Item No.	Item Title	Page No.
1	Update to Standard Street Name Sign	11
2	5 year review of the Water Netserv Plan	17
3	91 and 93 Raceview Street, Raceview - Material Change of Use – Shopping Centre- 2269/2019/MCU	42
4	4502/2018/MCU Cleanaway Landfill Refusal	52
5	Proposed Amendment to Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions	52
6	197 and 213 Taylors Road, Walloon - Material Change of Use for Preliminary Approval including a variation request to vary the effect of the Ipswich Planning Scheme, and Reconfiguring a Lot - One (1) Lot into Twelve (12) Lots and New Road	52
7	Court Action Status Report	52
8	Exercise Of Delegation	52

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

22 October

2019

Doc ID No: A5812599

ITEM: 3

SUBJECT: 91 and 93 Raceview Street, Raceview - Material Change of Use – Shopping Centre- 2269/2019/MCU

AUTHOR: Senior Planner (Development)

DATE: 9 October 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning an application seeking approval for a Material Change of Use – Shopping Centre at 91 and 93 Raceview Street, Raceview QLD 4305.

The subject application requires review by Committee and determination by Full Council in accordance with the Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities Policy as more than 20 properly made submissions objecting to the proposed development were received.

The proposed development has been assessed with regard to the applicable assessment benchmarks. The proposed Shopping Centre cannot be supported in accordance with section 5 and section 60 of the Planning Act 2016, as the proposal does not advance the purpose of the Act and the development conflicts with the applicable codes of the Planning Scheme with no sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve to refuse development application no. 2269/2019/MCU as outlined in the report by the Acting General Manager – Planning and Regulatory Services dated 26 September 2019 in accordance with section 5 and 60 of the Planning Act 2016.

B. That the General Manager – Planning and Regulatory Services be authorised to give a decision notice for the application in accordance with section 63 of the Planning Act 2016.

RELATED PARTIES

The related parties to this application are:

· K&W (Distributers) Pty Ltd (landowner of 91 Raceview Street) – The current company directors as extracted from the ASIC database on 30 September 2019 are Jeffrey Charles Wallace and Le-Ann Joy Wallace.

· Kingwall Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd (landowner of 93 Raceview Street) – The current company directors as extracted from the ASIC database on 30 September 2019 are Jeffrey Charles Wallace and Wayne Jon Wallace.

· Fabcot Pty Ltd (developer) – The current company directors as extracted from the ASIC database on 30 September 2019 are Marcin Firek and Stephen John Leigh Harrison.

· Urban Planning Services Pty Ltd (planning consultant) – The current company directors as extracted from the ASIC database on 30 September 2019 are Jason Lawrence McGrath, Michael Brian Nash and Michael Benjamin Falk.

· Location IQ (retail needs assessment) – The primary contact has been Gavin Duane (Director).

· Dunn Moran Landscape Architects Pty Ltd (landscape design) – The primary contact has been David Moran (Director).

· Acoustic Works (acoustic assessment) – The primary contacts have been Greg Pearce and Mark Enersen.

· Pekol Traffic and Transport (traffic and transport assessment) – The primary contact has been Adam Pekol (Director).

· Farr Engineers Associates Pty Ltd (stormwater management and civil engineering) – The primary contact has been Truong Nguyen (Senior Civil Engineer).

· Geo-Logix Pty Ltd (environmental assessment – geotechnical and contamination) – The primary contacts have been Tim Gunns (Senior Project Manager) and Ben Pearce (Principal).

· CCN Architects (architect) – No contact details have been provided.

· Bennett and Francis Pty Ltd (detail survey) – No contact details have been provided.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

SITE ADDRESS:	91 Raceview Street, RACEVIEW QLD 4305, 93 Raceview Street, RACEVIEW QLD 4305
APPLICATION TYPE:	Material Change of Use
PROPOSAL:	Material Change of Use - Shopping Centre
ZONE:	RM02 – Residential Medium Density (Residential Medium Density: 2 Storeys)
OVERLAYS:	OV7A – Building Height Restriction Area 45m OV7A – Transitional Surface OV7B 8km Existing Committed Urban Townships Buffer
APPLICANT:	Fabcot Pty Ltd
OWNER:	K & W (Distributors) Pty Ltd
EXISTING OR PROPOSED TRADING NAMES:	Woolworths
APPLICATION NO:	2269/2019/MCU
AREA:	91 Raceview Street – 974m² 93 Raceview Street – 1.111ha TOTAL – 1.208ha
REFERRAL AGENCIES:	Not Applicable
EXISTING USE:	Disused industrial building (formally furniture manufacturing and distribution)
PREVIOUS RELATED APPROVALS:	Not Applicable
DATE RECEIVED:	27 March 2019
DECISION PERIOD START DATE:	3 September 2019
EXPECTED DETERMINATION DATE:	14 October 2019

SITE LOCATION:

Figure 1 – Locality Map

PROPOSAL:

The applicant proposes to construct a Shopping Centre at 91 and 93 Raceview Street, Raceview. The proposal includes a supermarket tenancy having a gross floor area of 3,251m² and five (5) smaller tenancies ranging in area from 20m² to 123m^2. One of the smaller tenancies (Shop 3), includes an option for outdoor dining.

The built form has a height of approximately nine (9) metres, noting that the development is primarily single story with a mezzanine office.

One hundred and eighty two (182) car spaces and five (5) motorcycle spaces are provided. The proposal seeks access from both Cascade Street and Raceview Street, with service vehicles entry/exit from Cascade Street.

The centre is proposed to operate 6am to 10pm.

Assessment of the proposed development against the relevant assessment benchmarks has been undertaken. The key issues identified are summarised as follows:

Planning Act 2016

The proposal has not demonstrated that it advances the purpose of the Act. Specifically, the proposal does not address Section 5(2)(f),(g) and (h) as outlined below:

· The subject site is located within the Residential Medium Density Zone, however the proposed Shopping Centre development does not contribute to housing choice, diversity or affordability;

· The proposed development will have a detrimental economic impact to surrounding centres and therefore does not encourage investment, economic resilience or economic diversity; and

· The proposed development does not allow for the coordinated and efficient supply of infrastructure, particularly in relation to road infrastructure.

Zone

The subject site is located in the Residential Medium Density Zone. While it is acknowledged that the site current contains industrial buildings (formally used for furniture manufacturing and distribution), the proposed development is inconsistent with the zone intent and is not in keeping with the communities expectations of how the subject site should develop in the future. It is noted that the planning scheme identifies Shopping Centre uses in this zone as being inconsistent and an ‘undesirable development which is unlikely to be approved’.

Centres Hierarchy

In addition and supplementary to the Local Retail and Commercial Zone, the planning scheme has identified a network of neighbourhood centres and local retail and commercial areas within Schedule 7 – Map 3 which guides centre development across the ICC area. It is noted that the subject site is not included within this map. There are several properties located nearby (north and south of the subject site), which are located within the appropriate zoning.

It is considered that the proposed development has the ability to undermine the existing and future planned centres within the surrounding area. This is supported by a review of the retail needs assessment provided by the applicant as outlined below.

Economic Need

The applicant submitted a retail needs assessment to support their argument that the proposed Shopping Centre is warranted.

A peer review of the report was undertaken which raised concerns, identifying (amongst other items), that the report was not sufficiently robust for Council to rely upon to make an informed decision. Accordingly, further information was requested from the applicant, which was subsequently received in the applicant’s Information Request Response.

In addition, a number of submissions were received which also raised concerns in relation to economic need, with two (2) submissions providing economic reviews from qualified professionals to support their findings.

Accordingly, a further peer review of the Information Request Response to the economic need items and the submissions which raised economic need concerns was undertaken. The peer review identified that the applicant’s report significantly underestimated the potential impacts of the proposed development and that the impacts are likely to be of an unacceptable scale that could adversely affect the viability, vitality and function of affected centres. The further peer review noted the following key points:

· Trade area spending – the analysis undertaken by the applicant depends on increase in real spending rather than population growth (2,100 additional people over the projected period to 2021) to support the centre.

· Competitive environment – use of the trade area (and its population) to “imply a shortage of supermarket floor space within the defined trade area is not appropriate and fundamentally flawed when applied at the micro-level in a well-developed urban area to justify need or demand for additional supermarket floor space within the defined area”.

· It is generally preferable to expand an existing local centre then to create another one, especially if the separation distance is only 300m. An expanded Raceview Local Centre could easily accommodate a larger modular supermarket. It was also noted that it is fair to assume that, should the proposed development proceed, that there would be no opportunity to incorporate a larger supermarket in the future.

· The cumulative impacts upon Winston Glades with the introduction of the proposal would be much greater then implied in the applicant’s analysis.

· Impacts upon the Raceview centre are a significant concern. The benefits to the centre identified by the applicant are very limited, “with an unfavourable outcome resulting in a degradation of that centre’s retail function and possible loss of its main tenant (Foodstore) the more likely outcome”.

· The report states that there will be an extra 1 million visits per year within the Raceview precinct, however this also implies that competing centres could be deprived of a million visits per year and is “unlikely to be a realistic benefit to the community”.

· The impacts within the applicant’s report and response “are likely to be understated to the extent that they could jeopardise the vitality and viability of the Raceview and Winston Glades centres, with limited growth in the defined trade area available to ameliorate those impacts”.

The submissions which included reviews prepared by qualified professionals generally raised the same issues as the peer review with respect to need and impacts.

Accordingly, based on the information available, it is considered that the proposed development will have an unacceptable impact on surrounding centres. The applicant has not sufficiently argued that there is a need for the proposed development in the proposed location.

Traffic

The applicant was requested to demonstrate how the proposed development would not adversely impact on Council’s network planning and intent. However insufficient information has been provided to satisfactory address the concerns raised. In particular, the following is of concern:

· Additional land is required in order to facilitate the upgrade of the Cascade Street and Raceview Street intersection as well as to facilitate a left turn lane to the site. Whilst this was requested by Council, it has not been suitably provided by the applicant. This would have an impact on the upgrade of the Cascade Street and Raceview Street intersection in the future.

The applicant is proposing to use the land required for future road upgrades for car parking. This will result in a long term short fall of parking spaces. Further, no ultimate plan has been provided, therefore the full extent of the ultimate development along this frontage is unknown (i.e. car parking layout, manoeuvring, stormwater, landscape treatment).

· The proposed all movement access is located very close to the intersection of Raceview Street and Cascade Street. This will impact on the signalised intersection and the traffic movement efficiency. This is not supported by Council given the strategic nature of Raceview Street (being a strategic connection between the Ipswich City Centre and the Ripley Valley).

Accordingly, the proposed development compromises the ability for the delivery of road infrastructure to be delivered in accordance with the Local Government Infrastructure Plan.

· The changing nature of the Raceview Street access point (to left-in, left-out) will have implications on the overall trip distribution. There will be potential queuing demand of the northern and western approaches (Raceview Street/Cascade Street intersection) caused by such change. This will impact on traffic movement efficiency in the future with population growth.

· Due to the left-in, left-out access point onto Raceview Street, vehicles making U turns at Blanck Street (to head back south on Raceview Street) is a significant safety concern owing to nature of the traffic at the intersection.

· The swept path analysis provided by the applicant is not supported. Council is of the opinion that the proposed access arrangement was not adequate to facilitate AV vehicles.

It should be noted that Council’s current network planning for this area has not pre-empted the site to be developed for a Shopping Centre given the underlying zoning is Residential Medium Density.

Stormwater

The applicant has submitted a Site Based Stormwater Management Plan, however, a network analysis has not been undertaken to demonstrate there is adequate pipe capacity to take any additional concentrated flows from the development site.

Built Form

It is noted that the proposed built form is inconsistent with the expectations of the Residential Medium Density Zone. However, in the event that the use was considered appropriate for the site, assessment against the Local Retail and Commercial Zone would be applicable. It is noted that the planning scheme recognises the importance of corner sites for commercial uses due to their visual prominence within the grid pattern streets. As a result, commercial buildings on corner sites are required to be built to both street frontages with a high level of articulation. It is noted that the proposed development is largely inconsistent with the code requirement with respect to built form, primarily due to the buildings being set back from the primary frontages. The proposal provided for limited activation along both Cascade and Raceview Street frontages, noting that the service area will be adjacent to Cascade Street.

In addition, the siting of the building provided for minimal transition between the surrounding residential land/use and the proposed commercial activities.

Draft Strategic Framework

While not a statutory document which assessment can be relied on, it is noted that the draft Strategic Framework, which was recently released for consultation, identifies the subject site as being within a Medium Density designation (MD1) which is in keeping with the current zoning.

Further, it is noted that the draft Strategic Framework has identified an expansion of the existing Local Retail and Commercial Zone located north of the subject site, which would result in an extension of the existing Raceview centre.

Based on the above, the proposed development is considered to conflict with a number of assessment benchmarks, including the planning schemes Desired Environmental Outcomes. The applicant has not demonstrated that there is sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Planning Act 2016

Planning Regulation 2017

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

§ A risk to Council exists should the proposal not be determined in accordance with legislative requirements. The assessment and subsequent recommendations have been prepared to minimise the risk.

§ Pursuant to DA Rules the due date to make decision on this application is 14 October 2019 and the due date to issue the decision notice to the applicant is 21 October 2019. The applicant could lodge a deemed refusal appeal in the Planning and Environment Court if the decision notice is not issued to the applicant by 21 October 2019.

§ Notwithstanding, upon Council issuing the decision notice the applicant may choose to appeal Council’s refusal decision in the Planning and Environment Court.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no resource implications associated with this report.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Public Notification

Public notification of this application was undertaken pursuant to the Planning Act 2016. The applicant undertook public notification from 26 July 2019 to 16 August 2019 for a period of 15 business days. Council received 46 properly made submissions and 13 not properly made submissions. 26 properly made and two (2) not properly made submissions were received in objection to the proposal, while 20 properly made and 11 not properly made submissions were received in support of the proposal. Matters raised in the submissions are summarised below:

Matter raised – Objection

How matters were dealt with in reaching a decision

Proposed development does not comply with the Ipswich City Planning Scheme.

· Proposed development does not comply with the Strategic Framework, particularly in relation to planned centre development for urban areas.

· Proposal does not comply with the Planning Scheme including DEO’s.

· Proposed use does not meet the intent for the Residential Medium Density Zone as it does not provide for residential development to meet the housing needs for the community.

· Proposed development is identified as being inconsistent with the outcomes sought within the Residential Medium Density Zone and constitutes undesirable development.

· Town plans were created to enable clear vision for all parties, especially business owners for future planning on home/business, investment levels.

· Proposed development results in disorderly development which is detrimental to the orderly development and planning of the adopted framework of centres.

· Proposed development is not considered to represent an appropriate expansion of the Local Retail and Commercial Zone, in accordance with the zone intent, as it represents a significant increase in GFA of retail and commercial areas and adequate need has not been demonstrated.

The submissions received are common material for the application and have been considered as part of the application assessment.

The submissions received generally reflect Council’s concerns with the proposal, particularly in relation to non-compliance with the Ipswich Planning Scheme. Concerns raised relating to economic need are also generally reflective of Council’s concerns.

In conclusion the proposed development cannot be appropriately conditioned to address all matters raised and there are insufficient grounds to justify the decision to approve the development. Accordingly, the application has been refused for the reasons outlined in Item 1 – Reasons for the Decision.

The proposed development is in conflict with the Draft Strategic Framework Intent.

· Proposed development is inconsistent with draft Strategic Framework and represents out of centre development.

· Proposed development is misaligned with likely future planning.

The proposed development conflicts with the strategic framework of the South East Queensland Regional Plan due to traffic issues.

The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed development fulfils a local community need.

· The local retail needs will be met by the existing and appropriately zoned Local Retail and Commercial zoned land within the near vicinity of the site.

Need for the proposed development has not been demonstrated.

· Proposed development represents out of centre development and has not adequately established a need for the proposed use to be located outside of the existing Local Retail and Commercial zoned land within close proximity of the subject site.

· There is sufficient land zoned for Local Retail and Commercial purposes within the surrounding area, which are capable of meeting the retail and grocery needs of the local community.

· Applicant has failed to demonstrate overwhelming community need.

· Any grounds for the proposal are based on private interests only.

· There are enough supermarkets in catchment to cater for population.

· It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would improve the wellbeing of the community to the extent that its existence would overcome the considerable conflicts with the planning scheme.

· There is no benefit to the wider community in promoting a larger scale of non-residential uses at this location.

· Based on existing and planned centres network and hierarchy, the population of the Silkstone and Winston Glades catchments and the low growth outlook for those catchments there is no need for a third supermarket anchored centre.

· The addition of a third full line supermarket anchored centre within the Silkstone and Winston Glades catchments would result in severe impacts on the existing centres (as high as 30% and would most likely precipitate the closure of the Drakes Supermarket at Winston Glades and ultimately result in the need for Winston Glades to identify an alternative role and function).

· The Raceview/Flinders View area is already serviced by supermarket anchored centres and nearby higher order centres.

· The applicant has provided a flawed assessment of need (economic reviews provided to demonstrate this).

· Smaller tenancies which rely on foot traffic will be impacted.

· Loss of trade at drakes Winston glades will have impact on smaller businesses/ tenancies resulting in loss of jobs.

· Yamanto and surrounding suburbs need more people not shops to survive.

· Insufficient population with the existing catchments to bring about planning need for the Woolworths based centre.

· There is no need for another centre given Silkstone Coles and Ripley Town Centre.

The proposed development will have unacceptable impacts on other centres.

· The proposal will result in adverse outcomes for the community in relation to existing centres.

· Results in reduced retail turnover at centres including Silkstone Village and Winston glades and therefore reduce the vitality and activity of these centres

· Loss of approximately 20-25% of Booval Woolworths. While this proposal is also for Woolworths, the applicant has ignored the flow on effects for the Booval centre as a whole.

· Proposed development has the ability to erode the viability of the existing Raceview Street Local Centre as well as other surrounding centres.

The proposed development is not in keeping with the community expectation.

· Proposal could not be reasonably anticipated in the Residential Medium Density Zone and is not within the realm of expectation for the community

The proposed development will result in unacceptable traffic impacts.

· Proposed development will increase congestion in the area.

· Dangerous entry/exit points are proposed.

· Current traffic issues will only worsen as a result of the development.

· Increased traffic will pose a threat to students, families and staff attending the nearby church and school.

· There is a need for traffic lights at Blanck Street.

· Proposed access location of Raceview Street is unsafe.

· Proposed access location on Cascade Street is not considered to be safe.

· Potential for traffic to block Blanck Street - emergency services need to be able to enter and exit Blanck Street. There is no alterative location to enter/exit this street other than Raceview Street.

· Development will prejudice Council’s intended future road widening for the upgrade of the intersection.

· Future reduction in car parking numbers to allow for upgrade is not acceptable.

· Reduced car parking numbers and removal of on street parking of Cascade Street will impact on surrounding sites.

· Proposed all turns movement will impact on surrounding development.

· Loss of all turns movement at commercial land at 99 Raceview Street a result of the proposed development results in an unfair advantage for the proposed development over land which is appropriately zoned for commercial uses.

The proposed development will have amenity impacts.

· Proposed development will have a significant detrimental impact of the amenity of nearby residents, particularly as a result of traffic impacts.

· Vacant carpark at night will attract antisocial behaviour.

· Increase in rubbish and litter likely (as experienced with the opening of other uses nearby).

· Noise associated with delivery vehicles and late night trading creates additional unnecessary noise.

· Proposed development is an eye-sore.

· Proposed development is out of character for the streetscape.

The proposed development is poorly designed.

· Minimal landscaping provided compared to the rest of the site.

· Trolley bay is located in a fire egress.

The proposed development will have a detrimental impact on existing businesses.

· Council should support existing local businesses.

· Supermarket giants are taking away from smaller businesses.

· Local existing job losses likely to occur as businesses suffer as a result of proposal.

The proposed development will result in a reduction in property values for surrounding residential uses.

The legal opinion provided by the applicant in relation to decision made in Wilhelm V Ipswich City Council and another [2010] QPEC 46 is of little relevance.

Matter raised - Support	How matters were dealt with in reaching a decision
The proposed development will benefit the elderly that live in the neighbourhood	The submissions received are common material for the application and have been considered as part of the application assessment. While the proposed development may be conveniently located for a localised number of residence, an assessment of the proposed development indicates that it will have a negative impact on surrounding centres, creates an unsafe road environment and is inconsistent with the planning scheme. In conclusion the proposed development cannot be appropriately conditioned to address all matters raised and there are insufficient grounds to justify the decision to approve the development. Accordingly, the application has been refused for the reasons outlined in Item 1 – Reasons for the Decision.
The proposed development will create additional job opportunities.
The proposed development provides for convenient access to shops.
The proposed development adds a new variety of retail.
The proposed development is well located with public transport, with plans to provide safe pedestrian and vehicle access.

Conclusion

The proposed Shopping Centre cannot be supported in accordance with section 5 and section 60 of Planning Act 2016, as the development conflicts with the applicable codes of the Planning Scheme with no sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict. Specifically, the proposal does not comply with the Desired Environmental Outcomes and Performance Indicators, the Overall and Specific Outcomes for the Urban Areas as a whole and the Overall and Specific Outcomes for the Residential Medium Density Zone Code of Ipswich Planning Scheme 2006.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Statement of Reasons ⇩
2.	Proposal Plans ⇩

Nikki Morrison

Senior Planner (Development)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Michael Simmons

Team Coordinator (West)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Anthony Bowles

Acting Development Planning Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Brett Davey

Acting General Manager - Planning and Regulatory Services

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

22 October

2019

Doc ID No: A5818286

ITEM: 4

SUBJECT: 4502/2018/MCU Cleanaway Landfill Refusal

AUTHOR: Planner (Development)

DATE: 8 October 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning a development application that seeks a development permit for a Material Change of Use over 100 Chum Street and 20 Rhondda Road, New Chum for the following:

· Waste Activity Use involving Landfill in the Swanbank/New Chum Buffer Area (formally referred to as Waste Activity Use other than involving Rehabilitating a Mining Void in the Swanbank/New Chum Buffer Area);

· Waste Activity Use involving Landfill in the Swanbank/New Chum Waste Activity Area;

· Waste Activity Use involving Waste recycling, reprocessing and disposal (Special Industry) in the Swanbank/New Chum Waste Activity Area and the Swanbank/New Chum Buffer Area including operating a facility for disposing of only general waste or limited regulated waste if the facility receives waste at the rate of 50 tonnes or more a year;

· Waste Activity Use involving Waste recycling, reprocessing and disposal (Special Industry) in the Swanbank/New Chum Waste Activity Area and the Swanbank/New Chum Buffer Area including waste transfer station: operating a waste transfer station which receives waste at the rate of 20,000 tonnes or more per year;

· Waste Activity Use involving Crushing, milling or grinding (Special Industry) in the Swanbank/New Chum Waste Activity Area and the Swanbank/New Chum Buffer Area including screening, washing, crushing, grinding, milling, sizing or separating in works producing 5,000 tonnes or more per year.

· ERA 33 (Crushing, milling, grinding or screening: Crushing, grinding, milling or screening more than 5,000t of material in a year);

· ERA 60 (Waste Disposal: 2: Operating a facility for disposing of, in a year, the following quantity of waste mentioned in subsection 1(b) – (h) more than 200,000t);

· ERA 62 (Waste Transfer Station operation: operating on a commercial basis or in the course of carrying on a commercial enterprise, a waste transfer station that receives a total quantity of at least 30t or 30 cubic metres of waste on any day.

The proposed development has been assessed with regard to the applicable assessment benchmarks. The proposed use cannot be supported in accordance with section 5 and section 60 of the Planning Act 2016, as it does not advance the purpose of the Planning Act 2016 and is in conflict with the applicable codes of the Planning Scheme and TLPI No. 1 of 2018 (Waste Activity Regulation) with no sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve to refuse development application no. 4502/2018/MCU as outlined in the report by the Acting General Manager – Planning and Regulatory Services dated 8 October 2019 in accordance with section 5 and 60 of the Planning Act 2016.

B. That the General Manager – Planning and Regulatory Services be authorised to give a decision notice for the application in accordance with section 63 of the Planning Act 2016.

RELATED PARTIES

The related parties to this application are:

• Transpacific Waste Management Pty Ltd (Landowner) – Transpacific Waste Management Pty Ltd is an historic entity name for Cleanaway Solid Waste Pty Ltd that ceased on 2 February 2016.

• Cleanaway Solid Waste Pty Ltd (Developer) – The current company directors as extracted from the ASIC database on 30 September 2019 are Brendan John Gill, and Vikas Bansal.

• Wolter Consulting Group (Planning Consultant) – The current company directors as extracted from the ASIC database on 30 September 2019 are Andrew Robert Crawford, Natalie June Rayment and Michael David Wolter.

• Mitigation Strategy Summary report – The primary contact has been J. Briant

• GHD Pty Ltd:

- Concept Design report – The primary contact has been E. Bordeleau

- Site Based Management Plan – The primary contacts have been E. Cornelius and A. Hestehauge

- Needs Analysis report – The primary contacts have been K. Kerr and S. Wilson

- Ecological Assessment report – The primary contacts have been L. O’Brien, S. Hodgkison and S. Chadwick

- Air Quality Assessment report – The primary contact has been S. Materia

- Acoustic Assessment report – The primary contact has been E. Potoczny

- Traffic Impact Assessment report – The primary contact has been P. Zlatkovic

- Community Engagement report – The primary contact has been Melanie Layton

- Visual Impact Mitigation – The primary contact has been Celine El-Khouri

- Stormwater Management Plan – The primary contact has been Omar Issadeen and R. Towner

- Groundwater Quality Assessment report – The primary contacts have been E. Love and A. Hughes

• Golder Associates Pty Ltd:

- Photomontage Report - The primary contacts have been Brad Kanther and Nigel Ruxton

- Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Review – The primary contacts have been Rob Morphet and Nigel Ruxton

- Spontaneous Combustion Management Plan – The primary contacts have been Sven Waurich, Rob Morphet and Nigel Ruxton

- Leachate Management and Water Balance Assessment – The primary contacts have been Sven Waurich and Nigel Ruxton

• Bushfire Risk Reducers (Bushfire Management Plan) – The primary contact has been Alistair Hill

• Deep End Services Pty Ltd (Needs Analysis report)– The primary contact has been Matthew Lee.

• Cardno (Qld) Pty Ltd (Visual Impact Assessment) – The primary contact has been Nerida Thomas.

• PhytoLink & Associates (Cleanaway Pty, Ltd, New Chum Landfill Visual Screening Memo) – The primary contact has been Richard Yeates

• HDR Inc. (Visual Screening) – The primary contacts have been Eric Mead, Pete Dumbrill and Zach Priester

• Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd (Dust Monitoring Report and Dust Monitoring program) – The primary contacts have been Frank Quintarelli, Sarah-Jane Donnelly and Natalie Shaw

• Epic Environmental (Environmental Monitoring; Qualitative PFAS Risk Assessment; Groundwater, Surface Water and Leachate Monitoring Plan) – The primary contacts have been Luke Amies.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

SITE ADDRESS:	20 Rhondda Road and 100 Chum Street, New Chum
APPLICATION TYPE:	Material Change of Use
PROPOSAL:	§ Waste Activity Use involving Landfill in the Swanbank/New Chum Buffer Area (formally referred to as Waste Activity Use other than involving Rehabilitating a Mining Void in the Swanbank/New Chum Buffer Area); § Waste Activity Use involving Landfill in the Swanbank/New Chum Waste Activity Area; § Waste Activity Use involving Waste recycling, reprocessing and disposal (Special Industry) in the Swanbank/New Chum Waste Activity Area and the Swanbank/New Chum Buffer Area including operating a facility for disposing of only general waste or limited regulated waste if the facility receives waste at the rate of 50 tonnes or more a year; § Waste Activity Use involving Waste recycling, reprocessing and disposal (Special Industry) in the Swanbank/New Chum Waste Activity Area and the Swanbank/New Chum Buffer Area including waste transfer station: operating a waste transfer station which receives waste at the rate of 20,000 tonnes or more per year; § Waste Activity Use involving Crushing, milling or grinding (Special Industry) in the Swanbank/New Chum Waste Activity Area and the Swanbank/New Chum Buffer Area including screening, washing, crushing, grinding, milling, sizing or separating in works producing 5,000 tonnes or more per year. § Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA) 33 (Crushing, milling, grinding or screening: Crushing, grinding, milling or screening more than 5,000t of material in a year); § Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA) 60 (Waste Disposal: 2: Operating a facility for disposing of, in a year, the following quantity of waste mentioned in subsection 1(b) - (h) more than 200,000t); and § Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA) 62 (Waste Transfer Station operation: operating on a commercial basis or in the course of carrying on a commercial enterprise, a waste transfer station that receives a total quantity of at least 30t or 30 cubic metres of waste on any day.
ZONE:	20 Rhondda Road Part Regional Business and Industry Investigation Zone (Sub Area RBIA02 – New Chum); 100 Chum Street Part Regional Business and Industry Investigation Zone (Sub Area RBIA02 – New Chum); Part Regional Business and Industry (Sub Area RB5M – Medium Impact Sub Are).
OVERLAYS:	20 Rhondda Road § OV2 – Key Resource Area § OV2 – Known Resource § OV2 – Mining Leases § OV3 – Area Affected by Underground Mining Shaft § OV3 – Area Affected by Underground Mining Tunnel § OV3 – Area Affected by Underground Mining § OV3 - Mining Constrained Area § OV3 Surface disturbance – including open cut Mining § OV4 – Slope 15% to 20% § OV4 – Slope 20% to 25% § OV5 – Adopted Flood Regulation Line § OV5 – 1:20 Development Line § OV13 – High Voltage Electricity Transmission Lines 100 Chum Street § OV2 – Haul Route Buffer § OV2 – Key Resource Area § OV2 – Known Resource § OV2 – Mining Leases § OV3 – Area Affected by Underground Mining Shaft § OV3 – Area Affected by Underground Mining Tunnel § OV3 – Area Affected by Underground Mining § OV3 - Mining Constrained Area § OV3 Surface disturbance – including open cut Mining § OV4 – Slope 15% to 20% § OV7A – Building Height Restriction Area 90m § OV7A Outer Horizontal Surface 176.5
APPLICANT:	Cleanaway Solid Waste Pty Ltd C/- Wolter Consulting Group
OWNER:	Transpacific Waste Management Pty Ltd
EXISTING OR PROPOSED TRADING NAMES:	Cleanaway
APPLICATION NO:	4502/2018/MCU
AREA:	20 Rhondda Road 55.43ha 100 Chum Street 79.28ha
REFERRAL AGENCIES:	§ Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning – Concurrence § Powerlink - Third Party Advice
EXISTING USE:	§ Landfill – General Waste Disposal with Limited Regulated Waste. § Special Industry (Waste Transfer Station, Crushing, Screening Milling and Grinding and Screening associated with the exiting landfill) and Service Trades Use (Motor Vehicle Repair) ERA - 8(3)(a), 21, 33 & 62).
PREVIOUS RELATED APPROVALS:	§ 192/98 (Town Planning Consent for a landfill) § 140/98 (Town Planning Consent the weighbridge and ancillary facilities to the landfill) § 4250/2011, 4250/2011/MA/A, 4250/2011/MA/B, 4250/2011/MA/C, 4250/2011/MA/D - Material Change Of Use for Special Industry (Waste Transfer Station, Crushing, Screening Milling and Grinding and Screening associated with the exiting landfill) and Service Trades Use (Motor Vehicle Repair) ERA - 33 & 62) § 4631/2013/MA, 4631/2013/MA/A, 4631/2013/MA/B, 4631/2013/MA/C - Weighbridge, entrance works and ancillary activities § 4629/2013/MA, 4629/2013/MA/A, 4629/2013/MA/B, 4629/2013/MA/C - Landfill (General Waste Disposal with Limited Regulated Waste)
DATE RECEIVED:	8 June 2018
DECISION PERIOD START DATE:	10 September 2019
EXPECTED DETERMINATION DATE:	21 October 2019

SITE LOCATION:

PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT AGAINST KEY PLANNING PROVISIONS:

The development site currently operates as a landfill and associated crushing, screening, milling and grinding operations, waste transfer station and Service Trades Use (Motor Vehicle Repair). The development site was historically used for open cut mining activities. The proposal seeks to increase the capacity of the existing landfill by way of an increase in the height of the finished landform from the currently approved RL71 to a revised height of RL85 (post settlement), changes to external batter slopes, surface water runoff and capping requirements, the establishment of a new resource recovery area for the sorting, removal and stockpiling of receiving materials that are not intended to be taken to landfill and the introduction of an additional landfill cell (Cell 6). The proposed increase in height results in the peak of the landfill being approximately 25m higher than the western edge of the former mining void.

The proposed landfill footprint is approximately 640,000m² with an additional 7,479,000m³ of landfill capacity proposed. No changes to the current waste stream acceptance criteria or increase in the intensity of operations in terms of vehicle movements are proposed as part of this application. Furthermore, no changes have been sought to the end of life rehabilitation, and as such Cleanaway will be required to undertake progressive rehabilitation in accordance with existing approval conditions inclusive of the Department of Environment and Science (formerly known as Department of Environment and Heritage Protection) Environmental Authority conditions regardless of the outcome of this development application. The final landform is proposed to be vegetated with grasses, shrubs and some trees upon completion.

The key planning provisions that relate to this development application include the Planning Act 2016, South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017-2041 (ShapingSEQ), State Planning Policy 2017, Ipswich planning Scheme 2006 and Temporary Planning Instrument No. 1 of 2018 (Waste Activity Regulation). Upon undertaking an assessment of the common material submitted in support of the application, it is evident that the proposal does not comply with the key planning provisions as follows:

Planning Act 2016

Council performs the function of assessment manager pursuant to section 48 of the Planning Act 2016 and section 21 of the Planning Regulation 2017 in relation to the current Material Change of Use proposal. As such it is Council’s responsibility as part of the assessment to advance the purpose of the Act in accordance with section 5(1) of the Planning Act 2016.

An assessment of section 5(2) of the Planning Act 2016 was undertaken and it was shown that the proposal has not demonstrated that it advances the purpose of the Act in that it has not taken into account the environmental impacts of the proposal both now and in the future and does not encourage a transition to sustainable waste management from both an environmental and economic perspective.

In summary, the proposal has not demonstrated that it:

§ Takes into account short and long-term environmental effects at local, regional, State and wider levels.

§ Applies the precautionary principle in taking measures to prevent degradation of the environment.

§ Provides equity between present and future generations.

§ Encourages investment, economic resilience and economic diversity, particularly with respect to sustainable waste management practices.

§ Applies amenity, conservation, energy use, health and safety in the built environment in ways that are cost-effective and of public benefit.

South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009 – 2031 (2009 Regional Plan)

The 2009 Regional Plan provided 12 Regional policies that set out the desired regional outcomes, principles, policies and programs to address growth and management of the region. Whilst the 2009 Regional Plan is now a superseded document, it is suggested that this document informed the preparation of the current ShapingSEQ document.

An assessment was therefore undertaken against the policies, specifically Desired Regional Policies 1 – Sustainability and climate change and 2 - Natural environment as follows:

Desired Regional Outcome 1 – Sustainability and climate change

The proposal does not provide for ecological sustainability or avoid or minimise impacts on areas with significant biodiversity values including managing offsite impacts. Of particular concern to Council is that the proposal does not represent sustainable change as there is limited demonstration that additional recycling will be achieved nor any strategies to transition away from landfill as the predominant waste management solution for the SEQ region. Further, it was noted that the proposal would significantly contribute to the loss of local character and scenic amenity through the vertical increase in the height of the finished landform from the currently approved RL71 to a revised peak height of RL85 (post settlement).

Desired Regional Outcome 2 - Natural environment

The proposal does not demonstrate that it will avoid or minimise impacts on areas with significant biodiversity values including managing offsite impacts including impacts on the Six Mile Creek corridor. Of particular concern is the discharge from overflowing leachate ponds in rain events (currently designed to only hold peak wet season rainfall events (90^th percentile)). In addition, the proposal has not shown that the capacity of the leachate ponds are such that they are able to respond to the projected effects of climate change. Further, there is concern that the proposal will cause additional worsening in the receiving environments owing to potential liner and capping failure both during operation as well as post closure.

The supporting material also stated that a koala was observed during the field studies as well as faecal pellets within the impacted locations of the site. Further some of the dominant tree species mentioned in the report as being impacted are known to be koala feed trees. The supplied ecological report has not provided an assessment of the likely impact of koala and other threatened species and the relative importance and level of utilisation of this area by the local population and as such has not demonstrated that the proposal will not detrimentally impact this conservation significant species.

In summary, the proposal has not demonstrated that it:

§ Is designed, operated and maintained such that it improves the total quality of life, both now and in the future, in a way that maintains the ecological processes on which life depends.

§ Is designed, operated and maintained such that it provides for high levels of recycling and minimises the use of resources.

§ Is designed, operated and maintained to provide high levels of environmental protection.

§ Is designed, operated and maintained to maximise the re-use and recycling of waste to reduce the proportion going to landfill.

§ Will promote the protection, maintenance and restoration of a healthy and resilient natural environment to sustainably support the region’s rich biodiversity and ecosystem services including clean air and water, outdoor lifestyles and other community needs.

§ Will manage water in the region on a sustainable and total water cycle basis to provide sufficient quantity and quality of water for human uses and to protect ecosystem health.

South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017

An assessment of the proposal against the relevant provisions of the Shaping SEQ South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017‐2031 (the Regional Plan) was undertaken. Following a review of the relevant sections it was determined that the proposed development is not consistent with Theme 4 – Sustain, Theme 5 – Live and Goal 4 – Sustain, Element 5 – Water sensitive communities of the Regional Plan as follows:

Theme 4 – Sustain

The proposed increased capacity of the landfill does not advance towards the intent for South East Queensland to be carbon neutral and have zero net waste in 50 years.

Theme 5 – Live

The proposal results in the potential adverse amenity (dust, odour, noise, visual) impacts that nearby residents may experience from the increased capacity and landform size of the proposed landfill. It is considered that the vertical increase in the height of the finished landform from the currently approved RL71 to a revised peak height of RL85 (post settlement) and increased capacity of the landfill will not support improved health and wellbeing and increased quality of life.

Goal 4 – Sustain, Element 5 – Water sensitive communities

The proposal has not demonstrated that it will protect and sustainably manage the region’s catchments to ensure the quality of water in our waterways meets the needs of the environment and community. Of particular concern is the discharge from overflowing leachate ponds in rain events (currently designed to only hold peak wet season rainfall events (90^th percentile)). Further, there is concern that the proposal may cause additional worsening in the receiving environments owing to potential liner and capping failure both during operation as well as post closure.

In summary, the proposal has not demonstrated that it:

§ Is designed, operated and maintained to promote ecological and social sustainability through the protection of our natural assets including waterways at a local, regional and State level.

§ Promotes movement towards a carbon neutral and zero net waste South East Queensland.

§ Supports improved health, wellbeing and increased quality of life at a local, regional and State level.

§ Protects and sustainably manages the region’s catchments to ensure the quality of water in our waterways, aquifers, wetlands, estuaries, Moreton Bay and oceans meets the needs of the environment, industry and community.

§ Plans for a water sensitive region by managing impacts on waterways.

State Planning Policy – July 2017

The State Planning Policy (SPP) expresses the state’s interests in land use planning and development. The policy states that the promotion and consideration of these state interests through the development decisions made by Council will help to secure a liveable, sustainable and prosperous Queensland. The SPP provides five themes that reflect the State Interests which a local government appropriately integrates into development outcomes.

Following a review of the relevant sections it was determined that the proposed development is not consistent with the SPP as follows:

State interest – liveable communities

The ‘liveable communities’ state interest seeks to ensure that liveable, well-designed and serviced communities are delivered to support wellbeing and enhance quality of life. Through the assessment of the state interest it was identified that the proposed vertical increase in the height of the finished landform from the currently approved RL71 to a revised peak height of RL85 (post settlement) and increase to the capacity of the landfill does not value and nurture community identity, local landscape character and the natural environment owing to the fact that the increased land form is visible from existing and proposed residential and recreation areas as well as major roads.

State Interest – water quality

The water quality state interest seeks to protect the environmental values and quality of Queensland waters through the facilitated development outcomes. Through the assessment it was identified that the proposal has not adequately demonstrated that it is located, designed, constructed and could be operated to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on receiving waters through altered stormwater quality through the release and mobilisation of nutrients and sediments. Of particular concern is the discharge from overflowing leachate ponds in rain events (currently designed to only hold peak wet season rainfall events (90^th percentile)). Further, there is concern that the proposal may cause additional worsening in the receiving environments owing to potential liner and capping failure both during operation as well as post closure.

In summary, the proposal has not demonstrated that it:

§ Promotes high quality urban design and place making outcomes that facilitate and promote community identity through considering local features, character, needs and aspirations.

§ Values and nurtures local landscape character and the natural environment.

§ Facilitate the protection or enhancement of environmental values and the achievement of water quality objectives for Queensland waters.

§ Is located, designed and will be constructed and operated to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on environmental values of receiving waters arising from altered stormwater quality and hydrology.

§ Is located, designed and will be constructed and operated to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the environmental values of receiving waters arising from the release and mobilisation of nutrients and sediments.

§ Will achieve the applicable stormwater management design objectives on-site post-construction phase or an alternative local appropriate solution.

Temporary Local Planning Instrument (TLPI) No. 1 of 2018 (Waste Activity Regulation)

The purpose of the TLPI is to regulate applications for expanded waste activities within the Swanbank / New Chum industrial area to ensure this regionally significant economic area is appropriately regulated to protect existing, approved or planned residential and other sensitive receiving uses, from adverse impacts associated with waste activities. To achieve this purpose the TLPI includes Strategic Outcomes as well as assessment benchmarks within the Swanbank/New Chum Waste Activity Code.

An assessment against the TLPI was undertaken which identified that the proposed development is not consistent with the overall and specific outcomes sought as follows:

Location

The proposal seeks to establish a portion of a Waste Activity Use (Landfill) (specifically proposed Cell 6, a leachate pond, sediment basins and site entry, office, workshop, staff amenities, weighbridge and landfill gas flare in the norther corner of the site) outside of the Swanbank / New Chum Waste Activity Area.

The Swanbank/New Chum Waste Activity Code clearly states in section (3)(2)(a) that Waste Activity Uses that are inconsistent with the outcomes sought by the Swanbank/New Chum Waste Activity Code and constitute undesirable development and are unlikely to be approved.

Rehabilitation of former Mining Void

The overall height of the proposed landfill exceeds the top of the former mining void. The applicant has stated in their response to the TLPI: “that the highest point of the former mining void was approximately RL60m, occurring towards the Western property boundary; with a low point of approximately RL36m toward the eastern boundary of Lot 268 on SP103913.“

The proposed landform has a peak height of RL85m which is significantly higher than the former mining void and the previously approved peak height of RL71m. The proposal to raise the vertical height of the approved landform above the mining void height is not considered to be minor contouring.

In addition, the TLPI seeks to ensure that Waste Activities Uses achieve appropriate rehabilitation outcomes for land affected by former mining activities. These rehabilitation outcomes should include additional recreation, green space and environmental corridors where appropriate and consistent with Council’s land use planning as well as ensuring that any permitted uses does not prejudice or compromise the future rehabilitation, use, repair or maintenance of the land.

Visual Amenity

The Concept Design Report Version 2 prepared by GHD (June 2019) states that the waste will be covered progressively and as needed for site environmental management (litter, odour and vermin control) noting that Intermediate cover will be placed in areas where waste areas will be inactive for periods of generally 90 days or longer. The method of landform covering/screening outlined in the Concept Design Report Version 2 suggests that no waste will be visible due to the creation of the screening bund located in the southern section of the landform.

While it is noted that the proposed screening bund may restrict views to the waste landform from the southern aspect, the waste areas and progressive landfilling may be visible from other aspects. It is also noted in the Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Cardno (June 2019) that views to the landform will be visible primarily from residential receptors to the east and south‐east of the subject land in Collingwood Park, the adjacent industrial land (Claypave site) and the Swanbank industrial area to the south. In addition, the Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Cardno (June 2019) specifically addresses the proposed landform and states: “Compared to the approved landfill (to RL71), the proposed development (to RL85m) will have greater visibility from some sensitive residential receptor groups in Collingwood Park, Redbank Plains and Redbank (Receptor Groups D‐H, J, K), a commercial receptor group in Redbank Plains (Receptor Group I), Swanbank (Receptor Group L) and New Chum (Receptor Group M) and from a small section of the Ipswich Motorway in Redbank (Receptor Group B).” It is therefore likely that the proposed landform and waste progressively filled on‐site as a result of the proposed development application will be visible from residential and other sensitive areas and could lack the ability to adequately screen the on‐site works, particularly to the east and south‐east. It has therefore not been demonstrated that the proposal will not impact on visual amenity from residential and other sensitive areas.

In summary, the proposal has not demonstrated that it:

§ Will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of surrounding area, particularly on existing, approved or planned residential areas or other sensitive receiving uses.

§ Will not have a significant impact on visual amenity from residential and other sensitive receiving uses.

§ Does not have a detrimental impact on the environment.

§ Achieves appropriate rehabilitation outcomes for land affected by former mining activities.

§ Will achieve appropriate rehabilitation outcomes for land affected by former mining activities that:

- add to a network of green spaces, environmental corridors and active and passive recreation areas;

- do not prejudice or compromise the future rehabilitation, use, repair or maintenance of the land; and

- includes appropriate landscaping and revegetation strategies appropriate for the long term use of the rehabilitated land.

§ Includes filling and earthworks that do not extend beyond the top of former mining voids.

§ Is designed, operated and maintained so that exposed waste is not visible from surrounding residential and other sensitive receiving uses at any time.

Ipswich Planning Scheme 2016

The Ipswich Planning Scheme 2006 (the Scheme) provides a number of benchmarks against which development subject to Impact Assessment must be assessed. These include Desired Environmental Outcomes and Performance Indicators, Overall and Specific Outcomes in the respective Area and Zone Codes, Use and Overlay Codes as well as any applicable Planning Scheme Policies.

The basis of these measures is to provide for ecological sustainability across the local government area and determine if the desired outcomes are being achieved through the development outcomes achieved.

An assessment against the Scheme was undertaken which identified that the proposed development is not consistent with the relevant Desired Environmental Outcomes, Performance Indicators and Overall and Specific Outcomes as follows:

Natural Environment

The increased capacity of the proposed landform as well as the relocation of related functional aspects of the use such as the leachate pond and sediment basins will result in the loss of natural vegetation and associated habitat particularly within areas designated for buffer purposes.

In addition, the proposal does not demonstrate that it will avoid or minimise impacts on areas with significant biodiversity values including managing offsite impacts. Of particular concern is the discharge from overflowing leachate ponds in rain events (currently designed to only hold peak wet season rainfall events (90^th percentile)) In addition, the proposal has not shown that the capacity of the leachate ponds are such that they are able to respond to the projected effects of climate change. Further, there is concern that the proposal may cause additional worsening in the receiving environments owing to potential liner and capping failure both during operation as well as post closure.

Amenity Impacts

Significant amenity impacts are identified to both residential and other sensitive areas within visual range of the proposal. These impacts are twofold. During operation the progressive filling of waste is unlikely to be screened to the east and south‐east and as such will likely be visible from existing, approved and future residential, recreation and open space areas. In addition, post closure the vertical increase in the height of the finished landform from the currently approved RL71 to a revised peak height of RL85 (post settlement) is shown to be visible from a number of residential and other sensitive areas both within and adjoining the Swanbank/New Chum locality.

Further as outlined above the proposed changes seek to establish an expanded landform and related functional aspects which will result in the removal of mature vegetation that will further degrade the buffering function required to manage the amenity impacts on sensitive uses within visual range of the proposal.

Site Rehabilitation

The proposal does not demonstrate that it will rehabilitate or use in an appropriate manner a degraded or contaminated site (including former mining sites and overburden stockpiles) to establish a regionally significant business enterprise and industry nodes and uses that have and promote a high standard of amenity.

In summary, the proposal has not demonstrated that it:

§ Will minimise or prevent adverse effects on the natural environment with respect to soil degradation, air pollution and water pollution owing to erosion, chemical contamination, acidification, salinity, management and effluent disposal and the like.

§ Will maximise the health and safety of people, and the amenity they enjoy, particularly in the urban areas where different types of uses are located close together.

§ Is designed and located to minimise impacts, nuisance and risks to adjoining residential uses, people and property.

§ Will result in the creation and maintenance of regionally significant business enterprise and industry nodes which enjoy sustained economic growth, good design and ecological sustainability.

§ Will rehabilitate or use in an appropriate manner a degraded or contaminated site (including former mining sites and overburden stockpiles) to establish a regionally significant business enterprise and industry nodes and uses that have and promote a high standard of amenity.

§ Provides appropriate visual treatment, landscaping, buffering and separation between incompatible uses to ensure that there are no discernible amenity or environmental impacts which affect adjacent sensitive land uses both existing and planned including residences and major external road corridors.

§ Will ensure stormwater runoff from a use or site is similar to or better than the established water quality standards for the receiving waters or lawful point of discharge.

§ Resolves the applicable constraints such as the potential amenity impacts on nearby residential areas.

§ Will not have a significant detrimental amenity impact on nearby existing or proposed residential areas including recreation uses.

§ Provides landscaping that is designed, constructed and maintained to provide buffers to improve amenity or environmental impacts particularly where industrial uses adjoin residential areas or riparian corridors or are ‘overlooked’ by residential areas.

§ Has no discernible amenity or environmental impacts outside of the Swanbank New Chum Sub Area.

§ Will be screened with appropriate landscaping such that outdoor areas used for plant, equipment and storage are not visible when viewed from the Cunningham Highway, Old Ipswich Road, the Centenary Highway, and the Ipswich to Springfield Public Transport Corridor and nearby existing or planned residential areas. Is of a scale appropriate for the prevailing nature of the area and the particular circumstances of the site and its surrounds.

§ Will be developed and managed in accordance with acceptable environmental standards.

§ Is compatible with the character of the local area.

§ Can screen unsightly elements.

§ Can maintain a scale and height of development commensurate with the intent of the zone, Sub Area or precinct in which the development is located and which is generally compatible with surrounding development.

§ Can be undertaken in a manner which does not cause a nuisance or disturbance to the occupiers or users of other nearby land, particularly nearby residents and other sensitive receptors.

§ Will have no significant detrimental effect on the amenity and general well-being of the area.

§ Will maintain the amenity of nearby residential areas and protect and enhance important townscape and landscape elements, having regard to vegetation protection within buffer areas and appropriate landscape treatment of buffer areas.

Waste Management

It is noted that the Queensland Government has recently made a range of legislative and policy reforms and released a number of directions/discussions papers, strategies and development programs with respect to the management of the waste industry, which is aimed at significantly changing the way in which waste is dealt with in Queensland. These include the Transforming Queensland’s Recycling and Waste Industry - Directions Paper, the Queensland Government response to the Honourable Peter Lyons, QC Investigation into the Transport of Waste into Queensland, the Waste Management and Resource Recovery Strategy, the Resource recovery industry development program, the Energy from Waste Policy – Discussion Paper, the Queensland Resource Recovery Industries 10 Year Roadmap and Action Plan; and the Queensland Climate Transition Strategy; all of which recognise that there has been little substantive progress in the preceding ten years on waste recovery rates, the current resource recovery targets are not being met, and a new way forward is needed to promote and support genuine resource recovery, recycling and residual waste management and there is a real need to reduce the reliance on landfills. As Council has recently received an influx of development applications for new and expanded landfills, significant concerns are held that the proposed development may undermine the objectives being sought by the Queensland Government.

In order to alleviate these concerns and to give the applicant an opportunity to demonstrate to both the Council and the Queensland Government that there is an overarching need for the proposed landfill expansion, the applicant was requested to prepare and submit a Waste Industry Management Expert Report. In doing so, the applicant was requested to demonstrate that the proposed development will not undermine the vision, strategies, objectives and outcomes sought by the Queensland Government in the following documents:

· State Planning Policy;

· State Infrastructure Plan;

· Transforming Queensland’s Recycling and Waste Industry Directions Paper;

· The Queensland Government response to the Honourable Peter Lyons, QC Investigation into the Transport of waste into Queensland;

· Waste Management and Resource Recovery Strategy;

· Resource recovery industry development program;

· Queensland Resource Recovery Industries 10 Year Roadmap and Action Plan;

· Energy from Waste Policy Discussion Paper;

· Queensland Climate Transition Strategy;

· South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009 – 2031 (2009 Regional Plan); and

· ShapingSEQ South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 (2017 Regional Plan).

Furthermore, it was requested that the Waste Industry Management Expert Report demonstrates how the proposed development promotes ecological sustainability; promotes improvements in waste avoidance; promotes and supports genuine resource recovery, recycling and residual waste management therefore reducing the reliance on landfills, assists in reducing the reliance on landfills; will reduce or limit the unnecessary transport of waste within Australia; supports a liveable, sustainable and prosperous Queensland; minimises greenhouse emissions; supports local jobs and job creation, noting that landfills generally support few jobs then uses where waste is reused or recycled; and will not result in an outcome whereby landfilling of waste becomes cheaper (economies of scale/supply and demand), which would continue to make the transport of waste in Queensland (including cross border) the most appealing option therefore stifling innovation, waste avoidance, resource recovery and recycling.

Notwithstanding Council’s request, the applicant refused to provide a Waste Industry Management Expert Report. In their response to Council, the applicant advised that a specific Waste Industry Management Expert Report has not been prepared as part of the development application and will not be provided in response to Council’s further advice as the development application, when read as a whole, contains sufficient information for the Council to assess and decide the development application.

In summary, the applicant failed to demonstrate that there is an overarching need for the proposed landfill expansion and that the proposal will not undermine the vision, strategies, objectives and outcomes sought by the Queensland Government particularly in the context of the current resource recovery, recycling and residual waste management initiatives introduced by the Queensland Government.

SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT

An assessment of the proposal has been undertaken against the key planning provisions that relate to this development application including the Planning Act 2016, South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017-2041, State Planning Policy 2017, Ipswich planning Scheme 2006 and Temporary Planning Instrument No. 1 of 2018 (Waste Activity Regulation). Taking into account all relevant information, it is concluded that the proposal has not demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify approval having regard to the common material and key planning provisions.

Upon formulating a recommendation on this development application, Council engaged the services of an external Town Planning expert to undertake an independent third‐party peer review of the development application. The independent third‐party peer review provided a high‐level summary assessment of the application against the applicable legislation and statutory provisions, including the relevant provisions of the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017‐2041, State Planning Policy 2017, Ipswich Planning Scheme 2006 and Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 1 of 2018 (Waste Activity Regulation).

In summary, the independent third‐party peer review agreed with the recommendation to refuse the development application on the basis of the application material submitted and the specific nature of the proposal as it currently stands, primarily because it is inconsistent with the intent of the Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 1 of 2018 (Waste Activity Regulation) which applies to the subject site. The peer review also agreed that there are aspects of the Ipswich Planning Scheme 2006 which the proposed development does not comply with.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Planning Act 2016

Planning Regulation 2017

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

§ A risk to Council exists should the proposal not be determined in accordance with legislative requirements. The assessment and subsequent recommendations have been prepared to minimise the risk.

§ Pursuant to DA Rules the due date to make decision on this application is 21 October 2019 and the due date to issue the decision notice to the applicant is 28 October 2019. The applicant could lodge a deemed refusal appeal in the Planning and Environment Court if the decision notice is not issued to the applicant by 28 October 2019.

§ Notwithstanding, upon Council issuing the decision notice the applicant may choose to appeal Council’s refusal decision in the Planning and Environment Court.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no resource implications associated with this report.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Referral Agencies

The application required referral to the Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDMIP) as a concurrence agency. The development application referral (ref: 1807-6501 SRA) was assessed by the State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA). Following an assessment against the State Development Assessment Provisions, SARA determined that the application complied with the State’s assessment benchmarks for state transport infrastructure and environmentally relevant activities, under the Planning Act 2016 and the Environmental Protection Act 1994. Aspects associated with the site’s operations, such as site management and risks were considered as part of the State’s assessment. SARA’s response dated 10 September 2019 advised that they did not object to the development subject to the inclusion of SARA conditions.

In the Statement of Reasons provided by SARA, Council was advised that:

§ The development complies with the purpose and applicable performance outcomes of State code 6: Protection of state transport networks and State code 22: Environmentally relevant activities of the State Development Assessment Provisions.

§ The development application material demonstrates the proposal, with conditions, will not adversely impact upon existing and future state-controlled roads

§ The development application material demonstrates the proposal, with conditions, protects state transport infrastructure from adverse impacts and maintains the operational performance of the state transport network.

§ The development application material demonstrates that risks associated with the proposal have been identified and can be managed appropriately to protect human health and safety, proportionate to the sensitive nature of the surrounding land uses.

The application was also referred to Powerlink owing to the presence of a Powerlink easement over the subject site. On 16 July 2019 Powerlink provided an amended response following notification of the changed application. The amended response advised Council that they do not object to the development provided it is undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the easement.

Public Notification

Public notification of this application was undertaken pursuant to the Planning Act 2016. The applicant undertook public notification twice for a period of 15 business days, once for the original proposal and the second time following the change. The first period was undertaken from 3 November 2018 to 14 December 2018 and the second from 8 July 2019 to 29 July 2019. Council received 320 properly made submissions and 24 not properly made submissions. Of the 320 properly made submissions 19 were supportive of the proposal.

Matters raised in the submissions include:

Matters raised - Objections

How matters were dealt with in reaching a decision

Traffic/Transport

§ Issues with increase in traffic movements (including heavy vehicles) on local roads and highways.

The submissions received are common material for the application and have been considered as part of the application assessment.

While a number of matters raised could be resolved through reasonable and relevant conditions, there are certainly matters for which Council agrees with the submitters concerns. In conclusion the development cannot be appropriately conditioned to address all matters raised and there are insufficient grounds to justify the decision to approve the development.

Air Pollution and Odours

§ Landfill operations generate unacceptable levels of dust (including asbestos), toxic smoke (from fires) and odour with limited or non-existent management strategies.

§ Insufficient air pollution and odour monitoring and reporting.

§ Concern with landfill gas impacts post closure and up to 30 years post closure (including risk of explosion and/or asphyxiation).

§ Concerns with veracity of submitted reporting.

§ Increases health risks for nearby residents.

Noise pollution

§ Proposal generates noise pollution from traffic and heavy machinery on site.

Water/Soil Pollution

§ Release of contaminants from the landfill pollutes underground water and soil.

§ Water pollution from leachate and stormwater runoff from the landfill facility.

§ Water pollution through increased erosion.

§ Insufficient water/soil pollution monitoring and reporting including post closure.

§ Concern with long-term leaking of toxic leachate post closure owing to failure of landfill liners.

§ No clear contamination event remediation plan/policy.

§ Proposed leachate water management provides insufficient detail to demonstrate efficacy.

Health Impacts

§ Increased health hazards to the community.

§ Waste streams accepted on site include asbestos and other toxic materials resulting in release of airborne harmful asbestos particles.

Site Rehabilitation Outcomes

§ Landfill consisting of waste is not appropriate as rehabilitation material for mining voids.

§ Application does not demonstrate the project’s ecological sustainability.

Increased landform height and loss of amenity

§ The proposal will be a visual eyesore during and post operation.

§ Proposal creates an unappealing engineered mountain.

§ Loss of existing visual beauty of the area.

§ Loss of views to D’Aguilar Range and Great Dividing Range.

§ Increased lifespan of facility extends impact on residents.

Impact on Wildlife

§ Increased noise and pollution affects the wildlife in the vicinity.

§ Proposed expansion will disrupt populations of protected fauna including koalas, echidnas, grey-headed flying foxes, greater gliders, platypii and Powerful Owl.

§ Proposed expansion will disrupt populations of Red Goshawks and Rufous Fantails.

Impact on Protected Vegetation

§ Proposed expansion will disrupt populations of protected flora including the Cooneana Olive, Lloyd’s Olive and Slender Milk Vine.

Create Stormwater and Flooding Issues

§ Increase in stormwater flows to Void 10 causing changes to the hydrology of the area and impacts on current environmental values.

§ Increased turbidity within Six Mile Creek owing to erosion and stormwater runoff.

§ Increased stormwater flows could exacerbate existing flooding within Riverview.

Ground/Underground Stability

§ Increase in height coupled with unreliable mine mapping, uncertain stability and poor understanding of the location of mine workings (including underground heating and subsidence) increases risk of future environmental damage should a geotechnical failure occur.

Economic Need

§ Concerns with veracity of economic needs reporting.

Incompatible with the locality

§ The general locality has been and is intended for the purposes of regionally significant commercial and industrial uses and the proposal sterilises the subject land from these uses.

Cost implications to the community

§ The proposal does not bring any positive benefit to the area rather bring undesirable consequences to the area.

§ Shall have adverse social and economic impacts on the community.

Proximity to residential areas

§ The proposal represents an incompatible use with the growing residential areas surrounding New Chum.

§ Proposal within 2km to schools and homes

Poor community consultation

§ Application material does not include adequate and appropriate information for public to fully understand the project.

§ Misleading information circulated about the rehabilitation of Void 10 as Community Open Space.

§ Insufficient time to review complex application prior to deadline to make submission.

Lack of trust in waste operators

§ General concern with waste operators’ history of non-compliance.

§ Concern with Cleanaway’s track record of non-compliance with permit conditions including overfilling and unsorted waste allowing escape of pollutants including asbestos, reclassification of interstate waste as local waste.

Property Values

§ Leads to decrease in property values of nearby residential properties.

Ipswich becoming waste capital

§ The proposal predominantly caters for waste generated outside of Ipswich LGA including other States of Australia.

§ No justified benefit to the residents of Ipswich.

Social impact and stigma

§ Concentrated large scale waste dumps will impact on the reputation of the area.

§ The locality shall be dis-reputed as the ‘dumping capital’ of South East Queensland and Australia.

Non-compliance with relevant policies

§ Non-compliant with the Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 1 of 2018 (Waste Activity Regulation).

§ Non-compliance with State Government Guidelines on siting landfill (500m from noise, dust or odour sensitive place or less than 100m from an unstable area).

§ Non-compliance with the purpose of the Planning Act 2016.

§ Non-compliance with the Planning Regulation 2017.

§ Non-compliance with the Ipswich Planning Scheme 2006.

Matters raised - Support

How matters were dealt with in reaching a decision

Essential Service

§ Landfill provides essential waste disposal services for local businesses;

§ Limited landfill capacity available in Ipswich/greater Brisbane area is problematic for long-term waste disposal needs.

The submissions received are common material for the application and have been considered as part of the application assessment. The application has been refused for the reasons outlined in Purpose of Report/ Background above.

Increased operational expenses

§ Alternative disposal arrangements are likely to incur increased transport costs and transport kilometres and as a result increased carbon emissions.

Convenient location

§ The subject facility is conveniently located to the industries it services with good heavy vehicle access.

§ Limited local roads travel is required to access the facility.

Trustworthy Operator

§ The subject facility has a proven track record of being quality, efficient and compliant waste disposal service.

§ The subject facility operates with well-established quality systems and processes.

§ The subject facility operates in accordance with the license obligations set by the Department of Environment and Science.

§ Continued operational improvement witnessed on subsequent public open days.

Environmental responsibility

§ The subject facility employs a cell system that utilises layers of liner and drainage systems to protect the waste from negatively interacting with the environment.

Employment generator

§ The subject facility employs more than 25 personnel and supports a number of contractors.

Economic contributor

§ The subject facility is a large contributor of rates and taxes to the State and local Ipswich economy.

Increased landform height

§ The proposed landform height is less than the surrounding topography.

Rehabilitation outcomes

§ The operator plans to progressively rehabilitate the landfill and its buffer areas which is beneficial to improve this former open cut coal mining area.

Corporate citizen

§ The operator supports a number of sporting and cultural organisations through the Cleanaway New Chum Community Benefit Scheme in the greater New Chum area including Blackstone, Bundamba, Ebbw Vale, Dinmore, Riverview, Redbank, Collingwood Park and Woodlinks.

§ Approximately $200,000 of financial support over 4 years.

Conclusion

The proposal cannot be supported in accordance with sections 5 and 60 of Planning Act 2016. The development does not advance the purpose of the Planning Act 2016 and conflicts with the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017-2041, State Planning Policy 2017 and the applicable codes of the Planning Scheme and TLPI No. 1 of 2018 (Waste Activity Regulation) with no sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict. Furthermore, the proposed development is inconsistent with expressed planning principles that promote ecological sustainability and seek to reduce the need for landfill and maximise recycling and is likely to undermine the vision, strategies, objectives and outcomes sought by the Queensland Government in the following documents:

· State Infrastructure Plan;

· Transforming Queensland’s Recycling and Waste Industry Directions Paper;

· The Queensland Government response to the Honourable Peter Lyons, QC Investigation into the Transport of waste into Queensland;

· Waste Management and Resource Recovery Strategy;

· Resource recovery industry development program;

· Queensland Resource Recovery Industries 10 Year Roadmap and Action Plan;

· Energy from Waste Policy Discussion Paper; and

· Queensland Climate Transition Strategy

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Statement of Reasons ⇩
2.	Proposal Plans ⇩
3.	Referral Agency Responses ⇩
4.	Third Party Review Report ⇩

Matthew Buchanan

Planner (Development)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Michael Simmons

Team Coordinator (West)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Anthony Bowles

Acting Development Planning Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Brett Davey

Acting General Manager - Planning and Regulatory Services

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

22 October

2019

Doc ID No: A5819052

ITEM: 5

SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions

AUTHOR: Building and Plumbing Manager

DATE: 30 September 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the adoption of the proposed Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions and Implementation Guidelines to replace the current Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions and Shipping Container Implementation Guideline as adopted by Council on 29 July 2014 and 17 September 2014 respectively.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) rescind the current Amenity and Aesthetics Provisions (Attachment 1) dated 29 July 2014 and adopt the proposed Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions 2019 (Attachment 2) effective of 1 December 2019.

B. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) rescind the current Implementation Guideline - Shipping Containers (Attachment 3) dated 17 September 2014 and adopt the proposed Implementation Guidelines as listed below effective of 1 December 2019:

· No. 1, Transportable Buildings – Attachment 4

· No. 2, Oversized Class 10 Buildings – Attachment 5

· No. 3, Demolition, Removal or Relocation of a Building – Attachment 6.

C. That the General Manager, Planning and Regulatory Services be authorised to approve administrative amendments, additions and retractions to the Implementation Guidelines where required.

D. That the Manager, Building and Plumbing be requested to attend to all relevant matters associated with giving effect to the Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions, including uploading the provisions and associated Implementation Guidelines on the Council website.

E. That the Building Manager distribute the adopted Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions and Implementation Guidelines to the relevant industry organisations.

RELATED PARTIES

· Strategic Planning/ Development Assessment Branch leaders – no issues were raised

· There are no other related party matters associated with this report.

· There was no declaration of conflicts of interest.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the community

Listening, leading and financial management

Purpose of Report/Background

The current Amenity and Aesthetics (A&A) Referral Provisions were adopted by Council on 29 July 2014. Council maintains these provisions pursuant to the Planning Regulation 2017 – Schedule 9, Division 2, Table 1 – Particular class 1 and 10 buildings and structures involving possible amenity and aesthetic impacts.

Since the commencement of these provisions the residential landscape has changed with the increase in small lot developments and large lot residential lifestyle properties.

With the new planning scheme framework being undertaken, these lot size categories will continue to be developed in Ipswich which has made it necessary to review the provisions to ensure they are adequately representing the desired residential amenity and aesthetics for the various localities in Ipswich. In developing the new referral agency provisions, historic referral applications lodged on the differing lot sizes were evaluated in addition to feedback from neighbourhood consultation forms.

Additionally, there are situations where an application is generally not required, such as where the works relate to an existing development approval (e.g. building works within a character/heritage area) or where referral is already required for a variation to siting requirements. These matters are not adequately reflected in the current provisions.

In support of the Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions, an Amenity and Aesthetics Implementation Guideline for Shipping Containers was also adopted by Council on 17 September 2014 (Attachment 3). This guideline was created to provide clarity and consistency around the approval of shipping containers on residential properties. This review has assessed the current relevance and need for this guideline.

Taking the above factors into consideration, the new Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions 2019 (Attachment 2) and Implementation Guidelines (Attachments 4-6) have been developed as detailed below:

Changes to Referral Provisions

1. Oversized Class 10 Buildings and structures (Proposed A&A Provision 3)

The Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions include a restriction on the allowable dimensions of a Class 10 building/structure relative to the lot size. Any Class 10 building/structure in excess of the stipulated dimension requires a referral agency response. The current referral categories for Class 10 buildings are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Current A&A Provisions for Class 10 building dimensions

Land Area (m²)	Roof Area (m²)	Wall Height
0 – 2,000	80m²	3.6m
2,000 – 15,000	100m²	3.6m
Over 15,000	N/A	3.6m

Due to the changes to lot sizes, it is proposed to expand the land classification categories from the current 3 (Table 1 above) to 5 (Table 2 below). Where the values are different to the current provision this is shown in brackets [ ].

Table 2: Proposed A&A Provisions for Class 10 building/structure dimensions

Land Area (m²)	Roof Area (m²)	Wall Height	Apex Height
0 - 600	60 [-20]	3.2m [-0.4]	4.2m [new]
601 – 1,000	80	3.6m	4.5m [new]
1,001 – 3,000	100 [+20]	3.6m	4.7m [new]
3,001 – 15,000	120 [+20]	3.6m	5.2m [new]
Over 15,000	300 [new]	4.2m [+0.6]	6.0m [new]

In determining the revised provisions, an audit of applications relating to Class 10 buildings/structures was carried out. Data from the period 1 January 2015 to 29 February 2016 and 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2018 was collated and analysed. Over the combined audit periods, 237 applications for Class 10 buildings/structures were assessed. A breakdown of applications by current and proposed lot size is provided in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1 – Based on current Referral Provisions

Figure 2 – Based on proposed Referral Provisions

The audit revealed that approximately 60% of the applications received related to lots with a size between 1,000m² to 6,000m². The presence of larger Class 10 buildings/structures has increasingly become part of the expected built form for these areas and as such it is considered appropriate to increase the allowable building size. Based on the 2017-2018 data sample, 31 of the 153 applications would no longer require referral if the proposed amended provisions were in place, 20 of which relate to lots greater than 3,000m² (refer to Table 3).

Table 3: Effect of amended provisions across data period 1/1/2017-31/12/2018

Land Area	Applications as received	% of total	Applications if amended	Applications not required
1001-3000	41	26.80%	32	9
3001-15000	71	46.41%	51	20
over 15000	11	7.19%	9	2
TOTAL	153	100.00%	122	31

There is likely to be an increase in applications for the 0-600 and 601-1000 house lots which is unknown at this time. This is not expected to be significant.

The effect of oversized Class 10 buildings/structures on residential amenity has the greatest impact in areas containing smaller lot sizes, i.e. less than 600m². Increased site coverage and proximity to boundaries greatly impacts the availability and quality of private recreation space and also impacts the habitable and recreational areas of adjoining properties.

Additionally, the cost of supply and construction of larger sheds has become more affordable allowing more owners to upsize their sheds and carports. The introduction of a new category which specifically addresses small lot housing areas seeks to ensure the residential amenity is not unduly effected by the proliferation of large Class 10 buildings/structures. An allowance of 60m² for a Class 10 building/structure provides a reasonable parking and storage area (e.g. 6m x 10m or 7.5m x 8m etc). A reduced wall height will assist reducing the bulk of the building and prevent excessive overshadowing to adjoining properties.

For lots greater than 15,000m² current referral provisions only capture wall heights in excess of 3.6m, which is the same limitation placed on all lot sizes. These properties are predominantly semi-rural in nature with significant lot widths allowing greater separation between habitable uses on adjoining lots. Allowing increased wall heights is unlikely to negatively impact the amenity of these areas and would allow increased design flexibility for owners to store equipment and machinery often associated with larger properties. Further, a provision to limit the overall heights (apex height) and roof/plan area will assist in ensuring proposed buildings are consistent with the definition of a Class 10 building and ancillary to the predominant use of the land, and not used for commercial or other regulated activities where approval under the Planning Scheme may be required.

It is considered that the lot size categories under the current Amenity and Aesthetics provisions don’t accurately capture the differing aesthetic characteristics of medium-high density areas, large lot residential areas and semi-rural areas. It is therefore recommended that the Amenity and Aesthetics (A&A) provisions in so much as they apply to Class 10 building sizes be revised as show in Table 2.

Application data from the 2017-2018 audit period also revealed that 41.2% of applications for oversized Class 10 buildings and structures required an Information Request. Commonly requested information included the intended use of the building, justification for the proposed building size/scale, justification of building location relative to boundaries, impact on adjoining residents or requiring further approvals such as a siting variation, a driveway permit or building over/near infrastructure.

To reduce the amount of Information Requests and negotiated outcomes it is proposed to support the Amenity and Aesthetics Provisions with an Implementation Guideline to provide applicants with quantitative and qualitative criteria that can be considered prior to committing to a building design and submitting an application. Proposed Implementation Guideline No. 2 – Oversized Class 10a Buildings and Structures (Attachment 5).

2. Demolition, Removal or Relocation of a Building or Structure (Proposed A&A Provisions 1&2)

It is proposed to separate the demolition or removal of a building/structure from a property and the relocation (reinstatement) of a building/structure onto a property.

Additionally, the proposal formalises circumstances where regardless of whether a referral agency application for amenity and aesthetics is required, an assessment for the determination of performance security for building work pursuant to the Schedule 9, Part 3, Division 2, Table 7 – Building work for removal or rebuilding is also required.

To support these proposed referral provisions Implementation Guideline No. 3 – Demolition, Removal or Relocation of a Building or Structure (Attachment 6) has been developed.

3. Carports within the prescribed road boundary (Proposed A&A Provision 4)

Since February 2017 the Ipswich Planning Scheme has referred to the Queensland Development Code (QDC) Mandatory Parts 1.1 and 1.2 for design and siting for detached housing lots. Under the QDC there is no width dimension provided for carports within a road boundary setback.

It is therefore proposed to include a width provision for carports within the road boundary setback. A width of seven (7) metres has been chosen to allow for a double carport with eaves and pedestrian access. It is also proposed to include a referral exception if the building/structure is of a size or in a location that would already require referral for a siting variation or where a valid development approval has already been obtained.

4. Certain Class 1 and 10 buildings on vacant land (Proposed A&A Provision 5)

A minor change is proposed to bring together provisions regarding the construction of Class 10 buildings and Class 1 buildings that have the appearance of a Class 10 (e.g. steel kit garages or prefabricated construction) on a site not already containing a dwelling.

A referral exception is to be included for the construction of a Class 10 building where a valid building permit for the associated Class 1 dwelling has already been issued, or is being issued concurrently, by a licensed building certifier. Additionally, referral will not be required where a separate or concurrent application for development approval under the Planning Scheme has been approved.

5. Transportable buildings and structures (Proposed A&A Provision 6)

A minor change is proposed to clarify that all transportable buildings and structures require referral agency assessment, including but not limited to shipping containers, railway carriages, demountable buildings and site sheds.

It is also proposed to repeal the existing Implementation Guideline for Shipping Containers (Attachment 3) and adopt Implementation Guideline No. 1 – Transportable Buildings (Attachment 4) to cater for this clarification.

6. Fences and/or retaining walls (Proposed A&A Provision 7)

A minor change is proposed to clarify that fences with an overall height greater than two (2) metres, whether combined or separate to a retaining wall, require referral under the Amenity and Aesthetics provisions, unless a referral agency response for siting is already required.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Planning Act 2016

Planning Regulation 2017

Building Act 1975

Building Regulation 2006

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The changes to the lower end of the shed sizes will result in an increase of applications however this is considered necessary to protect against the proliferation of large Class 10 buildings/structures on lots less than 600m².

Formally documenting referral exceptions, assessment considerations and applicant expectations in the Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions and the associated Implementation Guidelines will reduce the risk, or perceived risk, of inconsistent or biased decisions.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The review considered costings of previous building applications received relevant to the new categories. Whilst there will be a reduction of referral applications on the larger lots due to the increased shed size/height allowable before referral, there will be a marginal increase for the new smaller lot category where a shed size and reduced height has been created.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

- Both the Development Assessment and Strategic Planning leaders were consulted during the review of the proposed Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions. Support was provided for the proposed changes as set out in this report and no conflicts relative to the new planning scheme framework were raised.

- No community consultation was carried out, however a review of application and approval data (including neighbourhood consultation forms) for the periods 1/1/2015 – 29/8/2016 and 1/1/2017 – 31/12/2018 was conducted.

Conclusion

It is proposed that the new Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions 2019, as detailed in Attachment 2, and the associated Implementation Guidelines, as detailed in Attachments 4-6, be adopted with the proposed changes to come into effect on and from 1 December 2019.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Current Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions ⇩
2.	Proposed Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provision 2019 ⇩
3.	Current Implementation Guideline Shipping Container ⇩
4.	Proposed Implementation Guideline No. 1 - Transportable Buildings ⇩
5.	Proposed Implementation Guideline No. 2 - Oversized Class 10 Buildings ⇩
6.	Proposed Implementation Guideline No. 3 - Demo, Remove, Relocate ⇩

Michael Bond

Building and Plumbing Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Brett Davey

Acting General Manager - Planning and Regulatory Services

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

22 October

2019

Doc ID No: A5822746

ITEM: 6

SUBJECT: 197 and 213 Taylors Road, Walloon - Material Change of Use for Preliminary Approval including a variation request to vary the effect of the Ipswich Planning Scheme, and Reconfiguring a Lot - One (1) Lot into Twelve (12) Lots and New Road

AUTHOR: Senior Planner (Development)

DATE: 9 October 2019

Executive Summary

This report relates to a development application that seeks a combined approval for a Material Change of Use for Preliminary Approval including a variation request to vary the effect of the Ipswich Planning Scheme, and Reconfiguring a Lot - One (1) Lot into Twelve (12) Lots and New Road, over land located at 197 Taylors Road and 213 Taylors Road (in part), Walloon.

The proposed development has been assessed with regard to the applicant assessment benchmarks. The proposed development generally complies with the assessment benchmarks or can be conditioned to comply as outlined in the attached Statement of Reasons.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve to approve development application no. 4739/2019/CA subject to conditions in accordance with section 60 of the Planning Act 2016.

B. That the Manager, Development Planning be authorised to prepare conditions in accordance with section 65 of the Planning Act 2016.

C. That the Manager, Development Planning be authorised to give a decision notice for the application in accordance with section 63 of the Planning Act 2016.

D. That the Manager, Development Planning be authorised to give an infrastructure charges notice for the application in accordance with section 119 of the Planning Act 2016.

RELATED PARTIES

The related parties to this application are:

§ Resiprop Pty Ltd (Landowner and developer) – The current company directors as extracted from the ASIC database on 2 October 2019 are Nicholas Ernest Lennon and Anthony James Lennon.

§ LandPartners Pty Ltd (Planning Consultant) – The current company directors as extracted from the ASIC database 2 October 2019 are Michael Lewis Milestone, Ross Stephen John McDowall, Gregory Keith Oxley, Leonard Roy Brock, John Henry Davidson, Peter James Barbaro, Raymond Mervyn Keable, Roland Edmund Mollison and Royston William Lowe. The primary contact has been Shane Smith (Town Planner).

§ Smec Australia Pty Ltd (engineering services consultants) - The primary contact has been Matthew Figg (RPEQ 19245).

§ Holland Traffic Consulting Pty Ltd (traffic consultants) - The primary contact has been S A Holland (RPEQ 05611).

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

SITE ADDRESS:	197 Taylors Road, WALLOON QLD 4306 213 Taylors Road, WALLOON QLD 4306 (in part)
APPLICATION TYPE:	§ Material Change of Use - Preliminary Approval including a variation request to vary the effect of the Ipswich Planning Scheme § Reconfiguring a Lot - One (1) Lot into Twelve (12) Lots and New Road
PROPOSAL:	§ Preliminary Approval including a Variation Request to vary the effect of the Ipswich Planning Scheme in accordance with section 50(3) of the Planning Act 2016 {in accordance with the Concept Plan (Future Urban Zone to Residential Low Density (RL2) Zone) and Site Plan (Changes to Building Setbacks)} over Lot 555 M33493 § Reconfiguring a Lot - One (1) Lot into Twelve (12) Lots and New Road
ZONE:	§ Part Future Urban, § Part Rural Living (Rural C) § Part Special Uses
OVERLAYS:	§ OV2 – Haul Route Buffer; § OV5 – Drainage Assessment Area; § OV7A – Building Height Restriction Area 45m, Outer Horizontal Surface RL176.5 and Transitional Surface; § OV7B – 8km Existing committed Urban Townships Buffer and 8km Operational Airspace Buffer – Wildlife Attraction Restriction Area
APPLICANT:	Resiprop Pty Ltd C/- Landpartners
OWNER:	Resiprop Pty Ltd
EXISTING OR PROPOSED TRADING NAMES:	Highland Walloon
APPLICATION NO:	4739/2019/CA
AREA:	197 Taylors Road, Walloon – 57.06ha 213 Taylors Road, Walloon – 0.8ha
REFERRAL AGENCIES:	Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDMIP) – Concurrence Agency
EXISTING USE:	197 Taylors Road, Walloon – single residential dwelling 213 Taylors Road, Walloon – Vacant farming land
PREVIOUS RELATED APPROVALS:	§ 2570/2006 – Combined Approval comprising of MCU (Preliminary Approval to Override the Planning Scheme), Reconfigure a Lot (5 lots into 1,050 lots) and ERA15(h) – Special Sewage Treatment Works § 2570/2006/MAEXT/A – Extension to Currency Period § 3633/2015/RAL - Reconfiguring a Lot (One (1) Lot up to a maximum of One Hundred (100) Lots and Four (4) Balance Lots
DATE RECEIVED:	12 June 2019
DECISION PERIOD START DATE:	25 September 2019
EXPECTED DETERMINATION DATE:	12 November 2019

SITE LOCATION:

This application seeks a Variation Request in accordance with section 50(3) of the Planning Act 2016 {in accordance with the Concept Plan (Future Urban Zone to Residential Low Density (RL2) Zone) and Site Plan (Changes to Building Setbacks)} over Lot 555 M33493, and a Reconfiguring a Lot - One (1) Lot into Twelve (12) Lots and New Road, over 197 and 213 Taylors Road, Walloon.

The Variation Request component of the application only applies to 197 Taylors Road, Walloon (Lot 555 M33493) and seeks to:

§ Change Future Urban zoned land to Residential Low Density (RL2) Zone) zoned land; and

§ Modify the Acceptable/Probable Solutions for ‘Design and Siting of Buildings and Structures’ for Single Residential Uses over Lot 555 M33493, for the minimum road setback to be 4.0m to a building and 5.5m to a garage/carport.

The Reconfiguring a Lot component of the application seeks to subdivide 197 Taylors Road, Walloon, into Twelve (12) residential Lots with lot sizes ranging from 480m² to 800m². 213 Taylors Road, Walloon (Lot 329 CH31264) has been included in the application as a small portion of this land (approximately 529m² of the 57.06ha property) forms part of the proposed subdivision. The Variation Request is not sought over 213 Taylors Road, Walloon, as this property already holds a Preliminary Approval to Override the Planning Scheme pursuant to Section 3.14.6 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 to allow for Residential Low Density Purposes via Development Approval 2570/2006/CA.

197 Taylors Road, Walloon, is located within the Urban Footprint of the ShapingSEQ Regional Plan and the proposed development is generally consistent with the regulatory provisions of the Regional Plan. Further, the site is currently within the Future Urban Zone (Sub Area FU4: Walloon/Thagoona) of Ipswich Planning Scheme. The FU4 Sub Area includes a Land Use Concept Master Plan, which identifies the subject lot to be developed for Residential Low Density purposes. The proposed Variation Request is consistent with the Land Use Concept Master Plan.

Further, the Variation Request to modify the Acceptable/Probable Solutions for ‘Design and Siting of Buildings and Structures’ for Single Residential uses, to allow a reduced minimum road setback of 4.0m to a building and 5.0m to a garage/carport is acceptable given the premises is a greenfield site and the varied setbacks will provide a consistent front boundary setback within the development.

The Reconfiguring a Lot (RAL) component of the application to create twelve (12) residential Lots represents a net dwelling density of 10dw/ha which is consistent with the Residential Low Density (RL2) Zone sought for the property under the Variation Request, and the Walloon/Thagoona Land Use Concept Master Plan. Further, the proposed RAL generally complies with the Ipswich Planning Scheme requirements including the Reconfiguring a Lot Code and the Development Constraints Overlay Code.

Infrastructure Charges:

Pursuant to section 119 of the Planning Act 2016, an infrastructure charges notice has been given for roadworks, open space and land for community facilities totalling $149,259.00 relating to the Reconfiguring a Lot component of the application. These infrastructure charges are calculated based on the lesser of the charge rates stipulated in Schedule 2 (trunk infrastructure network charges) of Council’s Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution or the maximum adopted charge calculated under the Planning Act 2016 and the Planning Regulation 2017. In this particular instance, infrastructure charges have been calculated based on Schedule 2 (trunk infrastructure network charges).

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no resource implications associated with this report.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

A risk to Council exists should the proposal not be determined in accordance with legislative requirements. The assessment and subsequent recommendations have been prepared to minimise the risk.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Planning Act 2016

Planning Regulation 2017

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Referral Agency: The application required referral to the Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDMIP). The development application referral (ref: 1907-11972 SRA) was assessed by the State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA). Following an assessment against the State Development Assessment Provisions, SARA determined that the application complied with the state’s assessment benchmarks for state transport infrastructure under the Planning Regulation 2017. SARA’s response dated 2 August 2019 advised that they did not object to the development.

In the Statement of Reasons provided by SARA, Council was advised that:

§ The proposed development complies with State code 1: Development in a state-controlled road environment, of the State Development Assessment Provisions.

Public Notification

The applicant undertook public notification from 30 July 2109 to 10 September 2019. During the public notification period one (1) properly made submission was received. Matters raised in the submissions area discussed below. It is considered that the concerns raised can be appropriately addressed via the inclusion of reasonable and relevant conditions.

Concerns raised	Mitigation strategy and/or response
Loss of food production land and bio-diversity.	§ The development site is located within the Urban Footprint of the ShapingSEQ Regional Plan. Further, the site is within the Future Urban Zone (Sub Area FU4: Walloon/Thagoona) of Ipswich Planning Scheme. The FU4 Sub Area includes Walloon/Thagoona Land Use Concept Master Plan which identifies the subject site for Residential Low Density purposes. § The development (reconfiguration of a lot) is predominantly over 197 Taylors Road, Walloon, which is approximately 8,000m² in area and currently has very limited ecological values. The larger parcel being 213 Taylors Road, Walloon, with an area of approximately 57ha holds ecological values which have been dealt with as part of the preliminary approval (Preliminary Approval No. 2570/2006/CA) over this site. The subject proposal is generally consistent with the Preliminary Approval and/or has been conditioned where necessary to achieve compliance.
§ Increase of impermeable surfaces leading to flooding. § Cumulative effect of further development in the area shall worsen flooding in the Walloon area.	The submitted Engineering Services Report indicates that the proposed lots are flood free for pre/post development scenarios and shall have no or negligible adverse flooding impacts upstream/downstream. Further, conditions have been included which require the development to comply with Implementation Guideline 24: Stormwater Management, QUDM, and Planning Scheme Policy 3, relating to stormwater and flood management.
Destruction of rural road verge vegetation.	Vegetation located on gazetted roads are not controlled under the Planning Scheme. Further, the road/s that provide access to the development site are already constructed, and given the scale of the proposed development these roads shall not require major upgrade works.
Suitability of proposed street trees and landscaping plants	The development has been conditioned to provide landscaping in accordance with the Ipswich Planning Scheme requirements and utilising only native, non-invasive, plant species.
Protect existing vegetation particularly along creeks, gullies and waterways.	The development (reconfiguration of a lot) is predominantly over 197 Taylors Road, Walloon which does not contain creeks, gullies or waterways. The larger parcel being 213 Taylors Road, Walloon, contains a waterway which have been dealt with as part of preliminary approval application (Preliminary Approval No. 2570/2006/CA) over this site. The subject proposal is generally consistent with the Preliminary Approval and/or has been conditioned where necessary to achieve compliance.
Increased traffic on the rural roads will increase the number of wildlife deaths on the roads.	The development site and its immediate surroundings including gazetted road/s that provide access to the development site are located within the Urban Footprint of the ShapingSEQ Regional Plan. Further, the development site and its immediate surroundings are within Ipswich Planning Scheme Walloon/Thagoona Land Use Concept Master Plan which identifies the subject site and its immediate surroundings for residential development purposes.
§ Lack of water. § Lack of infrastructure like schools, hospitals etc to support the increase in the number of people that developments bring.	The development site is the Future Urban Zone (Sub Area FU4: Walloon/Thagoona) of Ipswich Planning Scheme. The FU4 Sub Area includes Walloon/Thagoona Land Use Concept Master Plan which identifies infrastructure like road networks, water and sewer networks, schools etc that are to be provided by government agencies and/or developers as development progress in the area.
Lack of suitable waste water disposal system.	The development has been conditioned to connect to necessary sewer infrastructure.
Adverse impacts of dust from Mt Marrow.	The development site is outside the OV2 Key Resource Area Development Constraints Overlay area (which includes the Mt Marrow quarry) of the Ipswich Planning Scheme.
Lack of proper community engagement.	The applicant’s ‘Public Notification Notice of Compliance’ indicates that public notification has been carried out in accordance with Planning Act 2016 requirements.
Additional housing developments in Walloon area has no benefit to local residents.	The development site is located within the Urban Footprint of the ShapingSEQ Regional Plan. Further, the site is within the Future Urban Zone (Sub Area FU4: Walloon/Thagoona) of Ipswich Planning Scheme. As developments progress it is expected that additional services and infrastructure will be delivered as necessary which also benefits the general locality surrounding the development site.
Leads to adverse social impacts upon residents	Social behaviours/impacts are not regulated by the Planning Scheme.
Adverse impacts of noise from activities from Amberley RAAF Base	The development site is outside the current OV7C 2006 Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) Contours Development Constraints Overlay area of the Ipswich Planning Scheme.

Conclusion

An assessment of the proposed Material Change of Use for - Preliminary Approval including a Variation Request to vary the effect of the Ipswich Planning Scheme in accordance with section 50(3) of the Planning Act 2016 {in accordance with the Concept Plan (Future Urban Zone to Residential Low Density (RL2) Zone) and Site Plan (Changes to Building Setbacks)} over Lot 555 M33493, and Reconfiguring a Lot - One (1) Lot into Twelve (12) Lots and New Road, has been undertaken and it has been determined that the proposed development generally complies with the assessment benchmarks or can be conditioned to comply as outlined in the attached Statement of Reasons. It is therefore recommended that this development application be decided in accordance with the recommendations and attachments of this report.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers