development plans which form part of this planning approval.

4. Before occupancy of the new development, the subject land parcels must be amalgamated into the one certificate of title, with the new title issued and a copy of the new title provided to the satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

5. Before construction of the development commences, the developer shall contribute towards:

a. The traffic signal intersection upgrade at Pennant Road and Sandridge Road. The development contribution amount will be one-third of the total cost of upgrade works, up to a maximum of $250,000.

b. The upgrade of City of Bunbury drainage infrastructure that crosses Sandridge Road adjacent to the site and discharges into Horseshoe Lake. The development contribution amount will be for the total estimated cost of upgrade works, up to a maximum of $94,000.

6. Before construction of the development commences, a damage bond to the value of $100,000 must be paid to the City of Bunbury in accordance with the City of Bunbury’s Local Planning Policy: Bonds.



7. Before construction of the development commences, a Traffic Management Plan, prepared in accordance with Main Roads Western Australia Code of Practice, must be submitted for approval by the City of Bunbury.

8. Before construction of the development commences, detailed car park design plans for all vehicle access/egress, car parking, bicycle and pedestrian movement requirements and trolley bay provision is to be prepared in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards, Austroad Guidelines and City of Bunbury’s Local Planning Policy: Access and Parking for Pedestrians, Bicycles and Vehicles (incorporating the recommendations of the Transport Impact Assessment by ‘Uloth and Associates’), and must be submitted for approval to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

9. Before construction of the development commences, a Stormwater and Drainage Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the Department for Water’s Stormwater Management Manual and the City of Bunbury’s Local Planning Policy: Stormwater Disposal from Private Properties, must be submitted for approval to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury. The Stormwater and Drainage Management Plan will determine the drainage infrastructure required supporting the development and as a minimum it must address:

a. proposed development;

b. storm events to be managed;

c. onsite-retention for 1:1 year events;

d. onsite-detention for 1:5 year events;

e. overland flow path for larger events;

f. effect of groundwater;

g. application of water sensitive urban design principles;

h. standard of water quality;

i. pollution control devices;

j. protection of adjacent / nearby waterways and wetlands; and

k. conclusions / recommendations.

10. Before construction of the development commences, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted for approval to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

11. At all times, provision must be made onsite for the storage and collection of garbage and other solid waste. A waste storage and collection area must be graded, drained and screened from public view, and the garbage collected regularly, to the satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.



12. Before construction of the development commences, a schedule of exterior materials, colours and finishes must be submitted for approval to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury. The subject development must be finished and maintained in accordance with any approved schedule of materials.

13. Before construction of the development commences, a Landscape Plan must

be submitted for approval to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury, in accordance with the City of Bunbury Local Planning Scheme and relevant local planning policy. The Landscape Plan must address the following:









i. details of fence material, height and treatment.

14. Before the development is occupied, the car parking areas must:

a. provide a minimum of 1,411 car parking bays;

b. provide car parking bays for the exclusive use of disabled persons in accordance with AS/NZS2890.6:2009.

c. be constructed, kerbed, graded, drained and finished with a sealed or paved surface, in accordance with the approved detailed car park design plans;

d. have line marking and parking signage installed, in accordance with the approved detailed car park design plans; and

e. have lighting installed to pedestrian accessways and parking areas, in accordance with the approved detailed car park design plans.

All car parking areas must comply with the above requirements for the duration of the development.



15. Before the development is occupied, bicycle parking spaces and end-of-trip facilities, including a minimum of three (3) male and three (3) female showers, are to be provided in accordance with the City of Bunbury’s Local Planning Policy: Access & Parking for Pedestrians, Bicycles and Vehicles.

16. Before the development is occupied, the following infrastructure must be upgraded to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury:

a. Recommended works as identified in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Uloth & Associates Transport Impact Assessment.

b. The Pennant Road and Strickland Street intersection is to be upgraded in order to accommodate swept paths for B-Double trucks.

c. The Pennant Road and driveway 5 intersection is to be upgraded to a similar standard as provided at the existing Pennant Road and driveway 4 intersection.

d. Modifications to Pennant Road are to be undertaken including the removal of the existing left turn lane to driveway 4, adjusting Pennant Road to a 4.5m southbound carriageway, the introduction of a bus embayment and provision of street lighting along the full length of Pennant Road to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

e. The Strickland Street access driveways are to be upgraded in order to accommodate swept paths as shown in Figures B.9 and B.10 of Uloth & Associates Transport Impact Assessment.

f. The Sandridge Road and driveway 9 intersection is to be upgraded such that it provides improved pedestrian crossing across driveway 9, reduces vehicles speeds onto driveway 9 from the left-turn lane through give-way control and provides an extended left-turn lane.

g. Dual use paths are to be provided for the full length of Pennant Road (east side) and Sandridge Road (north side). The dual use paths are to be connected to the existing pathway network to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

Detailed design plans of the infrastructure upgrades must be submitted to the City of Bunbury to its specifications and satisfaction for approval prior to construction commencing.

17. Before the development is occupied, any alterations, relocation and/or damage of existing infrastructure within the road reserve shall be completed and/or reinstated to the specification and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

18. Before the development is occupied, all proposed crossovers as shown on the approved plans and detailed in the verge crossover permit are to be constructed and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Bunbury. Existing crossovers which are disused or redundant must be removed and the area reinstated to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.



19. Before the development is occupied, all regulatory line marking and/or signage required to external roads is to be installed and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

20. Before the development is occupied, the recommendations of the approved Stormwater and Drainage Management Plan must be constructed and implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

21. Before the development is occupied, the following stormwater pollution control devices must be integrated into the stormwater and drainage system to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bunbury:

a. sediment trap/s; and

b. gross pollutant trap/s.

22. Within thirty (30) days of practical completion of the development, the landscaped area(s) must be planted, established and reticulated in accordance with the endorsed Landscape Plan. These areas must be maintained as landscaped areas at all times and to the satisfaction of the City of Bunbury.

23. Before the development is occupied, a Signage Precinct Plan prepared in accordance with the City of Bunbury’s Local Planning Policy: Signage and Advertisements is to be submitted to the City of Bunbury for approval.

24. Before the development is occupied, the property must be connected to the Water Corporation reticulated sewerage system.

25. All loading and unloading to take place within the boundaries of the premises, without restricting access to the site.

26. Goods or materials must not be permanently stored within the parking or landscaping area, or within access driveways.

27. The subject land is situated on the Preston River Flood Plain and is susceptible to flooding. Building construction shall have a minimum finished floor level of 2.7m AHD.

28. Existing trees located within the verge are a City of Bunbury asset and as such must be retained except where otherwise approved for removal by the City of Bunbury.

Advice Notes

1. This is a planning approval and it is not a building permit. The development the subject of this approval is also regulated by the Building Code of Australia and a separate building permit must be granted before the development commences. The owner is advised to liaise further with the City of Bunbury’s Building Certification team on (08) 9792 7000.

2. The Waste Management Plan is to detail how and where waste produced from the development will be stored, handled and removed.



3. Where new crossovers are proposed, and before construction of the crossover can commence, a separate verge crossover permit application must be submitted and approved. A verge crossover permit application form is available from the City of Bunbury’s website.

4. Car park ventilation is to comply with the requirements specified in the City of Bunbury Health Local Laws 2001, Part 5, Division 5, Car parks. Ventilation must be in accordance with AS1668.2 and certified by a suitably qualified mechanical engineer, with a copy of the certification provided to the City of Bunbury’s Environmental Health department prior to the car park being used.

5. The development is to comply with the requirements of the Health Act 1911 (as amended) and the City of Bunbury Health Local Laws 2001.

6. The development is to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 in relation to noise emissions and the Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Discharge) Regulations 2004 in relation to discharges into the environment.

7. In relation to the work Traffic Management Plan, the City of Bunbury advises that this condition is required to ensure traffic management provided within and out of the site will cause minimal disruptions to the surrounding road network during the construction period.

8. The owner, builder and applicant are reminded of their obligation to ensure that all sand drift, waste, building materials and equipment is contained within the boundaries of the site during the construction period.

9. The City of Bunbury advises that all regulatory line marking and signage within the road reserve also requires the approval of Main Roads Western Australia.

10. The City of Bunbury advises that the proposed development (i.e. awnings) located outside the lot boundaries are not included with this application and may require separate approval from the Department of Lands (WA).

The Primary Motion (as amended) was put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.



9. Form 2 – Responsible Authority Reports - Amending or cancelling DAP development approval

Nil

10. Appeals to the State Administrative Tribunal

Nil

11. General Business / Meeting Close

The Presiding Member reminded the meeting that in accordance with Standing Order 7.3 only the Presiding Member may publicly comment on the operations or determinations of a DAP and other DAP members should not be approached to make comment. There being no further business, the presiding member declared the meeting closed at 11.13am.

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report (Regulation 12)

Property Location: Lot 783 Wallcliffe Road, Gnarabup Application Details: Proposed Resort DAP Name: Southern JDAP Applicant: Australian Development Capital Owner: Wallcliffe Nominees Pty Ltd and Gnarabup

Beach Pty Ltd LG Reference: P215418 Responsible Authority: Shire of Augusta Margaret River Authorising Officer: Nick Logan – Acting Director Sustainable

Development Department of Planning File No: DAP15/00885 Report Date: 15 January 2016 Application Receipt Date: 8 September 2015 Application Process Days: 90 Days Attachment(s): 1: Location/Site/Aerial Plan

2: Development Plans and Elevations 3: Schedule of Submissions 4: Copies of Submissions from Government Authorities 5: Revised Site Plan 6: Plan with Marked Points of Discussion 7: Site Plan of Current Approval 8: Landscape Concept Plan 9: Fire Management Plan Excerpt

Officer Recommendation: That the South-west Joint Development Assessment Panel resolves to: Approve DAP Application reference 15/00885 and accompanying plans SK100 and SK101 Revision J, and plans SK130, 131, 210, 211, 220, 230, 410, 420, 430, 510, 520, 530, 610, 620, 630, 710, 720, 730 in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River Local Planning Scheme No. 1, subject to the following conditions: Conditions

1. The development is to be carried out in compliance with the plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent.

Plans and Specifications

P1 and P2 (SK100 and 101 Revision J) received at the Shire on 14 January 2016 and P3 – P21 received at the Shire on 8 September 2015.

2. This decision constitutes planning approval only and is valid for a period of two

years from the date of approval. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the two year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

3. This proposed villas shall only be used for short stay accommodation. Short stay accommodation means accommodation by a person or group of people for a period of less than three (3) months in any one 12 month period. The villas shall not be used for permanent residential purposes.

4. All facilities including accommodation and other commercial tourism facilities

shall be subject to a centralised management and booking arrangement with a manager to be permanently on-site while facilities are in use.

5. All development pursuant to this approval shall be implemented in a single

stage of construction. A construction management plan detailing compliance with this requirement shall be provided to the Shire’s satisfaction prior to any development being undertaken.

6. Occupancy of the restaurant facility is limited to a maximum capacity of 214

people. Occupancy of the function room is limited to a maximum capacity of 128 people. This capacity may be cumulative where the restaurant and function facilities are used in conjunction.

7. The height of proposed villa 32 shall be reduced by replacement with a single

storey alternative with an RL of not greater than 19.0. The height of units 33 and 34 shall be reduced in height by a reduction of RL to 18.0 or below. All Type 4 and 4w villas adjacent the western and northern boundaries of the development shall comply with the 7 metre height limit.

8. The height of the central facilities building shall be reduced by the first floor RL

being lowered to 18.5RL or below.

9. A schedule of colour and texture of the building materials shall be submitted to the Shire’s satisfaction prior to the commencement of any work(s) and shall be implemented accordingly.

10. Vehicle parking areas (internal and external), internal roads, access ways and

crossover(s) shall be designed, constructed, lit, sealed, kerbed, drained, line marked and thereafter maintained in accordance with Australian Standards and the Shire’s Standards and Specifications, prior to occupation of the development.

11. The overflow parking area to the north of the Site shall be accessed internally

from the Site and no egress is permitted to Wallcliffe Road. This parking area and access shall be located adjacent the northern boundary of the site, consistent with the emergency access way requirements of the fire management plan and provide adequate separation for pedestrian access.

12. A Transport Management Plan shall be prepared to the Shire’s satisfaction and

thereafter implemented.

13. Any bus visiting the site shall not utilise public parking facilities in the locality.

14. A detailed Stormwater Management Plan is to be submitted for approval with supporting calculations prior to commencement of works.

15. Prior to the commencement of development the proponent shall pay a

development bond of $10,000.00 as per the Council’s Policy PE.51 Development Bonds.

16. Proposed pedestrian access ways are to be designed and constructed to the

satisfaction of the Shire. Alignments are to be agreed prior to construction. 17. Any external lighting must be installed and operated so that there is no

detrimental impact upon the amenity of the locality. 18. Prior to the commence of development the proponent shall prepare and

implement improvements to local foreshore facilities, these improvements to include: • Improvements to foreshore access. • Expansion of the upper Gnarabup carpark. • Public open space facilities in association with the carpark expansion. • The incorporation of public art within the public open space improvement area.

19. A Landscape Plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Shire by a

suitably qualified and/or experienced landscape consultant and be submitted to the Shire prior to the commencement of development. The Landscape Plan shall be drawn to scale and show the following: • The location, name and mature heights of existing and proposed trees,

shrubs and ground covers. • Any lawns and paved areas to be established. • Any natural landscaped areas to be retained. • Those areas that are to be reticulated or irrigated are demonstrated to be

designed using water sensitive principles. • Consistency with the requirements of the Fire Management Plan.

20. Landscaping shall be implemented prior to occupation/use of the development

and shall be maintained at all times. 21. A Fire Management Plan shall be finalised to the satisfaction of the Shire and

the Department of Fire and Emergency Services prior to any development being undertaken. The Fire Management Plan shall thereafter be implemented to the satisfaction of the Shire.

22. Prior to any development being implemented the landowner shall ensure that a

notification on the title of the land is secured, providing the following advice: VULNERABLE COASTAL AREA – Portion of this lot is located in an area that may be subject to coastal erosion and/or inundation over the next 100 years.

23. The Proponent shall design and construct turning and manoeuvring areas

within the development to accommodate rubbish collection services to the satisfaction of the Shire. Design for waste storage, screening, and collection utilising the internal one-way traffic system shall be provided to the Shire’s satisfaction prior to the commencement of development.

Advice Notes a) A detailed engineering plan is to be submitted for approval prior to

commencement of works showing construction details including pavement levels and thickness, earthworks, roads and paths, drainage, clearing cross fall, drainage disposal method, parking bay dimensions and aisle widths, landscaping/rehabilitation and soil stabilisation measures, both during and after construction to the satisfaction of Local Government.

b) Onsite detention volume of 1m³ of water for every 100m² of impervious area

including roof, driveways, parking areas and paved areas with a restricted outflow into the Shire's drainage system or to comply with onsite storage requirements. Stormwater basins are not to hold water for longer than four days and constructed to the Satisfaction of Local Government.

c) Works are prohibited within the road reserve including any pruning or clearing

of vegetation without prior written approval of the Shire. The Proponent shall submit and implement a Traffic Management Plan prepared by a licenced Traffic Manager in accordance with MRWA Traffic Management Code of Practice and Australian Standards AS1742.3-2002 for any works on or within the road reserve (including road).

d) The Transport Management Plan shall incorporate the following details:

• The provision of ‘end of trip’ facilities to support alternative modes of transport, such as cycle facilities and showers for patrons and staff.

• Methods to encourage and implement shared trips to and from the site. • Methods to ensure that patrons and staff of the facilities are not utilising

adjacent public parking areas while visiting the site. e) As Constructed details and drawings of all new constructed infrastructure

(roads, drainage and pathways) shall be submitted to the Shire in an approved format following the completion of works. The As Constructed details and drawings shall address and include the following; • Receipt of the consulting engineer's certificate of compliance that the works

have been completed in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications,

• Submission of certified as-constructed drawings in electronic ‘A-spec’ format as specified by the Local Government,

• Provide detail and value of the works so that it can be placed on the local government’s asset register.

f) A Construction Management Plan shall address, but need not be limited to, the following items: • Working within Shire reserves • Ensuring proper approvals have been obtained • Access points to construction site • Materials lay down • Construction workers parking • Fencing of building sites • Littler and building rubbish control • Stormwater, soil stabilisation, sedimentation and erosion control • Dust control • Working hours • Construction noise • Minimum facilities to be provided • Storage of goods • Insurances for construction related use of public area • Prevention of soil tracking

g) In relation to foreshore management improvements, the proponent will prepare

a range of improvements for the Shire’s consideration which will then be

subject to a further public consultation process to consider the detail of these improvements.

h) Use and maintenance of landscaping and parking areas for the development

located within Shire land will require separate authorisation under Shire Local Laws. This authorisation will be required prior to any work being undertaken on Shire managed land.

Background: Property Address: Lot 783 Wallcliffe Road, Gnarabup Zoning MRS: N/A TPS: Tourism Use Class: Resort Lot Size: 2.5941 hectares (2.3491ha + 2450m²) Existing Land Use: Vacant Value of Development: $15,000,000 Lot 783 Wallcliffe Road, Gnarabup was originally part of Sussex Location 815, from which the broader Gnarabup estate was developed. Through setting the total level of development at Gnarabup Lot 783 was identified as one of several tourist development opportunities associated with the estate. Lot 783 is around 2.6ha in two portions, separated by the unmade Mitchell Road Reserve (see Attachment 1). In 2004 the Town Planning Appeals Tribunal issued orders for approval of an application to develop Lot 783, following refusal of the application by the Shire (Appeal 103 of 2004). Approval (P24009) was subsequently issued for a resort type development comprised of: • 28 villa accommodation units, with 83 rooms in a 50 key arrangement; • A café central facilities building; • A central pool, parking and vehicular access; • Drainage compensation on the northern portion of Lot 783. Lot 783 was then subdivided with the majority of the northern portion ceded as reserve. In 2008 the Shire was approached by the landowner and provided confirmation that preliminary works undertaken were considered to be ‘substantial commencement’, thereby satisfying condition 1 of approval P24009, which subsequently remains valid. Aligned with this process was the development of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1), which effectively modified the development controls for Lot 783 by summarising approval P24009 as a baseline for future development. Through preparation of the original concept and Structure Plan for the Gnarabup Estate a suite of foreshore management improvements was identified (known as the ‘Cedervale Agreement’). As a consequence the Shire entered into a deed of agreement with the subdivider and payment was made at the time of subdivision to satisfy subdivision conditions relating to foreshore management improvements.

Details: outline of development application On 8 September 2015 an application was received to develop Lot 783 as a Resort, comprised of the following: • 38 Villa accommodation units as:

o 16 x four bedroom units; o 10 x three bedroom units; and o 12 x two bedroom units; o Providing a total of 118 bedrooms in a 102 key arrangement.

• A restaurant and resort facility including function rooms, reception, gymnasium, five spa/treatment rooms and utilities, with a combined floor area of 1648m² internally and 243m² of external decking area.

• Central landscaping and water feature, and carparking. • A 25 metre outdoor pool. • Stormwater disposal and sewer pump station on the northern portion of Lot 783. • Various pedestrian paths and facilities external to Lot 783, including a potential

expansion of the public carpark to the west and the provision of community recreation facilities. In addition, the fire management requirements for development would require the fuel modified building protection zone to extend around five metres from the western boundary into the adjacent Reserve 41545.

All accommodation is proposed to be occupied on a short stay basis. The restaurant and spa/treatment rooms will be open to the public, and the function rooms available for public hire. Approval is required as development is substantially different from the existing approval P24009 for development of the land, proposes several variations to the development controls contained within Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1), and includes consequential development on land under the care and control of the Shire. Legislation & policy: Legislation Planning and Development Act 2005 Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 Shire of Augusta Margaret River Local Planning Scheme No. 1

• 4.2.3 – Purpose and Objectives of the Tourism Zone • 4.3 - Zoning Table • 4.18 – Development in Tourism Zone • 5.5 – Variations to Site and Development Standards and Requirements • 5.8 and Schedule 8 – Carparking • 5.11 and Schedule 9 – Setbacks, Plot Ratio and Site Coverage • 5.19 – Bush Fire Hazard and Fire Management Plans • Clause 6.3 – Gnarabup Special Control Area, particularly 6.4.3.2.3 • Clause 64 – Advertising Applications • Clause 67 – Matters to be Considered by Local Government • Clause 74 – Approval Subject to Later Approval of Details • Schedule 12 – Special Conditions Relating to Tourist Zones (T2) • Structure 13 – Gnarabup Beach Structure Plan (27 November 2006)

The Gnarabup Beach Structure Plan identifies Lot 783 for tourist development subject to provision of the majority of land north of the Mitchell Drive road reserve as

a reserve for the purpose of recreation and drainage. This land has been excised from Lot 783 and ceded as reserve. Shire of Augusta Margaret River Local Government Property Local Law 2013 State Government Policies Statement of Planning Policy 6.1 - Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge The LNRSPP contains a number of provisions that are broadly relevant to the Proposal. As Lot 783 is specifically zoned for tourism development much of the strategic direction of the LNRSPP is not applicable to the tourism development potential of Lot 783, which is now set by zoning. The essence of the balance of the policy direction in the LNRSPP is: • Development will be in accordance with the settlement strategy which identifies

Gnarabup as a coastal node incorporating tourist development opportunities. • Protection of the landscape qualities of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge. • Development should ensure it meets the ‘good neighbour principle’ by ensuring

development is compatible with management practices in the National Park. State Planning Policy 3.7 – Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas SPP3.7 has recently been reviewed and revised Planning for Bushfire Protection guidelines issued. The Proposal was prepared and advice provided by DFES prior to the revised guidelines coming into effect, however the practical impact of the revisions is not substantial for the Proposal. State Planning Policy - 2.6 – State Coastal Planning Policy SPP2.6 requires assessment of the suitability of development in the coastal environment. This includes the impacts of coastal hazard risk to future development and integration of development with the surrounding coastal environment. Local Policies Local Tourism Planning Strategy The Shire’s Local Tourism Planning Strategy (LTPS) contains a number of policy directives that are relevant to the Proposal. Of most relevance is the identification of Lot 783 as a ‘key tourism site’ with specific direction to: • Ensure all accommodation is solely for short stay purposes. • Give particular regard to improving access to and amenity of the foreshore area. Local Planning Strategy The LPS identifies Lot 783 for tourism purposes. Policy direction for tourism developments in the LPS acknowledges the need for detailed criteria to be set through a Local Tourism Planning Strategy. The LTPS has been prepared and endorsed by the Shire, and is in the process of being incorporated within the LPS. Public Art Policy The Shire adopted a Public Art Policy in August of 2014. The policy requires that a ‘per cent for art’ is provided for significant commercial developments (anything valued at over $1,000,000). Consistency of the application against relevant statutory and policy provisions is detailed in the planning assessment below.

Consultation: The Proposal includes several variations to the development standards of LPS1, which are considered under clause 5.5 of the Scheme, and was advertised accordingly. Public Consultation The Proposal was advertised for public consultation from 29 October 2015 until 27 November 2015. This consultation included: • Informing landowners in the surrounding Gnarabup and Prevelly localities by

correspondence. • Placing advertisements in a locally circulating newspaper. • Placing a sign on Lot 783 advising of the Proposal. • Convening a public meeting on 12 November 2015 where details of the proposal

and the relevant planning implications were highlighted and members of the public were able to seek clarification on relevant issues.

70 submissions from the public were received through this process. The submissions received are considered in relation to each of the issues detailed in the planning assessment below. A full summary of submissions is included as Attachment 3. The majority of submissions raised objections to the Proposal, broadly relating to the following: • Concerns with the development of Lot 783 in general and a preference for the

land to be left undeveloped. • Objections to any increase in density beyond what is expressly provided for by

LPS1. • Landscape impact, including the bulk and scale of the main facilities building, and

seeking a reduction in height for development. • Concerns relating to an undersupply of parking provided and the pressure on

current parking and foreshore facilities in the locality, including • Fire management and the limited facilities in, and access to, Gnarabup. • The standard of the road network and safety concerns on Wallcliffe Road,

primarily the bend and crossing point north of the boat ramp carpark access, and the boat ramp carpark access itself.

• The capacity of the wastewater plant at Gnarabup to accommodate proposed development.

Consultation with other Agencies or Consultants The Proposal was referred directly to: • The Department of Fire and Emergency Services. • The Department of Parks and Wildlife. • The Department of Aboriginal Affairs. • The Water Corporation. Submissions were received from all these agencies and are included as Attachment 4. In Summary: • DFES finds the Fire Management Plan consistent with the objectives and

principles of the Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines, subject to the finalisation of fire engineering requirements and formal endorsement of the FMP at that time.

• DPaW has no objections and trusts that environmental planning issues will be adequately covered through the planning system.

• DAA confirms that the development area is not within the boundaries of any known Aboriginal Heritage Sites and notes the landowner’s obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act.

• The Water Corporation recommends implementation of a water management plan for the development. In addition, further information was sought in relation to wastewater concerns following public submissions, and the Corporation advised:

o The Gnarabup Wastewater Treatment Plant operates comfortably within its licence conditions.

o A further project has commenced to consider improvements to the WWTP to deliver further reliability in its operation.

Planning assessment: Land Use and Development Standards The entire proposal is a ‘Resort’ for the purpose of LPS1 and a discretionary use in the Tourism Zone. While separate components of the Resort are considered under that use class, clause 4.18.9 of LPS1 requires the Reception Centre (function rooms) component to be ‘incidental to’ and support tourism development. The nature of the Proposal provides that the Reception Centre component meets this requirement, as it is a subsidiary rather than principal component of the Proposal. A description of the Proposal against the general development standards for the Tourism Zone included at Schedule 9 of LPS1 is as follows: Standard Proposed Site Coverage – 50% 29% = 7109m² (6291m² - units + 818m² -

facilities) / 24391m² (site area) Plot Ratio – 0.5 0.34 = 8473m² / 24391m² Setbacks – Superseded by T2 of Schedule 12

Landscaping – 5% <5% Entry T2 in Schedule 12 of LPS1 sets out specific development controls for Lot 783. These controls are an amalgamation of previous development controls under superseded Town Planning Scheme 18 (setbacks and qualitative provisions), and the quantitative outcomes of the existing planning approval applicable to Lot 783. Qualitative assessment is detailed below. Assessment against the quantitative standards in Schedule 12 is as follows: Standard Proposed Density - Up to 28 villas comprising 83 bedrooms, plus caretakers accommodation

Variation – 38 accommodation units including 118 rooms

Setbacks – 10 metres 10 metres to all boundaries, except for setback encroachments (five metres to accommodation on western boundary), and facilities building and pool encroachment to northern/western boundaries

Height – 7 metres Some minor encroachments for two storey (type 4 and 4w units) detailed below

Key variations to be considered are therefore in relation to density, setback encroachments and building height. In this regard clause 5.5 of LPS1 provides for variation of development standards provided approval of any development would:

• Be appropriate having regard to the matters to be considered under clause 67; and

• Not have an adverse effect upon occupiers or users of the development, the inhabitants of the locality of likely future development of the locality.

Each of the issues associated with the proposal are discussed in turn as follows, and with notations to the location of specific points shown at Attachment 5. Density The density proposed represents an additional 35 bedrooms to the LPS1 standards and existing development approval. The footprint of development proposed is largely similar to the existing development approval and complies with LPS1 in terms of the mass of development envisaged by site coverage and plot ratio standards. The Site Plan of the existing approval is included as Attachment 6. Key issues in relation to the increase in density arise from the additional capacity in use of Lot 783 rather than the extent of building (setting aside landscape impact considerations), which include pressure on facilities in the locality, impacts on amenity from additional use, and the ability for the development to provide sufficient infrastructure to cater for the increase in density. The acceptability of the increase in density therefore turns largely on these issues. In terms of services, the principle issue is the capacity of the dedicated Gnarabup Wastewater Plant to accommodate the total extent of development proposed. The Water Corporation has confirmed sufficient capacity in the WWTP. Landscape Impacts and Building Height Lot 783 has an extensive history of identification and settlement of its development potential, which has been influenced by the potential impacts on landscape value. A Landscape Study (the Cleary Report) was prepared in 2003 to support the existing development approval and which has been relied upon for the current Proposal. The Cleary Report sets a number of recommendations that should be implemented to achieve an appropriate development outcome, and to satisfy the specific provisions of Schedule 12 in LPS1. A considerable number of submissions raised concerns with the visual impacts of the Proposal, particularly the height and mass of the restaurant/facilities building, and the impacts of breaching the 7 metre height limit for a number of the two storey accommodation units. The layout and orientation of the Proposal, specifically the proposed height and location of the two storey (type 4) accommodation units and the facilities building, requires measurement against the 7 metre height limit and the further qualification of provision (vi) of entry T2 in Schedule 12. The relevant provision of Schedule 12 requires development not to have a ‘detrimental impact on views’, with particular reference to viewing locations from Wallcliffe Road, Surfer’s Point Road and Rivermouth Road. The provision must be weighed together with the permitted extent of development on Lot 783 under the development standards of LPS1. This extent of development potential afforded by LPS1 affects the way in which the concept of ‘detrimental impact’ needs to be considered. A selection of photo montages was provided giving an impression of future development from the key viewing locations referenced in Schedule 12. Given the

permitted development scale within LPS1 the form and layout of development is considered to have minimal impact from Surfers Point or Rivermouth Road. It is clear that the development will however, be readily evident and impact views across Lot 783 from Wallcliffe Road and from the upper carpark adjacent Lot 783. Key recommendations in the Cleary Report in this regard suggest that development should allow: • The high point and ridge to the west to be seen from Wallcliffe Road east of Lot

783. • The coastline to the north to be seen from Wallcliffe Road south of Lot 783. With respect to the restaurant/facilities building the excavated ground level in which this building is proposed results in the lower ground floor being largely below existing natural ground level, which assists to mitigate the impact of the height and bulk of this building. The acceptability of the height of this building is guided in the application by the Cleary Report. The Cleary Report was however, prepared with direct reference to the previous planning application/current approval. With that approval the height of the corresponding facility (identified as a café) was 4.7 metres above a Relative Level (RL) of 17.0 metres (totalling an RL of around 21.7m to ridge height), with the current proposed central facilities building approximately four metres above an RL of 19.0 metres, or approximately 1.3 metres higher in total. The ridge line of the Central Facilities building therefore is at around a RL 23, which is approximately the same height as the small knoll immediately north of Lot 783. Some further reduction in height of this building would assist in reducing the impact of this facility, which could be achieved by further setting the building into the landscape (reducing the RL of the lower ground floor). Provisions of the now superseded Town Planning Scheme 18 recognised that while an 8 metre height limit then applied to Lot 783, it may be necessary in specific areas to reduce this maximum to 6 metres. The reduction in RL for the facilities building would logically be set at what was originally recognised as the height that buildings may need to be reduced to, to ensure appropriate landscape outcomes. The accommodation units are generally consistent with the recommendations of the Cleary Report, with low profile single storey structures in the east of Lot 783. The orientation of the two storey components of the Type 4 and 4W units along the northern and western boundaries also provides for views through the buildings from certain angles. In addition to the above two points of the Cleary Report, a further recommendation is relevant to these buildings: • Keep buildings to single storey on the extreme north-east and south-west corners

of the site to maintain views to the high point to the west. The Proposal includes a single storey building in the extreme north east of Lot 783 (see Attachment 5), however includes the highest point of development in the extreme south west with two storey units (32, 33 and 34) in this area. Units 32, 33 and 34 will also all breach the seven metre height limit under LPS1. Unit 32 in particular would be both dominant in the landscape and in close proximity to the Ocean View Road access to the public carpark. It is appropriate that unit 32 is restricted to single storey and the RL of units 33 and 34 reduced to ensure compliance with the seven metre height limit, by setting a maximum RL of 18.0 for those units. Whilst a two-storey component is proposed in the extreme south west under the existing approval this is not representative of an optimal development outcome for this area of Lot 783, and is inconsistent with the visual management recommendations of the Cleary Report.

A further influencing factor is that more stringent fire management requirements apply than when the development concept and scheme provisions were first established. The implication being that much of the 10 metre ‘buffer’ around the periphery of Lot 783 will need to be cleared and replanted in a manner that is likely to be less effective at maintaining the original character and mitigating impact than the retention of vegetation originally envisaged in LPS1 provisions. The Cleary Report recommends setbacks remain vegetated to ensure ‘the dominance of foreground vegetation’. The Cleary Report identified the nature of vegetation, from a landscape perspective, to constitute ‘dune community vegetation on the windward (western) side and low (1-2m) heath vegetation on the lee side’. A landscape concept has been provided (Attachment 7) that demonstrates a reasonable outcome that will also meet the Building Protection Zone objectives of the Fire Management Plan. The detail and implementation of this landscaping will be a critical component of mitigating impact and will require further certainty through application of conditions of approval. The variations to setback requirements are considered acceptable with consideration to the purpose and function of the setback areas. The 10 metre setback distance is maintained adjacent to the public roads on the eastern and southern frontages enabling landscape planting and separation to mitigate the impact of development to the level intended by LPS1 provisions. The variations are confined to areas that are behind the wide reserve area and consistent with the existing approval. LPS1 requires particular regard for the nature of colours and materials to be used in the development. The schedule provided is consistent with the provisions of LPS1 in this regard, and appropriate finishes ensured through a condition of approval. The final component of visual management is the impact of lighting within the development. The amenity of the locality is partly characterised by the lack of dominant lighting, including an absence of street lighting in the Gnarabup subdivision. A further condition is recommended to ensure lighting takes a low key appearance and muted tones reduce the impact of development. Parking and Access A common issue raised in objection to the Proposal was the provision of parking to service the development. The Proposal as advertised provided for 125 bays on Lot 783 and a further 24 bays as an extension to the adjacent Ocean View Road public carpark. This carparking demand and provision was based on a reciprocal arrangement based on the following assumptions: • 50% of demand for the restaurant component would arise from those

accommodated on site. • 30% of visitors to the function room would be accommodated on site. Whilst the principle of reciprocal use has merit in such a facility where a degree of reciprocal use is inherent in the form of development, the method of calculation of total demand was considered to be flawed for several reasons. The Shire has initiated and advertised a review of parking standards under LPS1 by way of Scheme Amendment 34. Amendment 34 has progressed to the stage of being approved by the Hon. Minister and awaiting gazettal. Clause 67(b) of the deemed provisions of LPS1 highlights the principle that an amendment that has progressed to this stage is a relevant consideration. Amendment 34 has the effect of reducing the parking demand for restaurants (from one bay per four seats to one bay per five seats), and introducing the potential for a five bay reduction where an active

transport plan is prepared an implemented, including ‘end of trip’ facilities in the development. Accepting the foregoing reciprocal use arrangement and applying the provisions of Amendment 34 reduces total demand to 158 bays. This calculation also relies on a maximum provision of ‘seats’ or occupancy levels in the restaurant and reception centre that would need to be set by way of condition, and which would reduce occupancy levels below those strictly permitted by floorspace. A consistent issue raised through submissions was the inadequacy of parking in the Proposal and the current pressure on facilities, in particular the upper Ocean View Road carpark. Extension to that carpark was viewed as warranted in terms of current and projected growth in demand, but an unacceptable solution to provide capacity for parking requirements generated by the development. Modifications were subsequently made by the applicant with a revised Site Plan included as Attachment 4 (SK100 Revision J) providing for 155 bays through internal reconfiguration and including the provision of 15 ‘overflow’ bays constructed in the unmade Mitchell Drive Reserve (see Attachment 5). Provision T2(i) of Schedule 12 requires a 10 metre buffer to the northern boundary and specifically includes the following statement: There shall be no vehicle access to the development across this buffer strip to the public car park access road. This provision is a replication of a corresponding provision from the previous TPS18 when the now unmade Mitchell Drive was constructed access to the upper Gnarabup carpark. The principle ostensibly to reduce the visual impact of development from the carpark access. The upper Gnarabup carpark access was subsequently modified through the development of Gnarabup and construction of Ocean View Road. While a 10 metre buffer strip will be retained adjacent to development the single access location to a limited amount of overflow parking in the Mitchell Drive Road reserve is a suitable alternative, however requires the following modifications from the revised plan shown at Attachment 4, ensured by way of condition: • No access to Wallcliffe Road from this parking. Submissions raised the potential

to reconfigure parking into a one way circular route from Ocean View Road to Wallcliffe Road, however sight distances are unacceptable for access to Wallcliffe Road at this location, which is understood to be the reason for the closure of the Mitchell Drive access in the first instance.

• Ensuring two way access/egress to this parking from Lot 783. • Maintaining emergency and pedestrian access to Wallcliffe Road by locating

parking adjacent the northern boundary of Lot 783 and ensuring sufficient pedestrian separation from vehicle access to parking.

Provision T(2)(iv) of Schedule 12 requires integration of future development with surrounding coastal access. Linkages through and around the site are provided. Some further upgrades are required to surrounding coastal access discussed in the Foreshore Facilities section below. Fire Management The Fire Management Plan (FMP) as found generally acceptable by DFES is summarised in the excerpt included as Attachment 9. The FMP identifies the Bushfire Attack Level for future development at a maximum of BAL29, which is an acceptable level of risk under the Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines, both

Edition 2 (current at the time of lodgement and submissions), and the revisions recently released by the DoP. Mitigation measures include reduction of fuel loads in the Building Protection Zone (BPZ) around the periphery of future development. This BPZ is to be 10 metres in width and given the setback variation proposed to the western boundary will extend 5 metres into the adjacent reserve 415465, which is an A Class reserve vested in the Shire for Recreation. The western BPZ will be bordered by future pedestrian access and landscaped to ensure an appropriate public/private interface with future development. Ongoing maintenance of the BPZ on public land, the proposed northern Emergency Access Way to Wallcliffe Road, and the ‘overflow’ parking referenced above will require appropriate local law permits from the Shire. This will address the formal consent for aces to land, maintenance agreements and liability however consent for the land to be used in this manner would be inherent in any approval. A number of submissions raise the inherent threat of fire to development and in particular, the lack of secondary access to Gnarabup and Prevelly. Given that Lot 783 is zoned for development and coastal access requirements resolved at that time there is no scope to either restrict development or require secondary access as a consequence of the Proposal. A separate intergovernmental working group is currently evaluating potential secondary access to major coastal settlements, including Prevelly/Gnarabup. A further enhancement that the Shire Emergency Management Coordinator has requested is for improvements to emergency coastal access by ensuring a legible and safe egress to the coast as a refuge in a fire emergency. Foreshore Facilities and Coastal Management Whilst previous contribution has been made towards foreshore facilities under the Cedervale Agreement, this agreement related to an assumed level of development at the time of a 25 residential lot equivalent. Submissions have consistently raised the pressure on local facilities, which will be exacerbated by the greater density of development than envisaged under the Cedervale Agreement and LPS1 provisions. Contribution to improving the capacity of these facilities would be warranted and has been proffered through the Proposal, this could include: • Improvements to foreshore access, likely renewal of the stairs and access paths

that would also serve the dual function for fire management noted above. • Expansion of the upper Gnarabup carpark. • Public open space facilities in association with the carpark expansion. In accordance with clause 74(1) of the deemed provisions of LPS1, further consultation and the specific nature of these improvements will be subject to consultation and greater detail required to satisfy a condition of approval. In addition the Shire’s Public Art Policy requires one per cent of the development cost to be provided for public art, or in this instance $150,000. In this instance the developer will be required to make a substantive contribution to local community facilities that warrant an offset against the amount of public art contribution that would otherwise be required. A requirement for the provision of public art in association with public open space facility improvements forms a component of a recommended condition of approval.

SPP2.6 (2013) requires an assessment of coastal hazard risk and the implications of that risk for development. Under previous versions of SPP2.6 the existing approval was outside of the area of potential coastal risk within which an assessment was required. Following revisions to SPP2.6 the Shire has undertaken an assessment of risk at a broad level that identifies the north western corner of Lot 783 at a low risk of impact over a 100 year planning period. The balance of Lot 783 is outside of potential identified risk areas. The identified level of risk is considered within the context of the existing approval to develop the majority of Lot 783, including land within the north western corner. In addition, the development is considered to constitute a ‘coastal node’ for the purpose of SPP2.6, which is a distinct and discrete built area that may be located within a coastal foreshore reserve. Excluding permanent residential development it may vary in size from a grouping of recreation facilities to an area of commercial or tourism facilities or accommodation. Given the existing approval otherwise provides for development of this area, the low level of risk and the recognition that these tourism and associated commercial facilities may be located in such areas, the recommended response is to ensure that this potential risk is clear to current and future landowners through placing notification on the title of Lot 783 prior to development being undertaken. Construction, Management and Subdivision The timing of construction and management of future facilities are key issues arising from the Shire’s LTPS. To achieve a bona fide tourism development there is a general presumption against strata title of the Proposal based on planning approval and the resultant potential for ad hoc implementation and revision to the Proposal. To address this issue a condition of approval will require the construction of the Proposal in a single stage. In addition, centralised management of all tourist accommodation and the related facilities will be required. Council Recommendation: At the Ordinary Meeting of the Shire Council on 27 January 2016, the Council resolved (Attachment 10): RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION CR HASTIE, CR SMART OM2016/11 That Council endorses the Responsible Authority Report for the proposed Resort at Lot 783 Wallcliffe Road, Gnarabup.

CARRIED 4/3 CRS LANE, TOWNSHEND AND HAYNES VOTED AGAINST

Conclusion: The primary issues associated with the Proposal are related to the impacts of increased density and the provision of adequate infrastructure (parking and foreshore facilities) to ensure that the effects of the Proposal can be appropriately mitigated. The issue of building bulk arising from increased density is considered with respect to the permitted level of development under the site controls of LPS1 (plot ratio and site coverage) with which the proposal complies. Subject to modification by condition (some reduction in height and proposed improvements to landscape treatments), the Proposal is also consistent with the landscape objectives for Lot 783, which need to be balanced against the extent of development envisaged in LPS1. The Proposal

will also need to provide for further mitigation by improving the capacity of adjacent public facilities. With due regard to the matters to be considered under clause 5.5 and 67 of LPS1, and subject to the modifications detailed above and required by condition, the Proposal is acceptable with regard to LPS1.

The Shire of Augusta-Margaret River does not warrant the accuracy of information in this publication and any person using or relying upon such information does so on the basis that the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River shall bear no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the information.

Thursday, 21 January 2016

1:5387

SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS – P215418 Proposed Tourist Resort

Lot 783 Wallcliffe Road, Gnarabup

SUB-MISSION

NO.

SUBMITTER (Name & Address)

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

1. Nearby Landowner Support 2. Nearby Landowner Support

Well planned sympathetic development with benefit to residents and visitors. 3. Nearby Landowner Support

1. The land is suitably zoned and forms part of an endorsed Structure Plan to accommodate a resort. 2. Has previously received Planning and Building Approval which shows the proposal satisfied the various land use and

development provisions of the scheme/structure plan. 3. The increase in the number and variety of short stay units provides more choice for patrons and will support the economic

viability of the proposal. 4. Development as proposed is suitably located on a ridge that provides northerly glimpses over Gnarabup Beach and will

complement and be in close proximity to existing facilities. 5. Such development reinforces the need to provide suitable access for visitors and residents (who will use the bar/café/restaurant)

along the coast. The extension to existing carparking nearby is supported and we consider that the additional traffic to the parking area to be negligible noting the resort provides onsite parking to each room.

6. Dual use path connection within Mitchell Drive Road Reserve will be used by residents of the area when opting to visit the bar/café/restaurant and will provide connectivity to established paths to various facilities.

7. Support café/restaurant component to cater for both patrons and visitors to the site and the opportunity to utilise the function centre as well.

8. Trust Council is supportive of these connections within the Mitchell Drive Road Reserve. Requested Changes and Queries 9. Access to the bar/café/restaurant facilities– Note that a limited number (10) visitors bays on-site within 35m of the proposed

facilities. Would support the design of the proposal, or proposed extension to existing carpark to be adjusted to locate more visitor bays closer to bar/café/restaurant facilities.

10. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access- Request any approval to the proposal is conditioned to ensure the dual use and bicycle paths are constructed at the first stage of

development reassuring residents that this infrastructure is in place early and not delayed. Also any approval to the proposal is conditioned to provide bicycle parking facilities close to the café/bar/restaurant not dissimilar to those provided at the Beach Café.

4. Nearby Landowner Support 1. Maintain as much vegetation as possible especially along road verges. 2. Planting of Peppermint trees within complex is encouraged. 3. Concerned that height restrictions be maintained. 4. Due to increase traffic, pedestrian crossings need to be made on Wallcliffe Road. Need designated zebra crossings and better

signage so cars slow down, particularly where paths end at the road. 5. Nearby Landowner Support 6. Nearby Landowner Support

1. Dust control mitigation be put in place. 2. Any native vegetation that is cleared be used on high erosion areas (sand dunes). 3. Working hours between 7am – 5pm. 4. Traffic control for heavy machinery exiting and entering work site – Wallcliffe Road.

7. Nearby Landowner Support



SUB-MISSION

NO.


SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

1. Employment for local tradesmen during construction and hospitality workers into the future. 2. Enhancement of land values in Prevelly will hopefully be a positive side effect.

8. Nearby Landowner Support 1. Council should restrict height of development, in this case lower. 2. New access road to Gnarabup or Prevelly should be resolved with increase in temporary residents over summer bush fire

period. 9. Nearby Landowner Support

1. Project would give long waited stimulus to the building industry in Margaret River. 2. Provide needed employment to tradesmen and apprentices who live here and flow on benefits to ratepayers when those

employed spend the money in our town. 3. Have no concerns about the development being visible. 4. Only concern is that it should allow free passage thru the development and not be a gated community. 5. Hope Shire gives this all the encouragement possible.

10. Nearby Landowner 1. When Gnarabup was identified visual impact consideration were paramount. The development appears to propose significant heights approaching the height limit and given the prominent location of the site, shire should consider ensuring that development sympathises with this rounding contour and context of the area and perhaps recommend some reduction in height of development. This would ensure the development blends in with the landscape better.

2. Given development is to be around 120 rooms with restaurant a large vehicle movement is expected. Generally a dwelling generates 8 vehicle movements a day and with the tourist accommodation this could be similar. Even if half this traffic was expected at peak times the development could generate over 500 vehicle movements per day.

3. Traffic problems already exist at the entry to Gnarabup particularly on the sweeping bend just south of Mitchell Drive intersection due to its narrow nature and the bend at this location and Tourists are unfamiliar with the tight nature of the bend and quite often very dangerous situations are experienced. Shire should look very carefully at widening the road around this bend from crosswalk south and perhaps putting a narrow median strip to separate traffic on the bend. Perhaps the development could assist in contributing towards this.

4. Another traffic conflict in the area is the entry/exit to the Gnarabup Boat ramp and carpark area. As the entry/exit to this area are reversed we see on a daily basis from unfamiliar tourists this arrangement confusing them and causing traffic problems and near misses. With the extra 500 vehicle movements per day or more that is generated by the development, the complications of this confusing intersection will be exacerbated. Shire should strongly consider further treatment to this intersection and perhaps review the entry/exit arrangement as there are many dangerous situations generated by this.

5. As experienced with several fires throughout the Gnarabup area we have been evacuated from our house at least three times in recent years. Every time this occurs the only way in and out is by Wallcliffe Road. There is a short possible connection between Rainbow Caves Road and Baudin Drive where there is already a wide cleared track. This could be gravelled and provided with emergency access arrangements this would at least serve an improved 2P

ndP access purpose for Gnarabup. With the

development introducing potentially 600 to 800 tourists at peak times who are unfamiliar with the area, the second area/exit arrangement particularly in emergency situations is hugely beneficial, perhaps the development could contribute towards the gravelling of this arrangement and Shire should also consider placing this within a road reserve therefore excising it from National Park.

11. Private Submission Indifferent 12. Nearby Landowner Indifferent

1. In our view the development of this location is inevitable so it’s essential an outcome is achieved which is low impact on the



SUB-MISSION

NO.


SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

environment and community.

2. Conditions should be placed on the proponents to provide funds to construct a dual use path from Wallcliffe Road along Ocean View Road to the carpark and to also contribute to the upgrade of the stairs from the carpark to the White Elephant Café.

13. Nearby Landowner Indifferent 1. The proposed extension to existing carparking could be improved upon at a lot less cost “win win”. Plans have been attached. 2. Simple facts to be considered when designing the area: a) With the two new developments there will be a lot more foot and vehicle traffic. b) Existing turning radius is not adequate to handle tourist buses etc. c) Tourists walk to the beach in the mornings – exercise, swim, breakfast. Return in the evening to watch sunset (crowds that

arrive at Surfers Point prove my point). 3. Designed a new parking layout that has a lot of advantages (Plan attached to submission): a) Turning Ocean View Road into ‘one way’ from corner of Reef Drive makes good sense. b) Parallel parking along Ocean View Road would add a lot more parking bays, plus assist longer vehicles and cost nothing.

Good for boat trailer overflow and caravans. c) Angle parking for easier parking flow. d) Larger bus parking area. e) Extending Ocean View Road into Mitchell Drive (unmade) would give exit traffic improved flow. f) Developers are proposing to pave half of Mitchell Drive and sidewalks so half of walk is already paid for. g) ‘The Park’ is important. People, tourists and locals need a place to mingle, watch the sunsets etc. The developments

central facilities and pool will overlook this park, it will become a focal point of this area. Add playground & BBQ, half dozen shelters and it would take some pressure off the boat ramp parking area.

14. Nearby Landowner Indifferent – these issues should be addressed prior to final approval of any application. 1. Object to the increase in accommodation and function centre addition. Neither were part of the initial proposal and the

infrastructure and view will both be compromised. 2. Current application provides for inadequate parking both onsite and surrounding the resort. Live full time at “The Break” and can

attest to the parking problems experience by residents, guests and visitors to The Break especially during peak times. 3. Stretch of Wallcliffe Road from Mitchell Drive to Gnarabup Beach boat ramp turn-off is hazardous. Stretch of road is inadequate

for current traffic use, let along future use following construction of the proposed resort. This road is dangerously narrow and flanked by raised concrete curbs, which prevents cars taking evasive action or moving off the road for safety in the event of an emergency. Combination of hill and curve over this stretch of road means cars travelling in opposite directions over the hill and around the curve come dangerously close to colliding. Further accidents will occur unless this dangerous stretch of road is widened with upgraded shoulders and speed limit reduced.

15. Nearby Landowner Object 1. Density and number of dwellings close to the beach is not appropriate for the area. 2. Will be significant traffic congestion in peak holiday periods.

16. Nearby Landowner Object 1. Consider road congestion, residents of the area already experience this. 2. Another 38 villas will mean dozens more tourists doing 20km/h while looking for their accommodation. 3. Will only support if the small 2km extension of Blackboy Hollow Road is bituminised to offer secondary access. Trivial cost when

all is considered. 17. Nearby Landowner Object



SUB-MISSION

NO.


SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

1. Too many units – previously 28. 2. Too much extra traffic. 3. Not enough amenities – path to beach. 4. Need more proper walk paths along Wallcliffe to beach. 5. Unstable limestone ridge.

18. Nearby Landowner Object 1. Bushfires in Nov 2011 showed that Gnarabup is over developed and over populated for the available access. Any increase from

the original approval is not showing a failure to learn from the past failings. 2. Any increase in height from original calculations will dramatically infringe on the existing owners/occupants views and amenity. 3. Proposed variation in villa numbers is a 35% increase over approval. 4. Why, when the applicant knows the finite space available, are they allowed to meet their public requirements by building parking

and services on land they have no right to? 5. If project went to original approved numbers would it be determined by the Shire?

19. Nearby Landowner Object 1. Shire would be wise to reduce the number of accommodation units in the area affected by this development. Area in front of

White Elephant Café is one of the most congested multi use beaches in the Shire (swimming, boating etc). As a boat user have observed dangerous situations at Gnarabup boat ramp every summer and further congestion will increase the danger.

2. Will affect the other short term accommodation businesses. Will affect income of my business and other locally owned short term accommodation businesses. Income of these locally owned small scale residences has a large flow on effect into the local economy, this can’t be said for other accommodation models. Chance that in the long term the local economy may be harmed by such a development. There are already sufficient developments of this nature in the area.

3. 2011 fires have proved the dangers of having further large developments in the Prevelly/Gnarabup area. Until a new evacuation route is available the Shire should not allow any new developments. How can we allow further accommodation to be built in the area while this proven danger exists.

20. Nearby Landowner Additions of such a large number of residences in this location will adversely effect the Prevelly/Gnarabup area by : 1. Adding significant pressure to existing infrastructure and amenity. 2. Adding significant risk to existing and new residents to bushfire as a result of poor exits. 3. Adding pressure on landscape close to the beach such as damage to coastal ridge, paths etc.

21. Nearby Landowner 1. Larger development than originally proposed. 2. Not necessary to have the same style accommodation as original resort should be completely different e.g. 5 star. 3. It will also lose more natural beauty of the area, better left untouched.

22. Nearby Landowner 1. Increase in traffic volume on Wallcliffe Road which has already had major accidents. 2. Limited resources in the area for all additional inhabitants in the new resort.

23. Nearby Landowner 1. The resort is being built in a high fire danger location. Don’t believe the infrastructure of the local community could cope with an addition 240 people (2 per room) in a time of fire emergency. I’m a brigade member and the community has struggled has struggled with emergencies. Having this many extra people in the area with no safe zones to retreat to leaves people in danger and will put volunteers at risk to project them.

2. The resort will have a huge increase in traffic along an already dangerous black spot area. Wallcliffe Road between the bridge and the existing resort has seen numerous crashes, this is partly due to the road design (large bend over the crest of a hill) and also the changes to the Gnarabup car park. Not uncommon for tourists to drive out from carpark onto opposite side of road into incoming traffic or for cars heading south to suddenly reverse as they have missed turn off. Despite signage and road markings



SUB-MISSION

NO.


SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

the situation remains a dangerous situation.

24. Nearby Landowner 1. Non-compliant building height will block some of our ocean views. 2. Need to put 24 parking bays on public land indicates the site is overdeveloped. 3. Need for some of the bushfire protection zone to be on public land reinforces point 2. 4. There is not good reason to allow the non-compliant aspects of this proposal.

25. Nearby Landowner 1. Object as the area is already significantly challenged with respect to both parking and vehicular access and egress given the single road into the area.

26. Nearby Landowner 1. Object to the resort being built so close to the beach and ridge. 2. Will be an eyesore and visible from the water, beach, Surfers Point. 3. One entrance to Prevelly/Gnarabup. 4. Additional traffic and noise is also objectionable in an area which should be preserved.

27. Nearby Landowner West side of Wallcliffe Road should be a buffer zone for the following reasons: 1. A loss of habitat for birds. 2. Aesthetic loss due to expansion of the car park and the 38 villa proposal. People buy properties and tourists come here for the

coastal views and natural vistas. 3. Already have the legacy of a sewerage plant west of the road in sand dunes without screening, so the possibility of another west

side development would be a total eye sore. 28. Nearby Landowner 1, Was of the understanding that there was to be no development west of Wallcliffe Road.

2. Site and the one to the south should be brought back by the Government and be kept as public space. 29. Nearby Landowner 1. Opposed to a development of this size.

2. Will be devastating to our fragile coastline and the environment. Tourists don’t stick to path ways. The influx of people and building site will cause erosion. Area should be protected from huge money making organisations and be left untouched for future generations to enjoy.

3. Building proposed are huge and will be a scar on the beautiful coast. 4. View point 5 picture is not reality as the bush in this area has never been this tall and never will be, extreme weather conditions

will never allow growth to the height stated. Building will be visible from all directions. 5. Area has been savaged by fire twice in 12 years and impact of fires in the future is a reality. With only one road in and out in an

emergency situation it’s not a safe area for locals and definitely not tourists. 6. Ask Council to not approve a development of this size and think Council should say no to any development west of Wallcliffe

Road. 30. Nearby Landowner 1. Always thought it was coastal reserve on that side of Wallcliffe Road.

2. Concerned about visual impact from Margaret River Beach Resort view. 3. Concerned about the extra accommodation and its effect on the current owners of accommodation in the area.

31. Nearby Landowner 1. Proposed development has potential to impact detrimentally on the coastal environment. At maximum occupancy the resort will put undue pressure on a fragile eco system. Erosion of coastal dunes has become evident recently. Pressure from short stay occupants could only exacerbate the problem.

2. Greater vehicular traffic on an already dangerous section of Wallcliffe Road between Mitchell Drive and Margarets Beach resort entrance is a scenario for disaster.

32. Nearby Landowner 1. No more development in Gnarabup/Prevelly area. 2. We want to see bush and beach not buildings. 3. Tourists come to Margaret River for its natural beauty.



SUB-MISSION

NO.


SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

4. Bulldozing all the beautiful bush is also destroying the homes of many native animals and plants.

33. Nearby Landowner 1. Major increase in the number of beds from the original concept approved in 2005. 2. Enormous size of the function centre, restaurant, spa on the highest part of the site. Very visible from viewing spots destroying

the visual amenity of the area. 3. Parking is already a problem in Gnarabup. Size of proposed function centre, parking will be under more pressure with

developers using shire land for additional bays. 4. Fire is an ongoing worry with one road in and out and more people to escape. 5. Environmental impact on a sensitive, coastal area would have detrimental effect on the area for the community and other tourists

alike. 34. Nearby Landowner 1. Prevelly/Surfers Point is a main tourist attraction and Prevelly is the main beach for Margaret River residents. View south from

Wallcliffe Road on entry to Prevelly is very scenic and of huge tourist value. Out natural tourist attractions need to be protected as much as possible. The proposed function centre, restaurant, spa is proposed for the highest part of the site, so it will really scar the landscape by being visually obtrusive.

2. Will be a large increase in the number of beds. Its disappointing that developers are still trying to increase the size of their development. So much work was undertaken by Councillors, shire staff and the community to achieve an agreement on a small low key lodge.

3. Wallcliffe Road is hazardous to drive along now due to tourists, local traffic and service vehicles. Section from Mitchell Drive to Ocean Road is hazardous and this section has had several accidents. Development size should be kept to a minimum to reduce the traffic flow associated to the resort. Developer should contribute to widening of Wallcliffe Road (from resort to Mitchell Drive).

4. Existing parking at Gnarabup cannot cope at present during peak season. The function centre/restaurant may place more pressure on existing parking areas. Parking should be self-contained within development. Object to development using shire land for additional parking.

5. This land at one stage prior to final zoning was deemed ‘environmentally sensitive-too fragile for development’. Development on the land needs to be less obtrusive. The larger development on a visually prominent fragile environment will have detrimental impact on landscape and the social fabric of the local community.

35. Nearby Landowner 1. Original proposal in 2005 was for 83 bedrooms, object to the increase. 2. Function centre/restaurant/spa is to be located on the highest point of the site. Given its size will be visible from many points

along coast destroying visual amenity. 3. Already pressure on parking in the Gnarabup Beach area. All parking for the development should be contained within the

development, object to public land being handed to the developer for parking. 4. Roads and walkways in area are already under pressure from existing traffic (local/tourist). Wallcliffe Road will come under

increasing pressure. Developers should fund an upgrade to Wallcliffe Road and complete a walkway along Ocean View Road to Gnarabup Beach. Wallcliffe Road wasn’t designed for large volumes of traffic and service vehicles.

5. Margaret River is renowned for its natural beauty and this development will destroy the natural amenity and the impact on the character of the area are not acceptable. The area is already crowded in the summer months.

6. Years ago this site was deemed unfit for development due to importance of the site and the landscape and fragile coastal environment, however the Planning Minister of the day thought otherwise. After much consultation it was agreed that a low key tourist lodge be developed on the site. The new development in its present form is too big for the site.

36. Nearby Landowner 1, While we agree Margaret River needs ‘5 star’ accommodation, this proposal is just not suitable, it is too dense and too high in its current format and question the sincerity of the proposal.

2. Developers that own this land (and all land west of Wallcliffe) so far haven’t built anything in Gnarabup except maybe the odd house, so far they have subdivided and sold land and I think that is exactly what they will do here.



SUB-MISSION

NO.


SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

3. A density precedent will be set, which can follow onto other lots they own. 4. Land between Wallcliffe Road and the beach is precious and environmentally sensitive and is also highly visible and needs to be

treated with utmost care. 5. Object to the increase in density, West of Wallcliffe was promoted as being for a low key tourism. Land sits within the Leeuwin

Naturaliste Ridge to which an document was produced to ensure protection. Site is very sensitive and highly visible and should be treated with the utmost care. Argument for increasing density from developers to make it a ‘viable resort’ is irrelevant. There are many examples of low key ‘5 star’ boutique hotels that are successful e.g. ‘Cape Lodge’. Increase from 50 keys to 102 keys is a 100% increase and is totally unnecessary. Is no shortage of developable ‘tourism’ land available to the west of Wallcliffe so if the developers are genuine about developing a successful ‘5 start’ boutique resort they should spread out and do a nice job.

6. Location of the Convention Centre/Restaurant is unacceptable in its current form as its at the highest and most prominent point of the site. At 7m high the building will dominate the landscape at what is a very prominent location of our coastal vista.

7. Object to the increase in the height limit. 8. Object to the lack of parking provided on site for the development. Appears to be no staff parking provided at all and the

proponent proposing to use reciprocal parking arrangements between the apartments and the convention centre, this arrangement can only work when once business operates during the day and one at night and not when both require parking day and night. The proposal to develop extra bays on shire land still won’t be enough. The area experience very heavy traffic particularly during Summer/Autumn/Spring. This type of development needs to provide adequate parking on their own land.

9. Lack of provision of walkway’s/footpaths/access stairs to the beach etc. Current proposal doesn’t allow or offer any of the above apart from one footpath over a current road reserve. Provision needs to be made to install and maintain access to beaches etc by the developer.

37. Nearby Landowner 1. Development is too large compared to the previous approved development. 2. Insufficient parking spaces for public (non-guest), extra 24 spaces on Shire land is not enough and it should be provided on

resort land not shire land. Parking is already a major problem in the area. 3. More traffic on Wallcliffe Road due to development. 4. More people pressure on coastal dunes etc. 5. Beach stairway needs upgrading. 6. Large impact on visual amenity when viewed from various locations leading to loss of attractiveness of the coast.

38. Nearby Landowner 1. Don’t need another resort of this size or any size. There is plenty of accommodation in the Margaret River town, Beach Resort and private lettings.

2. Resort and customers will negatively impact on the environment and landscape. 3. Increase in rubbish and waste as well as the buildings impacting on the view and aesthetic of the area. 4. Not enough public amenities in the area to support another resort. Already traffic congestion and crowding in peak times. Shire

needs to address some of the speeding and road issues as well as parking issues. 5. Concerned that the exit strategies in the event of another fire haven’t been addressed yet by the Shire. Still only one road in and

out of Gnarabup. This should be the priority rather than allowing another resort to be built. 6. Concern about the supply of water and sewage treatment in the area. Will there be an increase in size of the treatment facilities?

Who will pay? 39. Nearby Landowner 1. Area is pristine land and we have seen too much development in the area over the last 20 years.

2. Will add additional and unnecessary traffic to the area. 3. Already enough tourist accommodation in the area. 4. Larger development like this could have a negative impact on small accommodation operators who rely on the income.

40. Nearby Landowner 1. No justification is provided for the increase in the density, the space can’t accommodate it properly.



SUB-MISSION

NO.


SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

2. The convention centre doesn’t exist in the existing planning approval and no rationale is provided for its addition. Why does the

Gnarabup require a convention centre, location is inappropriate. 3. Increase in height is a concern as personal residents have not been permitted a variation to the 7m height limit even when an

existing approval was in place (under old height measurement method) so why a developer be allowed a variation in a sensitive location?

4. Gnarabup and Boat ramp already have congestion and parking problems as well as poor pedestrian/bike facilities. Lack of parking, footpaths and beach access in this proposal is woeful.

41. Nearby Landowner 1. Adversely impacts the pristine natural environment and amenity of the area. 2. Increase in traffic and noise pollution in the area. Parking around Gnarabup is regularly full with traffic parking along the access

road, limiting access and creating a hazard. Further development will worsen the situation. 3. Initial development plan for the area was bad enough in terms of adverse impact on the area, revised proposal is even worse.

42. Nearby Landowner 1. Larger development at Gnarabup will increase the number of people accessing this stretch of sensitive coastline. Regardless of signage people will still access sensitive dune and limestone areas leading to increased erosion and environmental damage.

2. People staying at resort are likely to travel by car which will add stress on all of the facilities around Gnarabup such as public carparks in the area and these are generally full most weekends and even some weekdays. During peak seasons these facilities are generally over full, which then causes people to park in areas not designated for parking and disrupts the safe flow of traffic and increases risk of accidents and greatly diminishes the amenity of the area.

43. Nearby Landowner 1. Object to the increase in number of beds from the original concept and approval. 2. Enormous size of the function centre/restaurant/spa on the highest part of the site. Development visible from viewing spots along

the coast destroying visual amenity of the area. 3. Parking is already a problem in the area. Size of the function centre/restaurant parking will be under more pressure with only an

additional 24 parking bays on Shire land, parking should be self-contained on the development site. 4. No provision shown for upgrading the facilities along the beach front to cater for the influx of people at the resort. 5. Margaret River relies on tourism for income. The attraction to the area is the natural environment and development that destroys

the natural amenity and character of the area is not acceptable. 6. Environmental impact of such a dense development on sensitive, coastal area would have a detrimental effect on the social

character for the community and tourists. 7. While we agree Margaret River needs ‘5 star’ accommodation, this proposal is just not suitable, it is too dense and too high in its

current format and question the sincerity of the proposal. 8. Developers that own this land (and all land west of Wallcliffe) so far haven’t built anything in Gnarabup except maybe the odd

house, so far they have subdivided and sold land and I think that is exactly what they will do here. 9. A density precedent will be set, which can follow onto other lots they own. 10. Land between Wallcliffe Road and the beach is precious and environmentally sensitive and is also highly visible and needs to be

treated with utmost care. 44. Nearby Landowner Same as Submission No. 36. 45. Private Submission 1. Development is larger than previously approved.

2. The large function centre on NW point of the site is very close to the coast and is out of character with the area. This part should not proceed.

3. Is already no excess beach parking in summer, only parking provided by the development is 24 spaces on Shire Reserve? 4. Low key component is one thing – but the large function centre which will be visible from all of Gnarabup should not be

permitted.



SUB-MISSION

NO.


SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

46. Nearby Landowner 1. Area west of Wallcliffe Road should remain a reserve and buffer from development.

2. Find it cynical that a proposal that is already unpopular has been increased significantly from what was agreed to originally in times when consents were easier to get.

3. Grey water and sewerage from this type of development would be considerable. 47. Nearby Landowner 1. Proposed development is too large for the site especially the function centre component.

2. Previous approval shouldn’t be relevant as the proposed development is 20-30% larger and contains the function centre. 3. Site has important aesthetic and environmental values. It’s clearly visible from Gnarabup and Wallcliffe Road and provides

residents/visitors with ocean vistas from road level across coastal vegetation. Development in its latest form will have a major impact on these values.

4. The addition of the function centre on the NW corner makes this application unacceptable. Only parking provided for this is 24 extra spaces in valuable coastal Shire Reserve. In busy periods there is no excess parking available and if there is a function on in summer where will people park.

5. Section of Wallcliffe Road from Mitchell Drive intersection to proposed site is busy and dangerous and especially with the confusing entry into the boat ramp/beach car park. In addition to no parking for the spa/function centre there is nothing relating to traffic management and flow in the proposal.

6. Site is exposed to winter storms with the Gnarabup Beach path under threat from storm surge, western edge of the site is adjacent to unstable coastal limestone formations. All these factors make the proposed increase in size, especially function centre unacceptable.

7. Development should only be considered if self-contained i.e. all parking on site. Low key doesn’t exceed height limits and is compatible with low key Gnarabup coastal lifestyle, the very thing that attracts visitors to the area.

8. Would support a quality low key development that sits lightly on the site. 48. Nearby Landowner 1. Believe the West side of Wallcliffe Road should not be developed at all.

2. Latest application to develop the site is a further concern because of its increase in villa numbers. 3. Inclusion of convention centre appears excessively intrusive and will impact on the landscape. 4. Even though developers will provide parking for guests of the accommodation the number of extra vehicles generated by the

development will cause congestion and chaos in an already stressed area. 5. The area around Gnarabup Beach already gets crowded and with the area becoming busier this area is the only safe swimming

area in the district. People already park where they shouldn’t. 6. To protect beauty and integrity of the area we don’t want extra carparks everywhere either. 7. By lettering this development go ahead the very reason that people come here – beauty, serenity will be ruined. 8. Don’t let the increased development go ahead.

49. Nearby Landowner 1. Increase in the number of units will have a bigger impact on the area, residents, coastline leading to increased environmental pressures/issues that currently aren’t able to be addressed by Council.

2. Amount of parking for development is very limited and doesn’t deal with the amount of clients both in house, staff and visitors. Lack of parking will hugely impact on limited parking that is available at upper and lower Gnarabup carparks.

3. Visual impact of the development is not very appealing and won’t be a very nice sight from the point, beach and the ridge for residents/visitors.

4. Gnarabup/Prevelly are only small townsites and only able to cater for so many residents/visitors. It lacks facilities, street lights, pathways (decent), bins, play equipment/grounds etc. These all need to be improved to cater for the increased visitors to the area.

5. Function centre is oversized and unlikely to be utilised to its full potential due to the other options available within the area, so will be wasted space and an eyesore.



SUB-MISSION

NO.


SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

6. Using 5m to be included in their 10m fire boundary that is POS shouldn’t be allowed should use their own 10m fire boundary

within their own land. 50. Nearby Landowner 1. Increase in size means huge increase in people in a confined are that is already stressed.

2. Function centre is very large and would be visible from many spots. 3. Concern with the social and environmental impact of the development. 4. Concern with height restrictions. 5. Traffic concerns.

51. Nearby Landowner 1. Infrastructure in Gnarabup/Prevelly doesn’t support a development of this size. 2. Not enough footpaths and intersecting roads are dangerously positioned. If development goes through then these issues need

to be addressed for resident/visitor safety. 3. Don’t let the height limit be varied.

52. Nearby Landowner 1. Object to the increase in the number of villas, density is too great for the site. 2. More people increases the impact on our fragile coastal environment e.g. erosion, rubbish. Hooded Plovers nest on the nearby

beach, more beds brings more people on beaches and disturbance, keep to original number. 3. Already hard to find parking in summer with cars parking dangerously along Ocean View Road. Resort should be self-sufficient

for parking. POS nearby existing upper Gnarabup carpark should be infringed upon. 4. Please consider to retain some larger shrubs/small trees surrounding development so it can blend into the neighbouring

landscape. 5. Object to the scale of public facilities one restaurant would suffice. Function centre and spa are excessive to our community

needs. Also the positioning of central facilities on north-western corner is at a site that will severely affect our visual amenity. This has already been impacted on by Margarets Resort, don’t want more buildings dominating Gnarabup headlands/ridge.

6. Oppose the increase in height, development should blend into the landscape and ideally single storey. 7. Needs to be plans for upgrading facilities along the beach front to cope with the increase in visitors.

53. Nearby Landowner 1. Object to the increase in the number of villas and beds. 2. Scale of central facilities complex makes it visible from numerous viewing locations along the coast. 3. Inadequate parking for the central facilities complex even with additional parking (Shire Land).

54. Nearby Landowner 1. Too high a density for the site. Maximum number of previous approval 82 rooms is the most it should occupy. 2. No justification for allowing additional parking external to the site. 3. Height limit restriction is essential. 4. Complex centre should be limited to what the site and services noted below can accommodate without additional pressure on

local services. 5. Sewerage, underground power supply, water supply been taken into consideration and cost met by developer. 6. Proposal will lead to an increase in traffic and hence decreased safety for users especially at peak times. 7. Shire should take substantial bond for ensuring the 10m setback/road verge vegetation is maintained. 8. Part of the areas beauty is the native vegetation extending to/from the coast and human impact/building largely being setback.

This allows natural environment, biodiversity, flora & fauna and this uniqueness is a treasure. 55. Nearby Landowner 1. No development west of Wallcliffe Road.

2. Not enough parking bays for the number of rooms. So does it mean the public carpark in Gnarabup will be used by resort guests.

3. Too many licensed premises in a small area. 56. Nearby Landowner 1. Foreshore between Wallcliffe Road and the ocean in front of Gnarabup is a tract of land having significant cultural, aesthetic



SUB-MISSION

NO.


SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

and natural value.

2. Many residents and visitors must pass through this land on their way to and from beaches. Area is an important component of the iconic views southwards those visitors to the region delight to see from the Surfers Point lookout.

3. Proposed development will occupy a prominent position in the regions coastal fringe, although the land allows tourist development under LPS 1, it imposes special conditions that are to protect its unique values.

4. No reason why the restriction to 50 keys should be now increased to 102 keys to accommodate the revised proposal, particularly as developers haven’t demonstrated that the larger development would not cause greater loss in cultural, aesthetic and natural values.

5. Visual bulk of the development will obstruct iconic views from Surfers point. 6. Inadequate provision of car parks will result in guests overflowing into nearby public carparks. 7. Increased density of the development and the size of the function centre reduces the opportunity to blend it into the natural

landscape. 8. Inclusion of function centre introduces possibility of peak traffic flows congesting single road from Gnarabup. No plan has been

provided for what would occur in an emergency such as bush fire. 57. Nearby Landowner 1. Margaret River relies on tourism for income and visitors are attracted to the area because of the natural environment, pristine

beaches with minimal or no development. These drawcard characteristics will be compromised by further development, which will impact the natural amenity and character of the area.

2. Object to the increase in the number of villas and number of beds from original planning approval. 3. Scale of the central facilities complex on highest point of the site. Will be very visible from viewing points. 4. Impact on the already unsustainable parking facilities at the beach. The central facilities complex parking should be self-

contained on the development site. 5. No provision for upgrading beachfront facilities and access to cater for the influx of additional people. 6. Environmental impact of such a dense development on a sensitive, coastal area will have a detrimental effect on the natural

amenity of the area and the subsequent social and cultural values of the area. 7. Additional request to modify vegetation external to the site for fire management, will impact and degrade the natural

environment. Fire management requirements should be met within the bounds of the developers’ land. 8. Architects concept drawings, in my opinion, does not demonstrate a design aesthetic.

58. Nearby Landowner Same as Submission No. 36 59. Nearby Landowner 1. Development is too big for the site.

2. Major increase in number of beds from original concept. 3. Large size of function centre complex on highest most visible part of site destroying visual amenity of the area. 4. Inadequate parking – only 24 additional parking in shire land, parking should be self-contained on the site. 24 bays doesn’t

cater for function centre complex guests not staying at resort. Also no staff parking provisions. Parking is already a problem in the area and a development of this size will place it under more pressure. Offer to add bays to the existing top car park are inadequate and unacceptable with conflict between residents and visitors/tourists looking for parking.

5. No provision shown to upgrade facilities along the beach front to cater for extra influx of people e.g. upgrading of stairway, beach paths and access.

6. Margaret River relies on tourism for income and much of the attraction to the area is its natural environment. Development that destroys this is not acceptable.

7. Environmental impact of such a dense development on sensitive, coastal area would have a detrimental effect on the social character for the community and tourists.

8. If development process needs to maintain its original size and scale, be self-contained on the site for all of its needs and



SUB-MISSION

NO.


SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

requirements (parking).

60. Nearby Landowner 1. View of a suitable development would include a development that is a benefit for local residents as well as visiting tourists without spoiling any further this top residential tourist zone, extremely low visual impact to west of Wallcliffe Road is a must. Smart architectural design that sets a precedent for Margaret River area and makes a statement that the Shire is serious about keeping MR Pristine and maintaining Gnarabups coastal landscape natural beauty.

2. If the convention centre is allowed to be included in this development then the same goes as above. With the right design team it could be an icon for Margaret River i.e. being built into the landscape it would have little to no visual impact viewing.

3. Effluent disposal is a concern and the development should not be allowed to exceed the original plan and an efficient effluent disposal plant should be a priority and funded by developers not shire or local residents.

4. Parking for Tavern/Convention centre also raises concerns. 5. Bottom line development will happen for such a prime location a smart low key development that ticks all boxes should be

appropriate and something visitors will talk about when they leave. 6. As resident and frequent surfer/swimmer at Gnarabup witness daily the pressure that already exists for the marine life and in

an effort to keep Gnarabup pristine and safe request the shire to consider banning spear fishing, cray fishing on surfing reef, burling in swimming areas and introducing fines for dropping cigarette butts or better still make it a smoke free zone, or if smokers are allowed provide ash trays for their butts. Form of education for fisherman to reduce or stop them leaving their rubbish behind and to stop cleaning/gutting their catch in the water next to swimmers. I have cleaned up after fisherman many times. Have photos of patches of cigarette butts on the beach, pathways etc and photos of them being washed from the carpark down the ramp into the ocean.

7. Witnessed many times fishermen spearfishing close to shore and fishermen burling the water and throwing their fish offal and parts after cleaning while young children swim in the same area which can be potentially dangerous.

8. Witnessed many families stripping the reef of shell fish and with the popularity and easy access of Gnarabup beach the pressure on local marine life has increased over the last 4 years and given the proposed resort eventuates this will definitely increase the number of people to the beach and add to this problem.

9. Would be a credit to the AMR Shire if a program was initiated similar to Jurien Bay snorkelling tourist attraction (shire with local residents set up snorkelling attraction zone with replica boat wrecks etc which encouraged new marine life).

61. Nearby Landowner 1. As operator of Margarets Beach Resort, don’t have a problem with competition but have a problem with being told by the landowners consultants that the owners are doing the development themselves whereas they are actually trying to sell the concept online.

2. Size of the project is much larger than the original plans which I don’t believe is in keeping with the rest of the area. 62. Nearby Landowner 1. Increase in the number of short term accommodation units by 30% is unacceptable. Area already under stress in summer from

limited parking and public facilities. 2. Shortfall of onsite parking for convention centre. Proposal to expand public car parking above White Elephant Café is

unacceptable and doesn’t adequately address the shortfall. This carpark is for visitors to lookout, the café, beach and enjoy the sunset, no more of the reserve around this carpark should be developed for parking.

3. Site is extremely exposed to the wind from all directions. Site is surrounded by environmentally sensitive and visually important coastal heath. Unacceptable to clear into Shire Reserves as part of this development plan. In a fast moving fire event, high concentration of people in a confined area creates potential for confusion and an increased safety risk. Single access road into Prevelly/Gnarabup may mean fire emergency services could be delayed or unavailable if road is blocked or impassable.

4. Proposed convention centre is over and above the existing approval. This additional infrastructure has a high carbon footprint in terms of energy and water use, waste and fire risk and is not suited to this sensitive coastal site.

5. Development and the high profile two storey convention centre will be visible from scenic vantage points and will block the



SUB-MISSION

NO.


SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

ocean view from Wallcliffe Road. This will negatively impact the visual amenity of the area. Any built form should blend into the landscape rather than detract from the natural beauty.

6. Fragile ecosystem of this sensitive coastal location needs protection, not clearing for carparks and reserve clearing for fire compliance. The (as yet) unspoilt heath and coastal views currently attract tourists and any additional building west of wallcliffe devalues this environmental asset.

7. Most visitors to Prevelly/Gnarabup come to recreate or enjoy the scenic values of the area, the area caters many creational activities within the Reserve – surfers, kite surfers, swimmers, SUPers, snorkelers, fishers, walkers etc etc.

8. Development will create more traffic along Wallcliffe Road which is already a dangerous road in terms of community safety. No alternative route in and out. The intersection of Wallcliffe Road and Mitchell Drive where many pedestrians cross the road to access the beach. This crossing point is unmarked, unsigned, on a bend with limited unsafe sight lines and in a 60kph speed zone which is too high.

63. Nearby Landowner 1. Conference centre is extremely large and will impose on the visual amenity. Is there some way of minimising this impact? 2. Like the fact that locals will have access to the facilities and appreciate there should be a link path to the upper car park but not

convinced this car park should be expanded by 24 bays for the developer’s convenience. 3. Given the development will place more pressure to the adjacent coastal zones, what contributions are the developers making

towards upgrading and maintaining coastal access. 4. Unfortunate developers have increased the number of villas by approx. 30% as this has led the negative reaction through the

community. 64. Nearby Landowner 1. Typical approach used by Developers to maximise profits.

2. Believe the AMR Shire Council will reject the request as unacceptable and that the Developers hope or anticipate a more easily obtained approval on appeal.

3. The proposal is a concept approach using the concept of a Function Centre to stimulate acceptance of inappropriate and undesirable intensity of the accommodation. Concept of the large function centre is a distraction.

4. If successful site may be sold at a greater price. Approval may be an enticement for a possible future buyer. 5. Economics of constructing such a large infrastructure with the certainty of infrequent use will surely lead to a reneging of this

concept and a proposal for approval to build more accommodation. Hence there will be a similar set up to Gnarabup Beach East and the Break the other side of Wallcliffe Road.

65. Nearby Landowner 1. Increase in size is unacceptable from 28 to 38 Villas and 82 to 118 Bedrooms. This equates to almost 44% more people able to be accommodated on the site than originally permitted in 2005.

2. The proposed function centre complex is inappropriate; it is extremely large in size, built on high ground of the site and solid walls to 7m and a large footprint on the ground. It will be visible from nearly anywhere in the Prevelly/Gnarabup area. Amenity and character of the area will be damaged severely. Believe Clause 5.5 of LPS 1 does not permit such drastic variation to occur to the amenity and character of the area.

3. Function centre/restaurant needs to provide substantial onsite parking. It’s unacceptable for the tourist resort to reply on the Shire public carpark for use by patrons.

4. During peak holiday seasons and favourable weather there is already a huge parking issue at Gnarabup. 24 extra parking bays in the public car park won’t cater for the resort needs so the general public would be at an even greater disadvantage during peak season.

5. Development of this size would have huge impacts on the environment in such a sensitive area. Council must carefully consider their future costs in caring for the environment and safety of people in Gnarabup if such a dense development on this sensitive site was to occur.

6. The great appeal to this area is the natural environment. People walking along beach path and viewing the area from look outs



SUB-MISSION

NO.


SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

see only natural vegetation close to the ocean, if such a large structure was built as proposed on this site it would destroy the amenity and character of the coastline. Permitting larger development and bringing more people into a diminishing coastline area would be disastrous for the environment, character and amenity of the coastal area.

66. Nearby Landowner 1. We aren’t opposed to tourist development in the designated area however it should be noted that any development should be sympathetic to the environment, and therefore should be low key but high quality. Location of the development is in a very sensitive and unique part of the coast therefore any development should take this into account.

2. Strongly object to the sheer scale of the proposed convention centre. Will be an enormous visual impact on local residents and visitors to the area. Location particularly will mean that the building will be prominent feature and visible from iconic sites to the north of the development. Smaller single storey building incorporating a restaurant, bar etc on a lower point in the development would be appropriate and welcome.

3. Strongly object to the increase in density. The currently approved proposal was reasonable. Doubling of the numbers for the same area will impact on traffic within the confined area of Gnarabup, greater pressure on parking and other local amenities.

4. Object to the number of parking bays proposed, grossly inadequate. No provision for staff parking. Bays provided will only just be sufficient for guests and their visitors and will by no mean be adequate to cover the needs of the convention centre.

5. Arrogant suggestion by developers to pay for increased parking on nearby public land to service their needs is insulting and will not ameliorate the existing shortage of parking spaces at Gnarabup Beach.

67. Nearby Landowner 1. Object to the major increase in beds from the original approval in 2005. 2. Enormous function centre on the highest point will be visible from viewing spots along the coast destroying visual amenity of

the area. 3. Parking already a problem in the area and with the size of the function centre parking will be under more pressure with only 24

additional bays on shire land. Parking should be self-contained on the site. 4. No provision shown for the upgrading of facilities along beach front to cater for the extra people at the resort e.g. upgrade to

stairways, beach paths, beach accesses. 5. Margaret River relies on tourism and much of the attraction to the area is because of its natural environment. Development that

destroys the natural amenity and character of the area is not acceptable. 6. Environmental impact of such a dense development on a sensitive, coastal area would have detrimental affect on the social

character for the community and tourists. 68. Nearby Landowner 1. Gnarabup is the only safe swimming conditions to service Margaret River. Proposal has major increase in number of beds

from the original approval in 2005 and has a very large function centre this is long way from original concept of a lodge site. 2. Function centre is a large building on the highest part of the site and will be visible from viewing spots along the coast

destroying the visual amenity. Doesn’t comply with LNRSPP P.S.3.3 and LNRSPP P.S.3.8. 3. Parking at Gnarabup is already a huge problem and with the size of the function centre parking will be under more pressure

with only an extra 24 bays on shire land. Parking should be self-contained on the development site, Claim for reciprocal parking is not valid.

4. No provision shown for upgrading facilities along the beach front to cater for the extra people at the resort. e.g. upgrade to stairs, beach paths and beach accesses.

5. Margaret River relies on tourism and much of the attraction to the area is the natural environment, development which destroys the natural amenity and character of the area is unacceptable.

6. Environmental impact of such a dense development on a sensitive, coastal area would have detrimental effect on the social character for the community and tourism.

69. Nearby Landowner 1. Gnarabup is the only safe swimming area for a large intake area of locals and visitors. Function centre is too large a facility for a site situated at Gnarabup.



SUB-MISSION

NO.


SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

2. Major increase in number of beds from the original approval in 2005. There is a need to consider the carrying capacity of

Gnarabup. 3. Large function centre is a solid building on the highest part of the site and will destroy visual amenity which has been an

important factor in planning for Gnarabup and will be visible from a number of viewing sites. 4. Claim for reciprocal parking for the function centre rests on the onsite parking being utilised at different times of the day yet

this will not necessarily be so. The proposed 24 additional parking bays on Shire land is increasing the footprint of the development which should provide all parking onsite.

5. No provision shown for upgrading the facilities along the beach front to cater for the extra influx of people at the resort e.g. upgrade of stairways, beach paths and beach accesses. Proposal doesn’t comply with State Coastal Planning Policy. There is no provision for rehabilitation or caring for the coast with the increased pressure of people that the development will bring to the area.

6. Margaret River relies on tourism and much of the attraction to the area is the natural environment, development which destroys the natural amenity and character of the area is unacceptable. The proposal breaches the overall objectives of the LNRSPP and LNRSPP P.S.3.3 and LNRSPP P.S.3.8.

70. Late Private Submission Nearby Landowners

Object

71. Department of Aboriginal Affairs 1. Confirm that the application area is not within the boundary of sites under the Aboriginal Heritage Act, 1972 as currently mapped on the Register of Aboriginal Sites.

2. AHA protects all sites whether they are known or not to the DAA. Applicant needs to ensure works comply with the AHA and they don’t inadvertently impact Aboriginal heritage sites that may be present in the application area that haven’t been previously recorded.

72. Department of Parks and Wildlife

1. The Department has assessed the proposal and has no objections to the application. 2. Parks and Wildlife trusts the environmental planning issues including those not specifically referred to in this letter will be

appropriate managed through the planning system. 73. Department of Fire &

Emergency Services 1. While final Masterplan design is yet to be promulgated therefore DFES comment pertaining to Building Code of Australia (BCA)

requirements is limited, its assumed that any buildings will be required to be afforded the provision of life and fire safety systems in accordance with the relevant provisions of the BCA.

2. DFES and community expectations require satisfactory emergency vehicular access to be provided to each building. All access roadways and turn around areas should satisfactorily accommodate the mass of an attending fire appliance.

3. Its noted that an inherent bushfire risk exists from remnant vegetation on adjoining properties. To this end, proposal and associated Fire Management Plan (FMP) have been assessed and is considered consistent with the objectives and principles of the State’s Planning for Bush Fire Protection Guide Lines edition 2 may 2010’. This is subject to finalisation of the development proposal which will include the confirmation of fire engineering infrastructure requirements that the FMP will need include or have due regard for. At this time it will be expected that the FMP be finalised and submitted for formal consideration.

73. Water Corporation 1. No objections. Recommend a demand management plan is undertaken. 2. Sufficient capacity exists in the Gnarabup Waste Water Treatment Plant to service the development. 3. A project is underway to improve the performance of the Gnarabup WWTP.

Government of Western Australia Department of Fire & Emergency Services

Our Ref: BY01791-15 Your Ref: P215418, PTY/10600

Chief Executive Officer Shire of Augusta - Margaret River PO Box 61 MARGARET RIVER W A 6285

By E-mail

Attention: Nick Logan

Dear Sir

Deparinmat of Fire & Emergency Services

RECE WED 30 NOV 2015

REFERRAL RESPONSE — PLANNING APPLICATION P215418 - PROPOSED RESORT — LOT 783 WALCIFFE ROAD, GNARABUP

Thank you for seeking advice from the Department of Fire & Emergency Services (DFES) on the above proposal.

Whilst the final Masterplan design is yet to be promulgated and therefore DFES comment pertaining to Building Code of Australia (BOA) requirements is limited, it is assumed that any buildings will be required to be afforded the provision of life and fire safety systems in accordance with the relevant provisions of the BOA.

In this regard DFES and community expectations will require satisfactory emergency vehicular access to be provided to each building. Given that all access roadways and turn around areas should satisfactorily accommodate the mass of an attending fire appliance, please review DFES Guideline GL-11 from our website, which provides data on fire appliances to enable designers to plan adequate access to and around developments.

Furthermore it is noted that there exists an inherent bushfire risk from remnant vegetation on adjoining properties. To this end, the proposal and associated Fire Management Plan (FMP) have been assessed and is considered consistent with the objectives and principles of the State's 'Planning for Bush Fire Protection Guide Lines Edition 2 May 2010'.

This is subject to the finalisation of the development proposal which will include the confirmation of fire engineering infrastructure requirements that the FMP will need include or have due regard for. At this time it will be expected that the FMP be finalised and submitted for formal consideration.

Subject to this, DFES has no further comment to provide at this time.

Should you require further information please contact the DFES Regional office on 9780 1900.

Yours faithfully

DOUG VAN BAVEL LAND USE PLANNING OFFICER

30 November 2015

South West Regional Office I Lot 719 South Western Highway Bunbury WA I PO Box 1288 Bunbury WA 6231 Tel (08) 9780 1900 I Fax (08) 9725 4230 I Freecall 1800 061 152 I dfesdfes.wa.qov.au I www.dfes.wa.gov.au

ABN 39 563 851 304

Government of Western Australia Department of Parks and Wildlife Rewional Services Division

Chief Executive Officer Shire of Augusta Margaret River PO Box 61 MARGARET RIVER WA 6285

ATTENTION: Nick Logan

Your ref: P215418, PTY/10600 Our ref: PRS 38657 2009/002057 Enquiries: Tracy Teede Phone: 08 9725 4300 Fax: 08 9725 4351 Email: [email protected]

19 NOV 2015

SKRE OF AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVEP

PROPOSED RESORT — LOT 783 WALLCLIFFE ROAD GNARABUP

In response to your correspondence regarding the above application, the Department of Parks and Wildlife (Parks and Wildlife) has assessed the proposal and has no objections to the application.

Parks and Wildlife trusts that environmental planning issues including those not specifically referred to in this letter will be appropriately managed through the planning system.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. Please contact Tracy Teede at the Parks and Wildlife's South West Region office if you have any queries regarding this advice.

For Regional Manager

17 November 2015

South West Region South West Highway, Bunbury WA 6230 Phone: 08 97254300/ Fax: 08 97254351

PO Box 1693, Bunbury, WA 6230 www.dpaw.wa.g ov. a u

114111114)

Department of Aboriginal Affairs Government of Western Australia

ENQUIRIES : Sally McGann- Ph 6551 8075

OUR REF: 2001/0610-08

YOUR REF: P215418, PTY/10600

Mr Nick Logan Manager Planning and Development Services Shire of Augusta Margaret River PO Box 61 MARGARET RIVER WA 6285

Dear Mr Logan

rlItlf74

05 NFoll 7r'5

SHIRE OF AUGUSTA-P'ARGARET RIVER

PLANNING APPLICATION P215418 PROPOSED RESORT - LOT 783 WALLCLIFFE ROAD, GNARABUP

Thank you for your letter providing the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) an opportunity to comment on the planning application (the Application) for Lot 783 Wallcliffe Road, Gnarabup. I can confirm that the Application area is not within the boundary of sites under the Aboriginal Heritage Act, 1972 (AHA) as currently mapped on the Register of Aboriginal Sites.

As the AHA protects all Aboriginal heritage sites whether or not they are known to the DAA, the applicant will need to ensure their works comply with the AHA, and that they do not inadvertently impact Aboriginal heritage sites that may be present in the Application area that have not been previously recorded. To assist proponents to minimise risk to Aboriginal heritage the State has published the 'Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Guidelines'. These are available at the link below and I ask that you make these available to the applicant:

http://www.daa.wa.ciov.au/globalassets/pdf-files/ddq

The applicant should be reminded of the obligation under section 15 of the AHA to report any new Aboriginal heritage features or objects that might be discovered. Please contact Sally McGann on (08) 6551 8075 or via email at Sally.McGann©daa.wa.qov.au should you require further information regarding this matter.

Yours incerely

Cesar Rodriguez MANAGER HERITAGE ADVICE AND APPROVALS

3 November 2015 Lot 783 Wallcliffe Road Gnarabup - Page 1 of 1 Release Classification: -

Ground Floor, 151 Royal Street, East Perth, Western Australia, 6004 PO Box 3153, East Perth, Western Australia, 6892

Telephone 1300 651 077 Facsimile (08) 6551 8088 www.daa.wa.gov.au

Your Ref: P215418, PTY/10600 Our Ref: JT1 2010 09374 V01 - DEV341309 Enquiries: Mark Willson Direct Tel: 08 9923 4910 Fax: 08 9923 4966

12 November 2015 Chief Executive Officer Shire Of Augusta-Margaret River 4 Wallcliffe Rd MARGARET RIVER WA 6285 [email protected]

Dear Sir / Madam, Re: Lot 783 Wallcliffe Road Gnarabup - Prevelly Thank you for your letter dated 29 October 2015. The Water Corporation offers the following comments in regard to this proposal. Water and Wastewater

The development proposal will require approval by our Building Services section prior to commencement of works. Infrastructure contributions and fees may be required to be paid prior to approval being issued. If the application is retrospective, approval by our Building Services section is still required. Water Efficiency

Water efficiency is an extremely high priority in all development proposals. A water management plan (WMP) is recommended that includes appliance labelling standards, incentives for occupants to be water efficient, garden and irrigation design, leak detection and maintenance, and opportunities explored for recycling. The water efficiency case studies for caravan parks on the Corporations website may assist with the development of a WMP.

http://www.watercorporation.com.au/home/business/saving-water/case-studies/caravan-parks

General Comments

Please provide the above comments to the land owner, developer and/or their representative.

Should you have any queries or require further clarification on any of the above issues, please do not hesitate to contact the Enquiries Officer.

Mark Willson Mark Willson Development Planner Development Services

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.watercorporation.com.au/home/business/saving-water/case-studies/caravan-parks

1

Nick Logan

From: Mark Willson <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, 23 December 2015 3:31 PMTo: Nick LoganSubject: RE: Request for WW Scheme information following response - Lot 783 Wallcliffe

Road Gnarabup Augusta

Nick, Please find the following comments in relation to your points below; 1. The plant is licenced by the DER and operates comfortably within its licence conditions.

2. There is a current project in the early planning stages to deliver further capacity and reliability

to the WWTP. Please call should you wish to discuss when I return from leave 11 Jan 2016. Regards Mark Mark

Mark Willson (note two LL’s in willson) Development Planner Assets Planning Group Water Corporation T: (08) 9923 4910 | F: (08) 9923 4966 www.watercorporation.com.au

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

From: Nick Logan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 16 December 2015 4:01 PM To: Mark Willson Subject: RE: Response - Lot 783 Wallcliffe Road Gnarabup Augusta Hi Mark Thanks for the response. I was hoping that you may be answer specifically, some points that are sometimes raised in relation to this system and specifically by submissions in relation to this development application.

2

My understanding is that the capacity of the Gnarabup WWTP was made sufficient to deal with the Gnarabup Residential Development (243 residential lots), the ‘West of Wallcliffe Site (Lots 501‐504 Reef Drive) which provides for significant tourist development, the ‘Lodge Site’ (Lot 783 – the subject of this correspondence), and the redevelopment of the Prevelly Caravan Park (infill tourist development, likely in a mixed resort/camping ground form). A number of submissions have raised concerns with the capacity of the WWTP which is particularly relevant given the increase in expected density from this site from 83 to 128 rooms, and the future of the Gnarabup WWTP. If you could please confirm the following it would be much appreciated:

1. That the capacity of the WWTP is sufficient to accommodate future development as specified above; and 2. Any planned improvements or upgrades to the WWTP.

Thanks for your help Nick Logan Acting Director Sustainable Development T 08 9780 5273 | F 08 9757 2512 | M 0439 931 743 | www.amrshire.wa.gov.au | [email protected]

"A Naturally Beautiful Experience" Disclaimer: The contents of this email message are confidential and intended only for the named recipient. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction, disclosure or distribution of the information contained within is prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender at the Shire of Augusta Margaret River. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

From: Mark Willson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 16 December 2015 3:44 PM To: Nick Logan Subject: FW: Response - Lot 783 Wallcliffe Road Gnarabup Augusta

Mark Mark Willson (note two LL’s in willson) Development Planner Assets Planning Group Water Corporation T: (08) 9923 4910 | F: (08) 9923 4966 www.watercorporation.com.au Please consider the environment before printing this email. _____________________________________________ From: Mark Willson Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2015 3:42 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Response - Lot 783 Wallcliffe Road Gnarabup Augusta

3

Att: Chief Executive Officer Please find the attached response. Regards

Mark Mark Willson (Please note: use two LL’s in willson when emailing) Development Planner Development Services Branch Assets Planning Water Corporation T: (08) 9923 4910 | F: (08) 9923 4966 www.watercorporation.com.au Please consider the environment before printing this email.

This Electronic Mail Message and its attachments are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information contained in it. If you have received this Electronic Mail Message in

error, please advise the sender immediately by replying to this email and delete the message and any associated attachments. While every care is taken, it is recommended that you scan the attachments for

viruses. This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com

______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

Water Corporation E-mail - To report spam Click here

______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

5m setback in lieu of 10m – BPZ extends into reserve by 5m

Knoll

Ridge line same height as knoll – (RL23)

Units 32-34 height greater than 7m

Parking and access to Wallcliffe Road requires modification

GNARABUP RESORT E P C A D LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN Rev D January 2016

N

1:500 @ A11

1

2

2

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

7

7

8

9

10

11

10

10

10

9

8

8

8

3

Water feature in the central open space with limestone boulders on edges. Timber deck to both ends.

Lawn area for small events

Landscape Treatment to be compacted limestone, gravel mulch, low growing native groundcovers and small trees

Central Facilities

Public Open Space with provision for Shelter, Barbecue, and Viewing Deck

10m setback to have a combination of compacted limestone, pea gravel mulch, native groundcovers and shrubs on stone mulch, and occasional melaleuca and peppermint scrub

Main entry node with views through to central open space

Existing vegetation to be protected and retained

Dual Use Path

Driveways and Entry treatment to be exposed aggregate, concrete or brick pavers, feature boulders and gravel mulch

Materials and Treatment

AA

Legend

Typical Section along Western Boundary

Plant Species

Carpobrotus virescens

Lepidosperma gladiatum

Pimelea ferruginea

Spyridium globulosum

Agonis �exuosa Acacia littorea

Melaleuca huegelii

Dryandra sessilis

Scaevola crassifolia

Olearia axillaris

Figure 9: Fire Management Plan: Gnarabup Lodge Resort

!(

!(

Wallcliffe Road

314400

314400

314500

314500

314600

314600

314700

314700

314800

314800

6236

600

6236

600

6236

700

6236

700

6236

800

6236

800

6236

900

6236

900

6237

000

6237

000

6237

100

6237

100

P ath: Q:\Consult\2015\IWP \IWP 15176\ArcMap _d ocum e nts\R001\Re v0\IWP 15176_02_R001_Re v0_F009.m xd

Sc ale at A4

Sourc e : Aerial im age : Land gate , flown 12/2013. P lan: Clie nt 2015. Cad astre : SLIP , Land gate ap p rox. 2012.

Note that p ositional e rrors m ay oc c ur in som e are as

0 10 20 30 40m

1:2,500

Coord inate Syste m : GDA 1994 MGA Z one 50

Date : 27/08/2015Author: DWhite

¹Legend!( Gate s and signageEAWP rop ose d b uild ingP rop ose d lotInte rnal road

P rop ose d p e d e strianac c e ss ways/c yc le ways Drainage b asinP roje c t are a100m wid e asse ssm e nt are a

10m wid e BP ZBAL 29BAL 19BAL 12.5Bushfire p rone are as

Ocean ViewRoad

De ve lop m e nt loc ation1)Und e rtake d e ve lop m e nt in ac c ord anc e with the ap p rove d d e ve lop m e nt p lan and this sup p orting FMP to e nsure the d e ve lop m e nt is not sub je c t to an ‘Extre m e ’ b ushfirehazard le ve l or re quire s BAL 40 or BAL FZ construction stand ard s.2)Construc t 10 m wid e land scap e d b uffe rs around the e xte rnal b uilt footp rint in ac c ord anc e w ith an ap p rove d land sc ap e p lan

Ve hicular ac c e ss1)P rovid e p rim ary ac c e ss and e gre ss to the site via Oc e an Vie w Road to the south and p e d e strian p aths and cyc le -ways in ac c ord anc e with Figure 9.2)P rovid e se c ond ary e m e rge nc y ac c e ss to the site via an EAW linking Wallc liffe Road and the northe rn b ound ary of the site . The EAW is to b e c onstructe d in ac c ordanc ewith ac c e p tab le solution A2.6.3)Construc t gate s and signage at e ithe r e nd of the EAW in ac c ordanc e with ac c e p tab le solution A2.8 and A2.10 re sp e ctive ly.4)Construc t all p ub lic road s in ac c ord anc e w ith Main Road s WA, CoR and DFES require m e nts.

Wate r sup p ly1)P rovid e a re tic ulate d water sup p ly throughout the p rop ose d d e ve lop m e nt. 2)P rovid e a ne tw ork of hyd rants along the internal road ne twork at locations whic h m e e t re le vant wate r sup p ly authority and DFES require m e nts.

Siting of d e ve lop m e nt1)Ap p ly BAL 29 b uild ing c onstruc tion standard s to all e xte rnal b uild ings along the we ste rn and northe rn inte rfac e s in ac c ord anc e with Figure 9. 2)Ap p ly BAL 12.5 b uild ing c onstruc tion stand ards to all re m aining b uild ings within the d e ve lop m e nt in ac c ord anc e with Figure 9. 3)Construc t a 10 m wid e BP Z (land scap e d b uffe rs) in ac c ord anc e with Figure 9. 4)Maintain the BP Z at le ss than 2 t/ha through m e c hanical slashing of the und e rstore y and we e d c ontrol.

Ad d itional m easure s1)Com p ly with the c urre nt annual notic e and Shire -d e te rm ine d b urning p e riod s. 2)Ob tain b ushfire inform ation b ookle ts and atte nd annual DFES b ushfire aware ne ss b rie fings. 3)P re p are an evacuation p lan for the p rop ose d d e ve lop m e nt.

info@stratege n.c o m.auww w.strate gen .c om .au

agenda - no 10 - shire of augusta-margaret river.pdf

Documents