SHOALHAVEN CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

To be held on Tuesday, 12 June, 2012 Commencing at the conclusion of the Policy, Resources & Reserves Committee (which commences at 4.00 pm).

8 June, 2012

Councillors,

NOTICE OF MEETING

You are hereby requested to attend a meeting of the Development Committee of the Council of the City of Shoalhaven, to be held in Council Chambers, City Administrative Centre, Bridge Road, Nowra on Tuesday, 12 June, 2012 commencing at the conclusion of the Policy, Resources & Reserves Committee (which commences at 4.00 pm) for consideration of the following business.

R D Pigg General Manager

Membership (Quorum – 5)

Clr Brumerskyj – Chairperson All Councillors General Manager or nominee (Assistant General Manager)

BUSINESS OF MEETING

1. Apologies 2. Declarations of Interest 3. Deputations 4. Report of the General Manager Strategic Planning & Infrastructure – Draft Shoalhaven LEP 2009 Area/Location Specific Issues – Shoalhaven Heads & Surrounds Bendalong, Manyana, Berringer Lake and Cunjurong Point 5. Addendum Reports

Note: The attention of Councillors is drawn to the resolution MIN08.907 which states: a) That in any circumstances where a DA is called-in by Council for determination, then as a matter of policy, Council include its reasons for doing so in the resolution. b) That Council adopt as policy, that Councillor voting in Development Committee meeting be recorded in the minutes. c) That Council adopt as policy that it will record the reasons for decisions involving applications for significant variations to Council policies, DCP’s or other development standards, whether the decision is either approval of the variation or refusal.

Note: The attention of Councillors is drawn to Section 451 of the Local Government Act and Regulations and Code of Conduct regarding the requirements to declare pecuniary and non- pecuniary Interest in matters before Council.

Cell Phones: Council’s Code of Meeting Practice states that “All cell phones are to be turned off for the duration of the meeting”.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993

Chapter 3

Section 8(1) - The Council’s Charter

(1) The council has the following charter: • to provide directly or on behalf of other levels of government, after due consultation, adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities for the community and to ensure that those services and facilities are managed efficiently and effectively • to exercise community leadership • to exercise its functions in a manner that is consistent with and actively promotes the principles of multiculturalism • to promote and to provide and plan for the needs of children • to properly manage, develop, protect, restore, enhance and conserve the environment of the area for which it is responsible, in a manner that is consistent with and promotes the principles of ecologically sustainable development • to have regard to the long term and cumulative effects of its decisions • to bear in mind that it is the custodian and trustee of public assets and to effectively account for and manage the assets for which it is responsible • to facilitate the involvement of councillors, members of the public, users of facilities and services and council staff in the development, improvement and co-ordination of local government • to raise funds for local purposes by the fair imposition of rates, charges and fees, by income earned from investments and, when appropriate, by borrowings and grants • to keep the local community and the State government (and through it, the wider community) informed about its activities • to ensure that, in the exercise of its regulatory functions, it acts consistently and without bias, particularly where an activity of the council is affected • to be a responsible employer.

REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER

SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - DRAFT LEP 2009

TUESDAY, 12 JUNE 2012

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE

1. Special Development Committee - Draft Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2009 - Area/Location Specfic Issues - Shoalhaven Heads & surrounds. File 33363E & 45262E (PDR)

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To detail the issues raised during the exhibition of draft SLEP 2009 in relation to Shoalhaven Heads and surrounds, and to outline options to deal with these issues in the finalisation of the draft Plan.

RECOMMENDED that Council consider the individual preferred options/changes to draft SLEP 2009 as set out in the body of this report via the successive recommendations.

The recommendations contained in the body of this report are consistent with Council’s resolution of 20 March 2012, being:

“Council consider each submission on its merits and if appropriate, amend the draft LEP accordingly, or add to a list of future projects to be considered following the completion of the draft LEP 2009.”

COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN

Objective: 2.2 Population and urban settlement growth that is ecologically sustainable, carefully planned and managed to meet the needs of the community.

Strategy: 2.2.1 Develop and implement land use and related strategies for future growth of the City, based on the principles of connectivity, ecological sustainability, flexibility and accessibility.

DELIVERY PROGRAM

Activity: 2.2.1.9 Implement the Planning Works Program to complete planning policy and strategy initiatives.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 1

Activity: 1.5.1.2 Apply appropriate land use zones and associated planning controls for nominated centres consistent with endorsed master plans and strategies.

OPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Option 1:

Council consider the individual preferred options/changes to draft SLEP 2009 as set out in the body of this report via the successive recommendations.

Implications

This option is preferable because:

• the preferred options/changes respond to concerns raised in submissions that represent good strategic planning outcomes that are consistent with the Standard LEP Instrument; • the preferred options/changes are consistent with the “ground rules” and the “best fit transfer” approach wherever possible; and

• re-exhibition of draft SLEP 2009 will provide a further opportunity for the community to consider how Council has addressed these issues, and make further comment if they wish.

Option 2:

Council adopt changes to the draft SLEP 2009, other than those suggested and justified in this report.

Implications

This option is not recommended as there is a real risk of there being no strategic planning basis to making changes other than those outlined and recommended in the report.

REPORT DETAILS

Introduction:

This report addresses the area specific issues raised in relation to Shoalhaven Heads and surrounds.

Background:

It is noted that some of the submissions received from landowners and community groups in Shoalhaven Heads and surrounds also generally related to the permissibility of land uses in certain zones, aims of plan, community consultation and rezoning requests.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 2

These matters have been separately considered by the Special Development Committee in earlier issue based reports and are therefore not further addressed in this area specific report.

Key Issues:

During the exhibition period a number of submissions were received that related to or mentioned Shoalhaven Heads specific issues, as detailed below. This includes submissions received from the areas surrounding Shoalhaven Heads, including Coolangatta. It is however noted that the majority of submissions that mentioned Shoalhaven Heads came from landowners in Shoalhaven Heads.

Type Shoalhaven Heads & surrounds Individual 12 Form Letters 2 Petitions 6 Local, State & Federal Agencies 1 Rezoning Requests 0 CCBs & other community groups 1 Internal 3

# A summary of each relevant submission in this case, is included in Attachment ‘A’. A number of the submissions that commented on Shoalhaven Heads specific issues did not comment on this issue alone and therefore ‘Attachment A’ only summarises that part of each submission that related specifically to the Shoalhaven Heads specific issues. Any other issues raised in the submissions will be, (or may already have been), separately considered on their merits and if appropriate the draft LEP will be amended or the matter could be added to a list of future projects to be considered following the completion of this draft LEP. This is consistent with the Committee’s recommendation of 5 March 2012 and Council resolution of 20 March 2012.

Issue 1: Zoning of Lot 7010 DP 1035145, Scott Street

A number of submissions expressed concern with the proposed zoning of Lot 7010 DP 1035145. Many of the submissions support a residential zoning that does not allow medium to higher density housing, but does allow seniors housing. A smaller number of submissions support an environmental zoning (such as E2 Environmental Conservation) for the land, and referenced the Crown Lands Assessment and the Bangalay Sand Forest EEC that has been identified on the site. The subject land is shown on the map below.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 3

Extract from draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) - Lot 7010 DP 1035145

Extract from draft Natural Resource Sensitivity - Biodiversity map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Lot 7010 DP 1035145

Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum • Support zoning of LPMA land - Lot 7010 DP 1035145 - to residential but objects to R1 because of inclusion of high density, group homes, hostels and multi dwelling housing. Needs clause in a site specific DCP to prohibit high density housing from this land. There is a need for seniors housing.

NSW Office of Environment & Heritage • Recommends that the large block next to the golf course be zoned E2 consistent with the Crown Lands Assessment prepared for the site. An Aboriginal land claim was also refused over the site due to its reservation for conservation. Recent detailed survey showed a large area of intact EEC on the site.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 4

Form Letter (5 form letters received) • Lot 7010 DP1035145 Shoalhaven Heads - Supports residential zone and seniors housing. Objects to high density land use and R1 zoning. DCP to prohibit high density housing.

Petition (11 signatures) • Supports residential zoning of Lot 7010 DP 1035145. • Objects to R1 zone because of inclusion of high density land uses - group homes, hostels, multi dwelling housing. • LEP does not consider where seniors housing in Shoalhaven Heads should be. • Request site specific clause in DCP that prohibits high density housing.

Internal Submission - Threatened Species Offer - DES • Example of current inappropriate zoning is: Lot 7010 DP1035145 Shoalhaven Heads – confirmed occurrence of Bangalay Sand Forest EEC currently zoned Residential 2(c).

General Submissions • Request that additional Crown Land at Scott Street adjacent to the golf course be rezoned to RE1 to allow the golf course to be extended.

Comment Prior to the exhibition of draft LEP 2009 three zoning options were presented to Council and it was resolved (on 1 November 2010) as follows, in relation to the subject land:

“That: a) Zone the Crown land being Lot 7010 DP 1035145, Scott Street, Shoalhaven Heads as R1 General Residential on the Land Zoning map and work with the Land and Property Management Authority on appropriate controls for the development of the site to also specifically include an opportunity for a retirement village; b) Amend the Lot size map to reflect the zoning as per part a); and c) Amend the Natural Resource Sensitivity - Biodiversity map to include the biodiversity attributes of the site.”

At that time Crown Lands advised that they supported the residential zoning, however they did not make a submission in relation to this matter as part of the draft LEP 2009 exhibition process. Also at that time, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) advised that they were prepared to allow the exhibition with an R1 General Residential zone and requested that the biodiversity attributes of the land be mapped on the Natural Resource Sensitivity - Biodiversity overlay map.

A number of submissions do not support the proposed R1 General Residential zone due the fact that the zone allows higher density housing including multi dwelling housing and group homes. However the same submissions also support seniors housing on the subject land. The R1 General Residential zone is considered the most appropriate enable a choice of housing and densities at the subdivision stage, including seniors housing .

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 5

A site specific component of the Citywide DCP could be developed for the site in the future, but this will not prohibit certain land uses on the site (as requested by the Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum and in one of the form letters) as this can only occur via an LEP.

One submission, from the Shoalhaven Heads Golf Club requested that some of the R1 zone be changed to RE1 to accommodate an extension to the golf course. The golf course extension was issued a deferred commencement consent (as assessed under SLEP 1985) in 2011 and therefore a change in zoning of this portion of the site is not necessary. However it would be appropriate for the area occupied by the golf course to be zoned RE1.

It is noted that the most appropriate zone for the site, based upon the Crown Lands Assessment, would be E2 Environmental Conservation.

There are four options to address this issue at this point in the LEP process. These are:

1. Retain the R1 General Residential zone as exhibited in the draft LEP 2009. This is the preferred option as it is consistent with the pre- exhibition resolution of Council and also reflects the current Residential 2(c) zoning of the land.

2. Change the zoning of the subject land to R2 Low Density Residential. This option potentially limits the scope of possible development outcomes for the site.

3. Change the zoning of the subject land to E2 Environmental Conservation. This is inconsistent with the pre-exhibition resolution of Council.

4. Change the zoning of a portion (in the north east part) of the subject land to RE1 and retain the R1 General Residential zone over the remainder of the land. This is inconsistent with the pre-exhibition resolution of Council, but would reflect the approvals that have been issued over the site and golf course that has been constructed.

It is proposed that the R1 zone be retained over the undeveloped portion of the lot (Option 1) and also to rezone the area occupied by the golf course to RE2 (Option4).

Recommendation 1:

Retain the R1 General Residential zone for Lot 7010 DP 1035145, Scott Street, Shoalhaven Heads, as exhibited in draft LEP 2009, and rezone the area occupied by the golf course to RE1 Public Recreation.

Issue 2: Zoning of Caravan Parks

A number of submissions, including community group submissions, form letters and petitions raised concern with the zoning of some of the existing caravan parks at Shoalhaven Heads.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 6

Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum • Concerned that there are three different zones covering at least 5 caravan parks. Notes that R1 and RU1 zones do not permit caravan parks and raises concern that several Shoalhaven Heads Caravan Parks zones do not permit caravan parks. Believes that only the Council Park is appropriately zoned as RE1.

Form Letter (4 form letters received) • Objection to zoning of caravan parks in Shoalhaven Heads. Notes there are 3 different zones covering 5 caravan parks. R1, RU1 and RE1 do not permit caravan parks and there are 4 caravan parks in these zones.

Petition (27 signatures) • Objection to zoning of caravan parks in Shoalhaven Heads. Notes there are 3 different zones covering 5 caravan parks. R1, RU1 and RE1 do not permit caravan parks and there are 4 caravan parks in these zones.

Comment The issue of permissibility of caravan parks in certain zones was the subject of previous reports to this Committee, and consistent with subsequent resolutions of Council in April 2012 “caravan parks” are now proposed to be permissible in the RU2, RU5, SP3, RE1 & RE2 zones in draft LEP 2009.

The six caravan parks in question are zoned RU1 (3), R1 (1), R2 (1) and RE1 (1) in draft LEP 2009, consistent with the ‘best fit’ transfers from SLEP 1985 being part Rural 1(b), part Rural 1(g), Part Residential 2(c), Part Residential 2(a1) and Residential 2(b2)(1). Hence, only the Council operated caravan park is in a zone where caravan parks are permissible under draft LEP 2009. The caravan parks that are located in zones where ‘caravan parks’ are not permissible under draft LEP 2009 may benefit from existing use rights. It is understood they have been in operation for some time and therefore may not have required consent under SLEP 1985. Five of the caravan parks are in private ownership and those landowners did not make submissions in relation to draft LEP 2009.

The zones in which caravan parks are permissible may be considered appropriate for some of the privately owned caravan parks in Shoalhaven Heads, namely the three RU1 zoned parks. However, changing the zoning of the three RU1 zoned caravan parks to RU2 (to permit caravan parks) has other implications in relation to permissible land uses and objectives of the zone.

There are three options to address this issue at this point in the LEP process. These are:

1. Retain the zonings of the caravan parks in Shoalhaven Heads, as exhibited in draft LEP 2009. This is the preferred option as it is consistent with the ‘best fit’ transfer and the landowners/ operators did not request a change in zone.

2. Change the zoning of the three RU1 zoned caravan parks in Shoalhaven Heads (Mountain View, Burrawong Home Village and Coastal Palms) to RU2 Rural Landscape, subject to the concurrence of the property owners. This is not the preferred option as it is inconsistent with the ‘best fit’ transfer.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 7

3. Change the zoning of privately owned caravan parks to RE2 Private Recreation. This is not the preferred option as it is inconsistent with the ‘best fit’ transfer, the landowners or operators did not request a change in zone, and this reduces the permissible uses on these five parcels of land.

Recommendation 2:

Retain the zonings of the caravan parks in Shoalhaven Heads, as exhibited in draft LEP 2009.

Issue 3: Offensive Industries

A number of submissions objected specifically to the inclusion of ‘offensive industries’ as a permissible land use anywhere in Shoalhaven Heads. The submissions are summarised below:

Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum • Objects to the inclusion of “offensive industries” as a permitted land use for any land within Shoalhaven Heads. • Requests that “offensive industries” be prohibited as a land use in Shoalhaven Heads. • Requests that a local clause be included in the SLEP and DCP that development consent must not be granted for “offensive industries”.

Petition (24 signatures) • Object to inclusion of offensive industries in Shoalhaven Heads. This development is unsuitable and requests it to be prohibited.

General Submission • Objects to the inclusion of 'offensive industries' as a permitted land use for any land within Shoalhaven Heads. Requests that a local clause be included in the LEP and DCP that development consent must not be granted for 'offensive industries'.

Comment ‘Offensive industries’ are a permissible land use in the RU1, RU2, IN1 & IN2 zones generally in draft LEP 2009. These zones make up only a small portion of Shoalhaven Heads, as shown on the map below. It is not considered appropriate at this point in the reporting process to prohibit the land use in the RU1, RU2, IN1 & IN2 zones across the City. Under the Standard LEP Instrument template it is also not currently possible to specifically prohibit the land use in the relevant zoned in Shoalhaven Heads only. Should any future ‘offensive industry’ proposals be considered they would need to be sufficiently justified through a development application and assessed by Council through the Section 79C process.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 8

Extract from draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited)

Recommendation 3:

That Council receive the submissions regarding the permissibility of ‘offensive industries’ in the Shoalhaven Heads area for information.

Issue 4: St Peters Anglican Church, Scott Street - Heritage listing

One submission was received from the landowner that requested that St Peters Anglican Church not be listed as a heritage item in draft LEP 2009. The site is shown on the map below:

Extract from draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Lot 1 DP 704667, 126 Scott Street

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 9

General submission • Would like the St Peter's Anglican Church at Scott Street, Shoalhaven Heads removed from the heritage schedule. The Church was originally the library/hay shed of the Coolangatta Estate. It has been removed from original location and much of the building has been altered, and was the subject of a fire.

Comment The subject site is currently listed as a heritage item (local significance) in SLEP 1985 and consistent with the ‘best fit’ transfer has been included as a heritage item in Schedule 5 of draft LEP 2009. The Shoalhaven Heritage Study and Inventory note that the structure has been modified, but modification of the original structure does not in itself warrant the item being removed from the heritage schedule in an LEP. The Shoalhaven Heritage Study and Inventory states that the heritage item has both historical and social significance, and this significance continues to exist, whether or not the structure is modified or has been moved from its original location. It is important to note that this was one of the few buildings that was not burnt in the Coolangatta Estate fire in 1946. Therefore, the removal of the property from the heritage schedule in draft LEP 2009 is not supported.

Recommendation 4:

That Council receive the submission regarding the heritage listing of the St Peters Anglican Church at Shoalhaven Heads for information.

Issue 5: Adopted Lower Shoalhaven River Floodplain Risk Management Plan

One internal submission was received regarding the incorporation of the Lower Shoalhaven Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan into draft SLEP 2009.

Internal Submission - Policy & Planning (Natural Resources & Floodplain Unit) • The adopted Lower Shoalhaven River floodplain risk management study and plan states that: - further development at Hay Avenue, Shoalhaven Heads, would increase the permanent population in a high hazard floodway area and consequently increase reliance on rescue services during flood emergencies. Resolution of an appropriate zoning and development controls for this area needs to be addressed through an LEP amendment. - any further expansion or new development beyond the current residential zoning will not be permitted at Greenwell Point - no subdivision, dual occupancy or strata development even on flood free land will be permitted at Greenwell Point. • It is recommended that the draft SLEP be reviewed to incorporate the planning recommendations of adopted floodplain risk management plans.

Comment Draft LEP 2009 has been prepared consistent with the Standard LEP Instrument template. To the extent that the Standard LEP Instrument allows, the Lower Shoalhaven Floodplain Risk Management (FRM) Study and Plan has been incorporated into the draft

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 10

LEP, including the Flood Planning Area overlay map. However, the current LEP template does not allow for some of the findings included above to be included in the draft LEP, such as prohibition of certain land uses on individual parcels of land. It is further notes that DCP No. 106 also incorporates elements of the FRM Study and Plan.

Hay Avenue is zoned R2 Low Density Residential as a ‘best fit’ transfer from the Residential 2(a1)zoning SLEP 1985.

Recommendation 5:

That Council receive the submission regarding the Lower Shoalhaven Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan for information.

Issue 6: Zoning of Lot 73 DP 257068, McIntosh Street

A number of submissions raised concern with the zoning of the subject land and requested that the SP3 Tourist zoning be changed or that dwelling houses be removed as a land use that is permissible with consent in the SP3 zone. The subject land is shown on the map below.

Extract from draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) - Lot 73 DP 257068

Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum • Objects to zoning of Lot 73 DP 257068 - it is not appropriate to SP3 - should be RE1 - it is not best fit transfer and not highlighted as exemption.

Petition (23 signatures) • Objection - Lot 73 DP 257068 Shoalhaven Heads was 2(d) and is proposed SP3. Remove dwelling houses from SP3 zone as dwelling houses do not retain or enhance the strategic value of the site for tourism purposes.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 11

General Submission • The prohibition of residential dwelling houses on this land will allow for beachside and river holiday tourist character of the town. Change SP3 - Tourist zone allocation to RE1 and include a sunset clause for the existing dwellings/owners or whether to remove 'dwelling houses' from the list of building permitted with consent.

Comment The subject site is currently zoned Residential 2(d) under SLEP 1985 and consistent with the ‘best fit’ transfer is zoned SP3 Tourist in draft LEP 2009. The 2(d) is a specific tourist related zoned. As Council has no plans to acquire the land an RE1 zone is not considered appropriate in this case.

The permissibility of dwelling houses in the SP3 Tourist zone was previously considered by this Committee on 29 March 2012, and the report contained the following text:

“One petition was received from Shoalhaven Heads requesting the removal of dwelling houses from the SP3 zone. The inclusion of dwelling houses in consistent with the ‘best fit’ transfer as dwellings are permissible in the existing Residential 2(d) which is the equivalent zone to SP3. However, the concern expressed by the community at Shoalhaven Heads is valid and could be addressed through the inclusion of an additional objective to ensure that dwelling houses are only considered as part tourist and visitor accommodation. This would be appropriate to ensure that the limited number of identified tourism sites zoned SP3 are not lost to residential development.”

Based on the recommendation of the Committee on 17 April 2012 Council subsequently resolved, in part, as follows:

“An additional objective is included in the SP3 zone as follows: To provide for dwelling houses that form an integral part of a tourist-oriented development.”

It is therefore considered that this matter has been dealt with and no further action in relation to this matter is recommended at this point.

Recommendation 6:

That Council receive the submission regarding the Lot 73 DP 257068, McIntosh Street, Shoalhaven Heads, for information.

Issue 7: Council land - Golden Hill Avenue

A number of submissions were received requesting that the parcel of Council owned land be rezoned from RE1 Public Recreation to a residential zone to enable more “suitable use” of the land. The subject land is shown on the map below.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 12

Extract from draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Lot 35 DP 506007, Golden Hill Ave

Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum • Requests Council rezone the RE1 zoned land at Golden Hill Avenue. The forum supports the land being rezoned to residential to enable a more suitable use for the town.

Petition (24 signatures) • Rezone Council land Golden Hill Avenue from RE1 Public Recreation to residential zone to enable more suitable use for the town.

General Submission • RE1 in Golden Hill Avenue Shoalhaven Heads should be rezoned to residential land to enable a more suitable use for the town.

Comment The land is currently zoned Open Space 6(a) (Public Recreation) under SLEP 1985 and as per the ‘best fit’ transfer is zoned RE1 Public Recreation in draft LEP 2009. The land is also more importantly currently classified as ‘community land’ and categorised as ‘park’ under the Local Government Act, 1993. There may be some merit in investigating this rezoning (and reclassification to ‘operational land’), however this would require community engagement, including a public hearing, with specific consultation with immediately adjoining property owners. It would cause substantial delay if the rezoning and reclassification of this land was investigated as part of this LEP process. It is noted that several years ago when the possible rezoning and reclassification of the subject land was raised with the community it was opposed.

A zoning/reclassification of this land needs to be part of an overall strategic review of Council land as a stand alone procedure.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 13

Recommendation 7:

Investigate the possible rezoning and reclassification of Lot 35 DP 506007, Golden Hill Avenue, Shoalhaven Heads, as a matter for consideration following the completion of LEP 2009.

Issue 8: Zoning of land Lot 84 DP 823256, 42 Mathews Street

A number of submissions supported the R2 Low Density Residential zoning of the subject land in draft LEP 2009 that is owned by Council. The subject land is shown on the map below.

Extract from draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Lot 84 DP 823256, 42 Mathews Street

Shoalhaven Heads Community Forum • Supports Council’s decision to rezone the site in Matthews Street, Shoalhaven Heads for the purposes of selling the land. • The forum formally requests that the funds raised by the sale of the land be invested into Shoalhaven Heads following consultation with the community.

Petition (22 signatures) • Support the rezoning of land in Mathews Street, Shoalhaven Heads to allow for selling the land. Requests funds from sale should be invested in Shoalhaven Heads in consultation with community.

General Submission • Support rezoning of Mathews Street, Shoalhaven Heads for the purpose of selling the land.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 14

Comment The Council owned subject land is zoned Special Uses 5(a) in SLEP 1985 and is classified as ‘operational land’. It is already recognised as being surplus Council land. As noted in the “Exceptions to Best Fit: Key Specific Changes” document that was exhibited with draft LEP 2009, the land is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density consistent with the surrounding lands. The community support is noted.

Recommendation 8:

That Council receive the submission regarding the Lot 84 DP 823256, 42 Mathews Street, Shoalhaven Heads, for information.

Issue 9: Lot 412 DP 1144627, Lot 4 DP 834440 and Lot 22 DP 717323, Scott Street / Discovery Place

One submission was received from a consultant (on behalf of the landowner) requesting “anomalies” be rectified in relation to the three parcels of land that are in the same ownership. One submission was also received from the landowner in relation to Lot 4 DP 834440, objecting specifically to the loss of Residential 2(c) (there is currently no Residential 2(c) zoned land and it is believed this reference should be to the Residential 2(a1) zoned land). The subject lands are shown on the map below.

Extract from draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Lot 412 DP 1144627, Scott Street

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 15

Extract from draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Lot 4 DP 834440, Scott Street

Extract from draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Lot 22 DP 717323, Wells Place

General Submission • Thanks Council for fixing anomalies in the zoning of this area and incorporating changes into the draft LEP documentation. Generally supportive of proposed changes. Further anomalies identified on the properties include:

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 16

Lot 412 DP 1144627: - believes draft SLEP provides a satisfactory area for construction of dwellings on proposed lots 549, 550, 551, 552 and 556b.

- concerned that draft SLEP proposes a small amount of R2 zoned land on proposed Lot 557, however this is part of the site that is flood affected and the flood free part of the site is zoned RU2. The approved and constructed flood free building envelope on Lot 557 is still located in the proposed RU2 zoning making approval of a dwelling both problematic and risky for future purchasers.

- concerned that the R2 zone land is extremely close to the existing sewerage pumping station, is low lying and would therefore need to be filled to accommodate a future dwelling. Under the current proposed zoning – the existing fill mound would not be able to be utilised meaning the completed work to the site under SF5021 is wasted.

Recommends: Council modify the boundary between the R2 and RU2 zones to capture the location of the existing earthen flood free mound on proposed Lot 557 (see fig. 1 below extract from submission).

Extract from submission

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 17

- Concerned with min lot size map over Lot 412 DP 1144627 - recommends Council modify the boundary between the 40HA and the 500m2 minimum lot sizes areas to replicate the final zoning boundary when gazetted as outlined above (Mapping error added to ‘matters for consideration’ database).

Recommends: Council remove significant portions of the area shown as being sensitive on the biodiversity map back to the proposed zoning line as there is no biodiversity value in those areas.

- Believes the flood free mound as required by Council under SF5021 on the area of proposed Lot 557 should not be hatched as being flood prone.

Lot 4 DP 834440: - Recommends: Council modify the boundary between the R2 and RU2 zones to capture the location of the existing elevated area on the eastern portion of this lot – loss of small triangular piece of land that is currently zoned 2(a1) will be “down-zoned” to RU2 land under the draft LEP. Loss of residential land is acknowledged and accepted as long as the proposed zoning on the area near Scott Street is converted to R2 zoning as recommended.

- Believes site can be elevated to between RL 2.70m and RL2.9m AHD which is close to the 100 year flood level, allowing a dwelling to be constructed on this lot.

- Recommends: Council modify the boundary between the R2 and RU2 zones to capture the location of the existing elevated area on the eastern portion of this lot.

- Recommends: Council modify the boundary between the 40HA and 500m2 min lot size area to replicate the final zoning boundary as previously requested.

Lot 22 DP 717323 Wells Place - R1 zoning and min 500m2 lot size is supported.

General Submission • Lot 4 DP 834440 - Strongly objects to the removal of the 2c zoning from part of the subject land. This part of the land currently zoned 2c should have a residential, not RU2, zoning.

Comment

With reference to the Flood Planning Area Map in draft LEP 2009, Council is relying on the best available information when preparing flood studies and floodplain risk management studies and plans. These studies inform the LEP flood planning area map. Very often these studies were based on contour information that could not take into consideration information at the individual lot scale (this is explained in the disclaimer on the flood maps-not sure if it there is a general disclaimer re accuracy of LEP maps). Also these studies and maps are ‘static information’ and were completed at a certain point in time and things may have changed since then.

The flood studies and associated maps are generally reviewed when more detailed survey information and/or improved modelling technologies become available and/or state government flood related policies and guidelines are amended. It is likely that the

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 18 reviewed flood maps will be different to the existing maps. It is also likely that the flood planning levels will also be different due to improved modelling capabilities, changes in modelling assumptions prescribed by the State Government guidelines, better land survey information and consideration of sea level rise projections. The LEP maps will be amended in future based on the outcomes of future review.

Council, at this stage, does not have sufficient information that would warrant an amendment to the draft LEP Flood Planning Area Map.

The other requests included in this submission (regarding the Land Zoning Map and Lot Size Map in this area) are generally considered minor and generally reflect the current character of the land. Therefore those changes requested in the submission are supported.

Recommendation 9:

That Council: a) Amend the Land Zoning Map and Lot Size Map in draft SLEP 2009 as requested in the submission; and b) Retain the Flood Planning Area Map as exhibited in draft SLEP 2009.

Resourcing Implications - Financial, Assets, Workforce:

To date, considerable staff (workforce) time has been, and will continue to be, prioritised on this project.

Community, Environment (ESD), Economic and Governance Impact:

The recommendations aim to consider and if appropriate address community concern, whilst also recognising and respecting the “ground rules” and the Standard LEP Instrument, on which draft SLEP 2009 has been based. Should the recommendations be supported by Council, then this will reflect good governance, in the context of strategic planning.

The changes to draft SLEP 2009 supported by Council will also be re-exhibited as resolved by Council on 28 February 2012. This will allow further opportunity for the community to comment on these key issues.

CONCLUSION

Shoalhaven Heads and surrounds is recognised as having important values. A large number of submissions were received in regards to this area that raised a wide range of issues. The reporting of these submissions through this report ensures that the issues raised in the context of the draft SLEP 2009 are considered for this unique area.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 19

2. Special Development Committee - Draft Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2009 - Area/Location Specific Issues – Bendalong, Manyana, Berringer Lake and Cunjurong Point File 33363E, 45262E (PDR)

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To detail the issues raised during the exhibition of the draft SLEP 2009 in relation to Bendalong (including North Bendalong), Manyana, Berringer Lake and Cunjurong Point and to outline options to deal with these issues in the finalisation of the draft Plan.

RECOMMENDED that Council consider individual preferred options/changes to draft SLEP 2009 as set out in the body of this report via the successive recommendations.

The recommendations contained in the body of this report are consistent with Council’s resolution of 20 March 2012, being:

“Council consider each submission on its merits and if appropriate, amend the draft LEP accordingly, or add to a list of future projects to be considered following the completion of the draft LEP 2009.”

COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN

Objective: 2.2 Population and urban settlement growth that is ecologically sustainable, carefully planned and managed to meet the needs of the community.

Strategy: 2.2.1 Develop and implement land use and related strategies for future growth of the City, based on the principles of connectivity, ecological sustainability, flexibility and accessibility.

DELIVERY PROGRAM

Activity: 2.2.1.9 Implement the Planning Works Program to complete planning policy and strategy initiatives.

Activity: 1.5.1.2 Apply appropriate land use zones and associated planning controls for nominated centres consistent with endorsed master plans and strategies.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 20

OPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Option 1:

Council consider the individual preferred options/ changes to draft SLEP 2009 as set out in the body of this report via the successive recommendations.

Implications

This option is preferable because:

• the preferred options/changes respond to concerns raised in submissions that represent good strategic planning outcomes that are consistent with the Standard LEP Instrument; • the preferred options/changes are consistent with the “ground rules” and the “best fit transfer” approach wherever possible; and

• re-exhibition of draft SLEP 2009 will provide a further opportunity for the community to consider how Council has addressed these issues, and make further comment if they wish.

Option 2:

Council adopt changes to the draft SLEP 2009, other than those suggested and justified in this report.

Implications

This option is not recommended as there is a real risk of there being no strategic planning basis to making changes other than those outlined and recommended in the report.

REPORT DETAILS

Introduction:

This report addresses the general issues and locality specific issues raised in relation to Bendalong (including Bendalong), Manyana, Berringer Lake and Cunjurong Point.

Background:

The submissions were primarily received from individuals and community groups (including CCBs) with some internal Council submissions and Government Agency submissions.

Further, some of the submissions received from individuals, landowners and community groups also generally related to the R5 Large Lot Residential zone, permissibility of land uses in certain zones, lot averaging, biodiversity mapping and rezoning requests. These

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 21

matters have been separately considered by this Special Development Committee and are therefore not further addressed in this report.

The issues detailed in this report are either site or area specific and relate to matters that have not already been outlined/ considered in previous reports to this Committee.

Key Issues:

During the exhibition period a number of submissions were received that related to or raised area or locality specific issues relating to Bendalong (including North Bendalong) Manyana, Berringer Lake and Cunjurong Point.

Type Overall Bendalong Berringer Manyana Cunjurong Area (Including North Lake Point (General) Bendalong) Individual 14 36 28 31 22 Form Letters 22 22 22 22 22 Petitions 0 0 0 0 0 Local, State & 0 1 0 1 1 Federal Agencies Rezoning 0 0 0 0 0 Requests CCBs & other 0 2 2 2 3 community groups Internal 0 0 0 1 0

# A summary of each relevant submission in this case, is included in Attachment ‘A’. A number of the submissions that commented on specific issues related to Bendalong, Manyana, Berringer Lake and Cunjurong Point did not comment on this issue alone and therefore Attachment ‘A’ only summarises that part of each submission that related specifically to those areas. Any other issues raised in the submissions will be, (or may already have been), separately considered on their merits and if appropriate the draft LEP will be amended or the matter could be added to a list of future projects to be considered following the completion of this draft LEP. This is consistent with the Council resolution of 20 March 2012.

Overall Area - General

Issue 1: Height of Buildings

36 submissions expressed concern with Height of Buildings in the area generally.

General Submissions • Eight individual submissions requested that 2 storey building heights be retained throughout the district, especially Kylor land.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 22

• Height of buildings in the areas Manyana, Cunjurong Point, the Berringer Lake Hamlet and Bendalong should be limited to 2 storeys (8.5m) in keeping with the current low density nature of these villages. • Two storey building heights should be retained for the whole District. Council has included an 11m (4 storeys) building height into the Draft SLEP; it states that heights for R2 and RU5 will be determined at 8.5m (2 storeys) but this might only be addressed after the exhibition period. For all zones comprising Kylor land this would mean that an 11m building height would apply. The current LEP restricts development to a 2 storey limit with Council consent being required for anything over that. The general practice for this area has been 2 storeys (including the Manyana Shops). The general amenity of the village would be adversely affected should an 11 m building height be allowed. • Support height limit of 8.5 metres in the district. • Three submissions requested that two storey building heights should be retained for the whole Bendalong/Manyana district.

Form Letters (22 received) • Request that 2 storey building heights are retained throughout the district, especially Kylor land

Comment The areas mentioned in the submissions have a variety of zones and therefore a number of permissible uses. The exhibited proposed zoning for the Manyana, Bendalong, Cunjurong Point and Berringer Lake residential areas is R2 Low Density Residential and RU5 Village zone excluding the land owned by Kylor Pty Ltd which consists of Lot 2 DP 1161638, Lot 106 DP 755923 and Lot 2 DP 1121854 as detailed in the map below. The Kylor Land exhibited draft zoning is R5 Large Lot Residential, R1 General Residential, E3 Environmental Management and RE1 Public Recreation. The Manyana commercial zone located at Lot 1 DP 1161638, Curvers Drive was exhibited as a proposed B2 Local Centre zone.

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Kylor Land Lot 2 DP 1161638, Lot 106 DP 755923 and Lot 2 DP 1121854

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 23

The approach to the key issue of R5 zones and the appropriate application in the draft SLEP was resolved at the Council meeting of 17 April 2012, as follows:

a) That the R2 Low Density Residential zone be applied to land currently zoned 2(a2) and 2(a3) under SLEP 1985 and lot size maps be amended to show minimum lot sizes of 2,000m2 applying to 2(a2) land and 4,000m2 applying to 2(a3) land.

This means that the R5 zoned land within the Kylor holding will be changed to R2 Low Density Residential.

The approach to the key issue of the height of buildings in the draft SLEP was generally resolved at the Council meeting of 20 March 2012, as follows:

b) Council amend the HOB overlay maps in the draft LEP consistent with the Council resolution of 14 April 2011 (D11/88572); c) The village individual specific issues be dealt with in accordance with the agreed schedule.

Thus the areas of Manyana, Bendalong, Cunjurong Point and Berringer Lake that are proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential and RU5 Village will be shown on the Height of Buildings map at 8.5 metres consistent with the above resolution. The foreshore residential properties covered by DCP No. 62 (Residential Development in Foreshore Areas) will be mapped at the lower maximum height of 7.5 metres. Council could consider changing the overall maximum height limit of the Manyana, Bendalong, Cunjurong Point and Berringer Lake districts to 8.5 metres in character with the majority of the residential areas and to maintain a consistent height limit in this location.

Extract of working draft - Height of Buildings Map (showing only 8.5 metre height limit as per Council resolution 20 March 2012) Bendalong, North Bendalong, Manyana, Cunjurong Point and Berringer Lake

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 24

There are two options to address this issue at this point in the LEP process. These are:

1) Maintain the maximum 11 metre height limit for all the remaining urban zones (R1, B2, etc.) in Manyana, Bendalong, Cunjurong Point and Berringer Lake, given that all land zoned R2 Low Density Residential, RU5 Village and the properties affected by DCP No. 62 - Residential Development in Foreshore Areas will now be mapped at 8.5 metres and 7.5 metres.

2) Amend the Height of Buildings Map overlay to show a maximum overall height of buildings of 8.5 metres within the Manyana, Bendalong, Cunjurong Point and Berringer Lake urban areas. As an example, this option is consistent with Council’s resolution of 15th May 2012 to map a maximum height of buildings of 8.5 metres for the entire urban area of Berry.

Recommendation 1:

That Council adopt Option 1 or Option 2 above.

Issue 2: Residential zoning in Manyana, Berringer Lake and the surrounding area

One submission expressed concern with residential zoning in the area.

General Submission • Believes all residential zoning in the area including Berringer and Kylor should be R2.

Comment The majority of residential land in the area is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential excluding the exhibited RU5 Village zoning of Berringer Lake and the R5 Large Lot Residential and R1 General Residential zoning of the Kylor properties. The RU5 Village zoning in Berringer Lake was raised in a large number of submissions and is addressed later in this report - (see Issue 10). A large portion of the Kylor holding is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential (following Council’s resolution 17 April 2012) with a minimum lot size of 2000m2, while the R1 General Residential zone has a minimum lot size of 500m2 (similar to R2 Low Density Residential) areas these zones are consistent with the ‘best fit’ approach to the draft LEP. It is not considered appropriate at this time to rezone the R1 General Residential zone to R2 Low Density Residential. The issue of the Kylor properties is also addressed later in this report (see Issue 21).

Recommendation 2:

That the submission regarding residential zoning in Manyana, Berringer Lake and the surrounding area be received for information.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 25

Issue 3: Crown Land in Berringer Lake and Manyana

One submission expressed concern with the zoning in the area.

General Submission • Recommends E2 zoning for Crown Land in Berringer Lake and Manyana.

Comment A large portion of the existing Crown Land within Berringer Lake and Manyana is proposed to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation consistent with the South Coast Regional Strategy and the Sensitive Urban Lands Review. The foreshore Crown Reserve in Manyana is proposed to be zoned RE1 Public Recreation which is considered appropriate in this location and is a ‘best fit’ transfer from the current Open Space 6(a) zone in LEP 1985.

The issue of Crown Land in the vicinity of Berringer Lake will be further addressed in this report (see Issue 13 and 15).

Recommendation 3:

That the submission regarding Crown Land in Berringer Lake and Manyana be received for information.

Bendalong

Issue 4: R2 zoning and height of buildings in Bendalong and North Bendalong

50 submissions commented on this matter.

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) North Bendalong and Bendalong

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 26

General Submissions • Twelve submissions supported the R2 zoning for Bendalong and North Bendalong. • Three submissions supported R2 zoning for North Bendalong. • Three submissions supported an R2 zoning. 2 storey height limit must be applied in North Bendalong to reduce any further over-development of this hamlet. • Support the R2 zone for Nth Bendalong and Bendalong. The overall amenity of this small village site would be best protected by that zone. Supports the proposal to limit the height of buildings in this zone to 8.5m (storeys). • North Bendalong is tentatively zoned R2 which should be supported. However, Department of Planning considers that an R1 zoning (general residential) should apply. This provides for higher density housing and is subject to an 11m (4 storeys) building height. The overall amenity of this small village would be best protected by an R2 zone. Bendalong has been zoned R2 - Low density residential. This is the ‘best fit’ from the previous LEP and is suited to maintaining the village amenity. Council also proposes to limit height of buildings in this zone to 8.5m (2 storeys) which should also be supported. • Strongly supports the proposed zonings of North Bendalong as R2 - Low Density Residential - consistent with the proposed R2 zoning for the neighbouring Bendalong, Manyana and Cunjurong Point. • Three submissions oppose any proposal to zone North Bendalong R1 - concerned with increased density and an 11m building height. Requests the retention of 2 storey building heights. • North Bendalong does not need 4 story height therefore I support an R2 zoning otherwise the special character of the area would be spoilt. • Request the height level should be 8.5 metres and not 11 metres in Bendalong. • As I understand the Department of Planning considers an R1 zoning (general residential) should apply to North Bendalong, I would support the current Council’s Draft recommendation to zone North Bendalong R2 in line with its neighbouring village

Form Letters (22 Received) • Support R2 zoning for Bendalong and North Bendalong villages.

Red Head Villages Association (Inc) • The proposed zoning of the North Bendalong village as R2 is supported.

Comment Support for this aspect of the draft LEP is noted and it is not proposed to change the exhibited R2 Low Density Residential zone. Council also previously resolved on 20 March 2012 to map the proposed 8.5 metres maximum building height, thus addressing the submissions.

Recommendation 4:

That the submissions regarding R2 zoning and height of buildings in Bendalong and North Bendalong be received for information.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 27

Issue 5: Zoning of Crown Land, Inyadda Drive/ Bendalong Road (Lot 7051 DP 1101639)

51 submissions expressed concern in relation to this matter.

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Lot 7051 DP 1101639

General Submissions • Twelve submissions requested that RU2 zoning be changed to E2. • Three submissions requested that this area be protected and further development limited with an E2 zoning - Environmental Conservation. The Crown land on the eastern side of Inyadda Drive and the southern side of Bendalong Road is zoned Rural Landscape RU2 which permits many uses including caravan parks. The area has already been mapped as having high biodiversity and scenic values as well as serving as a major east-west habitat corridor from the coast to Conjola National Park. • Two submissions believe Crown Land east of Inyadda Drive and South of Bendalong Road should be E3 for biodiversity and scenic values. • Three submissions requested that RU2 zoning be changed to E2 to protect this are and to limit further possible development. Crown land located on the eastern side of Inyadda Drive and the southern side of Bendalong Road is zoned RU2 which permits many uses including caravan parks. This area has also been mapped as having high biodiversity and scenic values as well as serving as a major east-west habitat corridor from the coast to Conjola National Park. • Agrees with Red Head Villages Association that Crown Land next to Kylor Land is more appropriately zoned E2. • Two submissions requested that Crown Land be zoned E2 so that the lots are protected from future incompatible uses. • Objects to zoning of land on the Corner of Bendalong Rd and Inyadda Dr Bendalong going to RU2. Believes zoning should be E2 based on high ecological values of the site. Compels Council to rezone this land E2 in recognition of its ecological significance and also because of its environmental compatibility with the surrounding land uses including the National Park.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 28

• Crown Land on the eastern side of Inyadda Drive and the southern side of Bendalong Road should not be zoned to include caravan parks.

Form Letter (22 received) • Request that RU2 zoning of Crown Land be changed to E2 zoning on Crown Land.

Bawley Point Progress Association Inc • Manyana Crown Land - Recommends E2 zoning.

Red Head Villages Association (Inc) • Request that Lot 7051 DP 1101639 Crown land zoned RU2 be zoned E2. • Change is sought because there is a biodiversity overlay indicating existence of significant vegetation and habitat corridors that contribute to health ecosystems. • The lot has not been subjected to a major fire regime and therefore remain an important part of the local biodiversity, providing critical habitat for many threatened species.

Department of Primary Industries - Crown Lands Division • Following community concern requesting E2 zoning, Crown Lands Division agrees to E3 zoning.

Comment This parcel of Crown Land is currently zoned part Rural 1(d) (General) with ‘area of ecological sensitivity hatching’ and part Environment Protection 7(d2) (Special Scenic) in LEP 1985. The proposed part RU2 Rural Landscape and part E2 Environmental Conservation zone in draft SLEP 2009 thus is a ‘best fit’ transfer from LEP 1985. The vegetated area of the site is also mapped as ‘significant vegetation’ and ‘habitat corridor’ in the NRS – Biodiversity overlay. Considering the environmental constraints of the property and the subsequent advice from Crown Lands Division supporting E3 zoning of the property, it is considered appropriate to change the proposed RU2 zoned area of the site to E3 Environmental Management and retain the existing E2 Environmental Conservation zoning on the eastern portion of the site.

Recommendation 5:

Change the proposed RU2 Rural Landscape zoning of part of Lot 7051 DP 1101639 to E3 Environmental Management consistent with advice from Crown Lands.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 29

Issue 6: Bendalong & North Bendalong - zoning of Crown Land surrounding North Bendalong village

Seven submissions expressed concern in relation to this matter.

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Crown Land surrounding North Bendalong

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Crown Land surrounding Bendalong

General Submissions • Do not want North Bendalong to increase beyond its current size. • Two submissions requested that North Bendalong and Bendalong Crown Land to west should be rezoned E1 because of contiguous relationship with Conjola National Park.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 30

Bawley Point Kioloa Progress Association Inc • North Bendalong (Crown Land) - Supports SLEP Review Group Recommendation of an E1 zone.

Red Head Villages Association (Inc) • Change Crown Land zoned E2 to E1 for lots adjacent to North Bendalong and Bendalong. The proposed E2 draft land use table provides little protection for these sensitive areas. • The 20m of Crown land to the west of Lot 1 DP 1015286 zoned R2 is not supported and should be zoned E2 or E1. • 'Best Fit' proposal for Bendalong (part Lot 7050 DP 1101639) as R2 is supported (it is assumed this comment is referring to Lot 271 DP 755923) • 'Best Fit' proposal for Bendalong (Part Lot 7050 DP 1101639) as E2 is NOT supported. Believes E1 would be more effective. • SLEP Review Group recommended zoning E1 rather than E2. Currently zoned Residential 2(e) (Village) ‘under investigation’ in LEP 1985. • The South Coast Sensitive Urban Lands Review recommendations adopted by the South Coast Regional Strategy are for parts of the area assessed to be rezoned E 2 Environment Conservation in the SLEP. Although the draft SLEP reflects this recommendation it is considered that the Crown land should be zoned E1 because: o It is contiguous with the Conjola National Park. o Crown lands and national park boundaries are particularly awkward in this vicinity and it would aid in asset protection measures to deal with a single authority rather than two. o There is a biodiversity overlay on the Crown Land closest to privately owned land to the east. • Bendalong Crown Land. - SLEP Review Group recommended zoning E1 rather than part R2 and part E2. o This site is adjacent to the Bendalong Village. South Coast Sensitive Urban Lands Review recommendations adopted by the South Coast Regional Strategy recommended that most part of the site could be used for some minor development on Maple Street, immediately adjacent to the main village and that sufficient bush land be made available to serve as APZ for this corner development; this is agreed. o The remainder of the land is proposed to be zoned E2 and this is in accordance with the South Coast Sensitive Urban Lands Review. However it is suggested that the remaining portion be zoned E 1 for the same reasons as listed for North Bendalong.

SLEP 2009 Review Group • Request North Bendalong Crown land be changed from E2 to E1. • The South Coast Sensitive Urban Lands Review recommendations adopted by the South Coast Regional Strategy are for parts of the area assessed to be rezoned E2 Environment Conservation in the SLEP. Although the draft SLEP reflects this recommendation it is considered that the Crown land should be zoned E1 because: o It is contiguous with the Conjola National Park.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 31

o Crown lands and national park boundaries are particularly awkward in this vicinity and it would aid in asset protection measures to deal with a single authority rather than two. o There is a biodiversity overlay on the Crown Land closest to privately owned land to the east. • Bendalong Crown Land. - SLEP Review Group recommended zoning E1 rather than part R2 and part E2. o This site is adjacent to the Bendalong Village. South Coast Sensitive Urban Lands Review recommendations adopted by the South Coast Regional Strategy recommended that most part of the site could be used for some minor development on Maple Street, immediately adjacent to the main village and that sufficient bush land be made available to serve as APZ for this corner development; this is agreed. o The remainder of the land is proposed to be zoned E2 and this is in accordance with the South Coast Sensitive Urban Lands Review. However it is suggested that the remaining portion be zoned E1 for the same reasons as listed for North Bendalong.

Department of Primary Industries - Crown Lands Division • Lot 7017 DP 1054757 - request that the proposed E2 zoning be changed to R2 in line with recommendations from Sensitive Urban Lands Review, also allowing for development providing improved Asset Protection Zones. • Part Lot 7317 DP 1168554 - request that the proposed E2 zoning be changed to R2 in line with recommendations from Sensitive Urban Lands Review, also allowing for development providing improved Asset Protection Zones. As shown in pink outline on diagram below. • Remainder of Lot 7317 DP 1168554 - request the balance of this lot requires E3 as for vegetated freehold lands at Bendalong. • Part Lot 255 DP 755923 - Request that proposed E2 zoning be changed to R2 in line with recommendations from Sensitive Urban Lands Review 2006 (Note - contrary to map provided below). • Lot 7050 DP 1101639 - Request that proposed E2 zoning be changed to E3 in line with adjacent vegetated freehold lands at Bendalong.

Extract of image from Crown Lands Division submission - pink outline shows requested R1 zoning

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 32

Extract of image from Crown Lands Division submission light green outline shows requested E3 zoning and darker green outline requested E2 zoning.

Comment The E1 National Park & Nature Parks zone requested by the community submissions is a specific zone for National parks lands or land that is to be acquired for National Park. The Crown Land parcels are not in National Parks ownership and it is understood that there are currently no plans for National Park to acquire this land. It is therefore not possible to zone the Crown Land parcels E1. The use of the E2 zone in this circumstance was negotiated with DP&I during the preparation of the plan.

The Sensitive Urban Lands Review and South Coast Regional Strategy identified that:

The North Bendalong is suitable for a limited amount of additional development, aimed principally at creating a better bushfire management outcome for the village. A small part of the site adjacent to Pine Street is suitable for a modest amount of development. Site planning should provide for a perimeter road and sufficient separation between bushland and adjoining dwellings for a suitable APZ. The remainder of the site is not suitable for development in view of the isolated nature of the village, the lack of potential for it to reach a sustainable size, and a lack of pressing need for additional residential land.

The remaining parts of the land should be rezoned for environmental conservation using the new Zone E2 Environmental Conservation under the Standard Instrument for LEPs.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 33

Aerial Photo - Bendalong and North Bendalong sites and potential additional development area subject to Panel recommendations (South Coast Sensitive Urban Lands Review 2006)

The area requested to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential by Crown Lands Division (however the submitted map requests R1 General Residential) is not considered appropriate given the findings of the Sensitive Urban Lands Review and the detailed negotiations that occurred with DP&I as part of the plan preparation. The Crown Lands Division also requested that the remainder of this site be changed to E3 Environmental Management however this is not in accordance with the Sensitive Urban Lands Review findings. Issue 8 also related to Crown Land that was covered by the Sensitive Urban Lands Review of the southern edge of North Bendalong (former caravan park).

The Crown Lands Division request to change the zoning of part Lot 255 DP 755923 from the proposed zone E2 to R2 is not consistent with the Sensitive Urban Lands review as it outside the mapped sites. It is not considered appropriate to change the zoning of Part Lot 255 DP 755923 at this point in the process.

The Sensitive Urban Lands Review and South Coast Regional Strategy identified that:

The Bendalong site is suitable for a small amount of additional development along Maple Street aimed principally at creating better bushfire protection for the village… the remainder of the site is not suitable for development… (and) the remaining parts of the land should be rezoned for environmental conservation using the new zone E2 Environmental Conservation under the Standard Instrument for LEPs.

The Crown Lands Division request to change Lot 7050 DP 1101639 from proposed E2 zoning to E3 in line with adjacent vegetated freehold lands at Bendalong is not considered appropriate as it is not consistent with the Sensitive Urban Lands Review.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 34

Recommendation 6:

That the submissions regarding the Crown Land zoned E2 Environmental Conservation adjacent to North Bendalong and Bendalong be received for information.

Issue 7: Zoning of Lot 468 DP 755923 (Por 468)

One submission expressed concern in relation to the proposed zone for this property.

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Lot 468 DP 755923 (Por 468)

Extract of the Land Zoning Map (LEP 1985) Lot 468 DP 755923 (Por 468)

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 35

General Submission (lessee of land) • Wishes to register interest in portion 468 at North Bendalong in the parish of Conjola west of the subdivision at North Bendalong. Opposes the rezoning of this land as it opposes the NSW governments sensitive urban review panel recommendations for this piece of land. Believes it is in all parties’ best interest to consider the recommendations of this panels work.

Department of Primary Industries - Crown Lands Division • Lot 468 DP 1054757 - request that the proposed E2 zoning be changed to R1 in line with recommendations from Sensitive Urban Lands Review 2006, also allowing for development providing improved Asset Protection Zones. As shown in pink outline on diagram below.

Extract of image from Crown Lands Division submission - pink outline shows requested R1 zoning

Comment The subject land is owned by the Crown, but has been leased by the adjacent private owned (Mr D. Hall) and contained part of the effluent disposal system for the caravan park that was located on the adjacent lot. As part of the subdivision proposal over the adjoining Lot 1 DP 1015286, 88 North Bendalong a cul-de-sac was approved with lots on either side. This was inconsistent with the Sensitive Urban Lands Review Panel recommendation of one row of additional lots and a perimeter road. DP&I raised no objection to the subdivision. At the same time the draft LEP was adjusted (prior to exhibition) following representations from the local community to change the zone of Lot 468 from R2 to E2. A 20 metre strip of R2 was also retained to facilitate the future perimeter road. It is understood that Mr Hall is currently negotiating to buy Lot 469 from the Crown to enable a more viable subdivision in this location. As such his submission has sought an R2 zoning for the lot.

There are generally two options to resolve this issue in the draft LEP. These are:

1) Do nothing - this would see the existing zones (E2/R2) retained as exhibited.

2) Alter the zone of Lot 468 DP 755923 (Por 468) to R2 Low Density Residential. This is consistent with the Sensitive Urban Lands Review findings, but not the agreed position prior to exhibition.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 36

Recommendation 7:

That Council support either Option 1 or Option 2.

Issue 8: North Bendalong Headland - Lot 1 DP 1015286

44 submissions expressed concern in relation to this matter.

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) North Bendalong Headland - Lot 1 DP 1015286

General Submissions • Fourteen submissions support North Bendalong headland being zoned E3 • Three submissions requested that the headland at North Bendalong should also be protected by the application of an E3 zoning. • Two submissions strongly support the E3 zoning for the Headland at Nth Bendalong (Allawah Cabins). • North Bendalong Headland (Allawah Cabins) is proposed to be zoned E3 - Environmental Management. This zone aims at protecting, managing and restoring areas that have special ecological, scientific, cultural and aesthetic values. This is a good decision as the ‘equivalent transfer zone’ would not provide sufficient environmental protection for this iconic headland. The E3 zoning should be strongly supported. • Strongly supports the zoning of North Bendalong Headland E3 - Environmental Management - supports protection and restoration of this pristine and iconic headland.

Form Letters (22 received) • Supports the E3 zoning of the headland at North Bendalong

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 37

Red Head Villages Association (Inc) • The E3 zoning proposed for the Nth Bendalong headland (Lot 1 DP1015286) is supported.

Comment Support for this aspect of the draft LEP noted.

Recommendation 8:

That the submissions regarding E3 Environmental Management zoning of North Bendalong Headland be received for information.

Berringer Lake

Issue 9: General concerns in Berringer Lake area

Three submissions commented on the Berringer Lake area.

General Submissions • Likes that the draft LEP will retain the Berringer Lake area’s character. Concerned that CCB groups did not ask for opinion on issues that would affect property at Berringer Lake. • Likes that Council has left the area unchanged under the draft LEP. Concerned that CCB 'RHVA' has misrepresented the residents of Berringer Lake through their recommendations for the area. • Supports the draft LEP retaining Berringer Lake's current status as no entitlements/amenities will be removed. Concerned that CCB 'RHVA' has misrepresented the residents of Berringer Lake through their recommendations for the area.

Comment

Support for aspects of the draft LEP noted and concerns regarding Community Groups views are noted. Issue 10 deals with the issue that appears to have triggered these submissions.

Recommendation 9:

That the submissions regarding the Berringer Lake area generally be received for information.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 38

Issue 10: RU5 zone at Berringer Lake

43 submissions expressed concern in relation to this matter.

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) RU5 Village zoning at Berringer Lake

Form Letters (22 Received) • Request that Berringer Village is zoned R2 and not RU5.

General Submissions • Six submissions requested that Berringer Village is zoned R2 and not RU5. • Concerned that Village is being zoned RU5 not R2. The Berringer Lake and the 16 landowners need to be protected from the facilities and services outlined in RU5. • Recommends that existing 2(a1) land at Berringer Lake be zoned R2 in line with other villages in the area and not the RU5 zone proposed. • Concerned that Berringer Lake being changed from residential to RU5. Why has Berringer been singled out? Does council have an agenda with this? I believe Berringer should be zoned R2 as the other villages in the area are. • Oppose the RU5 for Berringer - insufficient infrastructure and effect on environment. • strongly opposes the RU5 Village zoning for Berringer Village and recommend this be changed to R2. This village is far too small for this inappropriate zoning. • Request that Berringer Lake be zoned to R2 in common with surrounding villages and remove all reference to RU5 zoning. • Supports a change to Berringer Village to R2 zoning to keep low density feeling. • Berringer Village is provisionally zoned RU5 Village. This zone permits a mix of residential, retail and other business uses. By way of comparison villages throughout the City having this zone include Kangaroo Valley, Woollamia and Bawley Point. These villages are on a vastly different scaler. An R2 zoning - low density residential - consistent with the surrounding villages is strongly recommended.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 39

• Berringer Lake is a small village consisting of 14 homes, it is a pristine lake and should be protected against any development that could destroy or have any adverse effect on the lake.

It is not suitable for RU5 zoning and services are already suffering with current population - concerned with increase of industrial noise and pollution, fire risk and/or chemical explosion. Area is definitely not suitable for industrial or caravan parks. Industrial zoning does not belong near waterways or homes. • Berringer Village is provisionally zoned RU5 Village. By way of comparison villages throughout the City having this zone include Kangaroo Valley, Woollamia and Bawley Point. These villages are on a vastly different scale to Berringer. An R2 zoning - low density residential - consistent with the surrounding villages is strongly recommended. • Berringer Village zoned RU5 does not seem fitting. • Likes that Council has left the area unchanged under the draft LEP. Believes that RU5 zoning proposed is best suited. Likes that no facilities or current entitlements will be removed. • Concerned that Berringer RU5 zoning is inappropriate as it is not similar to Kangaroo Valley, Woollamia and Bawley Point. Believes that all residential zoning in Berringer should be R2. • Supports R2 zoning for the Berringer Lake Hamlet • Concerned with zone change from R2 to RU5 zone at Berringer Lake - sensitive area adjacent to lake and any future development should be of a low density nature to protect the lake. Requests land be zoned R2 in line with all other villages in the area in line with the LEP template. • Objects to any change at Berringer Lake. Supports the Red Head Villages Association recommendation for this area to be rezoned E2.

Red Head Villages Association (Inc) • Request that Council amend the zoning of Berringer Village from RU5 to R2 The proposed zoning does not accord with the transfer tables provided by Council.

Comment The concerns regarding the proposed RU5 Village zoning of Berringer Lake are valid and have some merit. The settlement is currently zoned Residential 2(a1) under Shoalhaven LEP 1985 and based on a ‘best fit’ transfer should ordinarily have gone to R2 Low Density Residential. The RU5 Village zone was initially allocated given the small size of the urban area and its relatively isolated location. However the concern regarding the wide range of uses allowed in the RU5 zone are noted. It is considered reasonable and appropriate to change the zoning of Berringer Lake to R2 Low Density Residential consistent with the surrounding villages and the ‘best fit’ transfer.

Recommendation 10:

Change the zone of Berringer Lake village from RU5 Village to R2 Low Density Residential.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 40

Issue 11: Height of Buildings in Berringer Lake

One submission expressed concern in relation to this matter.

General Submissions • The height level should be 8.5 metres and not 11 metres in Berringer Lake.

Comment As Council previously resolved 20 March 2012, the areas proposed to be zoned R2 and RU5 will be mapped with a 8.5 metres maximum height limit.

Recommendation 11:

That the submission regarding Berringer Lake be received for information.

Issue 12: W2 zoning of Berringer Lake

40 submissions expressed concern in relation to this matter.

General Submissions • Nine submissions requested that all Berringer Lake be zoned W1 to provide greater environmental protection. • Recommends that all of Berringer Lake be zoned W1, to provide for greater environmental protection for the lake. • Concerned Berringer lake being partly zoned W2 when it should have been all zoned W1. The sand bar at the entrance to Lake Conjola means that the lake is not fully tidal and even small boats have difficulty in crossing this bar. The W2 zoning could destroy this pristine lake. • Requests that all of Berringer Lake be zoned W1 - the land is bounded by National Park and environmentally protected land with minimal development. Any further development could create adverse pressure.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 41

• The waterways of Berringer Lake should all be W1. Berringer Lake is a pristine lake and should remain that way. If industries permitted under W2 were to occur, the lake would suffer. There is no infrastructure to support the types of facilities permitted in RU5 and W2. There is no kerb and guttering, storm water does not get away and sewer is by grinder pump. • Requests all of Berringer Lake be zoned W1 to protect it from inappropriate development. • All of Berringer Lake should be zoned W1 in order to provide greater environmental protection for this Lake. This lake is essentially bounded by National Park and environmentally protected land around its perimeter with minimal development in the catchment area (Berringer Village, Rustic Caravan Park and Berringer Cottages). A W1 zoning exists to protect “‘natural waterways” for their ecological and scenic values as well as protecting them from the adverse effects of development. • Protection of the Lake Conjola at Berringer Lake catchment is discussed by South Coast Sensitive Land Review in the decision for E2 land usage of the Berringer Crown Land. The village of Berringer Lake similarly needs a higher level of conservation such as R2 and most importantly that the waterway that borders the National Park is more appropriately rezoned to W1. • Believe W2 for Berringer Lake is appropriate.

Form Letters (22 Received) • Request that all Berringer Lake is changed to W1 and not part W2.

Red Head Villages Association (Inc) • Request that Berringer Lake waterway zoning be changed from part W2 to all W1. The additional uses under W2 cannot be supported by such a fragile waterway.

Comment The waterway zones have been introduced as part of the Standard Instrument therefore there is no ‘best fit’ transfer from the current LEP. Given the timeframes for preparing the draft LEP, Council did not have the opportunity to undertake a comprehensive review of all waterways to determine the most appropriate zone. Zones were allocated to waterways using the best available information e.g. existing estuary management plans, boating plans of management etc. A comprehensive review of waterway zones could be undertaken after the finalisation of the draft LEP 2009.

The detailed NSW Department of Primary Industries submission did not raise concerns with the proposed W2 zone in this location. The W2 zone objectives provide for the protection of the ecological, scenic and recreation values of recreational waterways. The majority of land surrounding the estuary is zoned E2, E3, RU2 or RE1.

The Special Development Committee however considered the submissions on the zoning of Lake Conjola on 31 May 2012 and recommended that the Lake be zoned W1 Natural waterway. Thus to ensure consistency it is also recommended that Berringer Lake be zoned W1.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 42

Recommendation 12:

That Berringer Lake be zoned W1 Natural Waterway consistent with the Special Development Committee Recommendations of 31 May 2012.

Issue 13: Zoning of land surrounding Berringer Lake

Three submissions expressed support in relation to this matter.

General Submissions • Likes that the area surrounding Berringer Lake is proposed to be zoned E2. • Supports that the surrounding land of Berringer Lake is environmentally protected.

Red Heads Villages Association Inc • Berringer/Manyana (Crown land) - recommended zoning E2 - Current Zoning 2 (e) “Area Under Investigation” - Draft Zoning Part R2 and E2 (Note - it is assumed that this submission is referring to Crown Land to the east of Berringer Lake village and to the north of Cunjurong Point). • A very small portion of this land was identified for some in-fill development and improvement of the APZ for the village. It has been provisionally zoned R2 and that is agreed. • The remainder of the area has been zoned E2 and in accordance with the recommendations of the Sensitive Urban Lands Review. This area is a significant catchment for Berringer Lake but is isolated from the National Park. It serves as a major east west habitat corridor and the E2 zoning is therefore agreed.

Comment Consistent with the South Coast Regional Strategy and Sensitive Urban Lands Review, the Crown Land surrounding Berringer Lake was zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. Support for this aspect of the draft LEP is noted.

Recommendation 13:

That the submission regarding the zoning of land surrounding Berringer Lake be received for information.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 43

Issue 14: Asset Protection Zone - Crown Land Lots 1 - 8 DP 246836 (Sec 1)

One submission expressed concern in relation to this matter.

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Lots 1 – 8 DP 246836 (Sec 1)

General Submissions • During the fires of 2001/2002 Berringer residents were evacuated twice and having fought the fires with RFS, I believe the Crown Land, Lots 1 to 8 at Berringer Village should be listed APZ.

Comment The subject properties are currently in the Crowns ownership. Any proposal to utilise the property for Asset Protection Zones is outside the scope of the draft LEP, but the proposed zones do not create an issue in this regard.

Recommendation 14:

That the submission regarding the use of Crown Land Lots 1 - 8 DP 246836 (Sec 1) at Berringer Lake as an Asset Protection Zone be received for information.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 44

Issue 15: Zoning of Lot 488 DP 1091918 & Lot 429 DP 755923

Four submissions expressed concern in relation to this matter.

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Lot 488 DP 1091918 & Lot 429 DP 755923

Extract of the draft NRS - Biodiversity Overlay (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Lot 488 DP 1091918 & Lot 429 DP 755923

General Submissions • Two submissions recommend that Crown Lands, Lot 488 DP 1091918 & Lot 429 DP 955923 proposed to be rezoned RU2 should be zoned E2, to protect these high biodiversity sites from future possible incompatible development.

Bawley Point Progress Association Inc • Berringer (Crown Land) - Recommends E2 zoning

Red Head Villages Association (Inc) • Request that Lot 488 DP 1091918 & Lot 429 DP 755923 Crown land zoned RU2 to E2.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 45

• Change is sought because there is a biodiversity overlay indicating existence of significant vegetation and habitat corridors that contribute to healthy ecosystems. • None of the lots have been subjected to a major fire regimes and therefore remain an important part of the local biodiversity, providing critical habitat for many threatened species.

Comment Lot 488 DP 1091918 is no longer Crown Land and is now owned by Jerringa Aboriginal Land Council. The Crown and the Land Council did not comment on these properties in their submissions. The properties are also affected by Clause 7.5 of the draft LEP as Lot 429 and Lot 488 are mapped as ‘significant vegetation’ on the NRS - Biodiversity overlay and Lot 488 is also partly mapped as ‘habitat corridor’. Considering the adjoining Conjola National Park it could be considered appropriate to zone the subject properties E2 Environmental Conservation subject to landowner notification. This would however be inconsistent with the ‘best fit’ transfer approach to the draft LEP.

There are generally three options to resolve this issue at this point in the draft LEP process. These are:

1) Retain the exhibited RU2 Rural landscape zoning over Lot 488 DP 1091918 & Lot 429 DP 755923.

2) Change the zoning of Lot 488 DP 1091918 & Lot 429 DP 755923 to E2 Environmental Conservation and advise the owners as part of the re-exhibition process.

3) Change the zoning of Lot 488 DP 1091918 & Lot 429 DP 755923 to E3 Environmental Conservation and advise the owners as part of the re-exhibition process.

Recommendation 15:

That Council support Option 1, Option 2 or Option 3.

Issue 16: Zoning of ‘The Rustic Caravan Park’ - 990 Bendalong Road, Lot 428 DP 755923 (Por 438)

Two submissions expressed concern in relation to this matter.

General Submissions (Landowners and Caravan Park operators) • The Rustic Caravan Park - 990 Bendalong Road, Berringer Lake Lot 428 DP 755923 (Por 438). We are concerned with over development. We permit pets - any change to neighbouring Crown land could affect our business. We support the RU2 zoning for our property. • Agree with zoning RU2 for 990 Bendalong Road Lake Berringer (rustic caravan park) I am concerned with any possible changes to land use zoning in relation to vacant Crown Land (Lot 429DP 755923) both to the west and north of our property (Lot 348

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 46

DP 755923 – 990 Bendalong Rd, Berringer Lake), I am concerned with high rise over development.

Comment Support for RU2 zoning of the property noted. The area was not included in the Sensitive Urban Lands Review. The zoning of adjacent lands and height of buildings was raised in other submissions to the draft LEP that are addressed elsewhere in this report, however the outcome of these issues are dependent on this Committee’s recommendations

Recommendation 16:

That the submission regarding the zoning of The Rustic Caravan Park - 990 Bendalong Road, Lot 428 DP 755923 (Por 438) be received for information.

Issue 17: Rezoning of land around Berringer Lake

One submission expressed concern in relation to this matter.

General Submissions • Concerned as the Real Estate Agent - a business owner in Ulladulla exchanged on a large parcel of land just before this change of zoning was announced. Would like an answer why Berringer Lake has been rezoned.

Comment The only large parcel of land around Berringer Lake that has been substantially rezoned is Lot 482 DP 823199 which is owned by the Crown and was identified in the Sensitive Urban Lands Review as unsuitable for urban development due to environmental constraints.

Berringer Lake was exhibited as an RU5 Rural Village zone which is a change from the current Residential 2(a1) zone (equivalent is R2). This has been the subject of a number of submissions and it is recommended that it be changed to R2 (Issue 10).

Recommendation 17:

That the submission regarding the zoning of land around Berringer Lake be received for information.

Manyana

Issue 18: R2 zoning in Manyana

24 submissions commented on this matter.

General Submissions • Eleven submissions support the R2 zoning for Manyana

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 47

• Supports the R2 zone for Manyana and the overall amenity of this small village site would be best protected by that zone.

Form Letters (22 Received) • Support R2 zoning for Manyana

Comment Support for this aspect of the draft LEP noted.

Recommendation 18:

That the submission supporting R2 zoning in Manyana be received for information.

Issue 19: Height of Buildings in Manyana

Four submissions expressed concern in relation to this matter.

General Submissions • The height level should be 8.5 metres and not 11 metres in Manyana. • Supports limiting the height of building to 8.5 metres. • Two submissions support the height limit of 8.5 metres proposed for the R2 zone.

Comment As resolved by Council on 20th March 2012, the areas proposed to be zoned R2 and RU5 will be mapped with a 8.5 metre maximum height limit in draft SLEP 2009. This means the majority of Manyana will be mapped with a 8.5 metre maximum height limit, excluding the remaining draft zones in Manyana i.e. R1, RU2, E3, B2 etc. The remaining zones will have an 11 metre height limit as per Clause 4.3 in draft SLEP 2009.

Recommendation 19:

That the submissions regarding the height of buildings in Manyana be received for information.

Issue 20: Commercial site - Lot 1 DP 1161638, Curvers Drive, Manyana (Manyana Shops)

42 submissions expressed concern in relation to this matter.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 48

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Lot 1 DP 1161638, Curvers Drive

Form Letter (22 received) • Request Manyana Shops be changed from B2 to a B1 zoning.

General Submissions • Eight submissions request that Manyana should be B1 not B2. • Recommends that the commercial site at the corner of Curvers and Inyadda Drives (Kylor land) be zoned B1 instead of the B2 zone proposed, so that it is compatible with the surrounding residential areas. • Believes B2 zoning provides for a wide range of uses that would service a much wider catchment than a B1 zone, believes B1 zoning is more appropriate. Disapproves of Manyana Shop development, all facilities from retail, medical, small business and entertainment are only a short distance away at Milton and Ulladulla. • Objects to B2 zoning of Lot 1 DP 1161638 - additional number of uses would not be compatible with the character of the surrounding residential environment. Recommends B1 zoning be applied to this land. • Two submissions requested that Manyana shops be changed from B2 to B1 to make development compatible with surrounding area. • Believes Manyana shops should be zoned B2. • Objects to B2 zoning of commercial area in Manyana. B1 would ensure small scale development more suited to village. • Believes Manyana shops should be zoned B1 to allow small scale retail and business premises such as Mollymook and Bawley Point shops with the district rather than B2 zoning. • The Manyana shops should be zoned B1 not the current B2 Local Centre zone which provides for a range of retail, business, entertainment and community functions that service a wider catchment than a Neighbourhood Centre. B1 - Neighbourhood Centres - are typically small scale retail and business premises such as Mollymook

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 49

and Bawley Point shops. The Manyana shops should be zoned B1 so that any future development is compatible with the surrounding residential areas. • Support the RHVA recommendation for changing the Manyana Business Centre from B2 to B1. In this circumstance, the ‘like for like’ zone exchange does not hold to the zone objectives for what is intended to be a neighbourhood centre. • Recommends Council zone Manyana shops B1. Concerned with B2 zoning of Manyana shops - should be B1 not be zoned B2 and liked to Vincentia and Berry.

Red Head Villages Association (Inc) • Request that zoning for Manyana shops is amended from B2 to B1 in line with the objectives of the B1 zone. • Other examples such as Mollymook Shops and Bawley Point have been designated B1 and clearly the Manyana site reflects B1 characteristics rather than B2. • It is Council that has added the second objective that defines the scale and type of shopping facility suited to this zoning. • This particular objective reflects the aspirations of the local residents for the shopping zone in Manyana.

Comment This land is currently zoned Business 3(f) (Village) in LEP 1985. Under the Standard LEP Instrument, there is no ‘village’ business zone. In the preparation of the draft LEP, B2 was established as the ‘best fit’ transfer for Business 3(f) (Village). Council may however wish to consider changing the zone from B2 to B1 to better reflect the size and scale of the retail zone in this location. This may however, reduce the range of future permissible uses for this centre. It is noted that the new owner of this site did not make a submission to the draft LEP.

There are generally two options to resolve this issue at this point in the draft LEP process. These are:

1) Retain the zoning of Lot 1 DP 1161638, Curvers Drive Manyana as B2 Local Centre consistent with the ‘best fit’ transfer. This is the not the preferred option as it does not address the community concern raised. The B2 zoning does however provide for a range of future permissible uses for the centre.

2) Change the zoning of Lot 1 DP 1161638, Curvers Drive Manyana to B1 Neighbourhood Centre and advise the landowner during the re-exhibition process. This option addresses the number of submission raised by the community and is considered appropriate in this location.

Recommendation 20:

Change the zoning of Lot 1 DP 1161638, Curvers Drive Manyana to B1 Neighbourhood Centre and advise the landowner during the re-exhibition process.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 50

Issue 21: Kylor Land - Lot 2 DP 1161638, Lot 106 DP 755923 and Lot 2 DP 1121854

A large number of submissions commented on or expressed concern in relation to this matter and covered a wide number of issues. As such, the issues have been broken down and are individually addressed below.

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Kylor Land Lot 2 DP 1161638, Lot 106 DP 755923 and Lot 2 DP 1121854

Building Lines

Seven submissions expressed concern in relation to this aspect.

Extract of the land zoning map (LEP 1985) Kylor Land Lot 2 DP 1161638, Lot 106 DP 755923 and Lot 2 DP 1121854

General Submissions • Request that existing building lines in relation to Kylor land be included in the relative DCP currently under review and that the LEP be noted accordingly.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 51

• Believes that 30m buildings lines must be included in the Citywide DCP and the intention to include the building should be noted in the draft LEP. • 30 metre buffer should be placed between the Kylor development and Curvers Drive houses. - Buffer along the western border of the Kylor land and along the road in should also be put in to retain the village amenity. • Request the 30 metre buffer zone between the houses on Curvers Drive and the Kylor land be on the Plan. Additionally, to retain the visual amenity of this small village, request a buffer between the Kylor land and the road in (which is immediately to the west). • Concerned that the 30m building line that runs parallel to the northern side of Curvers Drive, Manyana has been removed. Request Council reinstate the building line on the zoning maps. • The 30 metre building line has existed and should be retained to protect the privacy bordering land owners.

Red Head Villages Association (Inc) • Request that the 30 metre building line along the boundary of Curvers Drive and Inyadda Drive shown on LEP 85 is included in the land zoning map. These were negotiated at time of the rezoning of land and the community expects it.

Comment As part of the Standard LEP Instrument process, the Department of Planning & Infrastructure advised that buildings lines could not be included in the draft LEP and should be included in the Citywide Development Control plan instead. The concerns raised by the community are noted in this instance and staff have a similar issue with building lines generally not being included in the draft LEP.

There are generally two options to resolve this issue in relation to the draft LEP. These are:

1) Change the zoning of the areas of Lot 2 DP 1161638, Lot 106 DP 755923 and Lot 2 DP 1121854 affected by the 30 metre building lines to E3 Environmental Management with a minimum lot size of 40ha to create a similar effect.

2) Retain the exhibited zoning of Lot 2 DP 1161638, Lot 106 DP 755923 and Lot 2 DP 1121854 and include the 30 metre building lines in the Citywide DCP. This is the preferred approach working within the current Standard Instrument constraints.

Recommendation 21(a):

Retain the exhibited zoning of Lot 2 DP 1161638, Lot 106 DP 755923 and Lot 2 DP 1121854 and include the 30 metre building lines in the Citywide DCP.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 52

NRS - Biodiversity Overlay

Two submissions expressed concern in relation to this matter.

Extract of the NRS - Biodiversity overlay (LEP 1985) Kylor Land Lot 2 DP 1161638, Lot 106 DP 755923 and Lot 2 DP 1121854

General Submissions (on behalf of landowner) • Requests removal of any references to land being ‘sensitive’ due to ‘biodiversity’ vegetation’ or ‘habitats’.

Red Head Villages Association (Inc) • That the biodiversity overlay for R5 land not permit any reduction in lot size through rezoning and that the R5 zone be subject to the restrictions pertaining to development of land where a biodiversity overlay exists.

Comment The submission on behalf of the landowner requesting that references associated with the NRS - Biodiversity overlay be removed was not justified with any environmental investigations. It is not considered appropriate at this stage to remove the NRS - biodiversity overlay from the Kylor properties Lot 2 DP 1161638, Lot 106 DP 755923 and Lot 2 DP 1121854. The NRS - Biodiversity overlay data was provided by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage and generally reflects habitat corridors and significant vegetation identified in the South Coast Regional Strategy and other relevant strategy documents.

The RHVA concerns will need to be addressed in any future planning proposal to change the zone or development potential of the subject land. However the minimum lot size is a minimum standard and any future subdivision application will need to consider Clause 7.5 - Biodiversity and will be subject to Section 79C Assessment.

Recommendation 21(b):

Retain the exhibited NRS - Biodiversity overlay over the properties Lot 2 DP 1161638, Lot 106 DP 755923 and Lot 2 DP 1121854.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 53

Zoning and additional permitted uses in Schedule 1.7 (2)

Six submissions expressed concern in relation to this matter.

Extract of the draft Local Clauses overlay - Schedule 1.7 (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Kylor Land Lot 2 DP 1161638, Lot 106 DP 755923 and Lot 2 DP 1121854

General Submissions - Zoning and additional permitted uses in Schedule 1.7 (2) • Supports the zoning of the remaining Kylor as proposed, with any rezoning other than as shown to be treated as a separate LEP process, which would then include the effect on Sewerage/Infrastructure/Social Issues/Environment etc. • Recommends Council removes ‘pubs’ as a permitted uses on E3 Kylor Land from Schedule 1.7 (2). • Recommends Council adhere to its 2008 resolution not to consider any rezoning of the Kylor land as part of the LEP process and that any request to rezone their land would be considered as a separate process.

Any further requests from Kylor to rezone land must consider Native Vegetation Act, sewerage, infrastructure, environment and social issues. Objects to additional permitted uses that would not have been allowed under E2. • Believes that all Kylor Land should be zoned R2.

General Submissions (on behalf of landowner) • Believe no greater development controls should be applied to our client’s land without the opportunity to review a prior environmental study. In this case (E3 zone), no justification has been provided for the greater restrictions proposed.

Red Head Villages Association (Inc) • Schedule 1 Clause 7 (2) - additional permitted uses for certain land at Manyana being Lot 204 DP 755923 (Por 204), Sunset Strip; that part of Lot 106 DP 755923 (Por 106) Inyadda Dr that is zoned E3 Environmental Management and that part of Lot 1070 DP 836591 Curvers Drive that is zoned E3 Environmental Management, shown on the Local Clauses Map and marked Sch 1:7. Request that additional permitted uses be limited to:

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 54

Advertising structures, helipads and heliports, recreation facilities (major) and recreation facilities (outdoor). • Request that Council does not consider rezoning of any of the Kylor land, other than as proposed under the current LEP process, apart from as previously recommended in this submission, under recommendation 4.3 (B2 to B1). Any rezoning of this site must be treated as a separate draft LEP. • Designate Lot 204 DP 755923, part Lot 6 DP 755923 and part Lot 1070 DP 83659 as E3.

Comment The subject properties are currently zoned Residential 2(a2), Residential 2(c) Living Area, Open Space 6(b) Recreation Private and Open Space 6(c) Recreation Proposed in LEP 1985. Part of the land is also affected by Clause 54 of LEP 1985 which prohibits the development of a ‘caravan park’ on the subject land. At the time of preparing the draft LEP, the Standard Instrument did not allow local clauses or sub zones to prescribe a similar control in the draft SLEP 2009. Through negotiations with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Council’s only option to achieve the same outcomes/ controls was to zone the land E3 Environmental Management instead of the ‘best fit’ transfer RE2 Private Recreation so that ‘caravan parks’ would continue to be a prohibited use on the site. In order to retain similar development potential opportunities for the site the DP&I advised that the use of Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses would be appropriate to list the uses permissible in an RE2 Private Recreation zone, excluding ‘caravan parks’.

Schedule 1(7) - “Use of certain land located at Manyana” indicates that the following uses are permissible with consent on the land mapped as Sch1:7 on the local clauses map:

Advertising structures, amusement centres, community facilities, food and drink premises, function centres, helipads, heliports, recreation facilities (indoor), recreation facilities (major), recreation facilities (outdoor) and registered clubs.

The intention of the draft LEP process is to apply a ‘best fit’ transfer where possible and not restrict development opportunities that previously existed in LEP 1985, where appropriate. The community submissions generally requested that permitted uses in Schedule 1. 7(2) be limited to: advertising structure, helipads and heliport, recreation facilities (major) and recreation facilities (outdoor). This effectively prohibits the following uses: amusement centres, community facilities, food and drink premises (including pubs, restaurants and take-away food and drink premises), function centres, recreation facilities (indoor) and registered clubs. Given the sensitivity of this location, Council could consider this request to restrict the number of uses permissible.

There are generally three options to resolve this issue in relation to the draft LEP. These are:

1) Retain the proposed E3 zone and the additional permitted uses as exhibited in Schedule 1.7 (2)

2) Retain the proposed E3 zone and delete the additional permitted uses from Schedule 1.7 (2): amusement centres, community facilities, food and drink premises (including

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 55

pubs, restaurants and take-away food and drink premises), function centres, recreation facilities (indoor) and registered clubs.

3) Rezone the subject area from E3 to RE2 Private Recreation and pursue a local clause to prohibit “caravan parks”. This would achieve a “best fit” transfer and may be possible given the changing approaches to sub zones.

Recommendation 21(c):

Rezone the subject area of Lot 2 DP 1161638, Lot 106 DP 755923 and Lot 2 DP 1121854 from E3 to RE2 Private Recreation and pursue a local clause to prohibit “caravan parks”. This would achieve a “best fit” transfer and may be possible given the changing approaches to sub zones.

Goodsell Graves

33 submissions expressed concern in relation to this matter.

Form Letter (22 received) • Request that the Goodsell grave site (Kylor land) to be shown on heritage listing and heritage overlay map for Manyana

General submissions • Six submissions requested that the Goodsell graves on the Kylor land be preserved by placement on Council’s heritage list and included in the heritage overlay map. • The Goodsell graves and homestead site on Kylor land should be heritage listed as is plays an important part in the local history. • Include Goodsell grave site (Kylor land) on heritage listing and heritage overlay map for Manyana. • The Goodsell graves are located on Kylor land. These graves play an important part in our local history; Manyana was previously known as Goodsells’ Farm and much of the land surrounding Red Head was owned by this family. The grave site has been maintained voluntarily by local residents but to safeguard its future, the site should be included on the heritage list (Schedule 5 of SLEP2009) and incorporated into the heritage overlay map. • Goodsell graves on Kylor Land (portion 107). Requests land is included on the draft LEP heritage list and included on the heritage map to recognise graves on the property.

Red Head Villages Association (Inc) • Include the Goodsell grave sites in Schedule 5 of the SLEP (located Kylor land Lot 2 DP 1161638) and that the site be subject to Clause 5.10 of the draft SLEP. • A very brief background reveals that the Goodsells were pioneers in the District and owned much of the land around Red Head. The area was generally referred to as

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 56

Goodsell’s Farm before being renamed Manyana. Although Jesse Goodsell (1841 - 1924) and his wife Mary nee Gallaway (1849 -1927) were not the first settlers here they were the most famous.

Image of Goodsell Graves - included in RHVA submission

Comment The Goodsells graves located on Lot 2 DP 1161638 were considered for inclusion on the Heritage Schedule of Shoalhaven LEP 1985 as part of the Heritage LEP which was gazetted in 2007. The graves were not included on the Heritage Schedule based on concerns raised with the listing by the landowner. Council could now reconsider listing the subject graves as a heritage item to ensure their longer term protection consistent with the Shoalhaven Heritage Study.

There are generally two options to resolve this issue in relation to the draft LEP. These are:

1) Include the Goodsells graves located at Lot 2 DP 1161638 as a heritage item in the draft LEP.

2) Not include the Goodsells graves located at Lot 2 DP 1161638 as a heritage item in the draft LEP.

Recommendation 21(d):

Include the Goodsells graves located at Lot 2 DP 1161638 as a heritage item in the draft LEP.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 57

Minimum lot size layer

Three submissions expressed concern in relation to this matter.

Extract of the draft Minimum Lot Size layer (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Kylor Land Lot 2 DP 1161638, Lot 106 DP 755923 and Lot 2 DP 1121854

General Submissions • Larger lot sizes (2000 sq m) on the Kylor land should definitely not be changed to smaller lots. • Concerned that the proposed larger lots (2000 sq m) on the Kylor land will be changed to smaller residential lots. Requests that the appropriate zoning be placed on this land to the west of the “tourist development” to ensure that these lots are the larger sized lots.

Development and Environmental Services • Concerned with dwelling houses being permissible in E3 Environmental Management zone where there is no minimum lot size map for example Kylor Land.

Comment The missing minimum lot size layer from the E3 Environmental Management zone is a recognised mapping error. As such the Minimum Lot Size overlay will be amended to show 40 hectare minimum lot size layer over the E3 zoned land.

Recommendation 21(e):

Change the Minimum Lot Size overlay to map a 40 hectare minimum lot size over E3 zoned land at Lot 2 DP 1161638, Lot 106 DP 755923 and Lot 2 DP 1121854.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 58

Height of Buildings

Two submissions expressed concern in relation to this matter.

General Submissions • Kylor land will lose certain elements of the existing LEP. I support the RHVA recommendations for a height standard of 11 metres (Note: The RHVA recommended a height standard of 8.5 metres not 11 metres for Kylor land).

Red Head Villages Association (Inc) • Recommends that the height of buildings for Kylor Land be reduced from 11 metres to 2 storeys (8.5 metres) as per most other remaining part of the District (coastal building to 8.5 metres being the exception).

Comment Depending on the Committee’s recommendation regarding Issue 1: Height of Buildings, Council could consider limiting the height of buildings in R1 zoned land in the Kylor Holding to 8.5 metres consistent with the surrounding character of the area.

Recommendation 21(f):

That the submissions regarding height of buildings for Lot 2 DP 1161638, Lot 106 DP 755923 and Lot 2 DP 1121854 be received for information.

Issue 22: Lot 705 DP 613881 Manyana Drive, Manyana

One submission commented on the proposed zoning of this property.

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) part Lot 705 DP 613881

Red Head Villages Association (Inc) • 'best fit' proposal for part Lot 705 DP 613881 Manyana Drive is supported. Proposed zoning is consistent with State Government Part 3A approval.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 59

Comment Support for this aspect of the draft LEP is noted.

Recommendation 22:

That the submission regarding the zoning of Lot 705 DP 613881 Manyana Drive, Manyana be received for information.

Issue 23: Zoning of 71 Sunset Strip, Lot 129 DP 205240, Manyana

Four submissions expressed concern in relation to this matter.

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) - 71 Sunset Strip

General Submissions • Recommends that Lot 129 DP 205240 - 71 Sunset Strip Manyana - be rezoned RE1 in line with existing zoning. This appears to be an oversight by Council. • • Two submissions suggested that 71 Sunset Strip, Manyana should be zoned the same as the adjoining Waterfront Reserve - RE1 Public Recreation instead of R2 Low Density Residential as it is Council land that is classified as "Community Land", categorised as "Natural Area”. The land was resumed by Council in 1976 for the purpose of providing access to the waterfront reserve. It is also a natural corridor and habitat for a variety of native animals including wallabies, echidnas, possums, bandicoots and an abundance of bird life and should be kept in its natural state.

Comment The subject lot was acquired in 1976 for the purpose of “providing, controlling and managing grounds for public recreation" to obtain access to the waterfront reserve. As stated in the submissions, Sunset Strip Reserve is public land owned by Council and it is appropriate to zone the property accordingly. Whilst the R2 zone is a ‘best fit’ transfer from the current Residential 2(a1) zone the subject lot is currently classified as “community” land under the Local Government Act.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 60

Recommendation 23:

Change the zoning of Lot 129 DP 205240 Sunset Strip, Manyana to RE1 Public Recreation to better reflect its public land status.

Cunjurong Point

Issue 24: Zoning of Green Island - Lot 7026 DP 1031114

45 submissions expressed concern in relation to this matter.

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) - Green Island

Form Letters (22 received) • Request that Green Island (Crown Land) be zoned E2.

General Submissions • Ten submissions requested that Green Island (Crown Land) be zoned E2. • Green Island needs stronger protection and should be zoned E2. It is Crown land and is proposed to be zoned E3 - Environmental Management. This iconic island has no buildings on it and has good coastal biodiversity qualities. Other islands within Lake Conjola, some having structures on them, have been zoned E2 - Environmental Conservation. • Believes Green Island should be zoned E2 to preserve its isolated and pristine environment. • Believes zoning Green Island E3 is inappropriate and E2 zoning should apply. • Green Island is poorly protected by the current E3 zone and would be more appropriately zoned E2 as are the other islands in Lake Conjola that do not have housing. • Recommends Green Island be protection and zone E3 zone - beautiful, environmentally sensitive piece of Crown Land and deserves protection stronger than

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 61

proposed E2 zoning (It is assumed this submissions is requesting an E2 zoning as it provides higher protection than E3). • Two submissions believe Green Island should be E3 for biodiversity and scenic values. • Believes Green Island is inappropriately zoned , recommend E2 or National Parks. • Believes Green Island should stay free of any building therefore a zoning of E3 is warranted. • Green Island should be zoned E2 giving it a stronger protection than E3. • Two submissions Concerned with E2 zoning of Green Island, should be zoned E2 like other islands within Lake Conjola.

Red Head Villages Association (Inc) • Requests Green Island be changed from E3 to E2 because it deserves protection afforded by E2 due to its status, conservation values, and health of its biodiversity.

Lake Conjola Lakecare Association (Inc) • The proposed zoning of Green Island as ‘E3’ is totally inappropriate to its landscape and environmental significance, should be zoned ‘E2’ as are other islands within Lake Conjola. If additional E zones are included in the SLEP, the zoning of Green Island should be the highest possible environment protection zone outside E1 National Park. (Note: The Association also raised this issue in their deputation to the Committee on 31 May 2012).

Department of Primary Industries - Crown Lands Division • Agree with request raised in community submissions to change Green Island from E3 to E2.

Comment The proposed E3 Environmental Management zone of Green Island is a ‘best fit’ transfer from the current zone of Environment Protection 7(f1) (Coastal), however a large number of submissions requested that Green Island be changed from E3 to E2. The island is considered to have significant and unique environmental values. The Crown Lands Division (landowner) agree that a change from E3 to E2 is appropriate. Therefore the request is supported.

Recommendation 24:

Change the zoning of Green Island Lot 7026 DP 1031114 to E2 Environmental Conservation.

Issue 25: Crown Land Lot 482 DP 823199

One submission expressed support in relation to this matter.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 62

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) Lot 482 DP 823199, Cunjurong Point Rd

Red Head Villages Association (Inc) • Support E2 zoning of Crown Land west of Lake Berringer and south to the Bounty (Lot 482 DP 823199).

Comment The zoning of Lot 482 DP 8231899 and the Crown Land to the east (identified in the aerial photo below) was “deferred” from the Shoalhaven LEP 1985 and are currently controlled by the Interim Development Order 1964 (IDO) ‘Village’ zone.

As a result of the Sensitive Urban Lands Review, the area zoned ‘Village’ is proposed in the draft LEP to be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. The support for the E2 zoning of Crown Land in Cunjurong Point is noted.

Aerial Photo - Berringer Lake sites (South Coast Sensitive Urban Lands Review 2006)

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 63

Recommendation 25:

That the submission supporting E2 zoning of Crown Land in Cunjurong Point be received for information.

Issue 26: Support for R2 zoning and height of buildings in Cunjurong Point

38 submissions expressed support in relation to this matter.

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) - Cunjurong Point

Form Letters (22 received) • Support R2 zoning in Cunjurong Point.

General Submissions • Ten submissions support the R2 zoning in Cunjurong Point. • Five submissions support the R2 zone for Cunjurong Point and support the proposal to limit the height of buildings in this zone to 8.5m (storeys). • Believe the height level should be 8.5 metres and not 11 metres in Cunjurong Point.

Comment Support for R2 Low Density Residential noted. Council previously resolved on 20 March 2012 to map a building height of 8.5 metres in areas zoned R2 Low Density Residential in draft LEP 2009.

Recommendation 26:

That the submissions supporting R2 Low Density Residential zoning and height of buildings in Cunjurong Point be received for information.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 64

Issue 27: 7 Alaska Street, Lot 7 DP 111567 - Existing use of service station, takeaway and general store

One submission expressed support in relation to this matter.

Extract of the draft Land Zoning Map (draft SLEP 2009 as exhibited) 7 Alaska Street, Lot 7 DP 111567

General Submission • Concerned that existing uses at 7 Alaska St, Cunjurong Point (service station, takeaway and general store) are not permissible under the proposed zoning of R2.

Comment The proposed R2 Low Density Residential zone is a ‘best fit’ transfer from Residential 2(a1) in LEP 1985. The “ground rules” adopted by Council on 28 November 2006, as the basis for preparing the new LEP, included the following: “As far as practical the LEP include Spot Business Zones that recognise existing use”. As such given that the subject land could be considered to be an “existing use rights” situation then there maybe some merit in reconsidering the zoning of this land.

As residential use is not suitable for the site due to the contamination issues and given the history of commercial use, it would be reasonable to change the zoning from R2 Low Density Residential to a business zone B2 Local Centre. Ordinarily the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone would be used, but is not considered appropriate in this case as service stations are a prohibited use and would thus not recognise the existing use of the property.

Recommendation 27:

Change the zoning of 7 Alaska Street, Lot 7 DP 111567 to B2 Business Local Centre to reflect the commercial use of the site.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 65

Issue 28: Development controls for dual occupancies in Cunjurong Point

One submission raised a question in relation to this matter.

General Submission • Questioned - what are the requirements for dual occupancies under the new LEP for Cunjurong Point?

Comment A large portion of Cunjurong Point is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. Dual Occupancies will continue be permissible in the zone and development controls will continue to be prescribed in Development Control Plan

The dual occupancy requirements are set out in the relevant DCP No. 57 - Dual Occupancy Guidelines and will be incorporated into the future Citywide DCP, however it is noted that the ‘Subdivision of Dual Occupancy Development’ as defined in Part 2 of DCP No. 57 is not permitted in Cunjurong Point.

Recommendation 28:

That the submission regarding dual occupancies in Cunjurong Point be received for information.

Resourcing Implications - Financial, Assets, Workforce:

To date, considerable staff (workforce) time has been, and will continue to be, prioritised on this project.

Community, Environment (ESD), Economic and Governance Impact:

The recommendations aim to consider and if appropriate address community concern, whilst also recognising and respecting the “ground rules” and the Standard LEP Instrument, on which draft SLEP 2009 has been based. Should the recommendations be supported by Council, then this will reflect good governance, in the context of strategic planning.

The changes to draft SLEP 2009 supported by Council will also be re-exhibited as resolved by Council on 28 February 2012. This will allow further opportunity for the community to comment on these key issues.

CONCLUSION

Bendalong, Berringer Lake, Manyana and Cunjurong Point are recognised as having important values. A large number of submissions were received in regards to these areas that raised a wide range of issues. The consideration of these submissions through this report ensures that the issues raised with the draft SLEP 2009 are resolved for this unique area.

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 66

Peter Adams DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE

R.D Pigg GENERAL MANAGER

Special Development Committee - Draft LEP 2009-12 June 2012 Page 67