statement of environmental effects · proposal. specifically, the statement is to assess the likely...

Statement of

Environmental

Effects

Alterations and Additions to Existing Function Centre and Additional Use involving a Small Bar/Restaurant

Lot 2 DP 1111478 13 Prince Alfred Street Berry, 2535

26 August 2019 Reference: L103687

SET Consultants Pty Ltd

NOWRA 51 Graham Street

Nowra 2541 Tel: (02) 4421 4500

KIAMA 8/2 Collins Lane

Kiama 2533 Tel: (02) 4233 2006

Email: [email protected]

This report should only be used for the purpose for which it was expressly prepared and shall not be reproduced by any third party in part or full without the permission of SET Consultants Pty Ltd.

i

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 1.1 General .......................................................................................................................1 2 SITE ANALYSIS AND CONTEXT ..........................................................................................1 2.1 The Site .......................................................................................................................1 2.2 Environmental Constraints ..........................................................................................4 2.3 Surrounding Context ...................................................................................................6 2.4 Development History ...................................................................................................8 3 THE PROPOSAL .............................................................................................................. 12 3.1 Pre-lodgement Meeting ............................................................................................. 12 3.2 Description of Development ...................................................................................... 14 3.3 Operational Details ................................................................................................... 20 3.3.1 OPERATION OF EACH LEVEL ........................................................................................... 20 3.3.2 STAFF............................................................................................................................ 20 3.3.3 NOISE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................... 21 3.3.4 WASTE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................. 21 4 MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION ..................................................................................... 22 4.1 Relevant Legislation .................................................................................................. 22

4.1.1 Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 ......................................................................... 22 4.2 State Environmental Plans ......................................................................................... 22

4.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land ........................ 22 4.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 ..................................... 22 4.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy – Coastal Management 2018 ........................ 24

4.3 Local Environmental Plans ......................................................................................... 25 4.3.1 Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 ............................................................ 25

4.4 Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (2014) ............................................................ 32 4.5 Variation Statement - Car Parking .............................................................................. 34 5 THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 38 5.1 Context and Setting ................................................................................................... 38 5.2 Public Domain ........................................................................................................... 40 5.3 Access and Traffic ...................................................................................................... 40 5.4 Utilities ..................................................................................................................... 42 5.5 Natural Hazards ......................................................................................................... 42 5.6 Air and Microclimate ................................................................................................. 42 5.7 Flora and Fauna ......................................................................................................... 42 5.8 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................... 42 5.9 Heritage .................................................................................................................... 47 5.10 Safety, Security and Crime Prevention ....................................................................... 48 5.11 Social Impact in the Locality ....................................................................................... 48 5.12 Economic Impact on Locality ...................................................................................... 48 5.13 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................... 48 6 SUITABILITY OF THE PROPOSAL FOR THE ENVIRONMENT ............................................... 49 6.1 Does the Proposal Fit in the Locality ........................................................................... 49 6.2 Are the Site Attributes Conducive to the Development? ............................................. 49 7 PUBLIC INTEREST ........................................................................................................... 49

ii

Figures Figure 1: Location map showing the subject site marked in red (Sixmap). ...................................... 1 Figure 2: Aerial photograph showing the subject lot outlined in red (Nearmap)............................. 2 Figure 3: Image showing the site viewed from Prince Alfred Street. ............................................... 3 Figure 4: Image showing the development to the south of the subject site. ................................... 3 Figure 5: Extract of the SLEP 2014 Heritage mapping with the subject site outlined in blue. ......... 4 Figure 6: Image showing the existing infrastructure that surrounds the site (Shoalhaven City

Council). .................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 7: Image showing the intersection of Prince Alfred Street and Queen Street. ..................... 6 Figure 8: Image taken from the Berry Museum towards the subject site. ....................................... 6 Figure 9: Apex Park and the Community Arts Cottage east of the site. ........................................... 7 Figure 10: Apex Park and the public toilet block directly visible form the subject site. ................... 7 Figure 11: 1993 image of No. 11 Prince Alfred Street taken from Council’s DA93/1888 file. .......... 8 Figure 12: Image showing the existing development north of the site. ........................................... 8 Figure 13: Extract of approved elevation .......................................................................................... 9 Figure 14: Approved Ground floor plan of Gabbys at Berry ............................................................. 9 Figure 15: Approved Mezzanine Floor Plan of Gabbys at Berry ..................................................... 10 Figure 16: Facebook images of function ......................................................................................... 11 Figure 17: Preliminary façade details of Previous design ............................................................... 12 Figure 18 Previous Plan presented to Pre-DA meeting................................................................... 13 Figure 19: Extract of the Site Plan prepared by Robertson (Collectif). ........................................... 14 Figure 20: Extract of the Ground Floor Demolition Plan prepared by Robertson (Collectif). ......... 15 Figure 21: Extract of the Upper Floor Demolition Plan prepared by Robertson (Collectif). ........... 15 Figure 22: Extract of the Ground Floor Plan prepared by Robertson (Collectif). ............................ 16 Figure 23: Extract of the (First) Upper Floor Plan prepared by Robertson (Collectif). .................... 17 Figure 24: Extract of the (Second Floor) Roof Terrace Plan prepared by Robertson (Collectif). .... 18 Figure 25: Front Facade comparison............................................................................................... 19 Figure 26: Rear Façade comparison ................................................................................................ 19 Figure 27: Extract SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018 showing the subject site outlined in yellow.

................................................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 28: Zoning map showing the subject sites outlined in blue. ................................................ 26 Figure 29: Extract of the SLEP 2014 Maximum Height Map with the site outlined in blue. ........... 29 Figure 30: Shoalhaven LEP 2014 Acid Sulfate Map showing the site outlined in blue. .................. 31 Figure 31: Proposed façade of existing building as viewed from Prince Alfred Street ................... 39 Figure 32: Rear Façade as viewed from the public car park looking east ....................................... 39 Figure 33: The proposed façade looking north along Prince Alfred Street .................................... 39 Figure 34: The proposed façade looking south along Prince Alfred Street .................................... 40

Tables Table 1: Applicable sections of Shoalhaven DCP 2014 ................................................................... 32

Attachments Attachment 1 - Clause 4.6 Variation Request Attachment 2 - Shoalhaven DCP Compliance Table

iii

Supporting Documents

Document No. Dated Prepared By

Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS)

Entry Threshold Report

- SET Consultants Pty Ltd

Site Contextual Analysis - - Robertson (Collectif)

Architectural Plans 19-06 20.09.2019 Robertson (Collectif)

Building Height Presentation 19-06-A801 27.08.2019 Robertson (Collectif)

Photomontages 19-06-A802 27.08.2019 Robertson (Collectif)

Landscape Plan 001-002 30.08.2019 Formed Gardens Design and

Construction

Stormwater Management Concept

Plan

DN190073/C01-C03 20.08.2019 MI Engineers

Waste Management Plan - Robertson (Collectif)

Statement of Heritage Impact 27.08 2019 Wolfpeak

Traffic and Parking Impact

Assessment

190126.01FA 05.09.2019 McLaren Traffic Engineering

Acoustic Report 1903001E-R 06.09.2019 Harwood Acoustics

Access Report 19191-R1.2 05.09.2019 Code Performance

Cost Summary Report 15.08.2019 Robertson (Collectif)

Statement of Environmental Effects Lot 2 DP 1111478, No. 13 Prince Alfred Street, Berry

1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General This Statement of Environmental Effects has been prepared by SET Consultants Pty Ltd for the

owner of the property. This Statement is to accompany a Development Application to Shoalhaven

City Council for Alterations and Additions to an existing function centre, and use as a small

bar/restaurant, located at Lot 2 DP 1111478 and known as No. 13 Prince Alfred Street, Berry.

The purpose of this Statement is to address the planning issues associated with the development

proposal. Specifically, the Statement is to assess the likely impacts of the development on the

environment in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment

(EP&A) Act, 1979.

2 SITE ANALYSIS AND CONTEXT

2.1 The Site The subject site is known as No. 13 Prince Alfred Street, Berry, and has a legal description of Lot 2

DP 1111478. The subject site is located within the Berry Local Centre, on the western side of Prince

Alfred Street, approximately 30m north of the intersection of Prince Alfred Street and Queen

Street. Berry is located within the Shoalhaven local government area, approximately 110km south

of Sydney. The site is approximately 14km north-east of the Nowra Town Centre. Figure 1 shows

the general site location with respect to the township of Berry.

Figure 1: Location map showing the subject site marked in red (Sixmap)

The site is rectangular in shape and located on the western side of Prince Alfred Street, north of

Queen Street. The site is approximately 539.8m2 in area with a primary street frontage of 27m to


2

Prince Alfred Street, with a depth of 18m. Currently there is vehicle access to the site off Prince

Alfred Street. The existing driveway forms a porte-cochere with a vehicle able to enter the site,

drop off and leave the site in a forward direction via the dual access points.

The site currently contains the function centre known as ‘Gabby’s at Berry’ with no onsite

carparking spaces. Provided at Figure 2 is an aerial photograph of the subject site and the

immediate surrounds.

Figure 2: Aerial photograph showing the subject lot outlined in red (Nearmap)

Figure 3 shows an image of the subject site as viewed from Prince Alfred Street. The image shows

the existing development onsite, with the image taken facing south-west. The existing structure is

two stories in height, and is not a heritage item or within a heritage conservation area. The site is

adjacent to items of Local and State Heritage significance.


3

Figure 3: Image showing the site viewed from Prince Alfred Street

Figure 4 shows an image of the development to the south of the subject site, as viewed from the

sites street frontage on Prince Alfred Street. This adjoining development is known as Heritage Item

No. 91. The image also shows the southern side boundary of the subject site, and the existing

access to the site.

Figure 4: Image showing the development to the south of the subject site


4

2.2 Environmental Constraints Baseline information in relation to the site’s environmental conditions has been drawn from the

following sources:

Site inspection;

Review of Shoalhaven City Councils planning documentation;

Review of existing services to adjoining land.

The subject site is not mapped under the Shoalhaven’s Bushfire Prone Lands, Shoalhaven LEP 2014,

or Shoalhaven City Council Flood GIS, as being affected by Bushfire Prone Lands, Biodiversity

Values, Riparian Land and Watercourses, or Flood Planning Area.

Heritage

The subject site is not mapped under the SLEP 2014 as being an item of heritage significance,

however sites to the west, south and east are, as seen in Figure 5 showing the site outlined in blue.

Figure 5: Extract of the SLEP 2014 Heritage mapping with the subject site outlined in blue

The adjoining Heritage item to the east (Prince Alfred Street) is known as Item No. 60, ‘Bill’s

concrete horse trough’. The adjoining Lot to the south contains Heritage Item No. 91 which is the

‘Victorian Free Classical style post office’. To the west of site is item No. 90 known as the ‘Berry

Museum, and former E-S and A Bank and garden’. On the opposite side of Prince Alfred Street to


5

the east there are two items being No. 47 the ‘Federation weatherboard cottage including brick

stables and hedge’, and No. 48 is ‘Apex Park’.

Sections 2.1 and 2.3 of this Statement of Environmental Effects includes images of the Heritage

Items onsite and in the surrounding area.

Stormwater Drainage

The stormwater on site currently drains to the street frontage east of the site. There is existing

council stormwater infrastructure connected to the site.

Infrastructure

Infrastructure in the form of electricity, sewer, water and telecommunications are currently

connected to the subject site. Figure 6 shows the existing water and sewer connections and

infrastructure that surround the site.

Figure 6: Image showing the existing infrastructure that surrounds the site (Shoalhaven City Council)

Traffic & Transport

The subject site currently has vehicle access from Prince Alfred Street to the east. Access is via two,

one-way driveways forming a porte-cochere. There are no onsite carparking spaces, with on street

parking and pedestrian footpaths being provided along the street frontage. The subject site is

located approximately 650m north of the Berry Train Station. There are also Bus stops located on

both Queen Street to the south-west and at the train station to the south. Taxi Services are also

available in the surrounding area.


6

2.3 Surrounding Context The subject site is located within the Berry Town Centre, on Prince Alfred Street north of Queen

Street. There are a number of Heritage Items in the surrounding area, with the adjoining items

listed in Section 2.2 of this report. The site is zoned as B2 Local Centre, which is consistent with the

majority of land within the Berry Town Centre. Figure 7 shows the intersection of Prince Alfred

Street and Queen Street south of the subject site. The image has been taken facing north-west

towards the site directly south of the subject site. The image has been annotated to show the two

Heritage Items south and west of the site.

Figure 7: Image showing the intersection of Prince Alfred Street and Queen Street

Figure 8 shows an image taken from the frontage of the Berry Museum towards the subject site.

The image shows the garden which forms part of the Heritage Item No. 90.

Figure 8: Image taken from the Berry Museum towards the subject site

Heritage Item No. 91 Heritage Item No. 90 Subject Site


7

Figures 9 and 10 show Apex Park located on the opposite side of Prince Alfred Street, east of the

subject site. Figure 9 shows the Berry Community Arts Cottage whilst Figure 10 shows the public

toilet directly visible from the subject site. The image has been taken from the street frontage of

the subject site facing east.

Figure 9: Apex Park and the Community Arts Cottage east of the site

Figure 10: Apex Park and the public toilet block directly visible from the subject site

Adjoining the site to the north is a single storey dwelling known as No. 11 Prince Alfred Street. At

the time of the original application for the establishment of ‘Gabbys at Berry’ the dwelling was

located with a driveway and garage proving significant separation distance from the common

boundary with the function centre, as shown in the image found on Shoalhaven Council DA93/1888

file below in Figure 11.


8

Figure 11: 1993 image of No. 11 Prince Alfred Street taken from Council’s DA93/1888 file

Since that time an extension to the dwelling has been undertaken to No. 11 Prince Alfred Street

and the driveway no longer exists with the dwelling immediately adjoining the common boundary.

Figure 12 shows an image of No 11 Prince Alfred Street as it appears today.

Figure 12: Image showing the existing development north of the site

2.4 Development History DA93/1888

On the 12 July 1993 Council approved a development with the description as ‘Reception Centre’.


9

The building consisted of ground floor and a mezzanine level with a central staircase accessing the

mezzanine. The building was accessed through a porte-cochere where a circular driveway provided

access to the front door.

The ground floor consisted of function space, stage, separate bar, kitchen and amenities. Whilst

the mezzanine was provided as a circular space with a central void. The mezzanine was only

accessed via a staircase and could not provide disabled access nor were the amenities for guests

on this level.

An extract of the approved elevation and floor plans prepared by Designbank Fine Architecture can

be seen in Figures 13-15.

Figure 13: Extract of approved elevation

Figure 14: Approved Ground floor plan of Gabbys at Berry


10

Figure 15: Approved Mezzanine Floor Plan of Gabbys at Berry

On review of Council’s file assessment, Council’s Engineer suggested a car parking provision at

1 space/4m2 being that of a public hall as there was no parking rate for a reception centre.

However, Council’s Planner argued that the parking should be assessed as a restaurant applying a

rate of 1 space/24m2 as that is the rate that had been previously applied to Worrigee House

Reception Centre.

As part of that Notice of Determination Council did not condition the maximum number of patrons

permissible to attend the function centre. Based on evidence and advice from the previous

operators the functions catered for up to 250 people. However only calculated 10 spaces for the

reception centre. A Section 94 contribution for the requirement of 15.8 car parking spaces was

determined and conditioned as part of the approval for DA93/1888.

It is also noted that onsite collection of garbage was not available due to the inability of a garbage

truck accessing the site. Collection was kerbside or the truck would reverse out of the property.

Based on historical photos obtained from social media (Facebook) functions were held over the

two floors being the ground floor and the mezzanine with images showing tables clearly located

on the mezzanine. Extracts of the images obtained from Facebook can be seen below in Figure 16.


11

Figure 16: Facebook images of functions at Gabys Berry


12

3 THE PROPOSAL

3.1 Pre-lodgement Meeting Being a project that will be of significance to Berry both economically and contextually early

involvement with Council was prudent. An informal pre-lodgement meeting was held with Council

Officers on the 1 June 2018 to enable communication and seek Council’s advice on the project in

its early design phase. The proposal at that stage was to demolish the entire function centre and

build a purpose-built building with a full level basement in Georgian style architecture. An extract

of the preliminary façade design can be seen in Figure 17 below.

Figure 17: Preliminary façade details of Previous design

Council raised concern with the type of architecture proposed in regard to heritage compatibility

and the size of the structure being proposed boundary to boundary.

After the initial discussion with Council the project façade was amended, and a pre-lodgement

meeting was held with Council Staff on 6 March 2019. The proposal being considered as part of

the pre-lodged was substantially different and involved “Demolition of existing function centre

‘Gabby’s’ and construction of a four (4) level commercial building with rooftop terrace for use as a

food and drink premises and basement day spa”.

The proposal was to demolish the entire function centre and build a purpose-built building

including a full level basement with minimal side setbacks. An extract of the façade proposed as

part of the pre-lodgement meeting can be seen in Figure 18 below.


13

Figure 18: Previous Plan presented to Pre-DA meeting

Numerous issues were raised and discussed as part of the pre-lodgement meeting. From this, the

applicant has heeded to Council’s advice and the proposal no longer involves demolition of the

existing structure but rather reuse with alterations and additions. The proposal essentially kept the

same footprint with an extension to the south increasing the number of toilet facilities and the

area associated with the kitchen.

The main issues that were raised by Council are identified and discussed further below:

1. Streetscape

The impact on streetscape was raised by Council identifying the compatibility of the design with

the surrounding heritage streetscape. Council required a streetscape character analysis be

undertaken.

A streetscape character analysis has been prepared by Robertson (Collectif) and submitted as part

of the Development Application. A contextual analysis of the building in relation to the village of

Berry and has also been prepared and submitted as part of this Development Application.

2. Traffic and Parking

Council required the submission of a traffic and parking impact assessment to consider the impact

of the proposed development on the local street network and car parking required for the site.

Council noted that the previously issued consent for a Reception Centre being DA93/1888 was

issued with a parking credit for 15.8 spaces.

A Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment has been prepared by McLaren Traffic Engineering and

submitted as part of this Development Application.

3. Heritage

Council required the submission of a Statement of Heritage Impact as identified in the extract from

the minutes detailed below:

“The site is adjoined by a number of items of local heritage significance identified under

Schedule 5 of the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014.


14

The application shall be supported a statement of heritage impact (SOHI) in accordance

with clause 5.10 of SLEP 2014.

A Statement of Heritage Impact has been prepared by Wolfpeak and submitted as part of this

Development Application.

3.2 Description of Development This proposal involves alterations and additions to the existing structure, maintain use as a function

centre with use as a small bar/restaurant located on Lot 2 DP 1111478, formally known as the

‘Gabby’s at Berry’. The building is currently used as a function centre consisting of two floors, with

function space, bathrooms, kitchen and upper mezzanine space. Figure 19 shows an extract of the

Site Plan prepared by Robertson (Collectif) which has been submitted with this application.

Figure 19: Extract of the Site Plan prepared by Robertson (Collectif)

This application proposes Alterations and Additions including; selected demolition, extensions to

the existing structure, internal layout changes and fit out including new amenities, open outdoor

terrace and new second floor additions. The resulting development will retain the existing use as

a function centre, and propose the additional use as a small bar/restaurant with roof terrace.


15

The proposed development has been broken up into its separate components, and are detailed as

follows:

Selected Demolition

The proposed Alterations and Additions require parts of the existing development be demolished

to allow for the layout changes to take place. Figures 20 and 21 show the proposed Ground Floor

and Upper Floor Demolition Plans, with areas to be removed shown in red.

Figure 20: Extract of the Ground Floor Demolition Plan prepared by Robertson (Collectif)

Figure 21: Extract of the Upper Floor Demolition Plan prepared by Robertson (Collectif)


16

Ground Floor Alterations and Additions

Figure 22 shows an extract of the proposed Ground Floor Plan prepared by Robertson (Collectif)

which is to be used as a restaurant.

Figure 22: Extract of the Ground Floor Plan prepared by Robertson (Collectif)

Some notable Alterations and Additions to the Ground floor are:

Extension of the structure to the south with a new amenities, kitchen, storage and staff

wings;

Rework of staircase and the inclusion of two lifts;

Kitchen layout change with office space, cool rooms and central bar/counter.


17

Upper (First) Floor Alterations and Additions

Figure 23 shows an extract of the proposed (First) Upper Floor Plan prepared by Robertson

(Collectif) which is to be maintained as a small function centre and Lounge Bar.

Figure 23: Extract of the (First) Upper Floor Plan prepared by Robertson (Collectif)

Some notable Alterations and Additions to the (First) upper floor are:

New amenities, reworked staircase and lifts, bar and scullery area;

Infill of the floor to the previous mezzanine void area to now consist of function space,

with retractable walls;

Extension of outdoor terrace located on the eastern elevation of the structure above the

porte-cochere;

Operable louvers panels are proposed on the eastern elevation of the terrace to improve

the outlook by way of screening the public toilet block from the view of patrons. Additional

screening of the terrace to the northern and southern elevation in the form of solid

operable blade screens for privacy and noise attenuation are also proposed.


18

(Second Floor) Roof Terrace Alterations and Additions

Figure 24 shows an extract of the proposed (Second Floor) Roof Terrace Plan prepared by

Robertson (Collectif) which is to be used as an extension of the restaurant providing small bar area

and tapas.

Figure 24: Extract of the (Second Floor) Roof Terrace Plan prepared by Robertson (Collectif)

This application includes the addition of a roof terrace to form a second floor within the

development. The roof terrace includes an open portion of roof with operable sections. The Roof

Terrace includes, amenities, stairs, lifts, stores, seating, landscaping, and kitchen areas.

External Façade Changes

The façade is required to be amended as a response to the internal changes. A comparison of the

existing facade and the proposed facade can be seen below in Figures 25 and 26 below.


19

Existing Front Facade

Altered Front Facade

Figure 25: Front Facade comparison

Existing Rear Facade

Altered Rear Facade

Figure 26: Rear Façade comparison


20

Physical Works Physical works associated with the proposal includes demolition, minor cut and fill for the additions

to the building footprint, and connections augmentations to the existing service connections. The

Demolition Plans submitted with this application show the proposed works across the site. The

existing infrastructure onsite will be augmented to ensure the proposed development can

augment to the essential service.

Concept Stormwater Plans prepared by MI Engineers show the proposed stormwater management

onsite. The Roof Terrace level includes stormwater infrastructure to allow stormwater runoff to

drain to the street.

Additional amenities, and kitchen areas will be connected to the existing services connected to the

site. Further details will be provided at Construction Certificate Stage.

3.3 Operational Details

3.3.1 Operation of Each Level

Ground floor - Restaurant

The ground floor is proposed to be used and operate as a restaurant. The maximum number of

people the restaurant can cater up to is 60 people.

The proposed operating hours of the restaurant to patrons are as follows:

Monday to Sunday - 9.00am - midnight

First floor - Function Room

The first floor of the building maintains a function room which will cater for small functions and

may incorporate the lounge bar area as well, or this may be sectioned off for separate use. The

function room can be used for weddings, private parties and conferences. It is envisaged that the

function room will be used for conference’s Monday to Wednesdays with weddings and other

private functions occurring Thursday’s to Sunday’s. The maximum capacity of the function level is

70 guests.

The proposed operating hours of the functions to patrons are as follows:

Monday to Wednesday - 9.00am - 6.00pm Thursday to Sunday - 9.00am - midnight

Roof Terrace

The roof terrace is to operate as an extension of the restaurant and cater for up to 50 people The proposed operating hours of the roof terrace to patrons are as follows: Monday to Sunday - 9.00am - 10.00pm

3.3.2 Staff

The maximum overall total of staff at any one time is proposed: 12 employees


21

3.3.3 Noise Management

Noise management will be as per the recommendations of the submitted acoustic report

“Environmental Noise Impact Assessment -The Prince” prepared by Harwood Acoustics. The report

provided operational phase recommendations to ensure the noise is mitigated and that there be

no noise impacts on the surrounding residence. The operational recommendations contained in

the report are as follows:

Operational Scenarios and Restrictions

There should be no noise producing activity on the Site after 12 am (midnight) on any day,

The roof top terrace should close at 10 pm to patrons every day,

The first-floor deck adjoining the function room and lounge bar should close at 10 pm

patrons every day,

Doors to the deck from the function room should remain closed whilst amplified music is

being played on the first floor at all times,

o Access to the deck should be via the southern most doors in the northern facade only

(see Appendix B),

o These doors should be automatically self -closing ,

o Seating on the deck should be such that there are only approximately 15 people on the

deck after 8 pm at any given time,

o If this is problematic to manage, the louvred panels in the eastern façade of the deck

may be closed to facilitate additional guests,

Doors to the eatery should be closed at 8 pm if there is a function on the first floor,

Doors to the eatery and function room must remain closed between 10 pm and midnight

every day.

General Noise Management Plan

Management procedures should be put in place to prevent shouting, swearing, loud speech

or other unsociable behaviour so far as is reasonably practicable,

There should be no speakers, video screens, or televisions located outside the building,

including on the deck,

Any video screens located in the roof top terrace should be set to a low level so that

conversation can be held in this area at all times.

3.3.4 Waste Management

Waste collection will be undertaken by private contractor and the collection point will be kerbside in the proposed designated loading bay. Existing Bin storage area will be retained and reused. A covered external sewer point is proposed to be added to connect bin wash out pipes to allow bins to be drained to sewer via connected pipes during wash out procedures and not to stormwater.


22

4 MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

In accordance with Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

(as amended) the relevant matters for consideration are addressed as follows:

4.1 Relevant Legislation

4.1.1 Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

The purpose of the Act is to maintain a healthy, productive and resilient environment for the

greatest well-being of the community, now and into the future, consistent with the principles of

ecologically sustainable development (described in section 6 (2) of the Protection of the

Environment Administration Act 1991).

The proposed Alterations and Additions to the existing structure does not require the clearing of

any native vegetation. A Biodiversity Offset Scheme Entry Threshold Report has been submitted

with this development application. The report indicates that the development area is below the

area threshold requiring offsets, and that the site does not contain vegetation mapped as being

biodiversity valuable. The proposal is not likely to have a significant effect on threatened species

or their habitats and that further biodiversity assessment would not be required.

4.2 State Environmental Plans

4.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

This State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) was gazetted on 28 August 1998 and applies to the

whole State. It introduces planning controls for the remediation of contaminated land and requires

an investigation to be made if land contamination is suspected.

The proposal involves Alterations and Additions to the existing structure located on site. The

development includes selected demolition, and minor cut and fill to prepare the site for the

addition on the southern elevation. The structure has operated as a function centre since its

approval (BA93/188) dated 12th July 1993. The site has no known issues of land contamination,

there is no reason to suspect that this property is subject to any contamination. On this basis, the

subject site is considered to be suitable for the continued use as a function centre and small

bar/restaurant.

4.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The purpose of this SEPP is to ensure that effective infrastructure can be delivered across the state.

As the subject site is located approximately 25m north of Queen Street zoned SP2, this SEPP

applies.

Clause 104 Traffic Generating Development applies to the subject site as the Alterations and

Addition results in a building having a GFA of greater than 300m2 and being a site located within

90m from a major road.


23

Specifically subclause 104 (1) states:

(1) This clause applies to development specified in Column 1 of the Table to Schedule 3

that involves:

(a) new premises of the relevant size or capacity, or

(b) an enlargement or extension of existing premises, being an alteration or

addition of the relevant size or capacity.

It is noted that the structure being altered fronts onto Prince Alfred Street, and is north of Queen

Street by approximately 25m. There are no proposed changes to the access to the development

site which will continue to utilise a porte-cochere driveway to Prince Alfred Street.

A Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment prepared by McLaren Traffic Engineering has been

submitted with this development application. Section 6 of the report concludes the following:

“In view of the foregoing, the subject Proposed Alterations and Additions to the Existing

Event Facility at 13 Prince Alfred Street, Berry (as depicted in Annexure A) is fully

supportable in terms of its traffic and parking impacts. The following outcomes of this

traffic and parking impact assessment are relevant to note:

Following, the proposed alteration and additions, the development is expected to

generate parking demand for up to 44 car parking spaces, with 31 parking spaces

required under strict application of Shoalhaven City Council DCP requirements. The

existing development is expected to have generated demand of up to 83 parking

spaces, some 39 spaces greater the expected peak demand of the proposal. Both the

existing and proposed developments include a nil (0) provision of car parking. However,

it is important to note that the existing development paid contributions for public car

parking that were considered adequate by the Shoalhaven City Council for the use of

the existing development. Therefore, as the expected parking demand following the

proposed alterations and additions is less than the existing peak demand, the

development can maintain use of the public car parking contributed to under the

existing development, as well as any available on-street car parking.

Council’s DCP does not require the provision of bicycle and motorcycle parking

facilities. Regardless one (1) motorcycle parking space and an area for bicycle

parking have been provided.

Given the constraints of the existing development, it is proposed that the existing

15.5m section of kerb between the two existing driveways be signpost restricted as a

“LOADING ZONE” between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm on weekdays and between

9:00am and 11:00am on weekends. As this signposted loading zone will replace

kerbside parking area, vehicles loading within this area will not obstruct or otherwise

adversely impact the function of Prince Alfred Street.

The existing vehicular access driveways and porte-cochere circulation area are not

proposed to be altered under the proposed development. As such, the acceptability and

compliance of the driveways and circulation areas with Australian Standards is subject

to the prior certification of these features.


24

The peak traffic generation expected to occur from the proposed development is 47

vehicle trips (34 in, 13 out or 13 in, 34 out) during the evening peak period when a

function is booked at the proposed development. With consideration that the existing

“Gabby’s at Berry” development is expected to have generated up to 75 peak hourly

vehicle trips, the proposed development is expected to generate a minimum of 28 less

vehicle trips than the existing development. Therefore, there will be no detrimental

impact to the performance of the intersections or on residential amenity surrounding

the site as a result of the generated traffic. “

The proposed Alterations and Additions and ongoing use of the site will have no foreseeable

impacts on the existing infrastructure that surrounds the subject site.

4.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy – Coastal Management 2018

The Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) commenced on 3 April 2018.

The SEPP aims to:

“promote an integrated and co-ordinated approach to land use planning in the coastal zone

in a manner consistent with the objects of the Coastal Management Act 2016, including the

management objectives for each coastal management area, by:

a) managing development in the coastal zone and protecting the environmental assets of

the coast, and

b) establishing a framework for land use planning to guide decision-making in the coastal

zone, and

c) mapping the 4 coastal management areas that comprise the NSW coastal zone for the

purpose of the definitions in the Coastal Management Act 2016 and draft maps of the

coastal management areas that make up the coastal zone were publicly notified from

11 November 2016 to 20 January 2017.”

The subject site is mapped as being within the Coastal Environment Area under the Coastal

Management SEPP as seen in Figure 27. The Broughton Creek, and the Broughton Mill Creek are

located south-east of the site.

Figure 27: Extract SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018 showing the subject site outlined in yellow


25

Division 3 Clause 13 - Development on Land within the coastal environment area applies to the

site. Clause 13 is listed below with comments provided illustrating how the proposed development

satisfies the clause.

13 Development on land within the coastal environment area

(1) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is within the

coastal environment area unless the consent authority has considered whether the proposed

development is likely to cause an adverse impact on the following:

(a) the integrity and resilience of the biophysical, hydrological (surface and

groundwater) and ecological environment,

(b) coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes,

(c) the water quality of the marine estate (within the meaning of the Marine Estate

Management Act 2014), in particular, the cumulative impacts of the proposed

development on any of the sensitive coastal lakes identified in Schedule 1,

(d) marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped

headlands and rock platforms,

(e) existing public open space and safe access to and along the foreshore, beach,

headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a

disability,

(f) Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places,

(g) the use of the surf zone.

(2) Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause

applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse

impact referred to in subclause (1), or

(b) if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited

and will be managed to minimise that impact, or

(c) if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate

that impact.

The proposed development will have no foreseeable impacts on foreshore vegetation, fauna,

habitats and landforms. The subject site is located approximately 225m north-west of the

Broughton Mill Creek which joins the Broughton Creek approximately 1.5km south-east. The

development site is located within the Berry town centre, with stormwater and sewer

infrastructure currently connected to the site. The development will not adversely impact the

coastal environment as is deemed to meet the criteria listed under this SEPP.

4.3 Local Environmental Plans

4.3.1 Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014

The site is subject to the provisions of Shoalhaven City Council Local Environmental Plan (SLEP)

2014. The proposal is consistent with the controls applicable to the land under SLEP 2014, as

outlined below.


26

Clause 2.2 – Zoning of land to which Plan applies

Clause 2.2 and 2.3 specify land use zones and permissible uses within each zone. The subject site

is zoned as B2 Local Centre. An extract of the SLEP 2014 can be seen in Figure 28 with the site

outlined in blue.

Figure 28: Zoning map showing the subject sites outlined in blue

The objectives of the B2 zone are:

• To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the

needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

• To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

• To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

Permitted with development consent is as follows:

Boarding houses; Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Centre-based

child care facilities; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Educational establishments;

Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Information and education facilities; Medical

centres; Oyster aquaculture; Passenger transport facilities; Recreation facilities (indoor);

Registered clubs; Residential care facilities; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises;

Roads; Service stations; Shop top housing; Tank-based aquaculture; Tourist and visitor

accommodation; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4


27

Prohibited uses within the B2 zone are:

Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Airstrips; Boat building and repair facilities; Boat

launching ramps; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Charter and

tourism boating facilities; Correctional centres; Crematoria; Depots; Eco-tourist facilities;

Electricity generating works; Environmental facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages;

Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Forestry; Freight transport facilities; Heavy industrial

storage establishments; Helipads; Highway service centres; Home occupations (sex services);

Industrial retail outlets; Industrial training facilities; Industries; Jetties; Marinas; Mooring

pens; Moorings; Mortuaries; Open cut mining; Pond-based aquaculture; Recreation facilities

(major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Research stations; Residential accommodation;

Resource recovery facilities; Rural industries; Sex services premises; Signage; Storage

premises; Transport depots; Truck depots; Vehicle body repair workshops; Veterinary

hospitals; Warehouse or distribution centres; Waste disposal facilities; Water recreation

structures; Wharf or boating facilities

The current use of the site as a function centre is listed as a permissible use within the B2 zone.

This application proposes the development retain the use as a function centre, with the addition

of a small bar/restaurant.

Under the SLEP 2014, a small bar and restaurant comes under the food and drink premises

definition:

food and drink premises means premises that are used for the preparation and retail sale of

food or drink (or both) for immediate consumption on or off the premises, and includes any of

the following:

(a) a restaurant or cafe,

(b) take away food and drink premises,

(c) a pub,

(d) a small bar.

Note.

Food and drink premises are a type of retail premises—see the definition of that term in this

Dictionary.

As noted above a food and drink premises is a subset of retail premises which is defined as follows:

retail premises means a building or place used for the purpose of selling items by retail, or

hiring or displaying items for the purpose of selling them or hiring them out, whether the items

are goods or materials (or whether also sold by wholesale), and includes any of the following:

(a) (Repealed)

(b) cellar door premises,

(c) food and drink premises,

(d) garden centres,

(e) hardware and building supplies,

(f) kiosks,

(g) landscaping material supplies,


28

(h) markets,

(i) plant nurseries,

(j) roadside stalls,

(k) rural supplies,

(l) shops,

(m) (la) specialised retail premises,

(n) timber yards,

(o) vehicle sales or hire premises,

but does not include highway service centres, service stations, industrial retail outlets or

restricted premises.

Note.

Retail premises are a type of commercial premises—see the definition of that term in this

Dictionary.

A retail premises is a type of commercial premises which is defined as follows:

commercial premises means any of the following:

(a) business premises,

(b) office premises,

(c) retail premises.

Commercial premises are listed as a permissible use within the B2 zone, and therefore the

proposed small bar and restaurant is permissible on site with development consent.

In addition, the proposed development is considered fitting within the locale, and satisfies the

objectives of the B2 zone by providing a compatible use within the Berry Town Centre. The

development provides employment opportunities and is in a highly accessible and well serviced

area.

Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings (1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the

existing and desired future character of a locality,

(b) to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar

access to existing development,

(c) to ensure that the height of buildings on or in the vicinity of a heritage item or

within a heritage conservation area respect heritage significance.

The subject site is mapped on the SLEP 2014 Maximum Height of Buildings as having an 8.5m height

restriction (I2), as seen in Figure 29. The proposed height of the structure (roof pitch) will have an

RL 19.67, with the top of the lift overrun extending to RL 20.4. The overall height will of the

structure (lift overrun) is 9.5m. The variation to the top of the roof is 370mm with the lift overrun

being a 1m Variation to the SLEP 2014 Development Standard. A Clause 4.6 Variation to the Height

control has been provided to support this application and can be found at Attachment 1.


29

Figure 29: Extract of the SLEP 2014 Maximum Height Map with the site outlined in blue

Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development standards The objectives of this Clause are to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain

development standards and to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing

flexibility.

The development standard proposed to be varied is the maximum height requirement enforced

by Clause 4.3 of the SLEP 2014. The site is mapped as I2 under the Maximum Building Height map,

and therefore allows for a maximum height of 8.5m. The proposed development has a total height

of 9.5m which exceeds the 8.5m requirement. This is a minor encroachment past the height

requirement.

Subclause 4.6(3) requires any application for variation to a development standard be supported by

a written request that seeks to justify the contravention. A Clause 4.6 Variation Statement has

been prepared and attached to this Statement of Environmental Effects (Attachment 1). This

statement provides justification for the support of the height variation.

Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Shoalhaven,

(b) to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas,

including associated fabric, settings and views,

(c) to conserve archaeological sites,

(d) to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.


30

As highlighted in Section 2.2 of this report the adjacent lots are mapped under the SLEP 2014 as

containing items of heritage significance. The adjoining Heritage item to the east (Prince Alfred

Street) is known as Item No. 60, ‘Bill’s concrete horse trough’. The adjoining Lot to the south

contains heritage item No. 91 which is the ‘Victorian Free Classical style post office’. To the west of

site is item No. 90 known as the ‘Berry Museum, and former E-S and A Bank and garden’. On the

opposite side of Prince Alfred Street to the east there are two items being No. 47 the ‘Federation

weatherboard cottage including brick stables and hedge’, and No. 48 is ‘Apex Park’.

Subclause 5.10 (4) and (5) states:

(4) Effect of proposed development on heritage significance

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause in respect of a

heritage item or heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed

development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned. This subclause

applies regardless of whether a heritage management document is prepared under

subclause (5) or a heritage conservation management plan is submitted under subclause

(6).

(5) Heritage assessment

The consent authority may, before granting consent to any development:

(a) on land on which a heritage item is located, or

(b) on land that is within a heritage conservation area, or

(c) on land that is within the vicinity of land referred to in paragraph (a) or (b),

require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to

which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage

significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area concerned.

As the development site is located adjacent to, and in the vicinity of items of Local and State

Heritage Significance, a Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by WolfPeak has been submitted

with this application.

The report provides an assessment of the heritage impact of the proposed development, and

concludes the following:

“The location of the subject site, to the rear of both heritage items, ensures the items will

continue to be appreciated, with no reduction in the heritage significance of each item.

Both heritage items remain the dominant buildings through their unique design, height and

orientation to Queen Street. The significance assessment contained with the SHI include

references to views and approaches from Queen Street for both buildings. This will not be

altered with this proposal. Less significant views to and from Prince Alfred Street will remain

relatively unchanged from current, apart from the improved and simplified aesthetic of the

subject site.

There will be no impact on the heritage significance of either building and the proposal is

supported on heritage grounds.”


31

The Heritage statement also provides the following recommendations to be implemented to

ensure the surrounding heritage items are conserved:

• Prior to commencement of works, contractors must be briefed on the heritage nature of

the items within the vicinity of the build site – in particular the nature of the State listed

Berry Museum.

• If any unanticipated archaeological deposits are identified within the project site during

demolition, the procedures contained within the Office of Environment and Heritage’s,

Unexpected Finds Protocol, should be followed and works within the vicinity of the find

would cease immediately. The contractor would contact the heritage consultant who

could assist with co-ordinating any next steps or pathways needed.

Clause 7.1 – Acid Sulfate Soils

(1) The objective of this clause is to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain

acid sulfate soils and cause environmental damage.

The subject site is identified as containing Class 5 soils under the SLEP 2014 Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS)

Maps, as seen in Figure 30. The proposed alterations and additions on the site does include minor

cut and fill activities. The works proposed will not have the potential for lowering the water table,

or likely of exposing acid sulfate soils. There are no likely impacts to ASS resulting from the proposal

as described in this application.

Figure 30: Shoalhaven LEP 2014 Acid Sulfate Map showing the site outlined in blue

Clause 7.2 – Earthworks

(1) The objective of this clause is to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is

required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes,

neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land.

This proposal will include some minor earthworks associated with the extension of the structure

to the south. The cut will be minimal, and will be used as fill on the site. There will be no significant

impact on the stability, erosion or drainage patterns of the site. Further details will be provided at

Construction Certificate Stage.


32

Clause 7.11 – Essential Services

1) Development consent must not be granted for development unless the consent authority is

satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the development are

available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when

required:

a) The supply of water.

b) The supply of electricity

c) The disposal and management of sewerage

The subject site has existing connections to town water, reticulated sewer and electrical

infrastructure. The proposed alterations and additions will require augmentation of the existing

services to provide connections to the proposed development. Further detail on service

connections will be provided at CC Stage.

4.4 Shoalhaven Development Control Plan (2014) The proposal is subject to a number of Chapters in the Shoalhaven Development Control Plan 2014.

The following section outlines how the development complies with the relevant Chapters of the

DCP. However, it should be recognised that Section 3.42 of Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 states that the DCP is only to provide guidance and is not a statutory

document with which compliance must be demonstrated. To this end, recent cases in the Land and

Environment Court have made it clear that a DCP does not have the same status or weight as an

LEP, and non-compliance with a provision of a DCP does not in itself prevent the granting of

consent.

Table 1: Applicable sections of Shoalhaven DCP 2014

DCP Chapter Response

Chapter G1 – Site analysis,

sustainable design and

buildings materials in rural

and coastal areas

The purpose of this Chapter is to outline controls for the

management of the natural and built environment. This SoEE

contains a site analysis (section 2) and images that show the

extent of vegetation, location of existing development on and

surrounding the site. A site analysis was undertaken to identify

the site constraints (section 2 of this report) which apply to the

site.

A Site Plan prepared by Robertson (Collectif) has been

submitted with this development application. The proposal is

consistent with the acceptable solutions of this chapter.

Chapter G2 – Sustainable

stormwater management and

erosion/sediment control

The site has existing connections to Council stormwater

infrastructure located at the street frontage. Pre-Development

impervious areas equate to 96.8% of the site area. Post-

Development impervious area is similar being 96.4%.

Stormwater Management Plans have been prepared by MI

Engineers which outline the proposed stormwater

management over the site.


33

The DCP Compliance Table can be found at Attachment 2

where in it is demonstrated that the proposal complies with

the relevant controls of this DCP chapter.

Chapter G3 - Landscaping

Design Guidelines

There are no proposed changes to the existing Landscaping

areas provided onsite. The landscaping is to be enhanced and

will be a continuation of the existing landscaping that adjoins

the property at No. 11 Prince Alfred Street that will improve

the streetscape. Refer to Landscape Plans prepared by Formed

Gardens Design and Construction.

Chapter G7 – Waste

minimisation and

management controls

A Waste Management Plan has been submitted with this

development application.

Chapter G17 - Business,

Commercial and Retail

Activities

The proposed alterations and additions will be retaining the

use of the site as a function centre, and proposing an

additional use as a small bar/restaurant.

Under Section 3.1 of this Statement of Environmental Effects

a description of the ongoing operation of the development is

provided.




Chapter G21 – Car parking and

traffic

The current site has zero (0) onsite car parking spaces, with a

one-way access driveway porte-cochere located at the front of

the development. This will be retained as part of the

alterations and additions.

A Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment has been prepared by

McLaren Traffic Engineering and submitted with this

application. This report provides an analysis of the parking,

traffic and availability of public transport in the surrounding

area.



the relevant controls of this DCP chapter. Where the

development does not comply with the controls of the DCP,

Variation Statements are provided in Section 4.5 of this

Statement of Environmental Effects.

Chapter N2 - Berry Town

Centre

The subject site is located within the Berry Town Centre, and

therefore this DCP Chapter applies.


34




4.5 Variation Statement - Car Parking

In relation to strict numerical compliance, attention is drawn Section 4.15(3A) to the EP&A Act

1979 which grants discretion to a consent authority to apply flexibility in the application of the

provisions of a DCP in the assessment of a development application and states as follows:

“(3A) Development control plans

If a development control plan contains provisions that relate to the development that is the

subject of a development application, the consent authority:

(a) if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development

and the development application complies with those standards—is not to require

more onerous standards with respect to that aspect of the development, and

(b) if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development

and the development application does not comply with those standards—is to be

flexible in applying those provisions and allow reasonable alternative solutions that

achieve the objects of those standards for dealing with that aspect of the

development, and

(c) may consider those provisions only in connection with the assessment of that

development application.

In this subsection, standards include performance criteria.”

Subclause (b) is of most relevance as it emphasises that there may be alternatives to strict numeric

compliance in achieving the objectives of a DCP control. It compels the consent authority to be

flexible in the application of the DCP controls where the objectives of that control are met.

In addition to the above Chapter 1 of the DCP recognises that the ‘acceptable solutions’ provided

in each Chapter of the DCP are just one example of what is considered appropriate; however,

Council may consider alternative solutions in certain circumstances. Where alternative approaches

to satisfying performance criteria are proposed Council requires a Variation Statement

demonstrating how the objectives of the relevant performance criteria will be achieved.

Chapter G21 contains the controls relevant to traffic and parking requirements the parking rates

are contained within control 5.1. Whilst the development represents a technical non-compliance

as no parking is being provided onsite it is acknowledged that the existing development provided

no parking for a function centre that had a capacity of 250 guests.

As part of the Notice of Determination (DA93/1888) that established the Reception Centre a

condition required the payment of Section 94 contributions for the provision of 15.8 car parking

spaces. The reception centre known as ‘Gabby’s at Berry’ had a dining floor area of 264.5sq.m

which included the mezzanine. Under the current DCP controls the building as a ‘reception centre’

requires the provision of 40.38 spaces.


35

It is noted under the DCP that the site is identified as being located within a CBD area. The DCP

contains definitions which includes the definition of the CBD area being described as the following:

CBD when used in reference to Chapter G21: Car Parking and Traffic means those areas:

a) identified as a Contribution Area for a Car Park Project in Shoalhaven Contributions Plan

2010; and/or

b) in the commercial centre of the town and within 400m walking distance to a public

Council car park.

In this regard the rates applicable to the proposed development fall under the CBD category.

A Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment has been prepared by McLaren Traffic Engineering and

submitted as part of the application. The report identifies that when strict parking rates are applied

the proposed development requires a total of 31 spaces. However, the report specifies that when

assessing proposed alteration and additions to an existing development that provided nil parking

spaces assessment needs to be undertaken as to determine whether any increase in parking

demand will occur following the proposed alterations and additions.

The report provides the following assessment:

4.2.1 Parking Demands of Previous Operation

When assessing any change in parking demand as a result of proposed alterations and

additions to an existing development, it is important to consider the existing use of the site

and the existing parking demand generated by the site.

The existing “Gabby’s at Berry” reception centre has been researched to operate with up

to 250 patrons. It is typical that the parking demand of function/reception centres is 1 space

per 3 patrons. Given that the site previously accommodated a peak patronage of 250

persons, it can be reasonably assumed that the site operated with a peak parking demand

of 83 parking spaces. On this basis, the site is approved for an operational demand of 83

spaces, which can be used as a baseline for the assessment of the proposed redevelopment

of the site.

4.2.2 Expected Car Parking Demand

As undertaken for the existing parking demand, the proposed maximum patronage of the

function space of 70 patrons will be used to provide a first-principles assessment, based

upon the common parking rate of 1 space per 3 patrons, of the expected parking demand

of the proposed function space.

Table 3 presents the expected parking demand of the proposal with a demand for

the function space derived from a first-principles assessment. The parking demands of the

other uses has been assessed according to the most appropriate parking demand

rates from Shoalhaven City Council’s DCP.


36

As shown in Table 3, the expected peak parking demand of the future development

following alterations and additions is 44 car parking spaces. When considering the existing

development is expected to have generated a peak car parking demand of some 83 car

parking spaces; the proposed development is expected to reduce the expected peak parking

demand of the site by some 39 car parking spaces.

On this basis, the proposed development will result in a net reduction in car parking

demand in Berry and is acceptable.

The report concludes:

In view of the foregoing, the subject Proposed Alterations and Additions to the Existing
















When considering a variation request Council’s DCP require the relevant objectives of the control

to be addressed. The objectives aligned with the control are listed below with a comment below

identifying how the development achieves the objectives:

i. Ensure that adequate off street parking is provided in conjunction with development

throughout the City.

ii. Discourage the use of streets for parking vehicles associated with traffic generated by

new development.


37

As discussed previously the historical approval creating the existing reception centre allowed for a

contribution to be paid in lieu of on-site parking. In this regard the existing development has

functioned for many years without parking on site. As demonstrated as part of the Traffic and

Parking Impact Assessment the proposed Alterations and Additions actually reduces the demand

for parking in the building and therefore reduces the number of parking spaces the building

generates.

The traffic and Parking Impact Assessment also identifies that the Council car park located within

walking distance to the site and states:

It is relevant to note that the minimum available parking within the town centre throughout

the undertaken surveys was 49 car parking spaces which is greater than the maximum

parking demand of 44 to be generated by the site. The peak operation of the proposed bar,

restaurant and function uses of the site is expected to occur from late-afternoon to evening

periods (4pm onwards) when, with reference to the parking survey results summarised in

Figure 6, there is ample town centre parking available. Indeed, the surveys indicate there

was a minimum of 238 town centre carparking spaces available from 4pm on all

three surveyed days.

In this regard it is considered that adequate parking facilities has been provided in light of the

historical approval and as such satisfies the objective of the control.

vii. To encourage developments, that through their operations, contribute to the vitality

and liveability within CBD areas.

The existing reception centre has not been recently operating, with the centre last in operation in

May 2018. The building has become dated and lacklustre with its immediate surrounds. The

proposed Alterations and Additions to the existing reception centre will provide residents and

visitors with a high-quality food and drink venue that will have significant economic benefits to the

Berry Local Centre. The positive social and economic impacts of such a proposal satisfy the

objective of the control.

ix. To ensure the traffic and road safety implications of development are adequately

assessed in accordance with current guidelines and standards.

x. To ensure that measures are put in place to offset any adverse traffic and road safety

impacts of development.

Submitted as part of the Development Application is a Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment

prepared by McLaren Traffic Engineering. The report has assessed the traffic implication of the

road network and the safety impacts of the development and they have been found to be

acceptable. In this regard the proposed development satisfies the objective of the control.

In this regard it is considered that the objectives of the control have been satisfied and the technical

departure to the control is considered to be reasonable and justified for the reasons outlined

above.


38

5 THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

5.1 Context and Setting The subject site is located on the eastern side of the Berry Town Centre fronting Prince Alfred

Street. The surrounding land is developed with a mix of residential, retail and business uses. On

the opposite side of Prince Alfred Street is Apex Park which is a public open space. There are a

number of Heritage Listed sites in the surrounding area, and sharing a boundary with the site.

Heritage items to west, south and east have all been identified in this Statement of Environmental

Effects, and addressed in the Heritage Impact Assessment submitted with this application.

The proposal is an appropriate response to allowing for the re-use of an existing building and

providing the usable floor area available to the site commensurate with the proposed uses, within

a design that is sensitive to adjoining properties and presents as a suitable scale to the street. It is

considered that the development is considered compatible with the immediately surrounding area

along with the wider area of the Berry local centre. It is noted that to be considered compatible it

does not promote sameness in built form, but rather requires that the development sits

contentedly with its surrounding context. Of relevance are the comments of Roseth SC in Project

Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191:

“22 There are many dictionary definitions of compatible. The most apposite meaning

in an urban design context is capable of existing together in harmony.

Compatibility is thus different from sameness. It is generally accepted that

buildings can exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale

or appearance, though as the difference in these attributes increases, harmony is

harder to achieve.”

Specifically, the proposed Alterations and Additions to the existing structure will result in a

development comparable in size and scale. The overall height of the structure will be similar to the

existing structure, while proposing a second floor roof terrace within the roof of the development.

A series of photomontages prepared by Robertson (Collectif) has been submitted as part of the

application. The montages illustrate the proposed development as viewed form different locations

within its immediate context.

Figure 31 shows the proposed development as viewed from Prince Alfred Street. As illustrated in

this image the front façade of the function centre/restaurants clearly demonstrating its

compatibility with the adjoining developments.

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lecjudgments/2005nswlec.nsf/00000000000000000000000000000000/6c7f6821f9191dbaca256fea00191c69?opendocument


39

Figure 31: Proposed façade of existing building as viewed from Prince Alfred Street

Figure 32 is a photomontage demonstrating the relationship between the rear façade and the

adjoining heritage museum as viewed from the public car park looking east.

Figure 32: Rear Façade as viewed from the public car park looking east

Figure 33 and 34 depicts the proposed altered facade when viewed looking north and south along

Prince Alfred Street.

Figure 33: The proposed façade looking north along Prince Alfred Street


40

Figure 34: The proposed façade looking south along Prince Alfred Street

The current use of the structure is a function centre which will be retained, with the addition of a

small bar and restaurant use proposed as part of this application. The proposal will not have a

foreseeable negative impact on native vegetation, amenity, privacy and solar access on

surrounding properties. The development is considered complimentary to the streetscape, and

fitting to the Berry Local Centre.

5.2 Public Domain The proposed Alterations and Additions, and additional small bar and restaurant use will not

reduce the public recreational opportunities in the surrounding area. The proposal will remain

consistent with the existing developments in the surrounding area. The proposed development

will also have no significant impact on the existing public spaces. There is nothing in this proposal

that could be interpreted as being contrary to the public interest.

5.3 Access and Traffic Access

The subject site has existing vehicle access from Prince Alfred Street to the east. The existing

driveway has an access point and egress point forming a one-way driveway (porte-cochere). The

existing driveway will remain unchanged as a result of this application, and allows for vehicles to

manoeuvre onsite and leave in a forward direction. The proposed Alterations and Additions will

have no impact on the access to the site.

Transport

The subject site is located approximately 650m north of the Berry Train Station. There are also Bus

Stops located on both Queen Street to the south-west and at the train station to the south. Taxi

Services are also available in the surrounding area. There is no parking provided onsite. The Traffic

and Parking Impact Assessment addresses the on-street parking and transport availability in the

surrounding area.

Traffic

This proposal involves Alterations and Additions to the existing function centre, and additional use

as a small bar/restaurant. Under the RTA (2002) Traffic Generating Development, function centres

and small bars are not listed uses, however restaurants are listed.


41

The Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment has been prepared by McLaren Traffic Engineering and

submitted with this application. The report concludes:

“In view of the foregoing, the subject Proposed Alterations and Additions to the Existing
















Council’s DCP does not require the provision of bicycle and motorcycle parking

facilities. Regardless one (1) motorcycle parking space and an area for bicycle

parking have been provided.

Given the constraints of the existing development, it is proposed that the existing

15.5m section of kerb between the two existing driveways be signpost restricted as a

“LOADING ZONE” between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm on weekdays and between

9:00am and 11:00am on weekends. As this signposted loading zone will replace

kerbside parking area, vehicles loading within this area will not obstruct or otherwise

adversely impact the function of Prince Alfred Street.

The existing vehicular access driveways and porte-cochere circulation area are not

proposed to be altered under the proposed development. As such, the acceptability and

compliance of the driveways and circulation areas with Australian Standards is subject

to the prior certification of these features.

The peak traffic generation expected to occur from the proposed development is 47

vehicle trips (34 in, 13 out or 13 in, 34 out) during the evening peak period when a

function is booked at the proposed development. With consideration that the existing

“Gabby’s at Berry” development is expected to have generated up to 75 peak hourly

vehicle trips, the proposed development is expected to generate a minimum of 28 less

vehicle trips than the existing development. Therefore, there will be no detrimental

impact to the performance of the intersections or on residential amenity surrounding

the site as a result of the generated traffic. “

No issues relating to access or traffic as a result of the proposed development have been identified.


42

5.4 Utilities The site has existing access and connections to reticulated water, sewer, electricity and

telecommunications. The proposed Alterations and Additions will augment the existing services to

provide appropriate connections. The necessary connections to the services will be constructed at

the developer’s cost. The proposed development will not place an unreasonable additional

demand upon existing services.

5.5 Natural Hazards The subject site is not mapped as being Bushfire Prone Land or Flood Prone Land. There are no

known hazards that affect the subject site. The proposed development will not increase the risk of

hazard as a result of the proposed Alterations and Additions.

5.6 Air and Microclimate The proposed development will not have a measurable impact on air quality or microclimate.

5.7 Flora and Fauna The proposed development does not require the removal of any native vegetation. The proposal

will not result in the loss of any critical habitat, or significant impact on any endangered or

threatened flora or fauna.

A Biodiversity Offset Scheme Entry Threshold Report has been submitted as part of this

development application. This report indicates that the area of impact is below the threshold

requiring offsets. Assessment against the provisions of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 is

not required in this case.

5.8 Noise and Vibration Noise and vibration may be associated with the physical works required for the proposed

Alterations and Additions. However, this will be a temporary inconvenience and it is expected that

time constraints will be stipulated by way of relevant hours of operation in the development

consent.

The ongoing use of the site as a function centre will remain, however the application proposes the

additional use as a small bar/restaurant. An Acoustic Report has been prepared by Harwood

Acoustics dated 4 September 2019 and submitted with this application.

The report makes the following recommendations to the building construction:

Building Construction

External Walls

Existing external walls of masonry construction will be acceptable,

Any proposed new external walls are to be of masonry construction (e.g. minimum 100

mm thick concrete, double brick, brick veneer or equivalent).


43

Roof / Ceiling (roof top terrace) – see also Section 6.2 below.

The floor of the roof top terrace (level above the function space) is of concrete slab

construction which will be acceptable,

The roof of the building will be of corrugated sheet steel construction,

Heavy duty vapour barrier is to be laid below the roof,

Ceilings should comprise one layer of 13mm thick standard plasterboard in all rooms

below the sheet steel roof,

Minimum 50 mm thick glasswool or polyester insulation should be laid between the

ceiling joists, (min. density 10kg/m3) (insulation is not required for ceilings below

concrete slabs).

Glazing

All glazed windows and doors in the northern, eastern and western facades of the

building on all floors should achieve a minimum weighted sound reduction index (Rw)

rating of 36 (e.g. 10.5 mm thick V Lam hush glazing or 12.5 mm thick laminated glass),

All glazing in the northern façade of the building should be fixed pane, non-operable

windows,

French style doors in the eastern façade of the eatery and function room and lounge

bar should be heavy duty in well-sealed frames and fitted with acoustic seals.

Internal Stairwell Door System

The internal automatic door and glass wall system proposed for the stairwell at the

function space and lounge bar level is designed to prevent sound leakage from the

function area to the roof top terrace above and is therefore acceptable.

First Floor Deck

The external facades of the deck may be fitted with operable louvred panels (either

the entire façade or in combination with a solid balustrade below,

Solid operable screens in the northern portions of the deck, indicated in Appendix B,

should be closed when the deck is in use (these louvres may remain open at other times

to allow light to reach the building),

Louvres in the northern portions indicated should be constructed from any impervious

material such as 5 mm (minimum) thick glass, 04.2 mm (minimum) thick steel, timber,

fibre cement sheet, etc,

These Panels should be well sealed when closed without holes or gaps and may

require foam or neoprene weather seals to aid in providing an acoustically acceptable

screen when closed,

o Confirmation that the selected system is acoustically acceptable can be

provided prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Any louvres or balustrades on any façade of the deck may have a maximum 20 mm

gap at the base if required for drainage.


44

Reverberant Build Up of Sound

In order to minimise the reverberant build-up of sound within each of the respective spaces,

acoustical absorptive material should be applied to as much of the surface area in each

space as is practicable.

This may be done by, for example:-

Install acoustic ceilings in the eatery, function space, lounge bar and underside of

the roof in the roof top terrace,

o Fit 50 mm thick glasswool or polyester insulation (minimum density 3 2 kg

/m3) between the ceiling joists,

o Fix 13mm thick perforated plasterboard (minimum 16% open area) to the

underside of the ceiling joists,

o In the roof top terrace, the acoustic ceiling should be installed below the

new set plasterboard ceiling,

o In the eatery and function space and lounge bar, the acoustic ceiling may be

the only ceiling, providing the floor above is of concrete slab construction,

o In addition, or alternatively , consideration may be given to adhering or fixing

acoustical absorptive material directly to the ceilings and / or around the

walls, particularly in the roof top terrace area behind the seating,

o Acoustical absorptive material should also be fixed to the underside of the

soffit / awning roof over the entire first floor deck area,

o Any acoustical absorptive material should achieve a minimum Noise

Reduction Coefficient (NRC) rating of 0.75,

o Details of acoustical treatment to minimise reverberant sound can be

finalised prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

In regard to amplified music the report makes a recommend in section 6.3 of the report and states:

Amplified Music Level

Amplified music in the function room and lounge bar should not exceed a sound pressure

level (L10) of 81 dBA when measured at 3 metres from the speakers over a period of 3

minutes.

This level equates to a sound power level of 94 dBA which is based on, for example, a solo

artist; a duo or medium level of pre-recorded amplified music (i-Pod, DJ, etc).

Only low level background music to accompany diners should be played in the eatery or on

the roof top terrace. Background music should be of a level where conversation can be held

without the need for raised voices within the restaurant or on the terrace.

This typically equates to a sound pressure level of 60 dBA when measured at 3 metres from

the acoustic centres of any speakers.

All amplified music on the first-floor function area should be controlled through an in-house

sound system with levels pre-set to ensure compliance with the relevant criterion

where practicable.


45

All amplified music should be played exclusively through a sound system owned and

operated by the owners of the property. The amplifier can be calibrated, and a maximum

volume level pre-set so that the maximum allowable sound pressure levels are not

exceeded.

The amplifier must be contained in a secured area so that it is not accessible to function

guests or entertainers. Any portable media devices may be connected externally into the

amplifier via a lead/socket outside the lockable cabinet.

The volume calibration of the amplifier is to allow for the fact that portable media devices

have independent volume controls.

A sound level meter may be purchased from an electronics store so that the owner or

property manager may ‘spot check’ for noise compliance during or prior to functions. Whilst

the sound level meter will not be a Class 1 or Type 2 instrument, the sound level meter can

be calibrated by a suitably qualified acoustical consultant to determine where the level that

the meter displays that equates to the levels recommended at 3 metres from the

loudspeakers.

If any complaints are received, a noise compliance assessment of noise levels should be

undertaken by a suitably qualified acoustical consultant to ensure the recommended noise

level is not exceeded.

Alternatively, or additionally, an electronic noise limiting device may be installed inside the

function area. The device may be calibrated and set to a level that ensures the external L10

noise limits are achieved. The device will provide a warning to the management, DJ, or

artist via LED sequential lighting that the maximum noise level is close to being reached. If

the pre-set noise limit is reached and then exceeded for a period of approximately 10

seconds, the power to the sound system is disconnected.

In regard to the operation of mechanical plant the report recommends the following:

Mechanical Plant

Any mechanical plant associated with the proposal must not exceed the Intrusiveness Noise

goals established in Section 3.4 of this report when measured at the nearest residence over

a period of 15 minutes.

The predicted level of mechanical plant noise will depend upon the type of plant, location,

sound power level and times of operation.

All plant should be located as far from far from the neighbouring residence as practicable

and/or acoustically treated to ensure the design noise goals are met at all times.


46

A final assessment will be required once mechanical plant selections have been made.

However, the acceptable noise limits can readily be achieved from mechanical plant noise

for this proposal through judicious placement and selection of plant.

As discussed previously in this statement the Acoustic report also lists recommendations in regard

to the operation of the building and its proposed uses.

The report states:

Operational Scenarios and Restrictions

There should be no noise producing activity on the Site after 12 am (midnight) on any day,

The roof top terrace should close at 10 pm to patrons every day,

The first-floor deck adjoining the function room and lounge bar should close at 10 pm to

patrons every day,

Doors to the deck from the function room should remain closed whilst amplified music is

being played on the first floor at all times,

o Access to the deck should be via the southern most doors in the northern facade only

(see Appendix B),

o These doors should be automatically self -closing ,

o Seating on the deck should be such that there are only approximately 15 people on the

deck after 8 pm at any given time,

o If this is problematic to manage, the operable louvered panels in the eastern façade of

the deck may be closed to facilitate additional guests,

Doors to the eatery should be closed at 8 pm if there is a function on the first floor,

Doors to the eatery and function room must remain closed between 10 pm and

midnight every day.

General Noise Management Plan

Management procedures should be put in place to prevent shouting, swearing, loud speech

or other unsociable behaviour so far as is reasonably practicable,

There should be no speakers, video screens, or televisions located outside the building,

including on the deck,

Any video screens located in the roof top terrace should be set to a low level so that

conversation can be held in this area at all times.

The report concludes:

An assessment of the potential noise impact arising from a restaurant, bar and function

venue proposed to be established at 13 Prince Alfred Street, Berry, NSW has been

undertaken.

Provided recommendations made in Section 6 of this report are implemented and adhered

to, the level of noise emission from the proposal can meet the design noise goals derived

from Liquor and Gaming NSW, the NSW EPA and Shoalhaven City Council’s requirements.


47

5.9 Heritage The subject site is not listed as a Heritage Item however is adjacent to items of both Local and State

Heritage significance. A Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared by WolfPeak

Environmental Heritage and has been submitted with this application. The following has been

extracted from the Conclusion and Recommendation section of the report:

“This report has considered the history and setting of the subject site, 13 Prince Alfred Street,

Berry, within the context of impacts to heritage items within the vicinity.

The proposal includes alterations and additions to the existing building on the subject site.

The considered design includes:

• retention and use of a significant portion of existing building and building footprint

• simplified corrugated metal pitched roof (removal of distracting dormer elements)

• concealed roof terrace

• use of varied materials (masonry, weatherboards, glazing and steel)

• inclusion of first floor verandah/terrace

• improved façade articulation

• design of lift overrun reflecting chimney form

• inclusion of wide eaves

• traditional gable form with contemporary glazed finish

The location of the subject site, to the rear of both heritage items, ensures the items will




references to views and approaches from Queen Street for both buildings. This will not be

altered with this proposal. Less significant views to and from Prince Alfred Street will remain

relatively unchanged from current, apart from the improved and simplified aesthetic of the

subject site.


supported on heritage grounds.

Recommendations

Based on the analysis and conclusions above, the following recommendations should be

considered:

• Prior to commencement of works, contractors must be briefed on the heritage nature

of the items within the vicinity of the build site – in particular the nature of the State

listed Berry Museum.

• If any unanticipated archaeological deposits are identified within the project site

during demolition, the procedures contained within the Office of Environment and

Heritage’s, Unexpected Finds Protocol, should be followed and works within the

vicinity of the find would cease immediately. The contractor would contact the

heritage consultant who could assist with co-ordinating any next steps or pathways

needed.”


48

5.10 Safety, Security and Crime Prevention The proposed development will not result in an increased level of risk of crime or safety issues that

would normally be expected in this area. The proposed terrace located on the eastern elevation

provides additional surveillance of the street.

5.11 Social Impact in the Locality The proposed development will continue to provide function space to the Berry Town Centre, and

provide an additional small bar and restaurant to the area. The existing relationship with the

surrounding land uses be retained. The development will have no impact on the health and safety

of the community in the general area and the wider community.

The proposal will not disadvantage or displace any particular socio-economic group. It does not

have the potential to adversely affect the community structure, community values or beliefs.

5.12 Economic Impact on Locality There will be no negative economic impact on the locality as a result of this proposal. The addition

of a small bar/restaurant will provide employment opportunities, and potentially attract visitors to

the Berry Town Centre. This will benefit the local economy as the site is within walking distance to

the retail and commercial areas of Berry.

The existing use as a function centre will be retained as part of this application. This benefits the

local tourist and visitor accommodation throughout the Berry area.

5.13 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impacts of this proposal are considered positive. The proposed development aims

to reuse an existing structure and modernise it with alterations and additions that will improve the

existing streetscape.

The proximity the site has to existing services, and the positive economic benefits to the Berry

Local Centre are invaluable. The proposed development is a prime use of the existing structure for

the business zoned parcel that will continue to uphold the core objectives of the zone.

The Alterations and Additions have been designed to reduce the visual impact and complement

the immediate surrounding heritage items and business and residential zoned land. The proposal

has appropriate setbacks, enhances the existing available landscaping and designed in a way to

provide an appropriate frontage to Prince Alfred Street. The proposal is considered compatible

with the surrounding developments.


49

6 SUITABILITY OF THE PROPOSAL FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

6.1 Does the Proposal Fit in the Locality The subject site is appropriately zoned and located within close proximity to the Berry Town Centre

and main retail and commercial areas. The site has had an extensive history relating to the use of

the site as a space for celebration and gatherings of large groups of people. This proposal will

maintain the existing use of the site, and will add the opportunity to provide residents and visitors

with a superior destination venue for food and drink. The proposal does not deliver any adverse

impacts in terms of privacy, overshadowing or outlook to neighbouring properties, and will not

have a negative influence on the natural environment.

6.2 Are the Site Attributes Conducive to the Development? The proximity of the site to existing services, recreation, and employment opportunities are

advantageous features of the proposed site. The clever reuse of the existing building adds

additional opportunity to generate greater and ongoing economic benefit for the Berry Local

Centre.

7 PUBLIC INTEREST

There are no features of this proposal that could be interpreted as detrimental to the public

interest. The proposal is simply utilising the existing structure approved as reception centre, and

diverging to include additional retail opportunity by way of food and drink premises with effective

use of space. The proposed development will improve the existing scale and character, with the

proposed alterations being complementary to the existing structure. The development will have

no significant impact on the existing heritage item adjoining the site, and items in the surrounding

vicinity. There are no aspects of this proposal that could be interpreted as being contrary to the

public interest.

ATTACHMENT 1

Clause 4.6 Height Variation Request

1

Clause 4.6 Variation Statement

Clause 4.3 Height of buildings – Shoalhaven LEP 2014

Site - Lot 2 DP 1111478, No. 13 Prince Alfred Street, Berry

This submission is prepared on behalf of the owner of the property to support the Statement of

Environmental Effects (SEE) for Alterations and Additions to an existing function centre, and use as a

small bar/restaurant at Lot 2 DP 1111478 known as No. 13 Prince Alfred Street, Berry.

Clause 4.3 of the Shoalhaven LEP 2014 applies to the proposed development, and relates to height of

buildings. The clause refers to the Maximum Height of Buildings map, with the site mapped as having

an 8.5m height restriction (I2), as seen in the Figure below.

Figure 1: Extract of the SLEP 2014 Maximum Height Map

Under the LEP, building height is defined as follows:

building height (or height of building) means:

a) in relation to the height of a building in metres—the vertical distance from ground level

(existing) to the highest point of the building, or

b) in relation to the RL of a building—the vertical distance from the Australian Height Datum

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.

2

The proposal exceeds the 8.5m building height development standard, proposing a height of 9.5m at

the highest point of the building with the top of the proposed development having an RL 20.4m. At a

maximum height of 9.5m to the lift overrun the variation equates to a non-compliance of 1m or 11.7%.

The area of encroachment above the maximum height apply to the centrally located roof ridges, lift

overruns, and operable roof sections over the proposed roof terrace.

Figure 2 shows the location of the 8.5m height limit (in red) and the protrusions above. The images

indicate the height line taken above existing ground level (as per the LEP measurement of height).

Figure 2: Maximum height of building limit shown in red

Figure 3 shows the portion of the roof positioned above the 8.5m maximum building height in relation to the site.

Figure 3: Portion of roof positioned above the height

3

This request seeks to provide justification to the departure from the provisions of Clause 4.3 of the

Shoalhaven LEP 2014.

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

The objectives and provisions of clause 4.6 are as follows:

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development

standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in

particular circumstances.

(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the

development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other

environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development

standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

(3) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development

standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that

seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the

circumstances of the case, and

(b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the

development standard.

(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development

standard unless:

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

i. the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be

demonstrated by subclause (3), and

ii. (ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with

the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the

zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(b) the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

(5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider:

(a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance

for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

(c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Secretary before

granting concurrence.

(6) Development consent must not be granted under this clause for a subdivision of land in Zone

RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary

Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone R5 Large Lot Residential, Zone E2

Environmental Conservation, Zone E3 Environmental Management or Zone E4 Environmental

Living if:

(a) the subdivision will result in 2 or more lots of less than the minimum area specified for

such lots by a development standard, or

(b) the subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90% of the minimum area

specified for such a lot by a development standard.

4

Note. When this Plan was made it did not include all of these zones.

(7) After determining a development application made pursuant to this clause, the consent

authority must keep a record of its assessment of the factors required to be addressed in the

applicant’s written request referred to in subclause (3).

(8) This clause does not allow development consent to be granted for development that would

contravene any of the following:

(a) a development standard for complying development,

(b) a development standard that arises, under the regulations under the Act, in

connection with a commitment set out in a BASIX certificate for a building to

which State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)

2004 applies or for the land on which such a building is situated,

(ba) clause 4.1E, to the extent that it applies to land in a rural or environment protection

zone,

(bb) clause 4.2B,

(c) clause 5.4,

(ca) clause 6.1 or 6.2,

(cb) clause 7.25,

(cc) clause 4.1H.

Building Height is a “development standard” to which exceptions can be granted pursuant to clause

4.6 of the SLEP 2014.

This submission will address the requirements of subclauses 4.6(3) and (4) to demonstrate that

compliance with Clause 4.3 of SLEP 2014 with respect to the maximum height of buildings requirement

is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case and that there are sufficient

environmental planning grounds to justify the non-compliance. Thereby, imploring Council to exercise

“an appropriate degree of flexibility” in applying the development standard, and is therefore

consistent with objective 1(a).

The objectives and relevant provisions of clause 4.3 are as follows, inter alia:

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing

and desired future character of a locality,

(b) to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access

to existing development,

(c) to ensure that the height of buildings on or in the vicinity of a heritage item or within a

heritage conservation area respect heritage significance.

(2) The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the

land on the Height of Buildings Map.

In order to address the requirements of subclause 4.6(4)(a)(ii), each of the objectives of the height

clause are discussed in turn below.

5

Objective A - to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and

desired future character of a locality

The proposed building height is considered compatible with the surrounding character, with the

overall development fitting to the locality. The development does not present with excessive bulk or

scale in relation to the surrounding developments.

The proposed encroachment into the maximum building height affects only the central portion of the

building, and peak of the front elevation roofing. The lift overruns contribute to the majority of the

height non-compliance. The peaks of the roof and operatable portion of the roof over the roof terrace

is 1m above the height requirement. When viewed from the street the non-compliance will go

unnoticed as illustrated in the height blanket image in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Height Blanket as viewed from Prince Alfred Street

The proposed Alterations and Additions to the development is compatible with development in the

area. This was of particular importance as the site is adjacent to a number if heritage items. The

proposed development has been specifically designed to ensure it does not detract from the

surrounding heritage items, and to provide an attractive streetscape.

Compatibility with the adjoining development is driven by height, boundary setbacks, landscape

treatments, construction materials and design of the building. All of which were considered in the

preparation of this application and considered acceptable. It is noted that the adjoining buildings

located to the south and west of the subject also breach the maximum building height limit.

The lift overruns on the subject building are at a proposed height of RL 20.4. With reference to the

adjoining building to the south, being the old post office, the existing chimneys on the building are at

a height of RL 20.81 & RL 20.81. These being 410mm higher than the proposed lift over runs of the

subject building, having an overall height and therefore non-compliant height greater than the subject

building. Additionally, the main ridge height of the adjoining post office building is RL 20.25, which is

580mm higher than the proposed ridge height of the subject building.

6

Adjoining the subject site to the west contains the Museum building. The Museum has a frontage to

Queen Street and extends north along the property. The tallest of the 3 chimneys on the building are

positioned at an existing height of RL 20.58, RL 20.57 & RL 20.57. These heights are approximately

280mm higher than the proposed lift over runs on the proposed subject building. It also noted that

the parapet to the museum building fronting Queen Street is positioned in line with the chimneys. In

this regard the ridge height and the parapet of the museum are positioned at a height that is greater

than the subject proposal.

The comparison of the proposed heights and the existing height breaches are demonstrated in the

height blanket diagrams shown in Figures 5 and 6 below.

Figure 5: Height blanket looking south from the northern boundary of the subject property

Figure 6: Height blanket looking west from Prince Alfred Street

7

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed height breach will not result in a building form that is

antipathetic to the character objectives of the height control and is considered compatible with the

surrounding locality.

Objective B - to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to

existing development.

In terms of solar access to the adjoining developments and the public domain, the proposed height

non-compliance does not significantly contribute towards any additional overshadowing of the

adjoining public domain or properties that would be unacceptable or cause non-compliance with DCP

solar access standards.

The adjoining property to the north is a residential dwelling with ancillary structures along the side

boundary between the two sites. This property being located north of the site will not be significantly

impacted by the height non-compliance, and receive solar access in compliance with the DCP. There

are windows on the upper floor on the northern elevation of the proposed building. These windows

adjoin the function space, and are setback 1.65m from the side boundary. The main living rooms of

the adjoining property are not in direct view from the proposed development.

The property to the south operated as a function centre and restaurant. Seating areas and outdoor

terraces are located on the southern, western and eastern elevation of the building, with the northern

elevation containing the service and bin storage areas. Again the proposed development will not

project shadow onto this site and cause non-compliance with the DCP.

The proposal will not compromise the amenity of neighbouring properties. It is considered that there

will be no unreasonable detrimental impact to privacy and daylight access for neighbouring

properties.

Objective C - to ensure that the height of buildings on or in the vicinity of a heritage item or within a

heritage conservation area respect heritage significance.

As mentioned earlier in this statement, the subject site is not a heritage item, but is located adjacent

to heritage items to the east, south and west. Ensuring the heritage items retained their significance

and place on the street was considered greatly throughout the preparation of this proposal. A Heritage

Consultant (WolfPeak) was engaged and has prepared a Statement of Heritage Impact to accompany

the application.

The Heritage Statement provides conclusions and recommendations, with the following extract taken

from the conclusion section of the report:

“The location of the subject site, to the rear of both heritage items, ensures the items will




8

references to views and approaches from Queen Street for both buildings. This will not be altered

with this proposal. Less significant views to and from Prince Alfred Street will remain relatively

unchanged from current, apart from the improved and simplified aesthetic of the subject site.


supported on heritage grounds.”

Despite the non-compliance, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the

objectives in the SLEP 2014 for the maximum building height.

As required by Clause 4.6(4) the objectives of the zone are also required to be considered. The

objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone are as follows:

• To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs

of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

• To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

• To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

In response to the above zone objectives, the proposed development is consistent in that it will

provide a compatible use with in the Berry Town Centre, and provides employment opportunities, and

is located in a highly accessible and well serviced area.

Unreasonable and Unnecessary

Clause 4.6(3)(a) requires that the variation request demonstrate that compliance with the

development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. In Wehbe V

Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827 Preston CJ sets out ways of establishing that compliance with a

development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. It states, inter alia:

“An objection under SEPP 1 may be well founded and be consistent with the aims set out in

clause 3 of the Policy in a variety of ways. The most commonly invoked way is to establish that

compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the

objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with

the standard.”

The judgement goes on to state that:

“The rationale is that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of

achieving ends. The ends are environmental or planning objectives. Compliance with a

development standard is fixed as the usual means by which the relevant environmental or

planning objective is able to be achieved. However, if the proposed development proffers an

alternative means of achieving the objective strict compliance with the standard would be

unnecessary (it is achieved anyway) and unreasonable (no purpose would be served).”

9

In Wehbe, Preston CJ expressed the view that there are five ways in which an objection may be well

founded and that approval of the objection may be consistent with the aims of the policy:

1. The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the

standard

2. The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development

and therefore compliance is unnecessary;

3. The underlying object of purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was

required and therefore compliance is unreasonable;

4. The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council's

own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance

with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable;

5. The zoning of the particular land is unreasonable or inappropriate so that a

development standard appropriate for that zoning is also unreasonable and

unnecessary as it applies to the land and compliance with the standard that would be

unreasonable or unnecessary. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have

been included in the particular zone.

Further, the Land and Environment Court in Four2Five v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 has now

found that whether something was ‘unreasonable or unnecessary’ is now addressed specifically in

Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii). Specifically requiring separate attention to the question of whether compliance is

unreasonable or unnecessary. Accordingly, while it is demonstrated above that the objectives of the

standard are achieved despite non-compliance with the standard, further discussion is provided. As

required by Clause 4.6(3)(a) this variation seeks to demonstrate that requiring strict adherence to the

standard would be ‘unreasonable or unnecessary’ for reasons that are additional to consistency with

the development standard.

Having regard to all of the above, it is considered that compliance with the maximum height of building

standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of this case for the reasons set out

below:

The proposed height variation is centrally located on the roof pitches, operable portion of the

roof terrace, and the lift overruns. They will not be visually dominate to the immediately

adjoining properties around the site.

When viewed from the street the development will appear two storey in height, as the roof

terrace is within the roof and not visible from the surrounding sites.

The variation is considered minor, being only an 11.7% variation to the development standard.

The proposed development meets the objectives of the height control and zone, and strict

numeric compliance with the height control would be contrary to its objectives, and the zone’s

objectives.

Strict compliance with the height control will inevitably lead to a reduction in ceiling heights,

the removal of lifts or loss of a floor. This is not a desirable outcome for the development, and

would decrease the amenity of the development.

In this regard, strict compliance with the building height control is considered to be unreasonable and

unnecessary given the circumstances of the development. As identified the proposal is compliant with

10

the relevant objectives and will have no adverse environmental or amenity impacts. The proposal is

therefore justified on environmental planning grounds. For the reasons above, the proposed building

height variation is consistent with the requirements of Cause 4.6(3)(a) of the SLEP 2014.

Environmental planning grounds for non-compliance

Having regard to Clause 4.6(3)(b), this submission is also required to demonstrate that there are

sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify non-compliance with the maximum height of

building development standard.

It is considered that the proposal represents a building height which is compatible with the character

of the surrounding area, and generally in keeping with the height of developments in the Berry Local

Centre. The development will not impact on the surrounding heritage items, and not detract from

their prominence in the Berry Local area.

The development presents an improved urban design outcome for the subject site, and proposes an

improved building façade fronting the street. The following points provide sufficient environmental

planning grounds to justify the variation of the height control:

The height departure is limited to the central portions of the roof, operatable roof areas, and

lift overruns;

The development has been designed to minimise impacts on neighbouring properties, and

retain the heritage items in the surrounding area;

Strict compliance with the numerical building height standard would not result in any

foreseeable benefits, and would have significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the

development;

The proposed height variation will not be visually dominant from the street frontage, with the

proposal appearing as two storey from public spaces as the roof terrace is concealed with in

the roof;

The non-compliant sections of the building do not contribute to overshadowing, loss of

privacy, or loss of view, being limited to roof features and lift overruns;

The development is compliant with other development standards under the LEP, and does not

result in further non-compliances with the DCP as a result in the height variation.

The development has been designed to provide a high quality urban design outcome by providing an

improved building façade. The development does not detract from the surrounding heritage items,

and provides a positive outlook to the streetscape.

Considering the detailed justification provided in this Variation Statement, we are of the opinion that

the proposal demonstrates that it is in the public interest to grant exception to the development

standard as the development is consistent with the zone objectives and objectives under Clause 4.3.

We are of the belief that the Clause 4.3 development standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in

this instance and therefore seek Council support the minor variation to the height development

standard.

ATTACHMENT 2

Shoalhaven Development Control Plan – Compliance Table

ATTACHMENT 1 SHOALHAVEN DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2014 – Compliance Table

1

Performance Criteria Acceptable Solutions Proposed Complies

CHAPTER G2 - Sustainable Stormwater Management and Erosion/Sediment Control

5.1.1 – Minor and Major Systems

P1 To ensure the appropriate design of minor and major drainage systems including:

• The development will not increase the risk to life or safety of persons during a storm event (see section 4.1.1 of Sustainable Stormwater Technical Guidelines).

• Stormwater discharge from the development or work will be managed to safely convey stormwater flows.

• Runoff from the development is discharged without adverse impacts on existing infrastructure and neighbouring properties.

• Ensure continuity of overland flow paths where possible.

• Ensure stormwater systems are designed in accordance with industry standards.

General

A1.1 The design and construction of minor and major drainage systems are to be in accordance with proposed stormwater controls in this Chapter and Council’s Engineering Design Specification.

The stormwater runoff on the roof of the development will be directed to downpipes which discharge to the surcharge pits located at the street frontage. There are existing connections to Council stormwater infrastructure located at the street. Stormwater runoff overland will be directed to the street.

The Roofed Terrace will be graded and supplied with rainwater outlets for stormwater to drain from the area.

Refer to the Stormwater Management Plans prepared by MI Engineers which outlines the proposed stormwater management of the site.

Yes

Minor System Drainage

A1.2 For residential and rural residential areas, the drainage must be designed to cater for a 5 year ARI event.

N/A N/A

A1.3 For mixed residential / commercial, commercial and industrial development, the drainage must be designed to cater for a 10 year ARI event.


Yes

A1.4 Runoff from impervious areas must not be concentrated or directed onto neighbouring properties.

The runoff from impervious areas are to be directed towards the the street frontage.


Yes


2



A1.5 Kerb and gutters may not be required if it is proven that soil permeability is sufficient to allow natural infiltration of stormwater runoff without causing adverse impacts onsite or to neighbouring properties.

Gutters are proposed.


Yes

A1.6 Runoff from roof gutters and downpipes can be directed to an existing or proposed stormwater system, when it can be proved that the systems design capacity is not exceeded.

Runoff from roof gutters and downpipes will be directed to the proposed surcharge pits, and connected to the existing Council stormwater infrastructure.


Yes

5.1.2 – Climate Change Controls

P2 Major system design must consider the impact of changes to rainfall intensity due to climate change.

A2.1 Climate change impacts, such as changes to rainfall intensity, are incorporated into system design as per relevant policies and/or Australian Rainfall & Runoff (AR&R) Guidelines.

N/A N/A

P3 Where relevant, major and minor system design must consider the impact of sea level rise.

A3.1 Sea level rise is incorporated into system design as per relevant policies and/or AR&R Guidelines.

N/A

N/A

5.1.3 – Onsite Stormwater Detention (OSD)


3



Onsite Stormwater Detention may be required for all development except:

(a) For alterations, additions, ancillary structures and second storey additions in areas within the 5 year ARI flood extents as identified in a flood study or floodplain risk management study adopted by Council where:

i) The addition is less than 10% of the existing development footprint; and ii) The overall site impervious areas are less than 50% of the site.

(b) For change of use where no increase in impervious area is proposed;

(c) For new developments in subdivisions where OSD has already been provided for the entire subdivision.

P4 To ensure that the use of onsite stormwater detention (OSD) is appropriate the needs of the development including:

• Post development peak flow should match as closely as possibly predevelopment peak flow.

• OSD measures are made safe.

• The development does not place an unacceptable financial burden on landowners or the community.

• OSD designed in accordance with industry standards.

A4.1 OSD is to be sized to match pre-development peak flow rates for the 5, 20 and 100 year ARI rain events for that site.

OSD is not proposed as the development is for alterations, additions, and change of use where the total amount of impervious area is not increased.


Yes

5.2 – Stormwater Reuse

This section applies to all development that is not subject to BASIX.


4



P5 To optimise the reuse of stormwater to provide an alternative water supply.

A5.1 Residential buildings not affected by BASIX are encouraged to install rainwater tanks to meet a portion of supply such as outdoor use, toilets, laundry.

N/A N/A

A5.2 Any overflow from rainwater tanks will be directed into an existing stormwater system where possible, alternatively the overflow will be managed so that it does not cause nuisance to neighbouring properties (see Sustainable Stormwater Technical Guidelines).

N/A N/A

A5.3 Stormwater use within public open space (irrigation, street cleaning, public amenities) is encouraged.

N/A N/A

5.3 – Stormwater Quality and Waterway Protection

P6 The development or work will not cause erosion and siltation.

A6.1 An erosion and sediment control plan or soil and water management plan must be prepared in accordance with:

• Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction Volume 1 (Landcom 2004) (Blue Book Vol. 1)

• Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction Volume 2 (DECCW, 2008) (Blue Book Vol. 2) and,

Appropriate stormwater and erosion controls will be implemented during construction. Details will be provided at CC Stage, and can be conditioned in the development consent.

Yes


5



• Council’s policy on Stormwater Protection on Construction Sites

5.3.2 – Stormwater Retention – General

P7 Adequate retention storage is provided in the development.

A7.1 The volume of retention storage provided is to be equal to or greater than:

[storage depth*] X [increase in impervious surfaces compared to pre-development]

*as outlined below (refer to Sustainable Stormwater Technical Guidelines for further details).

The proposed development will decrease the amount of impervious area post development from 96.8% to 96.4% post development.


N/A

5.3.3 – Small/Medium Scale Development – Site Discharge Index

P8 Site discharge will have a minimal impact on receiving waterways and stormwater systems.

A8.1 Development should be designed to achieve a site discharge index (SDI) that does not exceed 0.1 (refer to Sustainable Stormwater Technical Guidelines for further details).


Yes


6


Chapter G17 – Business, Commercial and Retail Activities

P1 To ensure the development and/or use does not generate emissions that could adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring premises.

A1.1 The proposal is not to cause unacceptable levels of perceptible odours (including cooking odours), fumes, smoke, gas, vapours, steam, soot, ash, dust or grit.

The proposed use as a small bar/ restaurant will not introduce any levels of unacceptable odours that would normally be expected from a typical establishment of its nature.

Yes

P2 To ensure the development and/or use does not discharge any unregulated waste that may damage the environment or adversely affect the amenity of the area.

A2.1 The proposal should not generate any contaminated waste.

The proposed use and development will not produce any contaminated waste. Typical waste will be generated and disposed of appropriately.

Yes

A2.2 The activity should not cause soil or ground water contamination by the release or deposition of any liquid or solid wastes (including oil products and chemicals or their compounds) on to the soil.

The activity will not release or deposit any liquid or soil waste to the surrounding land.

Yes

A2.3 If the proposal has the potential to discharge liquid trade waste to Council's sewer you must obtain a liquid trade waste discharge approval from Shoalhaven Water. Additional contaminant prevention devices may be required by Council.

N/A N/A

P3 To provide adequate provision for on-site collection, storage and disposal of waste products in a way that does not adversely affect neighbouring premises or the environment.

A3.1 Collection and disposal of waste should be through Council’s regular collection service and/or a private waste contractor.

General waste will be collected through a private waste collector. Further details will be provided at CC Stage.

Yes

A3.2 If waste is to be collected by a private waste contractor, the site design must be able to accommodate the vehicle manoeuvring

The section of street frontage between the two driveways will be utilised for service vehicles. the existing 15.5m section of kerb between the two existing driveways be signpost restricted as a “LOADING ZONE” between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm on weekdays and between 9:00am and 11:00am on

N/A


7



requirements of that vehicle for onsite collection.

weekends. By utilising a designated kerbside area for loading, trucks will not be required to reverse (causing an audible warning) and will not compromise the safety of either the carriageway or footpath.

A3.3 Waste and recycling storage areas should be of a size to meet the current and future needs of tenants. This includes potential waste and recycling requirements of a future change of use.

Services area are shown on the Site Plans submitted with this application.

Yes

A3.4 Waste and recycling storage areas should be sited to minimise negative amenity impacts (noise, visual and odour).

The waste, recycling and service areas will be located on the southern side of the development. This is the current area used for services. The area will be not be visible from the street frontage.

Yes

A3.5 Development applications should be accompanied by a waste minimisation and management plan.

A Waste Minimisation and Management Plan has been submitted with this application.

Yes

P4 To ensure the hours of operation do not have an unreasonable adverse impact on any neighbouring premises.

A4.1 Hours of operation are limited to normal business hours.

Refer to Section 3.1 which includes a description of the ongoing operation of the site.

Yes

A4.2 Council will consider variations to normal business hours if it can be demonstrated that the proposed hours are crucial to the operation of your business and that no negative amenity impacts will result.

Refer to Section 3.1 which includes a description of the ongoing operation of the site.

Yes


8



P5 To ensure any change of use meets relevant fire safety requirements.

A5.1 All existing fire safety measures and those that are proposed to satisfy the fire safety requirements of the new use are to be described as part of the development application.

Noted. The development will be constructed to satisfy the fire safety requirements. Further details will be provided at CC Stage.

Yes

A5.2 Where necessary, the building must be upgraded to satisfy fire safety requirements if required by Council.

Noted. The development will be constructed to satisfy the fire safety requirements. Further details will be provided at CC Stage.

Yes


9

Chapter G21 – Car Parking and Traffic

Performance Criteria Acceptable Solution Proposed Complies

5.1 - Car Parking Schedule

Restaurant; and small bar (not exceeding 150m2 ) in CBD areas utilising existing retail or office developments.

Within the CBD 1 space per 24m² gross floor area.

Outside the CBD 1 space per 6.5m² of public dining area.

Function rooms/restaurant or cafe - 1 space per 24m² gross floor area within CBD areas or 1 space per 6.5m² gross dining area outside CBD area.

Small Bar Area -169m2 - Requires 7 spaces

Restaurant Area - 316.3m2 - Requires 13.2 spaces

Function Room - 251.3m2 - Requires 10.5 spaces

Total 31 Spaces

There are no parking spaces provided onsite. The parking requirements have been addressed in the Statement of Environmental Effects and Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment submitted with this application.

Refer to Statement

5.2 - Traffic

P1 To ensure new development:

• can be accommodated without adverse impact on the surrounding road network.

• Does not jeopardise the provision of future network requirements.

A1.1 A traffic study is provided as required by the relevant SEPP, or in accordance with RMS guidelines.

Refer to the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment which has been prepared by McLaren Traffic Engineering. The report addresses the traffic and parking impacts of the proposed development.

No further traffic studies are required.

Yes

A1.2 A traffic statement is provided where the application falls outside SEPP requirements, or where requested by Council.

See A1.1 above. Yes

A1.1 A traffic study or statement is provided that has been prepared in accordance with RMS and AUSTROADS guidelines to the satisfaction of Council.

See A1.1 above. Yes

5.3 - Parking Layout and Dimensions


10



P2 To provide safe and efficient circulation, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles.

A2.1 Car parking spaces are provided on-site and are readily accessible from the road frontage of the development.

N/A N/A

A2.2 Applications are to state whether the proposed parking layout has been designed in accordance with Chapter G21: Car Parking and Traffic or AS2890. Where AS2890 is proposed, adequate justification is required.

N/A N/A

A2.3 Parking spaces must be clearly marked with line marking and signage (if restrictions are required to regulate, or improve safety and/or efficiency) and must be installed in accordance with relevant standards. Where signs and lines are required on a public road or road related area to make safe and efficient the development, approval of the Shoalhaven Traffic Committee must first be obtained.

N/A N/A

P3 To minimise potential for pedestrian conflict.

A3.1 Entrance to parking areas must not be accessed through buildings or carports.

N/A N/A

P4 To ensure that a vehicle can enter and leave the parking space in no more than two manoeuvres.

A4.1 Parking spaces located adjacent to an obstruction shall be of a larger dimension as indicated in Figure 2.

There are no car parking spaces provided onsite. The site has a one-way driveway to the front of the development. Refer to the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment prepared by McLaren Traffic Engineering.

Yes

A4.2 Dead-end parking aisles longer than 15m are not permitted, unless used in situations of

N/A N/A


11



low vehicle turnover, such as employee parking and are to be sign posted accordingly.

There are no proposed dead-end parking aisles.

A4.3 The minimum car space and aisle dimensions are shown in Figure 2. Where an applicant submits a proposal for off street parking based on AS2890 and can submit supporting justification, the proposal can be assessed against that standard in lieu of the provisions of this Chapter.

N/A

N/A

A4.4 Stack parking of vehicles in not supported by Council unless part of a mixed use, commercial, managed residential development or a mix of these uses with a management plan in place.

N/A

There is no proposed stacked parking.

N/A

5.4 - Access

P5.1 To ensure that driveways relate to: i) Type of land use ii) Frontage road type iii) Size of parking facility iv) Type of vehicle likely to enter the development

P5.2 To ensure that traffic safety is preserved both on-site and within the local road network.

A5.1 Development must be designed so that vehicles enter and leave the premises in a forward direction.

Compiles.

The existing access driveway will be retain as part of this application which provides sufficient manoeuvring space for vehicles to enter and exit in a forward direction. This is a one-way driveway and suitable for private vehicles.

Refer to the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment prepared by McLaren Traffic Engineering.

Yes

A5.2 Where more than one access point is proposed to a site, the first driveway reached by traffic must be the entrance.

N/A

The driveway is one-way. Refer to the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment prepared by McLaren Traffic Engineering.

N/A


12



A5.3 Each site must minimise the number of ingress and egress points to any street frontage.

The driveway is one-way with one access and one egress point to the street. Refer to the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment prepared by McLaren Traffic Engineering.

Yes

A5.4 Vehicular access to parking areas will not be permitted in close proximity to traffic signals, major intersections or where sight distance is considered inadequate. Site distance requirements must comply with Figure 3.2 in AS2890.1.

N/A N/A

A5.5 Driveways must be located a minimum of six (6) metres from the corner of a building located on corner lots. See Figure 3.

Complies.

No change to existing access or egress.

Yes

A5.6 Buildings must be designed to ensure that there is adequate sight distance at intersections and driveways. In some instances this may require the provision of splay corners on buildings.

Complies.

The proposed development will not impact on the sight distances in the surrounding area.

Yes

A5.7 A building splay will be required where a driveway adjoins.

N/A N/A

A5.8 Turning paths for vehicles will be based upon the largest vehicles likely to utilise the premises.


Yes

A5.9 Driveways must be a minimum of 1m from the side boundary.

The existing driveway location will be retained as part of the development of the site.

Yes


13



A5.10 Where car parking exceeds 50 spaces separate provision must be made for ingress and egress.

N/A N/A

A5.11 Treatments such as threshold treatment or the provision of speed humps should be provided where a driveway crosses a footpath to ensure the safety of pedestrians.

N/A N/A

A5.12 Prohibited driveway locations and driveway orientation are indicated in Figure 3.

Complies. Yes

A5.13 Ramps must not extend across the footpath.

Complies. Yes

A5.14 When new principal arterial roads are provided, there shall be no direct access for new allotments.

N/A N/A

A5.15 Where direct access from allotments to arterial roads currently exist, shared access will be required when feasible.

N/A N/A

5.5 - Manoeuvrability

P6 To ensure adequate space is provided for the manoeuvring of vehicles, particularly rigid and articulated heavy vehicles.

A6.1 The following minimum turning paths are achieved:

Commercial development

• Less than 500m2 GFA: o Turning circle required to accommodate small rigid truck.

The existing access driveway to be retained will allow for a private vehicle to manoeuvre and leave in a forward direction. Larger service vehicles will not be able to enter the site. A Loading zone is proposed along the street frontage.

Yes


14



• Greater than 500m2 GFA: o Large Rigid Truck. o 19.0m semi-trailer.


5.6 – Service Areas

P7 To provide suitable areas for safe and efficient loading/unloading of goods

A7.1 Service areas should operate independently of other parking areas.

N/A

There is no proposed parking onsite as part of this application. A loading zone is proposed along the street frontage for service vehicle use.


N/A

P8 To ensure all servicing occurs on-site.

A8.1 All vehicles must enter and leave the site in a forward direction.

Complies.

Vehicles capable of entering the site will be able to leave in a forward direction. A loading zone is proposed along the street frontage for service vehicle use.

Yes

A8.2 Internal roadways must be adequate in construction

N/A N/A

5.7 – Landscape Design

P9.1 To lessen the visual impact of car park areas.

A9.1 The application must include detailed landscape plans indicating dimensions, levels and drainage, existing vegetation as well as location, type and character of proposed plantings.

Complies.

There are no proposed changes to the landscaped area provided onsite. The landscape areas along the street frontage and western elevation will be enhanced.

Yes

P9.2 Provide shade areas for cars and pedestrians.


15



P9.3 Ensure that the landscaping is an integral part of the car park design.

P10 To ensure that landscaping does not interfere with the proper functioning of car park areas.

A10.1 Perimeter planting to screen the proposed car park is to be defined in your landscape plan. The minimum width of perimeter planting is 3m and 1m for driveways.

N/A

The existing landscaping is provided adjacent to the building and driveway. There is no change to the existing areas of landscaping however these areas will be enhanced.

N/A

A10.2 Internal plantings of car parking areas are to be of a nature to shade cars and soften the impact of hard paved surfaces without obscuring visibility.

N/A

Not required at this scale of development.

N/A

A10.3 Consideration should also be given to the types of trees planted within car parks. Plants which have a short life, tend to drop branches, gum or fruit or plants which interfere with underground pipes are not suitable for car parks.

N/A

Not required at this scale of development.

N/A

A10.4 Car parks should be located to complement existing streetscape qualities. Consideration should be given to the streetscape qualities of the locality and the possibility of locating a car park to the rear of a site, or the provision of suitable landscaping to minimise any visual intrusion.

N/A

Refer to the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment McLaren Traffic Engineering.

N/A

A10.5 Consideration should be given to incorporating stormwater control measures in the design of landscaped areas, to control and

Refer to the Concept Stormwater Plan prepared by MI Engineers. Yes


16



reduce the level of stormwater which enters Council's stormwater drainage systems.

P11 To ensure tree plantings and associated structures are not in locations that may be prejudicial to road safety.

A11.1 Planting is to be designed appropriately so as not to impact upon minimum sight distance requirements (at access points, intersections, and around curves), clearance requirements (horizontal and vertical), and clear zone requirements.

Noted.

The proposed landscaping enhancement will not impact on sight distances from the site.

Yes

5.9 – Construction Requirements

P13 To ensure the construction of internal driveways, roads, car parks and service areas are of a suitable standard according to land use type.

A13.2 Retail/commercial development:

a. Paving bricks for light vehicular loading, or b. Light duty reinforced patterned or

coloured concrete, or c. Pavement to be designed for a traffic

loading of 2 x 104 ESA d. Standard hotmix (development involving

more than 6 spaces), or e. 2 coat bitumen seal (less than 6 spaces). f. All of the above to include associated

stormwater drainage and to be designed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards.

The existing driveway will be retained as part of the application. The driveway is a sealed all-weather material.

Yes

5.10 – Design of Driveways

A15.1 Driveway design is consistent with: a. Table 2 (Driveways Types Based on Parking

The proposed driveway is considered minor (Type 1). Yes


17



P15 To ensure that driveways are designed to reflect the nature of development that they serve

Spaces); and b. Table 3 (Recommended Driveway Dimensions).

A15.2 Driveway types 1 and 2 shall be constructed as single driveway access points to minimise the number of driveway conflicts on the network. Applications may be considered for multiple driveways only where sufficient justification can be provided to support the application to Council’s satisfaction.

The proposed driveway is compliant with the recommended driveway dimensions outlined in Table 3.

Yes

5.11 - Miscellaneous

P16 To ensure efficient operation and safety of parking areas through appropriate signage.

A16.1 Vehicle entry and exit points to the site should be clearly marked with pavement arrows and signage.

N/A

Not required for this scale of development.

N/A

A16.2 The location and availability of parking and loading facilities should be clearly indicated by the use of signs.

N/A


N/A

A16.3 Desired traffic movement should be indicated through the use of arrows painted on the pavement, preferably in a highly visible colour such as white or yellow.

N/A


N/A

P17 To ensure effective and safe use of speed humps within car parking areas.

A17.1 Speed humps in car parks should comply with AS2890.1 - 1993.

N/A


N/A


18



P18 To ensure the safety of persons using, and security of vehicles parked within car park areas through provision of lighting where appropriate.

A18.1 Lighting must be incorporated into your car park areas where required. Lighting may be wall mounted, free standing poles or bollard lights. In some instances, all three forms of lighting may be incorporated to provide effective illumination and should comply with AS1158.1 – 1997.

N/A N/A

P19 To encourage the use of bicycles. A19.1 New developments, particularly educational establishments, recreational facilities, shops and civic buildings should provide appropriate bicycle parking/storage facilities in accordance with current AUSTROADS Guidelines and or Australian Standards.

N/A N/A

A19.2 The design and installation of bicycle parking facilities should also comply with AS2890.3 Parking Facilities - Part 3: Bicycle Parking Facilities (1993).

N/A


N/A

A19.3 Larger developments should provide showers and associated amenities to encourage and cater for bicycle use.

N/A


N/A

P20 To cater for pedestrian access and accessibility.

A20.1 Ensure pedestrians and cyclists can safely access the development and that passing pedestrians and cyclists safety is not compromised by the development.

The proposed development provides safe access for pedestrian and vehicles to the site.

Yes


19



A20.2 Ensure the development considers Council's Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) and Bike Plan Strategies including provision of logical and practical extensions of the existing and proposed PAMP pathway network to provide safe and efficient connections between the development and the surrounding community.

N/A


N/A


20


Chapter N2 - Berry Town Centre

5.1 – Development in Berry Town Centre

P1 Development in the Berry Town Centre minimises conflict between residential and commercial activities.

A1.1 Properties which face onto Princess Street should be uses for housing and should complement the residential streetscape.

N/A The subject site does not front onto Princess Street.

N/A

A1.2 Properties which face onto Albert Street should be used for development that is compatible with the adjacent residential zoned area. This could be for housing, professional services, or service type retailing.

N/A The subject site does not front onto Albert Street.

N/A

P2 Development in the Berry Town Centre promotes active frontages to pedestrian areas including car parks.

A2.1 Frontages to the internalised pedestrian mall donated as active on the map are to be used for commercial or retail purposes and incorporate active shopfronts.

N/A The proposed development fronts onto Prince Alfred Street and does not front the internalised pedestrian mall.

N/A

A2.2 Uses on the public car park support the retail core and encourage outdoor dining and display activities.

N/A This proposal does not front the public car park.

N/A

A2.3 Blank walls and other uninviting spaces at street level are avoided.

There is blank walls at the street level. Refer to the Elevation Plans submitted with this application.

Yes

A2.4 Seating, lighting, special paving, planting and artworks may be provided in plazas, malls and courtyards.

N/A

N/A

A2.5 Outdoor seating and dining areas face on to the pedestrian mall.

N/A

N/A


21



5.2 – Built Form and Character

P1 New buildings, or additions to existing buildings, are complementary in form to the heritage characteristics of the town centre.

A1.1 Buildings generally:

• Have a pitched roof and the form, pitch and parapet height of new buildings/additions should match or be similar to adjoining and adjacent buildings (generally between 32 and 45 degrees);

• Have verandah elements such as awnings to active shopfront areas;

• Be divided into ‘modules’ that provide visual interest;

• Have facades that are varied and articulated to provide visual interest;

• Are built of a mix of lightweight materials, timber weatherboards and masonry and have corrugated metal roofs; and

• Have service area walls and similar site features that are designed to compatible with the architecture of the main building(s).

The proposed alterations and additions will change the elevation to the street. The development will include an expansion of the First Floor Terrace (over the porte cochere) which looks out to the street. The Ground Floor entrance is at the centre of the front elevation, with windows providing an active frontage. Refer to the Elevation Plans submitted with this application for the proposed materials to be used.

Yes

P2 The design of new buildings, or additions to existing buildings, is in keeping with the existing height, bulk and density of their location.


• Single storey in height as measured from the natural ground level;

• Retain the existing residential and commercial setbacks; and

• Minimise bulk by varying the roof form.

The existing building is two stories in height. The proposed development is to modify the existing development which will include adding a second floor roof terrace. When viewed from the street the development will appear two stories in height, with the pitched roof screening the roof terrace form view. The small extension of the structure to the south is single storey in height. The approved development onsite has a maximum height of the roof as RL 18.1. The proposed development height is RL 20.4. The additional floor is incorporated into the roof, meaning that the

Yes


22



development will not appear as three storeys or as having a noncompliant height. Refer to the Statement of Environmental Effects which addresses the non-compliance with the LEP Height requirement.

P3 New buildings, or additions to existing buildings, are compatible with adjoining and adjacent heritage items

A3.1 Buildings maintain the visual importance and setting of heritage items through minimising overshadowing and privacy, landscape and visual impacts.

The subject site does not contain a heritage item mapped under the SLEP 2014. The surrounding site has a number of heritage sites. A Statement of Heritage Impact has been submitted with this application which addresses the impact of the development on surrounding heritage items. The proposed alterations and additions will not result in any impacts on overshadowing, privacy, existing landscaping or visual privacy.

Yes

P4 New buildings, or additions to existing buildings, provide for pedestrian comfort, interest and safety.


• Provide continuous overhead weather protection along the pedestrian mall and retail shop corridors; and

• Ground floor levels along the pedestrian mall and retail shop corridors provide windows, entrances, architectural details and ornamentation.

The entrance to the building will be covered providing overhead shelter.

Yes

5.3 - Protection of Heritage Significants

P1 New development complements existing heritage structures in a modern context.

A1.1 New developments adjacent to items of heritage significance are designed in a way that respects the stated significance of the item and does not diminish the item’s cultural significance.

The subject site is located adjacent to items mapped under the SLEP 2014 as having local and state significance. There are also a number of heritage buildings located in the surrounding area. The proposed alterations and additions will alter the existing structure onsite, however will not be significantly changing the bulk or character of the building. A Statement of Heritage Impact has

Yes


23



been submitted with this application which addresses the impact on the surrounding heritage items. The proposed alterations and additions are considered to be consistent with the existing design of the structure, and the resulting development in keeping with the streetscape. The development will not introduce any foreseeable impacts on the ongoing conservation of the surrounding heritage items.

A1.2 The dominant design features of Berry’s identified heritage items should be reflected in new development.

The proposed development involves alterations and additions to an existing non-heritage listed structure. The proposed additions are considered to be consistent with the design of the existing structure, with the amendments creating a more desirable outlook to the street with the first floor terrace facing the street.

Yes

P2 Development retains, preserves, and recycles the existing heritage buildings and trees in a sympathetic way to make a positive contribution to the character of the locality

A2.1 A heritage impact statement is to be prepared for development relating to an item of heritage significance as identified in the Shoalhaven Local LEP (SLEP) 2014, or which is in the vicinity of items of heritage significance.

A Statement of Heritage Impact has been submitted with this application.

Yes

A2.2 Where an item of heritage significance is to be adapted for reuse, modifications to allow for disabled access are to maintain the item’s stated significance.

N/A There are no proposed works to heritage structures as part of this application.

N/A

A2.3 Development should make efficient use of sites and apply the principles of environmentally sustainable design without compromising the heritage significance of heritage items or Berry’s historic streetscape.

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing structure is considered suitable to introduce the new use of the structure while ensuring the development is complimentary to the surrounding heritage items. A Statement of Heritage Impact has been submitted with this application. The proposed alterations and additions will not have

Yes


24



a foreseeable impact on the existing Heritage items that surround the development area.

A2.4 The existing heritage tree ‘Quercus virginiana (American Live Oak)’ on the Princess Street public car park is protected.

N/A

N/A

5.4 – Car Parking, Pedestrian Routes and Servicing Requirements

P1 Adequate and convenient car parking contributes to the viability of the town centre and does not impact on the amenity of the town centre.

A1.1 The design of vehicle access and parking facilities integrate with overall site planning and landscape design to minimise their visual impact.

There are no vehicle parking spaces proposed onsite. The existing one-way access driveway will be retained, and is incorporated into the design of the development. The existing landscaping is also to be retained, and is located adjacent to the driveway areas.

Yes

A1.2 With one way movement systems, right

had turns from the existing public car park on

Princess Street are to be provided because of

better visibility for the driver and the location

of service bays.

N/A N/A

P2 Safe pedestrian linkages to public car parks and other commercial properties area provided.

A2.1 Pedestrian routes are direct and minimise

potential conflicts with vehicles.

There is no proposed changes to the existing access, carparking of pedestrian infrastructure as part of this development application. As there is no onsite carparking, the driveway will be used for drop-offs to the development. Pedestrian access will utilise the driveway hardstand to access the foyer. The area in front of the entry is considered sufficient to allow pedestrian access, and for vehicles to move.

Yes

P3 Satisfactory servicing is provided

for development.

A3.1 Adequate loading and unloading facilities

are provided.

The street frontage will include a loading zone adjacent to the development. Refer to the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment submitted with this application.

Yes


25



There are no proposed changes to the existing access, carparking of pedestrian infrastructure as part of this development application.

A3.2 Dimensions for service vehicle access and

service bays must comply with the Australian

Standard.

The street frontage will include a loading zone adjacent to the development. Refer to the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment submitted with this application.

Yes

5.7 - Landscaping and Environmental Management

P1 New development promotes

energy and water efficiency

through its design, construction

and use.

A1.1 Your development should allow for natural rather than mechanical ventilation and incorporate the principles of passive solar design.

The proposed development being alterations and additions to an existing development in an established area is restricted to the existing orientation of the development. The outdoor terrace is located on the eastern elevation of the development to overlook the street. The northern elevation contains a number of windows to take advantage of the solar access.

Yes

A1.2 Your development should allow solar access to public spaces between the hours of 10am and 3pm on any day.

The development will not reduce the solar access to public spaces. The proposed height of the development is similar to the existing structure.

Yes

A1.3 If the roof and/or paved areas proposed as part of your development exceed 30m2, you are to provide detailed drainage plans and an onsite detention system for stormwater management.

Stormwater Management Plans have been submitted with this application.

Yes

P2 The appearance, amenity and

energy efficiency of new

A2.1 Identified vistas, as shown on the map,

which reinforce townscape qualities are to be

retrieved and enhanced.

The proposed development will not impact on views and vistas in the Berry town centre. The resulting devilment is considered

Yes


26



development is enhanced through

high quality landscape design.

complimentary to the surrounding streetscape and heritage items.

A2.2 Landscaping minimises site disturbance

and preserves those trees which positively

contribute to the character of the area.

There is no proposed change to the existing landscaped area provided onsite. The alterations and additions will have enhance the existing streetscape along Prince Alfred Street.

Yes

A2.3 Tree planting and paving works area to

comply generally with the specifications in

Chapter 18 and specifically:

• A continuous root barrier should be

provided along the frontage of the property

where it adjoins the car park.

• Segmented kerbing is providing when

existing kerb requires replacement to allow

for easier maintenance should roots

penetrate the surface.

• A 75mm sacrificial concrete slab (with no

steel reinforcements be provided below any

segmented paved surface.

The alterations and additions will have no impact on the existing landscaping onsite. The development will not impact on surrounding significant trees.

Yes

A2.4 In landscaping your development, you

should consider community safety by

encouraging unimpeded sight distance for

pathways and not creating pedestrian areas

which cannot be seen from public areas.

There is no proposed changes to the existing areas that are landscape however the landscaping is proposed to be enhanced. The enhanced landscaping will not impact on pedestrian safety, or impede sight lines from public areas.

Yes

A2.5 Your development is to provide for

underground electricity and telephone

The subject site is currently connected to services. The alterations and additions will augment the existing connections to the additional tourist accommodation units.

Yes


27



services with any extension of supply being at

your expense.

A2.6 You are to ensure the design and location

of site and waste facilities minimises their

impact on the public domain and

complements the village character.

The location of waste bins will utilise the same area to the south of the structure. The extension of the building will reduce the service area, however sufficient area for storage bins is provided.

Yes

5. Precinct - Albert Court and Surrounds

5.8.1 - Controls • The rhythm of existing residences (open

space, building, open space) in Albert Street

is important in maintaining the village

character of Berry. If your development is

fronting the car park, it should acknowledge

this spatial rhythm.

The site does not contain an existing residence. The subject site currently contains a function centre which consumes the majority of the site, with a one way access driveway providing ingress and egress from the site. The proposed development will be retaining the access driveway, and proposing alteration and additions to the existing structure. Spatially the development is substantially the same, the extension to the southern elevation the only significant change to the bulk of the structure onsite. The extension is single storey in height to reduce the impact on surrounding developments.

Yes

• If your development fronts on to the

internalised public car park denoted as

‘Active’, you must be use this frontage for

commercial or retail purposes and

incorporate active shopfronts.

N/A N/A

• Your development must comply with all

building setbacks identified on the

supporting map.

The supporting maps do not denote any setbacks for the development on the site. The proposed alterations and additions will retain the existing setback to the street. Side and rear

N/A


28



setbacks will be changed, however will not result in any non-compliances with the DCP.

• If you are proposing to provide car parking

and/or off street servicing within the front

building setback and the front building line

to Albert Street, you must show that the car

parking will allow for front gardens to be

retained to maintain the residential

streetscape of Albert Street.

N/A N/A

• If you are proposing to provide areas for off

street servicing within the front building

setback and the front building line to Albert

Street, you should show that the area to be

used for servicing is restricted to the area

which would normally be used to access a

domestic garage. The backing of service

vehicles from Albert Street up to the size of

a small rigid truck would be acceptable.

Larger service vehicles would need to utilise

on street loading within the on street

parking zone or from within the on street

parking zone or from within the off street

public car park.

N/A N/A

• Servicing to No. 80 Albert Street may be

provided on the street or is to be shared

with the adjoining No. 78 Albert Street with

access from Albert Street.

N/A N/A


29



• The Magnolia soulangeana (Saucer

Magnolia) on Lot 1 DP 525672 is to be

retained within the proposed courtyard.

N/A N/A