Micro Brewery at 466 Kangaroo Valley Rd the Above Mentioned DA Is
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Deputation to Council DA 20/1222 – Micro Brewery at 466 Kangaroo Valley Rd The above mentioned DA is scheduled for discussion and vote next Tuesday 2th March with a recommendation of approval. The community has only been notified of these latest developments in the last few days and we ask that in the interest of procedural fairness and transparency that the vote be deferred to enable appropriate community response to the new submissions. This DA should be rejected or at least the vote deferred based on the following justifications: Procedural Fairness 1. Residents who objected to the DA should have been notified as to the additional documents submitted in the period since our objections were lodged. Nothing has been received despite verbal enquiries in 2020. 2. COVID restrictions until very recently have prohibited residents from meeting to discuss the issue. 3. Progress on the DA application appears to have proceeded to the point of an approval recommendation by council staff without our knowledge until Friday 26th February with a vote scheduled 2 working days later. Some people on the list have not received any notice at all. 4. A crucial Supplementary Traffic Statement with projections of traffic and accidents that persuaded staff to recommend approval was not made available to residents. 5. NSW Police responded twice to referrals predicting an increase in serious motor vehicle collisions. 6. The process has not been open, transparent and fair to the community. 7. Further, a brief review of documents now obtained indicates a recommendation that traffic be diverted along Tourist Road. This impacts the residents of Tourist Road who again have not been notified and are unable to respond to this development. There has been no Traffic or Police report for impact on Tourist Road. Road Safety In April, Councils own Engineering Design Unit (EDU) categorically recommend that “the development application be refused due to the surrounding road network having a high level of risk for serious motor vehicle accidents and increasing vehicular traffic would inflate the risks associated with the road.“ Kangaroo Valley Road has an estimated traffic volume in 2020 of between 1,085 - 1,768 vehicles per day. The proposal plans to add an extra 200 vehicle movements per day plus the movement of staff and deliveries. An increase of 20%. To carry this much traffic the Austroads Guide requires a rural road that is 7.0m wide (two 3.5m wide lanes) have a 2m wide shoulder, and have a minimum 1m wide sealed shoulder. Kangaroo Valley Road and Tourist Road are nowhere near able to comply with this recommendation. According to Austroads the maximum carrying capacity of Kangaroo Valley road should be limited to 500 cars per day. In fact if you keep to the left of the centre line marking, it is impossible to not run into the gutters, some of which are so deep they would cause major damage to any car forced over. The nature of the road causes additional risks with larger vehicles such as transport and minibuses. The Land and Environment Court in 2017 drew particular attention to local conditions of sight, fog, animals, road width, hairpins and climatic conditions which can make the road slippery and dangerous. It is also not unusual to need to remove fallen tree branches that block the road. The Applicants response is that the guide for roads does not apply to Berry Mountain as it would stop his and any other development. The nature of the development being alcohol based must be considered as the council report also states that “even with all motorists obeying legal blood alcohol limits driver reaction time is still reduced. The NSW Police report (undated) states “Police have the same concerns in relation to this DA as they did with a similar application in the same area in 2014/2015.“ They believe that with current road conditions, which have not been significantly addressed, increased traffic with alcohol involved it is very likely to increase serious motor vehicle collisions and demand for emergency services. Existing limited and poor road access to Berry Mountain would be further restricted due to resulting road closures and diversions. Shoalhaven Council provided the crash history upon which Applicant responses were based. It reports 12 accidents in 5 years. How was this data compiled? It does not include the many accidents that do not require police presence or hospital admission. Anyone with lived experience on Berry Mountain and surrounds knows that accidents are much more frequent than that. There are many, many more less serious accidents that are not required to be reported, even if a car requires towing. Perhaps tow-truck data and panel beaters could provide more accurate data. All travelling locally regularly experience near-misses due to drivers inexperienced on Kangaroo Valley Road. Land and Environment Court Ruling: A proposal with similar traffic concerns was rejected by the Land and Environment Court (Rockfield Park) in 2017. A key concern was in regard to the effects of increased traffic. The precedent of rejection based on road safety was considered on an estimate of 144 vehicles per day, a somewhat smaller number than the approximate 200 estimate of the current vehicle proposal. The court stated: Ïn my view, the traffic and road safety risks which the development would pose are unacceptable, and are of such a nature in and of themselves as to warrant the refusal of the development”. The court considered that the AUSTROADS guidelines do not reflect the actual conditions experienced by locals, in particular the road safety issues including distances of sight, fog, animals, road width, hairpins and climatic conditions which can make the road slippery and dangerous. It is understood that the Commissioner herself had a traffic incident travelling up the mountain to the hearing, reflecting resident and visitor experience of the traffic safety concerns raised. In response the Applicant says 1. They will direct tourists (via their website) to access the brewery via Tourist Road. They also propose use of an hourly minibus. It is not clear whether the minibus will travel via Tourist Road, or Kangaroo Valley Road. Will tourists choose the 45 minute journey over the 6 minute journey? GPS directions would certainly default to the Kangaroo Valley Road route. Tourist Road is as narrow and risky as Kangaroo Valley road and its use does not mitigate risks. If anything risks are increased due to longer travel times, numerous blind corners and fog due to higher altitude. There have been no traffic engineers or Police reports for this change. Surely Tourist Road residents should be advised of this plan and be given the opportunity to respond. 2. The Applicant claims the number of serious accidents on KV road is low. Serious accidents should not be used as the determination of appropriateness of use. Any accident or risk of safety is an issue and many smaller accidents are not reported, yet they still result in distress based on personal experience. Small accidents can cause road closures and disruption. The statistics are based on hospital admission which can be linked in timing to a reported and known accident. Most accidents are not reported. 3. The Applicant states that Native wildlife are not a risk on the road. In contrast, as locals, we are often slowing and avoiding wombats, echidnas, possums, wallabies, foxes, and lyrebirds during twilight hours. In fact there were so many wombats injured or killed on the road that a Kangaroo Valley Road resident has had signs erected to warn motorists. Operational hours extend into nighttime during winter months. It is also not uncommon to find livestock on the road which can pose a serious risk to motorists and traffic flow, especially after storm and fence damage. If council overrules the police report and the roads engineer report – who takes responsibility for accidents on the road? And if council approves this development based on higher traffic levels than Rockfield Park, does this open the path for Rockfield Park to reapply? Such a decision would be in contravention of the precedent and ruling set by the Land and Environment Court. Emergency Management and Fire Risk The area is within a bush fire prone zone with potential wildfire impacts from the northwest and along the ridgeline from the east. The area has only one exit, Kangaroo Valley Road, which could easily be blocked by fallen trees, smoke or congestion. No fire hydrants exist on the mountain. The Councils opinion is that “the development will not pose a significant risk to traffic or bushfire concerns.’’ What do they base this on? The population is 127 people. The development of 220 patrons plus staff will triple this population. Residents attend fire safety training run by the local RFS every year and have fire plans. We are always advised to leave the mountain in certain conditions as road access is uncertain. Fire can be unexpected and fast. To have 220 tourists plus staff on the mountain who have no idea what to do in an emergency would seem to be inviting disaster. Incidents in this area are responded to by the volunteer RFS members who do not have the resources required for a development on this scale. A proper and independently assessed BushFire Plan should be a requirement of any approval process. Cyclists Berry and surrounds have become a popular destination for cyclists and bring many tourists to the area. Berry Mountain is on the ‘çircuit’ for cyclists and there is almost always a group cycling up or down. Do we want to risk this growing area of tourism by endangering them? The L’ÉTape race will bring focus to this area as a Mecca for cyclists.