ordinary meeting of council ref: cm80/11 - wollongong · ordinary meeting of council ......

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 May 2011 Page 243

Wollongong City Council

ITE

M 1

9

REF: CM80/11

INSTALLATION OF A 20 METRE MONOPOLE, THREE PANEL ANTENNA, EQUIPMENT SHELTER AND ASSOCIATED ANCILLARY SAFETY EQUIPMENT (F6 FREEWAY - ROAD RESERVE AT JUNCTION OF ROBSONS ROAD & MT KEIRA ROAD, WEST WOLLONGONG) - IHAP REPORT Report of Manager City Planning (MR) 10/05/11 RD-2009/1524/A

PRECIS

On 7 March 2011, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) considered an application to review Council’s previous refusal of a 20 metre high telecommunications monopole and associated equipment shelter in accordance with clause 1.8 of the IHAP Charter. The IHAP recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions of consent. The application is required to be reported to Council in accordance with point three of clause 9.2 of the IHAP charter adopted by Council on 27 April 2011 as the recommendation of the Council Officer and IHAP are inconsistent. In view of this an independent external review of the refusal and IHAP recommendations was also undertaken. The independent review provided by Planning Ingenuity found that Council had properly assessed the application however, concurred with the IHAP recommendation to approve the application subject to appropriate conditions at Attachment 3.

RECOMMENDATION

Council grant Development Consent to RD-2009/1524/A subject to conditions contained in Attachment 3.

BACKGROUND

The proposal was referred to IHAP on 7 March 2011 pursuant to clause 1.8 as the original application was refused and the review of determination was also recommended for refusal. At this meeting IHAP was presented with additional information by the applicant including further design details, and landscaping and Electro-Magnetic Energy (EME) considerations. IHAP proceeded to recommend approval subject to conditions (see below).

It is noted that potential health impacts have been carefully assessed and the facility is fully compliant with relevant standards concerning EME emissions. Compliance with the Radiation Protection standard affectively eliminates health concerns being used as a reason for refusal of the DA. This is linked to Planning Principles established in the Land & Environment Court of New South Wales.

The maximum post development cumulative EME level estimated for 9 specific nominated areas near the proposed monopole is less than 1% of ARPANSA exposure limits (See Attachment 2).

The application was subsequently independently reviewed by an external planning consultant, Planning Ingenuity, which concurred with the IHAP recommendation to approve the application subject to appropriate additional conditions (see below).

On 15 March 2011 the proponent lodged an appeal in the land and Environment Court against Council’s refusal of the application on 22 March 2010. This appeal has the effect of allowing Council to proceed to determine the application under Section 82A of the EP&A Act 1979, the period for this determination would otherwise have lapsed on 22 March 2011.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 44 24 May 2011


ITE

M 1

9 PROPOSAL

The proposal is a review of determination of the refusal of a 25m high telecommunications facility and associated equipment shelter. The review proposes a 20m high telecommunications tower and associated equipment shelter. ASSESSMENT

IHAP Recommendations 7 March 2011 On 7 March 2011, the IHAP viewed the site and considered the submissions made. The IHAP having the benefit of additional information and proposed amendments offered by the applicant, considered that on balance the proposal was acceptable subject to suitable conditions to the satisfaction of Council. The highlighted changes identified by the applicant to IHAP were: 1 The height of the pole has been reduced from 25 to 20 metres. 2 A ‘slim line’ design pole is now proposed. 3 The number of antennas has been reduced. 4 Landscaping is now proposed following consultation with Council staff. 5 Telstra has now offered to undertake testing of EME levels upon commissioning the facility

at a sample of locations to Council’s satisfaction. Panel recommendation The application be approved subject to suitable conditions being imposed by Council including the requirement for testing of EME levels as mentioned in ‘5’ above. Council Response Conditions have been amended to reflect the IHAP recommendations (Attachment 3). This includes Condition 3 which requires post validation testing at sensitive locations. Plan references have been amended to reflect the amended design details confirming height and slim line antenna configuration. Condition 7 reflects landscape requirements at base of pole and equipment shelter. Consultants Report 7 March 2011 The consultant was requested to review the primary application documentation and in particular the IHAP recommendations, and Council officer’s assessment report and recommendations and additional information submitted at IHAP. The report considered the above under the following heads of consideration: height of the structure, quality of design, visual impact, impacts on area including streetscape and amenity, undesirable precedent effect and alternative siting of the facility (see Attachment 6). In summary the consultant considered that the procedures followed by the Council in processing of the application were appropriate and in accordance with all relevant statutes. However, the consultant comes to a different conclusion to the Council officer in relation to the critical aspects of the development as outlined above. The consultant believes that the proposed facility will not result in any significant impacts on the site or locality and is worthy of support subject to additional conditions of consent. Consultant’s recommendation Accordingly, we recommend that the application is worthy of support subject to conditions that address the following matters:

• Colour scheme of the monopole (to be Colourbond “ironstone”) • Detailed landscape plan to provide better screening to the base station be submitted prior to issue of a

construction certificate; and • Post-construction testing of EME levels be undertaken at sensitive locations in the vicinity of the site.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 May 2011 Page 245


ITE

M 1

9

Council Response These conditions are considered appropriate and have now been included in the proposed conditions of consent (see conditions 3, 7 and 8 of Attachment 3).

CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION

The original application received 21 submissions apposing the development. The review of determination application was notified in accordance with the original application to properties within 300m of the site and also in the local Advertiser and received 17 submissions objecting to the proposal.

PLANNING AND POLICY IMPACT

The site was zoned 5 Special Uses (Main Roads) pursuant to Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 1990. The proposal is categorised as a utility installation under this plan and is permissible with consent in the zone. Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009 was in draft form at the time of lodgement and proposed to zone the site R2 Low Density Residential. The proposal is categorised as a telecommunications facility pursuant to this plan and is not a permissible use in the zone. However, State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Infrastructure) 2007 also applies to the development and permits telecommunications facilities in any zone with development consent.

CONCLUSION

The IHAP considered the Council report and additional information from the proponent, and recommended conditional approval. A subsequent assessment report was also provided by an independent planning consultant, which also recommended approval. Despite the original refusal recommended by the Council Officer, the application is now considered to be worthy of support subject to amended conditions of consent (Attachment 3). The overall height and visual impact of the proposal is now considered to be acceptable, and post validation testing of EME will be undertaken at sensitive locations to ensure compliance with Australian Standards.

Name Position Title Author:

Mark Riordan Manager City Planning

Authorised by:

Andrew Carfield Director Planning & Environment

David Farmer General Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Recommendations of the IHAP 7 March 20112. Officers Report to IHAP 7 March 2011 3. Draft Conditions of Consent 4. Aerial Photograph 5. Zoning Map 6. Planning Ingenuity Report 7. Plans

ATTACHMENT 1 - Recommendations of the IHAP 7 March 2011


IHAP No. Item 4

DA No. RD-2009/1524/A

Proposal Installation of a 25 metre monopole, six panel antenna, equipment shelter and associated ancillary safety equipment

(F6 Freeway - Road Reserve at Junction of Robsons Road & Mt Keira Road, West Wollongong)

Property F6 Freeway, West Wollongong Lot 48 DP 1054557

Owner Roads & Traffic Authority

Applicant Telstra Corporation Limited

Panel Robert Montgomery (Chair), David Crofts and Nicholas Skelton (Independent), Bernard Hibbard (Community Representative)

Staff in Attendance

Mark Riordan (Manager City Planning), Pier Panozzo (City Centre Manager), John Wood (Acting City Wide Manager), Lauren Wilson (IHAP Coordinator)

Pecuniary Interest None of the Panel members had any pecuniary interests relating to this matter.

Panel Commentary: The Panel inspected the site and surrounds. The Panel was addressed by two local residents who raised the following issues: ● concern that insufficient substantiation has been provided for the need for facility; ● concern that insufficient alternative sites were considered; ● health concerns due to proximity to school and residential area. The applicants representatives addressed the Panel and highlighted changes made since the application was refused, that is: 1 The height of the pole has been reduced from 25 to 20 metres. 2 A ‘slim line’ design pole is now proposed. 3 The number of antennas has been reduced. 4 Landscaping is now proposed following consultation with Council staff. 5 Telstra has now offered to undertake testing of EME levels upon commissioning the

facility at a sample of locations to Council’s satisfaction. Having viewed the site and considered the submissions made and also having the benefit of the proposed amendments offered by the applicant, the Panel considers that on balance the proposal is now acceptable subject to suitable conditions.

ATTACHMENT 1 - Recommendations of the IHAP 7 March 2011 Page 247


Recommendations The application be approved subject to suitable conditions being imposed by Council including the requirement for testing of EME levels as mentioned in ‘5’ above.

Voting The voting in respect of this matter was 4/0.

ATTACHMENT 2 - Officers Report to IHAP 7 March 2011


IHAP No. Item No. 4

DA No. RD-2009/1524/A

Proposal Installation of a 25 metre monopole, six panel antenna, equipment shelter and associated ancillary safety equipment v(F6 Freeway - Road Reserve at Junction of Robsons Road & Mt Keira Road, West Wollongong)

Property Lot 48 DP 1054557, Lot 48 F6 Freeway, WEST WOLLONGONG NSW 2500

Applicant CPS Global

Responsible Team City Planning East Team

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Reason for consideration by Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel The proposal has been referred to IHAP pursuant to clause 1.8 as the original application was refused and the review of determination is also recommended for refusal.

Proposal The proposal is a review of determination of the refusal of a 25m high telecommunications facility and associated equipment shelter. The review proposes a 20m high telecommunications tower and associated equipment shelter.

Permissibility When the original application was lodged the site was zoned 5(c) Special Uses (Main Roads) pursuant to Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 1990. The proposal is categorised as a utility installation under this plan and is permissible with consent in the zone. Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009 was in draft form at the time of lodgement and proposed to zone the site R2 Low Density Residential. The proposal is categorised as a telecommunications facility pursuant to this plan and is not a permissible use in the zone. However, State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Infrastructure) 2007 also applies to the development and permits telecommunications facilities in any zone with development consent.

Consultation The original application received 21 submissions apposing the development. The review of determination application was notified in accordance with the original application to properties within 300m of the site and also in the local Advertiser and received 17 submissions objecting to the proposal. The original and new submissions generally relate to visual impact, health risks and inappropriateness of the site with regards to nearby community sensitive sites (e.g. schools, child care centres etc). These matters are discussed at section 2.9 of the assessment report. The application was also reviewed by Council’s Environment Officer and Landscape Architect, both of which did not object to the proposal.

Main Issues The main concern is that the proposal is inappropriate with regards to the context and setting, specifically in relation to the height and proximity to community sensitive locations.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the application be refused.

ATTACHMENT 2 - Officers Report to IHAP 7 March 2011 Page 249


1. ASSESSMENT REPORT

1.1 SUMMARY The review of determination application has been lodged following refusal of the original application on 22 March 2010. The original reasons for refusal are outlined in section 1.3 of this report. The current application was notified in accordance with Council Policy and received 17 objections, largely relating to the visual impact and suitability of the site with regards to nearby residences, schools and child care facilities. These matters are discussed at section 2.9 of this report. The review of determination has amended the proposal to address the matters raised in the refusal notice through reducing the height and bulk of the facility. Despite the alterations, it is considered that the proposed facility is not suitable with regards to the context and setting, particularly in respect of the height with regards to the proposed 9m height limit in WLEP 2009 and the low density character of the locality.

1.2 PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning controls apply to the development:

• State Environmental Planning Policies: − SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 (telecommunications facilities are permitted on any land with

consent) − Illawarra REP No. 1 1986 (Deemed SEPP)

• Local Environmental Planning Policies: − Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 1990 – The site was zoned 5 (Special Uses) at

the time of assessment and the proposed facility was categorised as a “utility installation” and was permissible with consent.

− Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 2009 (draft at the time of lodgement) – The site was proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential at the time of determination of this application and the proposed use is categorised as a “telecommunications facility” and is not permissible within the zone.

• Development Control Plans: − Wollongong Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2010 − Development Control Plan No. 6 – Commercial and Industrial Development − Siting of Telecommunications and Radio communications Facilities Policy

1.3 PROPOSAL The review of determination has been submitted with some minor amendments including a reduction in height to 20m, removal of three antennae and reconfiguration of the headframe, as well as additional landscaping. A comparison of DA-2009/1524 and the current review of determination application are provided at Table 1 below. Telstra is proposing the facility to meet the growing demand for mobile telecommunications services and to improve mobile coverage services in the West Wollongong area and along the F6/Southern Freeway. Telstra mobile phone networks operate through a series of local cells, each containing antennas which transmit and receive low powered radio waves to and from mobile phone handsets in the surrounding areas. Each cell contains a mobile telecommunications facility called a base station. Each base station is connected to the Telstra network via a series of underground cables and, in some circumstances, point-to- point radio links. Currently, there are some mobile network problems in and around the West Wollongong area. These include some areas where Telstra has poor coverage or even no coverage due to the location and performance of existing sites and the inability of the radio signal to reach inside some buildings and houses as well as along the Southern Freeway. The proposed facility is intended to provide improved coverage, capacity and call quality to the area. The proposal would provide for additional wireless communication services. These additional services include wireless broadband Internet connections for



use by residential and commercial customers from either fixed locations or fully mobile applications by utilising the cell handover capabilities available in a cellular network. The proposed facility would result in enhanced service as well as continuity of service quality for customers who may be travelling from cell-to-cell along the Southern Freeway. Table 1: Comparison of revised and original

DA-2009/1524 RD-2009/1524/A

• The installation of a 25 metre high monopole; • The installation has been reduced to 20 metres high

• The installation of three Argus CPX310R panel antennas 2630mm (H) x 300mm (W) x 110mm (D) at a height of 23.70 metres;

• The installation of three Argus CNPX3I0R-4P panel antennas 2630mm (H) x 370mm (W) x 120mm (D) at a height of 20 metres;

• The installation of three Argus NPX310R panel antennas 1330mm (H) x 160mm (W) x 120mm (D) at a height of 20.57 metres;

These antennas have been removed

• The installation of a telecommunications equipment shelter adjacent to the pole; and

Unchanged

• The installation of safety equipment and associated cabling.

Unchanged

DA-2009/1524 RD-2009/1524/A

Figure 1: Elevations



Existing view Proposed - DA-2009/1524 Proposed - RD-2009/1524/A

Figure 2: View south from Robsons Road - photo montage

1.4 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located at the intersection of Robsons Road and Mt Keira Road, West Wollongong and the title reference is Lot 48 DP 1054557. The land is vacant and owned by the RTA. The site is bound by the F6 Freeway to the east and Robsons Road to the west. It is also bound by Mt. Keira Road to the south and to the north by a slip road from Robsons Road onto the Southern Freeway. Adjacent to the site to the north, west and south are residential areas. Immediately to the east is the F6 Freeway and beyond that more residential areas. The site itself generally slopes down from the south to the north with an approximate fall of 10m from the highest to lowest point. The site is vacant with a number of existing trees and small shrubs. There are a number of power poles on the street frontage. Council records list the site as being affected by a RTA road widening proposal. There are no restrictions on the title.



Figure 3: Aerial photograph

Community sensitive locations are highlighted in green and alternate sites in black.



Figure 4: WLEP 1990 zoning map



Figure 5: WLEP 2009 zoning map

1.5 CONSULTATION

1.5.1. INTERNAL CONSULTATION Landscaping Council’s Landscape Architect has reviewed the application and provided a satisfactory referral subject to appropriate conditions. Environment Council’s Environment Officer has reviewed the application with regards to the emissions from the facility and has raised no objections.

1.5.2. EXTERNAL CONSULTATION None required



2. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 SECTION 79C ASSESSMENT

(1) Matters for consideration—general In determining a development application, a consent authority is to take into consideration such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the subject of the development application: (a) the provisions of:

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

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

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

developer has offered to enter into under section 93F, and (iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), that apply to the land to which the development application relates,(b) the likely impacts of that development,

including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,

(c) he suitability of the site for the development, (d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations, (e) the public interest. These matters are addressed below.

2.2 SECTION 79C 1(A)(I) ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT

2.2.1. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (INFRASTRUCTURE) 2007 Division 21 of Part 3 relates to Telecommunications and other communication facilities and covers development permitted without consent, development permitted with consent and exempt development (including compliance with Clause 20 – general exempt provisions). The proposal is not exempt under clause 114 as the proponent is not a public authority. Therefore proposal falls within Clause 115, being development permitted only with consent; 115 Development permitted with consent (1) Development for the purposes of telecommunications facilities, other than development in

clause 114 or development that is exempt development under clause 20 or 116, may be carried out by any person with consent on any land.

(2) To the extent that the development under this clause involves the erection of an aerial cable, the erection of the cable must be consistent with the Cable Networks Code.

(3) Before determining a development application for development to which this clause applies, the consent authority must take into consideration any guidelines concerning site selection, design, construction or operating principles for telecommunications facilities that are issued by the Director-General for the purposes of this clause and published in the Gazette.

The Standard Instrument defines telecommunications facility as follows: telecommunications facility means: (a) any part of the infrastructure of a telecommunications network, or (b) any line, equipment, apparatus, tower, mast, antenna, tunnel, duct, hole, pit, pole or other structure or thing used, or to

be used, in or in connection with a telecommunications network. telecommunications network means a system, or series of systems, that carries, or is capable of carrying, communications by means of guided or unguided electromagnetic energy, or both.



Clause 115 allows for development for the purposes of telecommunications facilities on any land therefore overriding the prohibition of the development pursuant to WLEP 2009.

2.2.2. ILLAWARRA REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO 1 (DEEMED SEPP) The aim of this plan is to maximise the opportunities for the people of the region and the State to meet their individual and community economic and social needs with particular reference to the way in which these needs are related to the allocation, availability, accessibility and management of the region’s land resources. The proposal is considered to be broadly consistent with the aims of the plan. Clause 139 of IREP No. 1 requires concurrence from the Director General of the Department of Planning for buildings at a height greater than 11m. The definition of height under clause 139 of the IREP was only intended to apply to buildings which have ceilings. This was formally confirmed by the Department of Planning in correspondence to Council and accordingly, concurrence is not required for the proposed structure.

2.2.3. WOLLONGONG LOCAL ENVIRONMENT PLAN 1990 The site is ‘Zoned 5(c) Main roads pursuant to WLEP 1990. The following is permissible with consent: advertisements; car parking; community facilities; such buildings, works, places or land uses specified in the Table to clause 15 as are marked or lettered for the land on the map; utility installations. The proposal falls within the definition of a ‘utility installation’ and is permissible in this zone with development consent.

Clause 6 – Definitions "utility installation" means - (a) a building or work used by a public utility undertaking or by a public or private communication

undertaking (excluding buildings designed wholly or principally as administrative or business premises or as a showroom); or

(b) an accessway, road, conveyor or work for the drainage of water or the damming or filling of a watercourse; or

(c) a pipeline.

Clause 9 – Zone objectives and development control table The objective of the zone is as follows:

• The objective of the zone is to cater for the provision of community and public facilities and services. The proposed facility provides improved telecommunications services to the West Wollongong area and to people driving along the F6 and is considered to be consistent with the zone objective. 12A Building heights (1) A person must not, on land described in Column 1 of Schedule 2A, erect a building with a height that exceeds the

height specified opposite the land in Column 2 of that Schedule. For the purpose of this subclause, height means the distance between the ceiling level of the uppermost floor, measured at the outside wall, and the natural ground level or finished ground level, whichever is the lower.

(2) A person must not, on land described in Column 1 of Schedule 2B, erect a building with a height that exceeds the height specified opposite the land in Column 2 of that Schedule. For the purposes of this subclause, height means the height of the highest point of the building or that part of the building specified in Column 2 of that Schedule as measured by a Relative Level in metres to Australian Height Datum.

The site is not located in the area specified by Schedule 2B.

Clause 15. Development in Zone No. 5 Development may be carried out only with development consent on land within Zone No. 5, being land specified in Column 1 of the Table to this clause and shown on the map, for the purpose specified opposite that land in Column 2 of that Table.



TABLE

Column 1 Column 2

(Special Uses) – lettered “5(a)”, together with the name of the Special Use, in black lettering on the map.

The purpose indicated in black lettering on the map.

(Special Uses) – lettered “5(b)” on the map. Railways.

(Special Uses) – lettered “5(c)” on the map. Main roads

The site is nominated as “5(c)” Main Roads. It is considered that this is an additional permitted land use as outlined in the applicable zoning table above: “land uses specified in the Table to clause 15 as are marked or lettered for the land on the map”.

2.2.4. WOLLONGONG LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2009 WLEP 2009 was a draft instrument at the time of lodgement and was adopted on 26 February 2010. Wollongong LEP 2009 was adopted on 26 February 2010, and was a draft instrument at the time of lodgement of this development application. Clause 1.8A of WLEP 2009 provides a savings provision in relation to pending development applications:- “If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not finally been determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced.” Accordingly the proposed development has been assessed with regard to WLEP 1990 though consideration has been given to the provisions of the draft plan in the form it was immediately prior to its making. The relevant provisions are as follows: The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to this plan and the proposal is categorised as a “telecommunications facility’ and is not permissible within the zone. However, telecommunications facilities are permitted in the zone pursuant to SEPP Infrastructure (2007) as outlined above. Clause 1.4 – Definitions telecommunications facility means: (a) any part of the infrastructure of a telecommunications network, or (b) any line, equipment, apparatus, tower, mast, antenna, tunnel, duct, hole, pit, pole or other structure or thing used, or to be used, in or in connection with a telecommunications network. telecommunications network means a system, or series of systems, that carries, or is capable of carrying, communications by means of guided or unguided electromagnetic energy, or both.

Part 2 Permitted or prohibited development Clause 2.3 – Zone objectives and land use table The objectives of the zone are as follows:

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

• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents. The proposal does not provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment. However, the proposal will be a facility that provides improved telecommunications services to the West Wollongong area.

Miscellaneous provisions Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings A 9m height limit is applicable to the site under this plan and the development will be 20m high. It is noted that the definition of building height under this plan is considered to encompass structures such as the proposed facility as described below.



building height (or height of building) means the vertical distance between ground level (existing) at any point to the highest point of the building, including plant and lift overruns, but excluding communication devices, antennae, satellite dishes, masts, flagpoles, chimneys, flues and the like. building has the same meaning as in the Act. EPA Act definition: building includes part of a building, and also includes any structure or part of a structure (including any temporary structure or part of a temporary structure), but does not include a manufactured home, moveable dwelling or associated structure or part of a manufactured home, moveable dwelling or associated structure. The proposal far exceeds the current and likely future scale of development in the locality. It is not considered to be sympathetic to the context and setting and will have a significant negative visual impact on the streetscape

2.3 SECTION 79C 1(A)(II) ANY PROPOSED INSTRUMENT None applicable.

2.4 SECTION 79C 1(A)(III) ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

2.4.1. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 6 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DCP 6 was applicable at the time of assessment however it applies to commercial or industrial development and has no specific controls that relate to telecommunications facilities.

2.4.2. WOLLONGONG SECTION 94A DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN (2010) It is noted that the 2009 version of this policy was in place at the time of determination, however this plan has since been updated to the 2010 version which replaces the previous version. The proposed cost of development is $175,000 and a contribution of 1% of this value would be applicable if Council was to approve the application.

2.5 SECTION 79C 1(A)(IIIA) ANY PLANNING AGREEMENT THAT HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO UNDER SECTION 93F, OR ANY DRAFT PLANNING AGREEMENT THAT A DEVELOPER HAS OFFERED TO ENTER INTO UNDER SECTION 93F, There are no planning agreements entered into or any draft agreement offered to enter into under S93F which affect the development.

2.6 SECTION 79C 1(A)(IV) THE REGULATIONS (TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY PRESCRIBE MATTERS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH) 92 What additional matters must a consent authority take into consideration in determining a development application? (1) For the purposes of section 79C (1) (a) (iv) of the Act, the following matters are prescribed as matters to be taken into

consideration by a consent authority in determining a development application: (a) in the case of a development application for the carrying out of development:

(i) in a local government area referred to in the Table to this clause, and (ii) on land to which the Government Coastal Policy applies, the provisions of that Policy,

(b) in the case of a development application for the demolition of a building, the provisions of AS 2601. The application does not involve demolition. The site is not located on land to which the Government Coastal Policy applies. 93 Fire safety and other considerations (1) This clause applies to a development application for a change of building use for an existing building where the

applicant does not seek the rebuilding, alteration, enlargement or extension of a building. (2) In determining the development application, the consent authority is to take into consideration whether the fire

protection and structural capacity of the building will be appropriate to the building’s proposed use.



(3) Consent to the change of building use sought by a development application to which this clause applies must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that the building complies (or will, when completed, comply) with such of the Category 1 fire safety provisions as are applicable to the building’s proposed use.

Note. The obligation to comply with the Category 1 fire safety provisions may require building work to be carried out even though none is proposed or required in relation to the relevant development consent.

(4) Subclause (3) does not apply to the extent to which an exemption is in force under clause 187 or 188, subject to the terms of any condition or requirement referred to in clause 187 (6) or 188 (4).

(5) The matters prescribed by this clause are prescribed for the purposes of section 79C (1) (a) (iv) of the Act. The application does not comprise habitable structures and is a significant distance from any other adjoining properties.

2.7 SECTION 79C 1(B) THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT Context and Setting: The proposal is not considered to be appropriate with regards to the context and setting. The locality is largely characterised by low to medium density residential developments generally 1 to 2 storey in height. The largest existing structure is an approximately 15m high power pole opposite the site which will be far exceeded by the proposal. Further, the maximum building height permitted for the site pursuant to WLEP 2009 is 9m. As such, the proposal far exceeds the current and likely future scale of development in the locality and is not considered to be sympathetic to the context and setting and will have a significant negative visual impact on the streetscape.

Access, Transport and Traffic: The proposal will not impact on existing traffic and access arrangements to or within the site or generate any significant traffic or parking demands.

Public Domain: The proposed facility is highly visible from the public domain. The proposal is considered to contrast sharply with the streetscape and have a significant impact on the visual amenity of the locality.

Utilities: The proposal is not envisaged to place an unreasonable demand on utilities supply. All service and utilities are available to the site.

Heritage: No heritage items will be impacted by the proposal.

Other land resources: The proposal is not envisaged to impact upon any valuable land resources.

Water: The proposal is not envisaged to have unreasonable water consumption.

Soils: The proposal would involve minor excavation works for the footings and pads and will have a minimal impact on soils.

Air and Microclimate: The proposal is not expected to have any negative impact on air or microclimate.



Flora and Fauna: Three (3) trees would be required to be removed to enable installation of the proposed facility. Five trees are proposed to be planted as replacements. Council’s Landscape Architect has reviewed the application and has no objections subject to appropriate conditions of consent.

Waste: No impact from waste is anticipated.

Energy: The proposal is not envisaged to have unreasonable energy consumption.

Noise and vibration: The only noise generated by the proposal beyond construction works, would be air-conditioning units that will be located within the proposed equipment shelter. The applicant has stated that the noise output will be similar to that of a domestic air conditioner. These units will be required to comply with Australian Standards 1055-1997 Acoustics-Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise (parts 1-3). This standard sets out general procedures for the description and measurement of environmental noise.

Natural hazards: There are no natural hazards affecting the site that would prevent the proposal.

Technological hazards: Concern regarding the potential negative health impacts from Electromagnetic Radiation (RF EME) from the facility was the subject of many objections to the proposal. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) provide maximum exposure levels for these types of facilities. The facility will operate at a fraction of the limit imposed by these standards. The NSW Land & Environment Court (Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) NSWLEC 133) has upheld these standards.

Safety, Security and Crime Prevention: This application does not result in any opportunities for criminal or antisocial behaviour.

Social Impact: The proposal is not considered to have a significant negative social impact.

Economic Impact: The proposal would be expected to improve local communications infrastructure.

Site Design and Internal Design: It is noted that the review of determination application reduced the height and bulk of the facility and provided compensatory landscaping. However, this is not considered to significantly reduce the magnitude of the impact on the streetscape. The facility remains well above the height of any other structures in the locality and is not considered appropriate with regards to the locality.

Construction: The issue of possible interference with the local area during the construction phases was raised during the notification period. This could be conditioned if Council was of a mind to approve the application. No significant negative impacts are anticipated during the construction phases of the proposal.



Cumulative Impacts: The cumulative impact of exposure to RF EME was considered in the assessment and is discussed at technological hazards above. Otherwise, there are not expected to be any other cumulative impacts from the proposal.

2.8 SECTION 79C 1(C) THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR DEVELOPMENT Does the proposal fit in the locality? As outlined at 2.7 Section 79C 1(B), Context and Setting above, the proposal is not considered to fit in the locality. It is not considered to be consistent with the zone objectives contained in WLEP 2009. Further it exceeds the draft height limit for the locality. Are the site attributes conducive to development? There are no site constraints that would prevent the proposal.

2.9 SECTION 79C 1(D) ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ACT OR THE REGULATIONS The application was notified in accordance with WDCP 2009 Appendix 1: Public Notification and Advertising. Two submissions were received and the main issues identified are discussed below. Review of determination 17 submissions were received apposing the proposal and the issues are outlined below.

Issue No.of submissions Comment

The proposal is inappropriate with regards to the proximity to schools and dwellings.

1 The proposal is located approximately 200m from Wollongong West Primary School and is not generally visible from this site. The applicant has provided EME readings expected at this location that are well below the maximum permitted levels.

The proposal would have a negative visual impact

8 The locality is largely characterised by low to medium density residential developments generally 1 to 2 storey in height. The largest existing structure is an approximately 15m high power pole opposite the site which will be far exceeded by the proposal. Further, the maximum building height permitted for the site pursuant to WLEP 2009 is 9m. As such, the proposal far exceeds the current and likely future scale of development in the locality and is not considered to be sympathetic to the context and setting and will have a significant negative visual impact on the streetscape.

The proposal poses a potential health risk.

14 The EME readings provided by the applicant demonstrate that the facility operate well under the prescribed maximums.

The proposal is out of context 1 As discussed above the proposal is not considered to be sympathetic to the context and setting.

The proposal is inappropriate with regards to proximity to schools and dwellings and TAFE.

6 As discussed above, the proposal is not considered compatible with the largely low density residential nature of the locality.



Issue No.of submissions Comment

The proposal would set an undesirable precedent for other types of development.

1 The proposal is unique in its nature in that most other likely forms of development would be restricted with regards to the height and design controls. Should other similar facilities be proposed in other locations, these would be assessed on individual merits.

Department of Education and Training has a preference for maintaining a 500m buffer between facilities and their establishments.

2 This is a figure that is suggested by the Department of Education and Training. The proposal has been assessed against the relevant standards with which the facilities have to comply and has been found to satisfactorily address them.

The proposal will negatively impact on property values.

1 This is not something that is capable of being assessed by Council.

The proponent has not adequately identified alterative locations for the facility.

1 The applicant has provided four alternate locations, the applicant contends that none of these were viable.

There was insufficient consultation with the community.

1 There is no evidence that the proponent has carried out consultation with the community prior to lodgement or during assessment of the application. The application was notified by Council in accordance with Council policy for both the refusal and the current review of determination.

Submissions from public authorities RTA The RTA are the owners of Lot 48 F6 Freeway, West Wollongong and provided a submission regarding the proposal. The RTA has reviewed the submitted information will not object to the development application subject to RTA conditions being affixed to any development consent issued.

2.10 SECTION 79C 1(E) THE PUBLIC INTEREST As outlined at Context and Setting at section 2.7 above, the proposal is not considered to be in the public interest as it does not have due consideration for the context and impacts on the streetscape. There was significant local opposition to the proposal and the balance of local interests versus a broader benefit from the facility has not been demonstrated. Telecommunications facilities are regulated by a range of Commonwealth, State and local legislation and policies. Particular reference is made to the Wollongong Council document “Siting of Telecommunications and Radiocommunications Facilities Policy” which was applicable at the time of lodgement of the original application. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the requirements of this policy as outlined below. It is noted that Wollongong Development Control Plan 2009, Chapter C17: Telecommunications and Radiocommunications Facilities, has since been adopted and has similar criteria for assessing these facilities.



Siting of Telecommunications and Radiocommunications Facilities Policy 1 General 1.1 Introduction Council’s Siting of Telecommunications and Radiocommunications Facilities Policy was adopted by Council on 4 June 2007. The Policy relates to the development of telecommunications and radio-communications infrastructure that are not low-impact facilities under the Commonwealth Telecommunications Act 1992 and require development consent under the EP&A Act 1979. Objective The relevant environmental objectives of this policy are as follows:

• to provide infrastructure that is visually compatible with surrounding character and locality/visual context with particular regard to heritage buildings/areas and cultural icons;

The site is not heritage or iconic location as such but the proposal is not sympathetic to the visual amenity of the streetscape and locality.

• to assess whether the proposed infrastructure is consistent with the amenity of the area; The proposed facility is not considered to be consistent with the amenity of the area. 2 – Siting Guidelines

Control Comment Compliance

2.1 Visual Amenity

Carriers are to design antennas and supporting infrastructure in such a way as to minimise or reduce the visual and cumulative visual impact from the public domain and adjacent areas.

Whilst the slimline design of the facility does seek to mitigate impact on the locality, the facility will however still be significantly larger than any other nearby structures or buildings and is not sympathetic to the visual amenity of the locality.

N

Infrastructure design must be consistent with the character of the surrounding area.

The facility is not considered to be consistent with the small scale residential character of the surrounding area.

N

Within local context must take into account:

• Colour

• texture

• form

• bulk and scale

As above. N

Infrastructure must:

• be well-designed;

• be integrated with the existing building structure unless otherwise justified in writing to Council;

• have concealed cables where practical and appropriate; and

• be unobtrusive where possible.

As above. N




Wherever technically feasible, antennas and mast structures should either not be visible, or should be as visually unobtrusive as possible, from the fronting road at pedestrian eye level. Wherever technically feasible they should be located to minimise their obtrusiveness. This may for instance result in infrastructure being located towards the rear of a building roof top.

The proposal is a monopole and not a low impact facility.

N/A

Wherever possible, towers should be of ‘slimline monopole’ construction.

The proposal will be a slimline monopole construction.

Y

2.2 Co-location

Reduce the cumulative visual impact of a number of different facilities in an area by co-locating facilities.

The applicant has stated that there are no other telecommunications facilities in the vicinity of the proposal and therefore it is not possible for the facilities to co-locate. The applicant has stated that any future facilities would be a substantial distance from the subject site as a result of the network capacity of the proposal.

Y

2.3 Location

The applicant should demonstrate that, in selecting a site, it has adopted a precautionary approach and accounted for the principles of ecologically sustainable development in regards to minimising EMR exposures.

Precautionary approach integrated into standards.

Y

Preferred land uses include:

• industrial areas

• rural areas

• low-use open space; and

• commercial centres

The proposed location for the facility does not fall under a preferred land use. Whilst it is noted that SEPP Infrastructure permits these facilities on any land. The location is considered to be inappropriate due to the low scale residential character of the locality. The desired future character of the locality is reinforced by WLEP2009.

N

The applicant should demonstrate particular consideration of likely community sensitive locations. Community sensitive locations may include areas:

• where occupants are located for long periods of time, for instance residences;

• that are frequented by children, for instance schools, child care centres;

• where there are people with particular health concerns for instance hospitals, aged

• centres; and

• considered significant to indigenous communities.

It is considered that the proposed facility has not demonstrated particular consideration to community sensitive locations, particularly nearby residences and schools

N




A facility should not be located in an area where in the opinion of Council the landform, vegetation or features of a proposed location have special aesthetic, architectural, ecological or conservational value, or where such features will not adequately screen or reduce the impact of the facility.

The site is not identified as being of special aesthetic, architectural, ecological or conservational value. However the facility is not significantly screened and is considered to result in a significant visual impact on the locality.

N

2.4 Heritage

• The applicant is to have regard to avoiding or minimising the visual impact of any proposed facility on the heritage significance of adjacent/adjoining/ surrounding heritage items and heritage conservation areas.

• Where a facility is proposed in the vicinity of heritage items or heritage conservation areas, the applicant is to provide a heritage assessment report in accordance with Wollongong Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1990.

• A facility should not be located where in the opinion of Council, a streetscape dominated by heritage buildings or of heritage landscape significance will be adversely impacted upon.

• A facility should not be located on roof tops where the building is a heritage item as identified in Wollongong LEP 1990

The site is not located within or close to a heritage conservation area. Nor is the site located within close proximity to a listed heritage item.

Y

2.5 Environment The applicant is to have regard to avoiding or minimising the physical impact of any proposed facility on endemic flora and fauna.

Three (3) trees exist within the proposed location for the facility. Council’s Environment and Landscape Officers raise no objection to the removal of these trees subject to replacement planting.

Y

The applicant is to install measures to minimise the impact on the environment during installation or construction including:

• measures to minimise cut and fill;

• measures to control erosion and sedimentation;

• measures to minimise waste;

• measures to control noise.

Construction of the proposed facility would be subject to Council’s standard construction management conditions if Council was of a mind to approve the application..

Y

2.6 Facility Physical Design Controls

Infrastructure must be of high quality design and construction.

The facility is considered to be of functional design and construction.

Y

Proposals should consider the range of available alternate infrastructure including new technologies, to minimise unnecessary or incidental EMR emissions and exposures.

This matter has not been addressed by the applicant.

N




The plan for the facility must include measures to restrict public access to the antenna(s). Approaches to the antenna(s) must contain appropriate signs warning of EMR and provide contact details for the owner or site manager of the facility.

The proposed facility is to be located within a lease enclosed by 2.4m high security fencing. Access will be permitted by authorised personnel only. A condition of consent could be imposed requiring warning signage with respect to EMR and site manager contact details if Council was of a mind to approve the application.

Y

The minimum requisites that shall apply where relevant are the Building Code of Australia and the relevant Australian standards. The applicant must provide Council with certification about the standards with which the facility will comply.

The proposal complies with AS RPS3 as demonstrated by the ARPANSA report submitted with the application. BCA compliance could be required as a condition of consent if Council was of a mind to approve the application..

Y

2.7 Facility Health Controls

The applicant is to demonstrate the precautions it has taken to minimise EMR exposures to the public.

The RF EME emitted from the proposed facility will comply with the Radiation Protection Standard. The applicant has confirmed that the facility will always operate within exposure standards contained within:

• The ARPANSA standard (the Radiation Protection Standard for Maximum Exposure levels to radiofrequency Fields – 3KHz to 300Ghz);

• Radio-communications (Electromagnetic Radiation Human Exposure) Standard 2003;

• Any other standard endorsed by the Federal Government and the ACMA.

Y

The applicant is to provide documentation to show that the proposed facility complies with the relevant Australian exposure standard as specified by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

As above Y

The applicant is to provide a mapped analysis of the cumulative effect of the proposal.

Maximum cumulative EME levels at nearby locations were provided (as shown at Figure 6 below).

Y

The choice of site should take into account likely future adjoining land uses.

The land surrounding the site is generally all developed, although there is potential for higher residential density in future.

N



Figure 6: other areas of interest EME readings

3. RECOMMENDATION This application has been assessed having regard to the Heads of Consideration under Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the provisions of Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009 and all relevant Council DCPs, Codes and Policies. It is recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons:

• Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered that the proposed development is inconsistent with Draft Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 2009 with respect to the proposed height limit for the site.

• Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered that the proposed development is excessive in height and would adversely impact upon the amenity of the locality.

• Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered that the proposed development does not achieve a high quality design and would adversely impact upon the existing and future desired streetscape.

• Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered that having regard for public submissions, the development is unsuitable with respect to the visual impact on the locality.

• Pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C (1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 it is considered that in the circumstances of the case, approval of the development would set an undesirable precedent for similar inappropriate development and is therefore not in the public interest..

8 ATTACHMENT 3 - Draft Conditions of Consent


026

Telstra Corporation Limited C/- Jones Lang LaSalle PO BOX 805 SOUTH MELBOURNE VIC 3205

APPLICATION RD-2009/1524/ADetermination Conditionally ApprovedApproval Authority Wollongong City CouncilDate 10 May 2011

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION TO REVIEW DETERMINATION Issued under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 The development application described below has been determined:

Description Installation of a 20 metre monopole, three panel antenna, equipment shelter and associated ancillarysafety equipment

Location (F6 Freeway - Road Reserve at Junction of Robsons Road & Mt Keira Road, West Wollongong)

Lot 48 DP 1054557

Consent has been granted conditionally.

This determination replaces the determination dated.

Approved Plans and Specifications

1) The development is to be carried out in compliance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp:

Plans and Specifications

Site layout plan - no. N108665 dated 6 August 2010 - TCI North Western Elevation - no. N108665 dated 6 August 2010 - TCI Section 82 (a) application for a review of determination report - dated September 2010 - CPS Global

The Development Application has been determined by granting of consent subject to the following conditions: General Matters

2 Tree removal The developer has permission to remove the three trees as indicated on the submitted Landscape Plan by Roseraie Garden Concepts, dated 15.1.2010. No other trees or vegetation shall be removed without the prior written approval of council.

3 Certification of compliance Post construction testing of EME levels is to be undertaken at sensitive locations in the vicinity of the site by an accredited, independent radiofrequency assessor, to Council’s satisfaction certifying compliance of the facility with the relevant Australian Standards. Testing should include but not be limited to the 9 sites identified in Appendix O of the Review of Determination Report by CPS Global.

4 Building Work - Compliance with the Building Code of Australia All building work must be carried out in compliance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

5 Construction Certificate A Construction Certificate must be obtained from Council or an Accredited Certifier prior to work commencing.

ATTACHMENT 3 - Draft Conditions of Consent Page 269


A Construction Certificate certifies that the provisions of Clauses 139-148 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Regulations, 2000 have been satisfied, including compliance with all relevant conditions of Development Consent and the Building Code of Australia.

Note: The submission to Council of two (2) copies of all stamped Construction Certificate plans and supporting documentation is required within two (2) days from the date of issue of the Construction Certificate, in the event that the Construction Certificate is not issued by Council.

6 Occupation Certificate A final Occupation Certificate must be issued by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to occupation or use of the development. In issuing an Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that the requirements of Section 109H of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, have been complied with as well as all of the conditions of the Development Consent.

Prior to the Issue of the Construction Certificate

7 Landscape screening A detailed Landscape Plan providing additional landscape screening of the equipment shelter shall be submitted and approved by Council prior to Construction Certificate.

8 The monopole is to be Colorbond “Ironstone” in colour.

9 The maximum height of the monopole is to R.L. 63.0m

10 The depth and location of all services (ie gas, water, sewer, electricity, telephone, traffic lights, etc) must be ascertained and reflected on the Construction Certificate plans and supporting documentation.

11 The submission of a final Landscape Plan to the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to the release of the Construction Certificate. The final Landscape Plan shall address the following requirements: 1. Deletion the gravel surface as it will become weed infested leading to a reduction in the

visual amenity of the area; 2. Gravel surface to be replaced with a sealed surface such as concrete or asphalt; 3. Accurately show existing site features including contours and trees, and proposed finished

levels. The completion of the landscaping works as per the final approved Landscape Plan is required, prior to the issue of Occupation Certificate or commencement of the development.

12 The implementation of a landscape maintenance program in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan for a minimum period of 12 months to ensure that all landscape work becomes well established by regular maintenance. Details of the program must be submitted with the Landscape Plan to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to release of the Construction Certificate.

13 Tree Protection and Management The existing trees are to be retained upon the subject property and any trees on adjoining properties shall not be impacted upon during the excavation or construction phases of the development. This will require the installation and maintenance of appropriate tree protection measures, including (but not necessarily limited to) the following:

13.1 Installation of Tree Protection Fencing - Protective fencing shall be 1.8 metre cyclone chainmesh fence, with posts and portable concrete footings. Details and location of protective fencing must be indicated on the architectural and engineering plans to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to release of the Construction Certificate.

13.2 Mulch Tree Protection Zone: Areas within a Tree Protection Zone are to be mulched with minimum 75 mm thick 100% recycled hardwood chip/leaf litter mulch.

ATTACHMENT 3 - Draft Conditions of Consent


13.3 Irrigate: Areas within the Tree Protection Zone are to be regularly watered in accordance with the arborist’s recommendations.

Section 94A Levy Contribution

14 The following Section 94A Levy Contribution is required towards the provision of public amenities and services in accordance with the Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan.

Pursuant to Section 80A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, a contribution of $875.00 shall be paid to Council prior to the release of any associated Construction Certificate.

The amount to be paid will be adjusted at the time of actual payment, in accordance with the provisions of the Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan. The Consumer Price Index All Group Index Number for Sydney at the time of the development application determination is 175.9.

The following formula for indexing contributions is to be used:

Contribution at time of payment = $C x (CP2/CP1)

Where $C is the original contribution as set out in the Consent

CP1 is the Consumer Price Index (all groups index for Sydney) used in the proceeding indexation calculation

CP2 is the Consumer Price Index (all groups index for Sydney) at the time of indexation

Details of CP1 and CP2 can be found in the Australian Bureau of Statistics website Catalog No 6401.0 - Consumer Price Index, Australia.

Payment of the S94A levy must be by cash or bank cheque only. A copy of the Wollongong City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan and accompanying Fact Sheet may be inspected or obtained from the Wollongong City Council Administration Building, 41 Burelli Street, Wollongong during business hours or on Council’s web site at www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au.

(Reason: To provide high quality and diverse public amenities and services to meet the expectations of the existing and new residents of Wollongong City Council).

Prior to the Commencement of Works

15 Appointment of Principal Certifying Authority Prior to commencement of work, the person having the benefit of the Development Consent and a Construction Certificate must:

a) Appoint a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and notify Council in writing of the appointment. irrespective of whether Council or an accredited private certifier is appointed (if Council is nominated as the PCA please use the attached form) and

15.2 notify Council in writing (on the attached form) of their intention to commence the erection of the building (at least two days notice is required).

The Principal Certifying Authority must determine when inspections and compliance certificates are required.

16 Enclosure of the Site The site must be enclosed with a suitable security fence to prohibit unauthorised access, to be approved by the Principal Certifying Authority. No building work is to commence until the fence is erected.



17 Consultation with NSW WorkCover Authority Prior to any work commencing on the site it is the responsibility of the owner to contact NSW WorkCover Authority in writing in respect to any demolition or use of any crane, hoist, plant or scaffolding.

18 Waste Management The developer must provide an adequate receptacle to store all waste generated by the development pending disposal. The receptacle must be regularly emptied and waste must not be allowed to lie or accumulate on the property other than in the receptacle. Consideration should be given to the source separation of recyclable and reusable materials.

19 Application for Occupation of Footpath/Roadway Any use of the footpath or road reserve for construction purposes requires Council approval under the Roads Act 1993. Where it is proposed to carry out activities such as, but not limited to the following:

19.1 construction vehicles entering and leaving the site; 19.2 installation of a fence or hoarding; 19.3 pump concrete from within the road reserve; 19.4 stand a mobile crane within the public road reserve; 19.5 use part of Council’s road/footpath area; 19.6 pump stormwater from the site to Council’s stormwater drains; or 19.7 store waste containers, skip bins and/or building materials on part of Council’s footpath

or roadway;

an application for occupation of footpath/roadway must be obtained from Council’s Works and Services Division, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

20 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Erosion and sediment control devices are to be installed prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or construction works upon the site. These devices are to be maintained throughout the entire demolition, excavation and construction phases of the development and for a minimum three (3) month period after the completion of the project, where necessary.

21 Supervising Arborist – Tree Inspection and Installation of Tree Protection Measures Prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or construction works, the supervising arborist must certify in writing that tree protection measures have been inspected and installed in accordance with the arborist’s recommendations and relevant conditions of this consent.

22 Notification to Council of any Damage to Council’s Infrastructure Council must be notified in the event of any existing damage to any of Council’s infrastructure including, but not limited to the road, kerb and gutter, road shoulder, footpath, drainage structures and street trees fronting the development prior to the commencement of work. Adequate protection must be provided to Council infrastructure prior to work commencing and during the construction period. Any damage to Council’s assets shall be restored in a satisfactory manner prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

During Demolition, Excavation or Construction

23 Branch or Root Pruning in accordance with Australian Standard Any branch or root pruning which has been given approval, must be carried out by a qualified arborist in accordance with Australian Standard AS4373 (2007).

24 Copy of Consent to be in Possession of Person carrying out Tree Removal The applicant/developer must ensure that any person carrying out tree removal is in possession of this development consent and/or the approved landscape plan, in respect to the trees which have been given approval to be removed in accordance with this consent.

25 Treatment of any Tree Damage by a Supervised Arborist Any damage inflicted on a tree during the construction phase which has been nominated for retention shall be treated by an approved arborist at the developer’s expense.

ATTACHMENT 3 - Draft Conditions of Consent


26 Restricted Hours of Work (domestic residential scale ie single dwellings) The developer must not carry out any work other than emergency procedures to control dust or sediment laden runoff outside the normal working hours, namely, 7.00 am to 5.00 pm, Monday to Friday and 8.00 am to 4.00 pm Saturday, without the prior written consent of the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.

No work is permitted on public holidays or Sundays.

Any request to vary these hours shall be submitted to the Council in writing detailing:

26.1 the variation in hours required; 26.2 the reason for that variation; 26.3 the type of work and machinery to be used.

Note: The developer is advised that other legislation may control the activities for which Council has granted consent including but not limited to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Developers must note that EPA Environmental Noise manual restricts use of power tools (electronic or pneumatic) to between the hours of 7.00 am to 5.00 pm Mondays to Fridays and 8.00 am to 4.00 pm on weekends.

27 The developer must carry out work at all times in a manner which will not cause a nuisance, by the generation of unreasonable noise, dust or other activity, to the owners and/or occupiers of adjoining and adjacent land.

Prior to the Issue of the Occupation Certificate

28 The developer must make compensatory provision for the trees required to be removed as a result of the development. In this regard, six 200 litre container mature plant stock shall be placed in a suitable location on the site, that will achieve minimising the visual impact of the tower from street level. The suggested species is Elaeocarpus reticulatus.

Reasons

The reasons for the imposition of the conditions are:

1 To minimise any likely adverse environmental impact of the proposed development.

2 To ensure the protection of the amenity and character of land adjoining and in the locality.

3 To ensure the proposed development complies with the provisions of Environmental Planning Instruments and Council’s Codes and Policies.

4 To ensure the development does not conflict with the public interest. Notes 1 This consent becomes effective and operates from the date shown as “Endorsement Date” on

the front page of this notice. This consent will lapse unless development is commenced within five years from the endorsement date shown on this notice.

3 The holder of a development consent that is being acted upon must also hold a current Construction Certificate under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

4 Where the consent is for building work or subdivision work, no temporary buildings may be placed on the site and no site excavation, filling, removal of trees or other site preparation may be carried out prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate and appointment of a Principal Certifying Authority.

5 A Tree Management Order has been proclaimed in the City of Wollongong. Under this order, no tree on the land the subject of this approval may be ringbarked, cut down, topped, lopped or wilfully destroyed except with the prior consent of Council which may be given subject to such conditions as Council considers appropriate. However, unless specified otherwise in this consent, those trees which are specifically designated to be removed on the plans approved under



this consent or are within 3 metres of an approved building footprint may be removed, provided that a Construction Certificate has been issued for the development the subject of this consent and a Principal Certifying Authority appointed.

6 In this consent the developer means the applicant for development consent and any person or corporation who carries out the development pursuant to that consent.

7 Council recommends that NSW Wildlife Information and Rescue Service (WIRES) be contacted (phone (02) 4285 5630) for assistance in relocating native fauna prior to removal of trees and bushland.

This letter is authorised by Nigel Lamb Development Project Officer Wollongong City Council Direct Line (02) 4227 7287

ATTACHMENT 4 - Aerial Photograph


ATTACHMENT 5 - Zoning Map Page 275


ATTACHMENT 6 - Planning Ingenuity Report


ATTACHMENT 6 - Planning Ingenuity Report Page 277


ATTACHMENT 7 - Plans Page 283


ATTACHMENT 7 - Plans


ordinary meeting of council ref: cm80/11 - wollongong · ordinary meeting of council ......

Documents