PAE-DAP 213 13.09.17

ITEM 7.3 040/1895/17 - CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT ADELAIDE

ENFIELD

Report Development Application No. 040/1895/17

Applicant’s Name Andrew Caspar

Applicant's Address 6/259 Glen Osmond Road FREWVILLE SA 5063

Subject Land Lot 4,000 Hampstead Road, Lightsview SA 5085

Description of Development Demolition of existing structures and removal of vegetation on the subject land, including three regulated trees, and the construction of an indoor recreation centre with associated car parking and landscaping

Application Type Merit, Category 2

Relevant Development Plan Consolidated 11 July 2017

Zone Suburban Neighbourhood

Policy area Nil

Concept Plan PAdE/47 – Northgate Land Use and Access

Properties directly notified 37

Representations received Nil

Recommendation Planning consent

BACKGROUND The subject land was originally associated with Department of Agriculture activities at Northfield. In 1969, the land was used by the Minister of Education for the Northfield High School with the school oval located where the facility is proposed to be situated. In 1995, the Nailsworth High School merged with Northfield and was renamed as the Ross Smith Secondary School and remained operational until 2011. The school closed with the opening of the Roma Mitchell Secondary College at Briens Road, Northfield and the land has remained vacant since. Two subsequent land divisions (040/G101/12) and (040/D361/13) created the allotment that is the subject land. Subsequent land divisions have occurred in close proximity to the allotment as a result of ongoing development of Stages 15-26 of the Lightsview Development by PEET Limited. SITE AND SURROUNDING LOCALITY The locality is mixed, resulting from long-standing institutional uses and the variable land uses along Hampstead Road. The locality directly south and east of the site is primarily residential land uses. To the south allotment sizes of 150-170 square metres are common with two storey residential development constructed boundary-to-boundary characteristic of the area. Allotments to the south, facing Hampstead Road, are mostly vacant, although the Development Assessment Commission (now the State Commission Assessment Panel) approved a Hungry Jack’s fast food restaurant on Allotment 802. The Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre operated by the Department of Health is located directly north of the subject site. The site contains a State Heritage Item, which is located 180 metres from the allotment boundary. Directly west the land interfaces with Hampstead Road a designated Road Freight Route and part of National Highway 1. The road carries commuter, freight and interstate traffic. Further west is zoned Residential with the Residential East Policy Area (64) applying in the area. The land use is consistently residential with predominantly single storey detached dwellings.

PAE-DAP 214 13.09.17

Further north and south along Hampstead Road are commercial land uses within Commercial Zones.

Subject Site

RELEVANT AUTHORITY It is noted that the applicant and the proposed operator of the facility is the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. Section 34 of the Development Act 1993 outlines what planning authority should assess an application. Council sought, prior to the lodgement of the application, that the State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP) (then DAC) assess the proposal as it is a significant project. In a response from DPTI dated 21 February 2017, DPTI considered that the appointment of DAC (SCAP) as the relevant authority was ‘not warranted in this instance’. It was considered that the City of Port Adelaide Enfield Development Assessment Panel was best placed to consider the issues. DPTI noted that the Panel is independent to Council and is capable of properly considering the issues based on the planning merits. Taking into account the above matters, pursuant to Section 34(1)(a) of the Development Act 1993, the Port Adelaide Enfield Development Assessment Panel is the Relevant Authority. The report author has, in undertaking an independent assessment, been guided by the Local Government Act 1999 ‘Code of Conduct for Employees’ (Section 110), and the report author’s membership of the Planning Institute of Australia and its own Code of Professional Conduct (Adopted April 2014).

PAE-DAP 215 13.09.17

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The application proposes a building that will contain:

o Five courts (provision for basketball, netball, badminton, roller derby); o Four change rooms; o Storage rooms; o Toilets; o Offices; o First aid rooms; and, o Parent rooms; (together comprising 5,262.33 square metres of floor area).

The building additionally contains a:

o Café; o “Shop” and “Commercial” space of 286.61sqm; and, o Community and Function Rooms;

(together comprising 1,082.12 square metres of floor area).

With landscaping and 252 carparks surrounding the building. In assessing the proposal, consideration was made as to the main use of the site. In public descriptions of the proposal, the word ‘stadium’ has been used to describe the proposal. Stadium is undefined in the Development Act or Regulations. The Macquarie Dictionary defines a stadium as ‘a sporting facility, often, though not necessarily, enclosed, comprising an arena, tiers or seats for spectators’. In Australian vernacular, a stadium is generally considered to be a structure which contains one field of play with significant seating. Based on the definition listed in the Macquarie dictionary and current vernacular convention, it is considered that stadium does not best describe the proposal. The Regulations does list indoor recreation centre as a ‘…a building designed or adapted primarily for recreation, but does not include a stadium or amusement machine centre’. The application does not propose any ‘amusement machines’ in the building. The Macquarie Dictionary definition of “recreation”, states that recreation means:

1. Refreshment by means of some pastime, agreeable exercise, or the like. 2. A pastime, diversion, exercise or other resource affording relaxation and

enjoyment. It is considered that the building does comprise a number of elements that offer “recreation” as defined. The proposal includes a café, shop, ‘commercial’ space, community and function rooms. Whilst not directly related to what could be considered ‘recreational pursuits’ these floor areas account for 20% of the total floor area. Taking into account the guidance provided in Case Law cf. Willcocks V Corporation of the City of Whyalla & Anor [2009] SAERDC 23, it is considered that the proposal does comprise an indoor recreation centre because on fact-and-degree the building is designed primarily for recreational pursuits. The proposal seeks to provide car parking and landscaping around the centre with the removal of three regulated trees. It is considered taking into account all the elements of the proposal that the application can be best described as the “demolition of existing structures and removal of vegetation on the subject land, including three regulated trees, and the construction of an indoor recreation centre with associated car parking and landscaping”.

PAE-DAP 216 13.09.17

NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT The proposal comprises a type of development that is neither complying or non-complying in the Suburban Neighbourhood Zone. The proposal is therefore considered on planning merit, taking into account the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, in accordance with Section 33 of the Development Act 1993. Considering each of the elements proposed for the indoor recreation centre, it represents a Category 2 form of development pursuant to the Suburban Neighbourhood Zone Procedural Matters section in the Development Plan where “all forms of development not listed as Category 1…” are Category 2. The proposed development does not include shops, which result in a gross leasable floor area of more than 500 square metres (such as case would cause the application to be placed on Category 3 public notification). No representations were received during the period of notification. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS Statutory Referral The application required a referral to the Commissioner of Highways (Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure) as the application proposed to construct a access point within 25 metres of a junction of a primary arterial road, pursuant to Schedule 8, Clause 2, (3)(c) of the Development Regulations 2008. At the writing of this report, Council had not received a formal written response; however in verbal advice from the Department they indicated that the western most access point on to East Parkway should be located further away from the intersection with Hampstead Road. This will be considered under the Traffic Review as part of a proposed Reserve Matter if the Panel seeks to grant Development Plan Consent to the proposal. Internal Referral - City Assets Stormwater Council’s stormwater engineers reviewed the proposal including the accompanying Stormwater Management Report. The engineer indicated that the report has sufficient merit for the issuing of development plan consent, however, indicated that prior to any development approval the following information should be submitted:

The proposed drainage system design should demonstrate how surface runoff from all paved, open and roof areas will be managed for all events up to and including a 1:100 year A.R.I. storm. Details of proposed site levels, stormwater inlet pits, site grading and any boundary retaining structures (including overall height and level at top and bottom of retaining walls) should be specified.

The plans should indicate that carpark site grading shall be design in accordance with AS/NZS2890.1:2004.

That the plans clearly indicate that finished floor levels maintain 150mm freeboard to any onsite flooding/ponding water levels and 300mm above the adjacent top of kerb along East Parkway Rd.

Waters Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) principles be incorporated in the development. It is considered that these matters can be satisfied via a condition on any proposed Development Plan Consent being issued.

PAE-DAP 217 13.09.17

Traffic Council’s traffic engineers reviewed the proposal and provided comments, City Assets wishes to further review:

Traffic calming devices proposed to be employed in the carparks (e.g. speed humps);

Access point arrangements;

On-street car parking management plan on East Parkway (bus set-down and pick-up); It is considered that a Traffic Review, as part of a proposed Reserve Matter, if the Panel seeks to grant Development Plan Consent to the proposal, can sufficiently deal with the matters raised by City Assets and DPTI. Environmental Health Council’s environmental health officers were informed of the proposal. They had no specific comments to make on the proposal. If the development was to proceed, the ordinary notifications to the Environmental Health team and regular reviews would be required, as would be the case with any food business. ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSAL When determining if the proposed development is a reasonable form of development for the subject site, an assessment is conducted against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. The appropriateness of the proposal is therefore reliant on satisfying such provisions and having no unreasonable impact on adjoining properties and on the amenity and character of the locality. The assessment of the proposal is based on the Amended Plans identified on 4 September 2017. Zoning and Land Use General Section – Community Facilities Objectives: 1 & 2 General Section – Community Facilities Principles of Development Control: 1 & 4 General Section – Hazard Objectives: 2 & 8 General Section – Hazard Principles of Development Control: 1, 5, General Section – Interfaces Between Land Uses Objectives: 1, 2 & 3 General Section – Interfaces Between Land Uses Principles of Development Control: 1 & 6 General Section – Orderly and Sustainable Development Objectives: 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 General Section – Orderly and Sustainable Development Principles of Development Control: 1, 8(uu) Zoning Objectives: 3, 4 & 6 Zoning Principles of Development Control: 1 & 3(b) Suburban Neighbourhood Zone Desired Character Statement Concept Plan PAdE/47 – Northgate Land Use and Access As discussed under the ‘Description of The Proposal’ of this report, the application is considered to be for the construction of a building, and a change in the use of the land for, an Indoor Recreation Centre. The subject land is located within the Suburban Neighbourhood Zone. Principle of Development Control (PDC) 1 indicates a number of land uses (or a combination of land uses) that are envisaged in the zone. This list includes an Indoor Recreation Centre and shop. The proposal is an appropriate land use having regard to the zone, associated concept plan and desired character statement.

PAE-DAP 218 13.09.17

The suitability of the land use is required to be balanced with other planning considerations such as; built form design, amenity, car parking and access; operation of the site and landscaping. These are further discussed in coming sections of this report. Amenity, Character & Visual Appearance of Built Form General Section – Design and Appearance Objectives: 1, 2 & 3 General Section – Design and Appearance Principles of Development Control: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21 Zoning Objectives: 3, 6 Zoning Principles of Development Control: 7, 8, 10, 11, 25, 26, 27 Suburban Neighbourhood Zone Desired Character Building Design & Setbacks The proposal seeks to construct a large facility with a 6,880 square metre footprint on the 16,900 square metre site. The building is proposed to have a total building height of 12 metres, and has a contemporary cubed appearance. This style is accentuated on the walls of the structure with square and rectangular wall panels shaded in colours including dark blue, aqua, green, mauve, and dark purple. The Suburban Neighbourhood Zone is silent quantitatively on recommended setbacks for development such as what is being proposed. From an urban design perspective, there is a clear preference for there to be a suitable interface between different building heights (PDC 11). But this competes with PDC 26(c) and 27, which seeks that development be orientated towards the street frontage and have a negligible setback. The proposal does seek to setback the second storey and basketball court components of the building from the front, thereby providing a more appropriate and staggered building interface. It is considered that whilst the proposal is contemporary in nature and the design is innovative, the building does respect separation distances and avoids large tall walls interfacing with adjoining properties, meeting Design and Appearance (DAA) PDC 1. Taking into account the expected six stories allowed in an activity centre, it is considered that the building height is unlikely to offend the relevant provisions in the Development Plan. As a result of the staggered approach to designing the building heights and the setback from adjoining properties, it is unlikely that overshadowing of adjoining land will be to such a degree that it offends Zone PDC 8 or General Section – Residential Development PDC 9-11. Further the design of the building avoids creating extensive areas of uninterrupted walling to public areas as sought in DAA – PDC 2. In respect of other built form design matters, the proposal:

avoids large expanses of vehicle parking, due to the central nature of the building, it separates the car parking into two distinct areas (meeting Zone PDC 26(b)(i)) and DAA PDC 10);

contemplates a building that does not restrict pedestrian and cycle links along East Parkway, (note: there are a number of walkways on site that enable ease of movement from the building to carparks and footpaths), meeting the intention of Zone PDC 26(ii);

does not propose mixed uses on the edges in order to assist in the transition from activity centres to residential uses (Zone PDC 26(d)). The building does include a number of tenancies, which face out to East Parkway creating active connections to the street (DAA 9, 12, 19 (a) and (b));

has a verandah and walkway along East Parkway, which has an articulated and open nature and therefore assists in providing shelter to pedestrians (Zone PDC 26(e)) and creating visual interest along a long frontage (PDC 26(f) and (h)), and DAA 10);

PAE-DAP 219 13.09.17

The design of the building does not have particular regard to DAA PDC 8, which seeks that structures located on the roof of a building to house plant and equipment should form an integral part of the building design. Plant appears to sit on top of the building with simple screening surrounding it. However, it is considered that due to the length of the building, and the false façade above the roof line that the plant will not be visible within the immediate locality. Landscaping The applicant proposes landscaping across the site, involving a mixture of low and medium height plantings. It is considered that the proposed landscaping plan will assist to:

soften the built form to the streets surrounding the site (Landscaping Fences and Walls (LFW) PDC 1);

enhance the appearance of road frontages (particularly East Parkway);

provide for shade and minimise heat absorption particularly in the carparks (LFW PDC 1(f), (e) and (h));

utilise primarily native species that will assist in minimising maintenance and watering requirements (LFW PDC 1 (d));

meet crime prevention through environmental design practices by: o providing low to medium shrub planting with a maximum height of 1 metre, or

taller trees, the stems of which are not obscured by foliage below 1.8 metres in height

o avoiding vegetation that obscures paths, building entrances and exits, or windows

o incorporating shrubs which are appropriately spaced to avoid clumping and retain lines of sight and opportunities for surveillance.

Quantitatively the proposal does allocate 13% of the site to landscaping, which slightly exceeds the 10% minima prescribed in LFW PDC 2. Noise and Hours of Operation The applicant seeks that the facility will operate during the following hours:

Monday–Friday: 6am to 11pm;

Saturday: 6am to Midnight;

Sunday: 6am to 11pm. The applicant identifies that the Café will operate from 6am to 9pm on all days and the Commercial Space will operate:

Monday–Saturday 6am to 6pm;

Sunday 6am to 4pm. It is noted that residential land uses are in close proximity (directly south) to the proposed facility. The applicant’s representative suggests that the position of the facility on the site (with its principal pedestrian and vehicle access points to East Parkway, designated as a major collector road and bus route, and the amenity planting surrounding car parking areas as shown in the Landscape Concept Plan, will assist in minimising the extent of any potentially adverse amenity impacts on nearby residential areas. The applicant’s representative does not provide any evidence to support these general claims, or the level of reduction as suggested.

PAE-DAP 220 13.09.17

In assessing the application, it is considered that the proposal and its operations are unlikely to create noise to such an extent so as to produce negative impacts in the locality (Interface Between Land Uses PDC 1(b)(h), 2), for the following reasons.

That the activities will occur within the building, which will shield and impede noise within the building. The design of the building does not propose any openings facing directly out to East Parkway from the active components of the building apart from the main entrance.

That the subject site interfaces with Hampstead Road a Freight Route, which remains active throughout the night, and is a noise generator within the locality. The building interfaces with East Parkway, which is a collector road, which generates traffic noise.

The applicant does not propose to use amplified music (meeting Suburban Neighbourhood Zone PDC 5).

The building shields eastern residences from noise emanating on Hampstead Road. It is considered that the Development Plan Policies or planning conditions cannot control behaviour on the subject land. It is recommended that if the building is constructed that a Site Management Plan be developed that, in part, manages and controls patron’s noise in the carpark late at night. Access, Car Parking and Manoeuvring Areas General Section – Transportation and Access Objectives: 2, 5, 6 General Section – Transportation and Access Principles of Development Control: 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 Strategic Transport Routes Overlay Objective: 1 Strategic Transport Routes Overlay Principles of Development Control: 1, 3 Zoning Principles of Development Control: 13, 14 Overlay Map PAdE/32 – Transport Overlay Map PAdE/32 – Noise and Air Emissions Overlay Map PAdE/32 – Strategic Transport Routes The application proposes two car parking areas with two crossovers onto East Parkway. A total of 252 car parking spaces (including 12 accessibility spaces) are provided on site. Taking into account Table PAdE/10, which lists non-residential development with the following theoretical demand:

Calculating the floor area of 7,900 square metres this would result in a car parking numbers between 316-474 car parks. Reviewing PAdE/5 an Indoor Recreation Centre provides for the following theoretical demand:

PAE-DAP 221 13.09.17

This would result in a requirement for 810 car parking spaces. Both values in Table PAdE/10 and PAdE/5 are considered to be poor calculations of car parking demand for this type of facility, noting that:

A number of rooms will be multi-purpose;

That the courts are large in square meterage but low in active participants;

It is likely that visitors will use a number of ‘uses’ within the building in one trip, rather than the theoretical multi-trips.

The applicant submitted a Traffic Report by CIRQA that focused, correctly, on Table PAdE/10 of Council’s Development Plan. CIRQA identifies those areas that would generate demand as listed below:

The report suggests that based upon a parking rate of four spaces per 100 square metres and a gross leasable floor area of 5,839 square meters, the development would have a theoretical parking requirement of 234 spaces, less than the 252 provided on site. It is considered that this assessment is logical and better typifies the operation of the proposed facility. Taking in consideration the above matters, it is considered that the 252 carpark spaces provided on site are acceptable because:

The demand will come from ‘active’ floor areas and taking into account Council’s Development Plan Table PAdE/10, the development meets theoretical demand.

That some people will visit the facility ‘on foot’, particularly those that live in close proximity to the facility.

That some people will visit the facility by bicycle; and,

It is likely that visitors will use a number of ‘uses’ within the building in one trip, rather than the theoretical multi-trips.

PAE-DAP 222 13.09.17

The application proposes 34 bicycle spaces. Table PAdE/4 in the Development Plan provides a theoretical demand of 1 space per 4 employees and an additional space per 200 square metres of gross floor area. Based on the information in the application this would require 40 spaces to be provided. It is indicated in CIRQA’s report that an additional 6 spaces be provided. It is recommended that if the Panel resolved to grant development plan consent, that a condition seeking amended plans that show the additional six bicycle spaces on site be provided, in order to satisfy the Development Plan criteria. Regulated Trees General Section – Regulated Trees Objectives: 1, 2 General Section – Regulated Trees Principles of Development Control: 1, 2 The application seeks to remove three regulated trees on the subject site, they are:

Eucalyptus sp (Gum), towards south-western corner of site;

Eucalyptus sideroxylon (Iron Bark), towards north-western corner of site, and

Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum), towards north-eastern corner of site. Mr Sam Cassar, (consulting arborist) reviewed the three trees that are sought to be removed. In his assessment, he found that all the trees ‘display a form and structure that is compromised due to major structural flaws that will result in either whole stem failure due to a poor primary union, or large branch failure due to a poorly formed secondary union’. Mr Cassar indicated as part of his report that:

‘there are no practical remedial options available to maintain the tree at an acceptable level of risk’.

Council’s Development Plan lists that development should have minimum adverse effects on regulated trees, but balances this with PDC 2 which states that

A regulated tree should not be removed or damaged other than where it can be demonstrated that one or more of the following apply:

(a) the tree is diseased and its life expectancy is short (b) the tree represents a material risk to public or private safety

[…]

In this case it is considered, after reviewing Mr Cassar’s report that the above criterion apply in relation to the subject trees. It is considered therefore that as a result of the life expectancy of the trees being short and that there are no practical remedial options available to maintain the tree at an acceptable level of risk, balanced with the need that development that is reasonable and expected would be able to proceed, that removal of the regulated trees are justified in this context.

CONCLUSION As discussed under the ‘Description of The Proposal’ of this report, the application is considered to be for the construction of a building, and a change in the use of the land for, an Indoor Recreation Centre. The subject land is located within the Suburban Neighbourhood Zone. Principle of Development Control (PDC) 1 indicates a number of land uses (or a combination of land uses) that are envisaged in the zone. This includes an Indoor Recreation Centre and shop. The Desired Character Statement also identifies the western end of the Zone along Hampstead Road as best placed to provide “[a]llied health services, community facilities and recreation and cultural activities”.

PAE-DAP 223 13.09.17

Having regard to the Statement, Concept Plan and relevant Principles of Development Control, it is considered that the proposed land use, whilst large is scale is nonetheless a suitable use for the land, and Zone more widely.

The building is proposed to have a total building height of 12 metres, and contemporary cubed appearance. The proposal does seek to setback the second storey and basketball court components of the building from the front thereby providing a more appropriate and staggered building interface. It is considered that whilst the proposal is contemporary in nature and the design is innovative, the building does respect separation distances and avoids large tall walls interfacing with adjoining properties The applicant proposes landscaping across the site, involving a mixture of low and medium height plantings. It is considered that the proposed landscaping plan will assist to: Soften the built form, provides for shade and minimises heat absorption and using primarily native species that will assist in minimise maintenance and watering requirements. Strict adherence to the Development Plan criteria in respect of car parking requirements appears to provide unusually high theoretical demands. Taking into account the floor areas that generate the car parking demand and applying the Suburban Neighbourhood Zone provisions, it is considered that the 252 carpark spaces provided on site are acceptable. In terms of the regulated trees, as a result of the life expectancy of the trees being short and that there are no practical remedial options available to maintain the tree at an acceptable level of risk, balanced with the need that development that is reasonable and expected would be able to proceed, that removal of the regulated trees are justified in this context. On balance against the provisions of the Development Plan, it is considered that the proposal has sufficient merit to warrant Development Plan Consent, subject to the imposition of two Reserved Matters and Conditions. The relevant application details have been provided to all Members. (Refer Attachments) CITY PLAN Community: A City that supports community wellbeing Placemaking: A City where people love to be Economy: A City of opportunity RECOMMENDATION

That the Port Adelaide Enfield Development Assessment Panel resolves that: 1. Pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Development Act 1993, the proposal is NOT

considered to be seriously at variance with the relevant provisions of the Port Adelaide Enfield (City) Development Plan.

2. Pursuant to Section 33 of the Development Act 1993, Development Application No.

040/1895/17 by Andrew Caspar for Demolition of existing structures and removal of vegetation on the subject land, including three regulated trees, and the construction of an indoor recreation centre with associated car parking and landscaping at Lot 4,000 Hampstead Road, Lightsview SA 5085 be GRANTED Development Plan Consent subject to the following Reserved Matters and conditions:

PAE-DAP 224 13.09.17

Reserved Matters The following matters have been reserved pursuant to Section 33(3) of the Development Act 1993, and delegated to Council Administration for Consideration:

R1. A finalised traffic management plan that takes into consideration the following:

o Traffic calming devices proposed to be employed in the carparks (e.g. speed humps);

o Access point arrangements; o An on-street car parking management plan on East Parkway (bus set-down

and pick-up); o Footpath connections between car parking areas;

And the said Plan approved to the satisfaction of Council.

R2. A finalised Stormwater Management Plan that includes the following: o Demonstration on how surface runoff from all paved, open and roof areas

will be managed for all events up to and including a 1:100 year A.R.I. storm. Details of proposed site levels, stormwater inlet pits, site grading and any boundary retaining structures (including overall height and level at top and bottom of retaining walls) should be specified.

o Carpark site grading shall be design in accordance with AS/NZS2890.1:2004.

o Providing detail to ensure 150mm freeboard to the watertable is maintained in all pits in the critical minor 5yr ARI rainfall event.

o Finished floor levels that maintain 150mm freeboard to any onsite flooding/ponding water levels and 300mm above the adjacent top of kerb along East Parkway.

o Inclusion of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) principles in the development.

o Demonstration that all pits and pipes shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s statement of requirement and construction specifications

And the said Plan approved to the satisfaction of Council.

Development Plan Consent Conditions:

2.1 Except where minor amendments may be required by other relevant Acts, or by

conditions imposed by this application, the development is to be established in strict accordance with the endorsed stamped details and plans submitted in Development Application 040/1895/17 and all works shall be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of Council prior to the occupation and/or use of the development.

2.2 Advertising signs do not form part of this approval and a separate development

application must be made to Council. 2.3 The subject site shall be maintained and operated such that all vehicles are able

to enter and exit the land in a forward direction at all times. 2.4 Wheel stop placement should be designed and constructed in accordance with

AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 section 2.4.5.4 2.5 The proposed car parking layout and access areas shall conform with the

AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 Parking facilities Part 1: Off-street car parking.

PAE-DAP 225 13.09.17

2.6 Car parking spaces for people with a disability should be designed and

constructed in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.6.2009 Off-street parking for people with disabilities. Access to buildings and car parking spaces for people with a disability should be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 1428:2001 parts 1, 2 & 4 and the provisions contained within "Guidelines for disability access in the pedestrian environment" – 2009.

2.7 All pipes, vents and/or other equipment servicing the building shall be adapted to

blend with the building such that they are unobtrusive and/or shall otherwise be hidden from view, to the reasonable satisfaction of Council.

2.8 The proposed landscaping shall be established on the site in accordance with the

approved plan prior to the occupation of the site, and it shall be maintained and nurtured at all times, with any diseased or dying plants replaced to the satisfaction of Council.

2.9 Floodlighting shall be directed and shaded in such a manner so as not to cause

light overspill nuisance to neighbours or distraction to drivers on adjacent public roads.

2.10 All mechanical services to the building and/or machinery (such as air

compressors and the like) shall be designed and installed and operated in such a manner that any person living within or adjacent to the site should not be subjected to any nuisance or inconvenience from noise or fumes to the reasonable satisfaction of Council.

2.11 The hours of operation of the premises shall not exceed the times:

2.11.1 Sunday to Thursday – 6:00 am to 11:00 pm 2.11.2 Friday and Saturday – 6:00 am to Midnight.

2.12 All refuse and stored materials shall be screened from public view to the

reasonable satisfaction of Council. 2.13 Waste disposal vehicles and general delivery vehicles that service the premises,

shall be restricted to between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm on any day.

2.14 Prior to full Development Approval being granted, the applicant shall submit amended plans that delineate the incorporation of an additional six bicycle parking places in accordance with the recommendations in the CIRQA Report dated 3 August 2017.

Advisory Notes

The applicant is reminded that any future signs, hoarding, advertising, bunting, or flags should be the subject of a further application to Council under the Development Act 1993.

The applicant and owner are reminded that temporary fencing should be provided during demolition and construction, or where the site is left vacant, to ensure privacy and security to adjoining properties and to restrict windblown soil and sand.

The granting of this consent does not remove the need for the applicant to obtain all other consents that may be required by other statutes or regulations.

PAE-DAP 226 13.09.17

The applicant is advised that any works (stormwater connections, driveways, etc.) undertaken on Council owned land will require the approval of Council's Technical Services Department, prior to any works being undertaken. Further information may be obtained from the Technical Services Department on telephone (08) 8405 6600.

The Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2015 requires any person who is undertaking an activity, or is an occupier of land to take all reasonable and practicable measures to avoid the discharge or deposit of waste from that activity or land into any waters or onto land in a place from which it is likely to enter any waters (including the stormwater system).

The policy also creates offences that can result in on-the spot fines or legal proceedings. The following information is provided to assist you to comply with this legislation:

(1) Building and construction must follow sediment control principles outlined in the "Stormwater Pollution Prevention – Code of Practice for the Building and Construction Industry (EPA, 1999). Specifically, the applicant must ensure: - During construction no sediment should leave the building and construction

site. Appropriate exclusion devices must be installed at entry points to stormwater systems and waterways.

- A stabilised entry/exit point should be constructed to minimise the tracking of sand, soil and clay off site. However, should tracking occur, regular clean-ups are advised.

(2) Litter from construction sites is an environmental concern. All efforts should be made to keep all litter on site. The applicant should ensure that bins with securely fitted lids, capable of receiving all waste from building and construction activities, are placed on site.

(3) All building and construction wastewaters are listed pollutants under the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2015 and as such must be contained on site.

It is important that you familiarise yourself with the terms of the Policy and ensure that all contractors engaged by you are aware of the obligations arising under it. For further information please contact the Environment Protection Authority on telephone 8204 2004.

Reason(s) for Development Plan Consent

To ensure the development proceeds in an orderly manner.

To ensure usable and safe car parking.

To ensure stormwater is disposed of in a controlled manner.

To minimise the impact on adjoining residents.

To ensure the safe movement of vehicles associated with the proposed land use.

To ensure that the quality of stormwater runoff flowing into Council's downstream drainage system is maintained.