RED HEAD VILLAGES ASSOCIATION (Inc) North Bendalong, Bendalong, Berringer, Cunjurong, Manyana

Transcription

1 RED HEAD VILLAGES ASSOCIATION (Inc) North Bendalong, Bendalong, Berringer, Cunjurong, Manyana Russ Pigg General Manager Shoalhaven City Council P.O. Box 42 Nowra NSW, 2541 PO Box 2015 Bendalong NSW Mob: Summary of Position SUBMISSION: DA14/2397, North Bendalong The Red Head Villages Association (RHVA): 1. Supports the continued use of this site for tourism purposes and welcomes the eco-tourism concept outlined in this plan with a smaller overall footprint and commitment to re-vegetation of the headland. 2. Does not support an exemption to the 6m height of building requirements of the Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan RHVA objects to an approval of development on this site that doesn t comply with these provisions. 3. Is concerned about the variation request in regards to building setback, however recognises the proposal is still favourable to the current structures on the site and that development at the Western end of the site is favourable. RHVA does not object to approval on the grounds of this noncompliance. 4. Supports the maintenance of a thoroughfare for locals through the site. 5. Welcomes the storm water management plans for the site and the positive impact that should have for storm water runoff to Dee Beach. 6. Is concerned to ensure there is sufficient detail about the operation of the proposed kiosk so appropriate impacts can be considered, particularly in relation to traffic and the impact on neighbouring residential areas. The Red Head Villages Association (RHVA) welcomes the opportunity to respond to DA14/2397 relating to the redevelopment of the Allawah Cabins site. RHVA acknowledges the efforts of the proponent to provide information to the Association s members in advance of the lodgement of this DA to the council and in

2 making themselves available at one of our meetings to answer questions about the proposal. It is a model of community consultation that should be adopted by more developers. The major issue relating to height of buildings has been raised with the proponent as part of those discussions. RHVA is supportive of development of this site and welcomes a long-term solution to what has been a frustrating development history for the community. North Bendalong Headland and its neighbouring beaches are iconic on the South Coast, and of significant aesthetic and recreational value to the local community and regular visitors. Council should only approve development of this site that is environmentally sensitive and minimises the impact of development on the neighbouring properties and on the users of the surrounding public space. Broadly, RHVA considers that this proposal does respect these values, especially by reducing the footprint on the site, developing a better storm water solution that will protect the headland and beach from erosion impacts and in promising to re-vegetate the headland. However the Association does not accept that sustainable and responsible development of this site should breach existing zoning requirements, particularly height of building provisions. There is also some concern within our membership about setback exemptions in the proposal however the Association recognises the benefits of locating development to the West of the site. The Association, as well as the general community advocated strongly for height of building limitation on this parcel of land as part of the LEP process. This iconic headland cannot be equated with general provisions for height limits on coastal areas at 7.5m and this council recognised that when they accepted a 6m limit as part of the LEP process. To allow an exemption would undermine the value of the entire LEP and the work done by communities across the Shoalhaven LGA in engaging in the future development of their locales. The Association is concerned that there may not be sufficient information concerning the operation of a kiosk to ensure impacts are fully understood, particularly in regards to traffic impacts. The Association supports approval of this development application only within a height of building restriction in line with the LEP of 6m across the site. Red Head Villages Association Submission: DA14/2397, North Bendalong 5 January 2015 p!2

3 2. Height of Buildings This section relates to the request for exception to development standards relating to the height of building limits outlined in the SLEP2014 and the Citywide DCP, which limits building on the site to a single story and to a maximum of 6m. History RHVA engaged actively in the development of the SLEP2014 and have taken a keen interest in development proposals relating to this site for a number of years. RHVA in it s written submission on the draft SLEP in May 2013 recommended a 5.5m height of building limit be set for this lot: Owing to the site visually impacting Dee and Flat Rock beaches and across to Boat Ramp Beach Bendalong, Council limited the height of structures (manager s residence) to 5.5m. The new SLEP HOB overlay should reflect this parameter. Council largely supported this position, recognising the iconic significance of the headland, however allowed a HOB of 6m in the LEP, which was eventually gazetted. It should be noted that RHVA in forming it s submission to the Draft LEP consulted widely within it s membership and feel that council s adoption of much of the association s position reflected a recognition that it was characteristic of the wider community s position and was suitable given the sensitivity of the headland and value to the local community. RHVA position and justification RHVA does not support the proposal for 7.5m accommodation structures on the site and does not support an exemption to height of building provisions in the LEP. Although RHVA would like to see strict compliance of height of building requirements as outlined in both the LEP and DCP, the primary concern is the 6m limit. RHVA considers that the question of single or double storey is less significant and that there may be design options available to the proponent to achieve two storey cabins within the 6m limit. The 6m height limit for this site as outlined in SLEP2014 recognises the sensitivity of the site and it s importance to the local community and should be complied with. RHVA does not consider the 6m limit to be unnecessary or unreasonable as outlined in the Request for Exception, especially given the sensitivity of this headland and the significant work to date in getting community and council agreement in relation to the LEP. Red Head Villages Association Submission: DA14/2397, North Bendalong 5 January 2015 p!3

4 RHVA does not consider the 7.5m height of building proposed as a minor noncompliance as described in the proponent s Statement of Environmental Effects. The height proposed is a 25% increase on the current LEP limit. The effect of allowing development at 7.5m would be that users of Flatrock beach would be able to see at least three of the proposed cottages, as per the proponents own sight-line analysis. Users at Dee Beach can already see existing cabins on the site, which are far lower than 7.5m in height. The proposal, even with substantial plantings will ensure increased and ongoing visual encroachment of the development on users of Dee Beach. RHVA does not consider the montage shown in the documents fairly indicates the level of visual impact from development and relies heavily planned vegetation. A view at time of construction and each year up until plantings were at full maturity would provide a useful reference for council. While the proponent states that in their opinion the development will not have an impact on the residential amenity of local residents, no mention is made on the recreational amenity for locals, regular visitors and holidaymakers. RHVA believes both Dee Beach and Flatrock Beach, as iconic and important recreational areas for locals and regular visitors, should be able to be enjoyed with as little visual impact from development on the headland. Ideally, guests at the proposed development would not be able to see beach users from the cottages and similarly beach users should, as much as possible, enjoy an uninterrupted view of a vegetated headland from the beach. The proponent s variation statement regarding the DCP single storey non-compliance claims that the performance criteria of the height controls in the DCP will be met by the proposed development and will achieve the primary objective of this planning control which is to ensure compatibility with the character of the locality and minimise potential visual and amenity impacts. Clearly this is not the case as minimising potential visual and amenity impacts would be best achieved by maintaining a single storey limit and keeping development within the 6m height of building rules. While the previous Shoalhaven LEP and DCP No.63 may have allowed a 7.5m height limit, those plans have been superseded after much debate within the community. Furthermore, the proponent acquired the site after the finalisation of the SLEP2014 and with the knowledge that a citywide DCP was being developed. RHVA does not accept the proponent s suggestion that complying with the 6m height of building limit in the LEP would hinder Sect 5 of the NSW Planning Act including the promotion or coordination of the orderly and economic use and development of the land. The land has been previously developed and has been under economic use, Red Head Villages Association Submission: DA14/2397, North Bendalong 5 January 2015 p!4

5 for the main in compliance with even the current height requirements. Furthermore this section of the act does not over-ride the LEP and DCP controls. RHVA accepts and appreciates that the proponent is reducing the overall footprint of the development and reducing the total patrons when compared to layout of the existing cabins on the site. RHVA notes the argument in some submissions that allowing higher building is an appropriate trade-off to a smaller footprint. RHVA does not believe a trade-off is required and that the same number of patrons as proposed could be accommodated in a development that complies with the height of building requirements while being sensitive to the environmental and aesthetic values of the headland and surrounding areas, and ensuring the orderly economic use of the land. RHVA does not support waiving the current height of building requirements and feel it is important for council to enforce the LGA s planning regime, particularly in such a sensitive area that has been subject to historical controversy and significant community engagement in developing planning rules relating to this site. The proponent claims the proposed development complies with the objectives of Clause 4.3 of the LEP. One part of this objective is to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of a locality. The only fair measure of the desired future character of the locality can be determined by the decision, so recently made by this council, to limit height of building to 6m. This was done in full view of the community s expectations for the future of the site. The fact that the height of building limit of 6m is distinct from other areas is not an anomaly, it was deliberate and the decision serves to further demonstrate the significance of the site and desired future character. To allow an exemption would undermine the value of height of building controls across the entire LEP as well as the work done by communities across the Shoalhaven LGA in engaging in the LEP s development and helping to shape the future of their locales. Position: RHVA does not support an exemption to the 6m height of building requirements of the Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan RHVA objects to an approval of development on this site that doesn t comply with these provisions. Red Head Villages Association Submission: DA14/2397, North Bendalong 5 January 2015 p!5

6 3. Setback This section relates to the request for exception to development standards relating to building setbacks outlined in the Citywide DCP. RHVA position and justification As with the height of buildings, RHVA is concerned about development proposals that do not complying with existing development controls, especially given the significant community effort in the formation of the LEP and Citywide DCP. Our preference is for this and all future developments to comply with planning controls to maintain the integrity of the local plan. Exemptions should be given only in rare circumstances. Given the fraught development history on this site and the deterioration of the vegetation and visual encroachment of existing development onto North Bendalong Road and neighbouring lots to the West, RHVA concedes the proposal, despite not complying with development controls, would still be preferable to the current footprint. RHVA accepts the effort of the proponent to conserve trees on site and accept that development to the West of the lot is preferable to development further East. Position: RHVA is concerned about the variation request in regards to building setback, however recognises the proposal is still favourable to the current structures on the site and that development at the Western end of the site is favourable. RHVA does not object to approval on the grounds of this non-compliance. 4. Kiosk This section relates to the request for exception to development standards relating to building setbacks outlined in the Citywide DCP. RHVA position and justification RHVA is not opposed to a kiosk operating from the site for local residents and holidaymakers who are not staying at the cabins and recognise that it is allowable within the land use under E3 zoning. However a number of RHVA members have asked questions about the size and nature of the kiosk as well as the potential for it to impact on existing local businesses who rely on peak season demand to off-set the slower winter months. The proposal provides limited detail on the operation of a kiosk, which is Red Head Villages Association Submission: DA14/2397, North Bendalong 5 January 2015 p!6

7 understandable given its operations as per the proposal, will be driven by demand. However, in approving a development that provides for the operation of a kiosk, there needs to be sufficient consideration of potential impacts, especially given it would operate immediately adjacent to a residential area. The proposal suggests the kiosk will be for guest use but may provide limited service to local residents and passing trade during peak accommodation periods, depending on the demand for this facility. From the proposal, it is inferred that the kiosk s opening hours in peak times would be in-line with that of the office, between 7am and 5pm, however, being based on demand, it is not clear whether it is possible that these hours may be extended where favourable. Furthermore, while the kiosk may provide service for passing trade, there is no mention of parking to accommodate this trade and no discussion of traffic impacts should this become a popular kiosk for non-residents. It is also unclear if the kiosk is going to be advertised to passing trade. If it was, this would potentially lead to a significantly higher number of non-residents using the kiosk and that may significantly change the traffic and parking impacts. Most existing Manyana and Cunjurong Point residents and visitors use a car to access the existing Bendalong Cafe and would likely do the same at this kiosk. RHVA asks that council considers potential limitations and or controls to ensure the operation of a kiosk from the site does not have unacceptable traffic impacts on neighbouring residents. Position: RHVA is concerned to ensure there is sufficient detail about the operation of the proposed kiosk so appropriate impacts can be considered, particularly in relation to traffic and the impact on neighbouring residential areas. Red Head Villages Association Submission: DA14/2397, North Bendalong 5 January 2015 p!7

8 5. Conclusion RHVA looks forward to a resolution to the long-term development and use of North Bendalong Headland. We believe it is vital to ensure any development is sustainable and responsible and believe that is best achieved within current zoning provisions whilst maintaining the eco-tourism intention underpinning this proposal. We believe those two outcomes are not mutually exclusive and should be a requirement of any approval. RHVA requests an opportunity to make a deputation to the Development Committee of Council when this matter comes before the committee. Should council staff or councillors have further questions regarding RHVA s position, please contact Justin Field on Justin Field Justin Field President, Red Head Villages Association 5 January 2015 About Red Head Villages Association RHVA is the Community Consultative Body (CCB), recognised by Shoalhaven City Council, representing the coastal villages of Bendalong, North Bendalong, Manyana, Cunjurong Point and Berringer. The Association engages its members and supporters, permanent local residents, absentee landlords and regular visitors on local issues through our association website, facebook page and regular association meetings. The Association holds meetings on the first Monday of every second month and has its Annual General Meeting on the Saturday of the Australia Day long weekend each year. The Association exists primarily to inform, involve, and motivate it members and the local community to engage in issues impacting our community and to have members dedicate themselves to maintaining this fabulous area on the South Coast of NSW. Red Head Villages Association Submission: DA14/2397, North Bendalong 5 January 2015 p!8