This transcript and its speaker attributions were generated with AI assistance and may contain errors. Speaker names may be corrected in later releases. It is provided for search and accessibility; the official Council minutes remain authoritative.
Planning Panel meeting of the 30th of April 2020. Apologies for the slight lateness in our start. Like all of us, we are all coming to grips with this new technology and a few issues, but I think we've resolved them. I'll just commence by reading out a statement that will set out what is happening and the procedures and so on, and then we'll get into the items that we're hearing today. So this panel has been appointed by the Minister of Planning and the Council to determine certain categories of development application. My name is David Ryan. I am the chairman of today's panel. The other panelists with me today are Michael Harrison, Helen Mulkay, and Graham Eds, who you will see on the screen.
Due to the current circumstances surrounding COVID-19, this meeting is being live streamed by audio-visual link. Audio recording of this meeting will be available on Council's website within 48 hours following the closure of the determination meeting. Any part of the meeting that is held in closed session will not be recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, personal information provided at the meeting will be recorded. The provision of any information— and
Person who does not wish to be recorded should not address the panel. The recordings are used to assist. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the panel, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation, or personal reflection on any person present or not at the meeting. This request relates to both your address to the meeting and any answers given in response to questions by the panel. As required by the Code of Conduct, panel members are required to disclose any pecuniary interest or non-pecuniary interest in relation to matters on today's agenda, and each panelist has completed a declaration form. I declare that I have no conflicts of interest in relation to today's agenda, and I will ask each of the panel members whether they have any conflicts of interest to declare, starting with Michael Harrison.
No conflicts. Helen Mulcahy. I have no conflict. And Graham Eds. No conflicts. Thank you. The panel will deal with the items in agenda order.
The panel has visited each site, read the assessment report prepared by the Council officers, and read any written submissions. As we progress through the agenda, only those people who have registered to speak will be permitted to address the panel. Submitters addressing the panel are given five minutes to speak, though I may permit extra time on request. Submitters will be kept on mute until I call upon you to begin speaking. Please ensure when I do that that your device is unmuted. At the end of your submission, the panel may ask questions. Once questions are completed, you will be again muted. Following both items on the agenda, and once all submitters have addressed the panel, the panel will enter into a closed session to deliberate and will not reopen the meeting to the public.
The determinations of the panel will be confirmed in the official minutes, which will be available on Council's website within 48 hours following the closure of the meeting. So following that preamble.
CP - DA0204/19 - Group Home - Use of Existing Dwelling as Group Home -
Unknown
We'll commence the agenda. The first item on the agenda is item 1, DA 02-04-19, use of an existing dwelling as a group home at 41 Brandon, North Richmond. I have four registered speakers, one speaker against the recommendation who we'll hear from first.
All right, so my name is Bill Karolakus and I live at 21 Branders Lane, so I'm representing myself as a private citizen. Look, I want to touch on three points here with respect to this application. First one, zoning. Second one, community need. And the third issue being community safety. I'm just going to touch on the first two lightly. The zoning, I don't see how this group home meets the objectives of the zoning that's as is stipulated on the council's website, nor the permitted uses, but I don't think that's the big issue here. The TRC submission states that there's a community need, and I have to say I'd like the council to be considering the fact that you should be looking after the Hawkesbury community, and the submission talks specifically about Western Sydney and importing alcohol rehabilitation subjects into the Hawkesbury community.
And in fact, it's on the west side of the Hawkesbury River, which is really more so the Blue Mountains and the Kurrajong area than Western Sydney. And so that's not a major issue, but the fact of the matter is I don't think that the social need, the social benefit, is actually clear as the TRC submission states it is. But the big issue for me, the elephant in the room, is community safety. There are 11 objections that were submitted. There are only 15 properties at border Brander's Lane, so you've got the majority of the people that live on Brander's Lane talking about community safety in pretty much every single one of those submissions. And when you talk about safety, you're talking about risk and risk management.
And so when we're talking risk management, we're talking about likelihood and consequence. And so I want to relate a few things to you that I've dug up, and I've dug some papers up about alcohol rehabilitation through my connection with my wife, who's actually a professor at UNSW, and she's in the Department of Psychiatry, by the way, and so she's put me on to some papers. And I want to just relate a few facts that I've looked through on these papers. So when we're talking about rehabilitating men who've suffered from alcoholism, there's a Department of Health paper which studied the effects of group homes and the success or not of those group homes. Their finding was that 38% of people that go into group homes, and the paper does mention that group homes is in fact the best way to deal with alcoholics, 38% of them are successful.
In other words, 62% are not. The Conversation, which is an academic forum, also cited a paper in there which talks about substance abuse and the general public, the general success rate of overcoming substance abuse, and several papers in there quoted 40 to 60% range of success, so roughly 50. So when we talk about bringing people into this group home for the purposes of alcohol reform, TRC has said that they're going to screen people to make sure that they're not bringing in people who are problematic. The fact of the matter is, reforming alcoholics fail 50% of the time. So there's no screening that you're going to do that's going to stop the likelihood of having someone who fails the reform program.
It's going to happen. Now you need to talk about consequence when you do risk management. What is the consequence of having someone who's an alcoholic living in a rural area where it's dark, where the police presence is, quite frankly, almost non-existent? And I know this from the, like, my previous job was as the senior ADF officer at RAAF Base Richmond, and in that job, I dealt extensively with Jim Stewart, who's the superintendent of the Hawkesbury Police, and he's told me on several times he has very few police out there. And if anyone's to expect police to show up to deal with an incident, you're going to be waiting 30 minutes to an hour. If we have somebody in this group home who decides it's time for a drink, I've got no money, there's no ATM around, there's no shop around, we're two and a half kilometers from anywhere, it's rural, it's dark, they're going to break into a home.
Another fact that comes out of academic research is that there's a strong correlation between men, alcoholism, and violent behavior. And quite frankly, I don't want a group home on my street where I've got somebody who's a reforming alcoholic who needs a drink and is going to come and break into my house or my neighbors' homes. And it's this community safety concern that we're talking about here, and it's what everyone's expressed up and down that road. My request to the council here is that you reject this application, and it's on the grounds of community safety. It's not appropriate to put a group home in a rural setting where there's minimal police presence for the purposes of alcohol rehabilitation.
That is just plain wrong. You are putting the people on that street in danger, and it's your job as counselors to look after your community. Don't be importing people from— in Sydney. They should be doing their reform in Sydney, not in the Hawkesbury, not on the west side of the Hawkesbury River. And there's another point that comes out of academia. The fact of the matter is that people that are going undergoing reform do better when they're in their own neighborhoods. We're not talking about people from North Richmond. We're talking about people coming in from Sydney. That's what TRC said. Now TRC also said they were going to do some risk management. Where is the risk assessment? I asked for it.
I didn't see it. I'd like the council to consider what likelihood has TRC allocated to a failed reforming alcoholic? What likelihood are they saying? I can tell you it's 50%. That's in academia. It's a known fact. So 50% means it's going to happen. Secondly, what consequence are they dealing with? What are they saying they're going to manage the consequence? They've got a resident manager there. That's one person. You know what the application says? They're going to call Redfern for help. What is that going to do? Nothing. What you need here is security. We don't have security, and therefore this application needs to be rejected. I need the council to do what we put you in place to do, and that is look after the Hawkesbury community.
You're not doing that by approving this application. So please reject it. Thank you.
Very much for that, sir. I now have three speakers registered on behalf of the applicant, I believe: Mitch Sanderson, Shandell Fortu, and Warren Weir. Are you all wishing to speak, or in any particular order? If not, I'll just ask Mitch Sanderson to be unmuted.
Okay. I just have a few points to make, if I could. Thanks, panel, for your time today. My name is Chandelle Forte from Think Planners. I'm the town planning consultant. I'd obviously like to express my support for the recommendation that's before the panel. This is a group home whose— one of the key referral agencies for the group home is Providential Homes, and Providential Homes is a non-for-profit organisation that actually houses more than 300 people a night who are people that might otherwise end up on the streets. The group home operators really assist people finding suitable housing solutions. This group home caters for 10 residents and up to two on-site managers, so it's really just a large rural residential home.
The proposal doesn't involve any external building works, so in effect the group home will be indistinguishable from the existing home on the site. This group home is— the proposal is not a profit-making exercise. It's a response to community need, which I believe has been extensively demonstrated within the report that I have provided, and it's also addressed in the report prepared by Natalie that is before the panel. To make it really simple, I believe that these people who are proposing this, the operators of the group home, they're good people trying to do good things within the local community. I acknowledge that there are community concerns, but we do have a rigorous tenant screening process, which includes a safety and risk assessment.
We do have a plan of management, what we have provided to the council, and there is strict control by an experienced site manager to ensure that if there are any safety issues, they're obviously alleviated initially, and if not, they are appropriately managed. And my clients are very much committed to ensuring that this development will have no impact on the neighbourhood. Just to round it up, I just wanted to obviously reiterate my support for the report and recommendation before you. Thank Natalie from Hawkesbury City Council for getting us to this point. We agree to all the conditions, and Mitch and Warren are associated with the future operators of the group home, so they're here to assist if you have any operational-type questions, and obviously I'm here if you have any planning-related questions.
Issue community safety is very strongly raised by the objector. And is there anything more that you can say about that? Because it's obviously concerned about non-reformed alcoholics being a nuisance, and how is that really managed on site?
Of course. Thanks for the question. Yeah, I just wanted to acknowledge that our plan of management is very strict in that there are a set of house rules and a tenancy agreement that is signed up to, and there is absolutely zero tolerance for alcohol or drug use on this site. People's tenancy agreements will be finalised and they will be asked to leave the premises. So people drinking, smoking, taking drugs on the premises is not an issue because our site managers will ensure that this simply does not occur on the site.
Program is a 12-month living program. We believe that's the good outcome. The best success we have is putting in those foundations. We have a very strong intervention program with the actual presenters and people that we're going to bring on board with this program to actually have groups and classes and teaching five mornings a week, and then milestones one and two. And so that flows through into milestones three and four as well. But the foundations, we believe the best opportunities of success we've seen in providential homes and other places and other group homes, we have transitional programs of minimum six months up to 12 months.
Thank you. And just in relation to accessibility and the transport to the town centre and services and facilities that they need, how is that managed? Is that on an at-call basis or would there be regular shuttles or what's the nature of that?
So the operation does have a minibus that would be used to accompany residents if they had a doctor's appointment or something like that that was in the town centre or they needed to pick up something, then that's how that transport occurs. Okay
So it's on an at-call basis. If one of the residents had wanted to go to town for something, could they just call on the bus or it's only for specific reasons that they're allowed to go in? How does that operate?
Yes, thanks, Shandell. It is a program-based approach, Mr. Chair. So they have specific times where shopping and doctor's appointments are done. Later on in the later milestones, as the residents progress, they will have the ability to do an on-call service . But in the early stages, it is a set program with set times and specific transport options for each resident. Okay,
If I might, are the residents encouraged to integrate with the community or is it sort of, I mean, it's obviously not isolation per se, but is there any interaction or is that encouraged or welcome?
Thanks for the question, Helen. In regards to that, we do encourage in the later milestones of their programs that they do integrate within the local community. Obviously, it's encouraged that they search employment during the later stages, and we would like to see that happen in the local area. We are also incorporating voluntary programs within the community for the guys that are in the later stages of the program, I'm sorry.
Thanks. This is Warren here. Thanks for that question, because it's really interesting since we put our website up some time ago, there's been inquiries coming significantly from the Hawkesbury area. And we'd be wanting to give priority to the local area needs, and we'd want to be that service that provides local opportunities for the mums and dads of the Hawkesbury who have children or family or whatever that have particular needs that need to be addressed like this. So that's part of the reason why we're here as well.
Is there any evidence to suggest that—I mean, it is a fairly remote site, it's not close to a town centre — is there any evidence-based empirical information about the efficacy of the program should the residents be isolated from the hustle and bustle, if you like?
So, I believe that my clients actually are of the view that the surrounding rural environment actually has a really positive impact on the future residents, and the residents are also going to get involved in growing some vegetables and things like that on the site. I don't believe that this facility necessarily needs to be located in a town centre. You know, the provisions are there within the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing to permit this development on this site, and they will have adequate access to services. But the positives that are drawn from the , you know, the pleasant surrounding rural environment will actually be a benefit to the future residents.
I just have one question, David. I guess it's open to Warren or Mitch, I guess. Have you had the previous experience when you actually had the need to bring in police attendance for any of your participants?
At Providential Homes, we have had some acute needs where we have had experience of police having to come to our properties. This is more obviously in the western suburbs of Sydney, but we're not looking at acute needs positions or mental health or whatever as part of this program. But we work very closely with housing and local community corrections officers and people like that in acute needs. But we have had many years' experience. I've had an education background as well, with 25 years of the department, and then other community development programs as well. And the Providential Homes have been managing. Last year we had 17,500 people come through our front doors as well, with all sorts of needs from all sorts of places.
But the idea is this: our focus is on the local community as well, and as I explained earlier, that we're looking at local needs and serving the local community. But to answer your question, the fact is that we have had wide range of experiences across the whole spectrum of society in the work that we've been for many, many years. Okay,
Thank you. That ends this item, and I'd like to thank all the participants on this item. You will now be exited from the meeting, but you'll still be able to hear it beyond. After we've heard from the next item, we'll go into closed session, as I said at the beginning, and we won't be opening the public meeting again. So the decision on that matter will be posted on Council's website as soon as possible.
Okay, I think it seems like we're ready for the second item. This item is DA147/19, intensive plant agriculture turf farm at 54 Dorrigo Road. I have five people registered to speak, two who are speaking for the recommendation, Paul Chandler and Graham Starkey, who I'll hear from first. Paul Chandler, can I hear from you please?
Good morning, panel. Good morning, panel members. My name is Paul Chandler. I live at 74 Dorrigo Road, Tennyson, next door to the proposed development. This proposed development would have a devastating impact on my family, as along with Mr and Mrs Starkey, our houses are within 25 metres of the boundary. There are a considerable number of residents with high levels of anxiety over the anticipated impacts of this proposal. I'd like to support Council's recommendation for refusal and cover three main issues. First issue: the application fails to meet key criteria for approval. Most importantly, this is a designated development and an environmental impact statement is mandatory. One has not been provided.
The Council's internal review panel has concluded this development would have a significant environmental impact. Council also concluded that approval would not be in the public interest. Many more are covered in great detail in Council's comprehensive assessment. Point two: I'd like to cover the risks to the environment and potential health impact on neighbours. No assessment has been provided on the impact on the neighbouring properties. Now, allow me to ask: would you allow your children or grandchildren to play on land next door to where livestock have become ill from toxic chemicals being sprayed next door?
Would you drink water collected from the roof next door to where large quantities of toxic chemicals have been sprayed? Department of Primary Industries has classified a dwelling as a sensitive human receptor and developed guidelines for separation distances for turf farms. I believe these must be the absolute minimum, as long-term studies are now revealing the impacts of exposure to herbicides and pesticides. Would you eat the meat from cattle that drink water discharged from a property where large quantities of toxic chemicals have been sprayed? That's right. This DA proposes to discharge water onto my property that our cattle will drink. The third item: the existing operation on this property and the impact this is having on my property.
The applicant commenced turf farming at the rear of this property without consent, including my land, and consequently neighbouring livestock became ill from overspray, and there is now a cluster of dead trees at the rear of my property adjoining the turf growing area. Subsequently, he received retrospective approval with numerous conditions. The buffer condition has not been complied with. Turf is currently being grown on this property where deemed suitable, 250 metres from dwellings, and we are still suffering the effects of noise, dust, and odour. Any closer and it would be unbearable. We've lived here for 32 years. This is our forever home. Please don't take that away from us by forcing us to make a decision between health and home.
Okay. Can you see the first one? Yes. Yes. Well, that is polluted water running from the neighbouring turf farm onto my property. Second one, you can see on this one here, turf on the left, my property on the right, and the overspray has taken a couple of hundred square metres of my property. I'll go back up. Thirdly, this is the existing turf on this property. It is required to have a five metre multi-species vegetation buffer. There is a two metre buffer that has been allowed to die. And thirdly, and normally this is not the applicant's turf farm, but this is dust from a turf farm on a windy day. Imagine what that would be like on our property. We're on the easterly side of this, prevailing westerly winds will have a devastating impact on the water quality.
Can't even hang washing on the line. And when it comes to buffers, Council has noted the operator usually only plants small saplings and seedlings, and the vast majority of circumstances these do not reach maturity due to inadequate care and maintenance. And noise. Finally, I'll talk about noise. The noise from machinery and sprinklers at night going, t-t-t-t, all night. Well, not all night, but during
Now, the applicant has said the noise should be no greater than rural domestic occupation. This is machinery. This is like living next to an industrial area, and with this development it will double. I can't imagine how anyone, and no noise study has been provided. Look, that's probably all I have to say at the moment. Do you have any questions? And I'd like to thank the council for their dedicated work, and particularly Nathalie and what she's done in this situation.
Okay. Good morning, panel. My name is Graham Starkey. I'm representing myself and my wife, Vicki Starkey. We are at 44 Derek Road, Tennyson, and neighbours to number 54 Derek Road. We would like to address our concerns on the proposal of turf farming at 54 Derek Road. We moved to Tennyson about three years ago for a relaxing rural grazing property lifestyle, not just for us, but also for our grandchildren, as well as we are foster carers of 24 years and have had 106 children in our care. We strongly believe we have a duty of care to keep them safe from all chemical sprays and fertilisers. We fill the seven-day-a-week operation of machinery, chemical and fertiliser usage puts our drinking water off the house and the shed. At great risk of contamination.
We’re right? Yeah , sorry. Okay, thank you. At great risk of contamination, along with being able to entertain our family and friends outdoors, Derek Road creates dust problems. The proposal states of one harvest per year for two to three months, four to six loads per day, which on the lower scale equates to 240 movements each way over a 60-day period, whereas the proposal spoke of movements coming through Kermon Road. The nutrient load control ponds, we do not see any other way for them to discharge but onto our property, where our livestock graze. The law of gravity has to take over. Buffer zones make the site not equitable. Maybe due diligence should have been done prior to purchase. We strongly seek a minimum of a 100-metre buffer recommended by the Department of Primary Industries, turf farm planning. We thank you for listening to our concerns. Appreciate your time.
I have three speakers against the recommendation: Benjamin Musket, Greg Monaghan, and Matthew Fraser. I will hand it to Benjamin Musket first, if you wish to change, then just if you could advise the panel.
My name is Ben Musket, and I am part owner of the subject property, 54 Derry Road, Tennyson. We are the applicants for DA 0147/19. I’m also a business partner of Greenway Turf Supplies, along with my wife, mum and dad, which keeps six employees in the workforce. We have operated and approved turf farm on 982 Kermond Road, North Richmond for the past 12 years, which runs adjacent to the subject site. In 2016, we took the opportunity to lease the rear portion of the subject site as an extension of our already existing turf farm. This was approved as deferred commencement DA 0273/17. This DA was referred to as an integrated development based on recommendations from the DPI Water to the Hawkesbury City Council in a letter dated 23rd of June 2017.
In September 2018, we purchased the subject site, which included the rear portion of the property that we were previously leasing. The decision was made to purchase the property due to the fact that we could integrate more of that property into our existing operation, along with part of 54 Derry Road that had already been integrated into our turf farm. We recently experienced flooding at our farm at Freeman's Reach in the lowlands, which wiped out approximately $400,000 worth of established turf fit to harvest. Being able to secure and operate a turf farm on the subject site will secure my business and staff in such an event due to the fact it is out of flood plains. And I just want to talk to you a little bit about site suitability.
The subject site is zoned RU1 Primary Production, including turf farms with consent. The property has a long history of primary production since the 1940s, including poultry and orchards. The site is similar to our existing farms on 982 Kurmond Road and the rear of 54 Derry Road in terms of slope and soil type. Although DPI's planning for turf farms recommends avoiding slopes greater than 10%, we have successfully been growing and harvesting turfs on slopes for 12 years without any soil erosion issues. We have 30 years turf farming experience and would not have purchased the subject site if it was unsuitable for purpose. Turf is only harvested once per year, contrary to Council's reports, but determination page 64.5.
When harvesting, only the thatch of the root system is rolled up for delivery. The exposed soil after harvesting is stabilised from the deep root system and rhizomes of our warm season turf varieties, resulting in no soil loss from erosion. In addition to this, we leave a 50 millimetre ribbon per every 600 millimetre harvested width of roll for quicker regrowth, which acts as a natural level spreader to slow the velocity of water. Within four weeks post-harvest, the paddock is deeply aerated so that any irrigation or rainwater will penetrate the subsoil, resulting in far fewer watering intervals. During the growing season, the time for regrowth to cover the ground is three months. There is no reseeding or tilling of soil after harvest.
Warm season grasses grow laterally from the ribbon left at harvest to the point of re-harvest, which usually takes 12 months. It is in our best interest to preserve our topsoil, and we take every precaution in doing so. In our 30 years of turf farming, we have never added topsoil at any time, and this is something we are very proud of. Neighbouring properties will be protected from spray drift and dust by means of dense hedge buffer zone. One of the chosen species is Sweet Viburnum, which grows to three metres in height and create a total blockout screen. Chemical is applied from no more than half a metre in height and will not be carried out in a windy condition that could result in spray drift or waste of product.
We take on board all concerns that objectors and councils have raised and understand the importance of working together to achieve an outcome that is desirable for both parties. We ask the panel to give this DA due consideration when determining an outcome and not take council's recommendation for refusal. Alternatively, we ask that we have more time to amend our plans or defer the application to a later date. We wish for a desirable outcome for both parties, and that is environmentally sustainable. The whole process has been extremely stressful and given us lots of anxiety and sleepless nights. The financial burden is also serious, and we have heavily invested in a property we believe is fit for purpose within reasonable conditions imposed.
Not once has any objector contacted us to try and come to an agreement about any concern, problem, or to ask further information. I'd like to take this opportunity to invite panel members to the subject site to see how we operate our approved turf farms and gain greater understanding of the processes we go through to ensure that we do not negatively impact the surrounding environment. Thank you all for your time, and I'd like to introduce Greg Monahan and Matthew Fraser, who will be speaking on my behalf.
Yes, I have one question. Ben , you mentioned that with your process, you have no topsoil brought in to the property. I guess I'd be interested to understand what your depth of topsoil is in that particular location.
We've done numerous soil tests on our farms, particularly up in the slope lands of North Richmond. It varies everywhere from approximately 250 millimetres to 600 millimetres in lower portions of the land. The ground at our previously DA-approved turf farm on 982 Kiln Road, which has had 12 harvests, one per year, and the turf is growing perfectly as per our farm management program. And with regular soil tests, very low amenities have been added to the soil . Therefore, we think it's very sufficient for our purpose.
Oh, just one question. What do you say to the objector's point that buffer zones with the existing operation are ineffective and haven't been done properly?
Yeah, look, I would like to comment on that greatly. Thank you for the question. The eastern boundary that we share with Mr Chandler is well established and it is already with almost one metre in height. Now, we have had a few issues with other buffers because we planted them in the drought conditions, worst drought in 100 years, and that has gave us some problems. But we have replaced and taken care of that issue as soon as we can. And also the trees on the southern boundary of the property, trees from the neighbour I'm talking about, they do affect the growth of the buffer zone. However the native plantings that we have planted are doing very good. And like I said, we are happy for panel members to come and visit the site and we can show you and walk you through all of our processes.
I'm interested to know about the disparity between the information in the original flora and fauna assessment for the Kerman Road property, where the vegetation quality in the northwestern part of the site was recognised as being high, but the current flora and fauna report suggests it's only low. Can you address that issue, please?
Thank you for your question. I'm probably not the best person to speak about that because that was done by an independent researcher . I think probably Greg Monaghan will probably have further to add about that point, but it is duly noted. And if part of a condition of consent can be to retain some of that EEC if it goes down that track, we are happy to explore all avenues.
Just, you left open the possibility of a, obviously your primary submission is for approval, but you did talk about a potential deferral. What would you seek to be putting to the panel if we were to consider a deferral? Is it a change to the footprint of the turf operation, to buffer zones, to management? What is it you would be looking for us to considering if we were to defer it?
Thank you for your question, Mr. Chair. Firstly, to that point, we feel that we were heavily rushed into presenting these documents and reports within ridiculously short timeframes. We have emails to correspondence with Natalie Bigot to show this, and— Also, probably the main things that would have to amend would be the flora and fauna report, obviously , the farm management plan, and wherever else Greg or Matthew feel that we need to do something about. It's in our best interest to make sure it's environmentally sustainable and doesn't impact the neighbours whatsoever.
Okay, so that could possibly mean, and I think you said in your previous answer, some reduction in the amount of vegetation loss and potentially some increased buffers. Is that correct?
Yeah, look, I do want to mention with the buffer zones, next to the eastern dwelling, Mr Chandler, and Mr Starkey to the west, we have gave them an extended buffer, which is 50 metres from their dwelling. Now , this is the recommended advice for turf farming, and there are a significant amount of other turf farms that have been approved within 30 metres of a dwelling. So, yes, there'll be definitely look at reduction in
The vegetation removal, and possibly offsetting. We are already offsetting that a fair bit with native corridors. Yeah, but that's definitely, you're right in assuming that we are talking about reducing — Our vegetation removal. Okay,
I have another question, David. Ben, on my site visit, I noticed the small dam, which is very close to your large one, actually had what appeared to me to be a green algal bloom. Could you explain how that might have happened?
Okay. I thought I was going to be advised, as per Natalie Pigott's advice, if anyone was going to come and do a site visit, but that dam, and that is a sediment dam or a nutrient pond for the bigger dam on 54 De Road, which was built in the 1940s
Chair, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Good morning, panel. My name is Greg Monahan. I'm a resident of Hawkesbury and lived here all of my life. I have origins that date back to the Hawkesbury's beginning in operated land and development surveying practice called Altura Spatial. I'm proud to have local origins and enjoy the economic contribution to the growth of the district. I'm a registered land surveyor, 40 years in the profession, 26 years in private practice. When I was retained by the Muscats in January, we noticed that the DA proposed sediment ponds did not manage nutrient-loaded runoff following fertilising. As a result, a minor farm redesign was required, in my opinion.
When we contacted council, it was made very clear to us that the project needed to be determined as quickly as possible, and they advised that any resubmission had to be made within a two-week window or the application would be assessed on already lodged documents and refusal would be likely. The submission was achieved following a solid commitment, and the plans included dual-purpose sediment and nutrient ponds, changes to cropping areas, increased buffer zones for the chandlers, farm access tracks and civil engineering advice for stormwater. The farm management plan was revised to account for nutrient ponds and included other soil management matters. Refinement may be necessary as the council imposed short time frame did not allow us the opportunity for thorough checking prior to lodgement.
I've prepared two documents in the past week as arguments against council's refusal and have provided copies of these to council for presentation to the panel. I'm not sure whether you've received them. The first is my surveyor's report, which demonstrates that the watercourse in question does not fit the description of a natural water body as described within the New South Wales Standard Planning Instrument. And the second is a technical response to engineering matters raised by council's development engineer. The first report shows that the watercourse is ephemeral in nature and should only act as a blue line trigger for integrated development application for NRAR and Water New South Wales, with the same approach as development approval DA 23717 for the rear of 54 Derrig Road, where Water New South Wales concurred and then issued an all clear without the need for a GDA.
Historical mapping and recent field evidence collected by me has been correlated to substantiate this. Council have now changed the view without reason or evidence and withheld the subject GDA, which we suggest reflects the same evidence as DA 23717. The second document discusses drainage design for the 1% AEP, or the 1 in 100 year storm event. Council's DCP does not have any reference to rural farming operations needing to comply with that 1% storm event. All 1% references to residential, commercial or industrial, and for major drainage systems only. Our adoption of the 20% AEP for the nutrient ponds was fit for purpose. Subdivisions require minor drainage at 20% and major drainage at 1%, although this is not a subdivision.
We believe that the post-development flows will be essentially the same as pre-development flows, grass now and grass later, I say. The proposal does not interfere with natural flows, and engineering controls for the ponds offer solutions to this. Council's report refers to retention of stormwater, although this is managed by Water New South Wales through water access licences and is not within Council's jurisdiction. We believe that Council have introduced the 1% AEP matter in order to frustrate the approval process and to provide for the downstream objectors' concerns. The second report deals with the following, and that's erosion and sediment control. We have proposed on our DA plans four levels of control, and we believe that would have been suitable as a prelude to construction certificate application, where detailed designs would be submitted.
The second of the ponds, they're actually sediment nutrient control ponds and not for water storage, and therefore strict compliance with the DCP may not be necessary. Despite that, we have tendered a design compliance in a spreadsheet form, which must be considered before rejecting the proposal. Pond 1 departs slightly, and there are sound reasons for this. The proposed vegetation buffers that we've proposed are consistent with past approvals, and following negotiation would provide an additional buffer to 50 metres for Derrygrove, lot number 54 Derrygrove for Mr Starkey. 30
Yeah, okay. Deferral of the crop for 30 metres until this buffer zones are established is unreasonable. The fifth is actually Council withholding the NRA approval, which I believe should be made available to both the applicant and the LPP before recommending refusal, as the GTA is an approval in its own right. In closing, the recommendation refusal appears to be premature, as many of Council's supporting arguments are incorrect, and the identification of the proposed designated development appears to be considerably flawed. That said, the panel is urged not to accept the recommendation refusal until all tendered documents are considered. Thank you.
Yes, that's right. So, Greg, can you explain those discrepancies where the vegetation in the northwest corner was originally described in relation to the previous DA for the Kermond Road operation as being of high quality, whereas in the current flora and fauna assessment for this application it's designated as being low quality and therefore can be
Removed? Thanks, Helen, for the question. I'm not an expert in vegetation, but just from many site inspections that I've carried out, it may have been that there's a flow from the property to the west, which is still reasonably natural in its state, onto the small pocket of vegetation immediately above the headwater of the dam that does have some remnant ground cover or some lower story vegetation. But in relation to the remainder of the identified EEC, I would say that it isn't really a remnant forest. In fact, most of it is regrowth, because I've only identified a handful of larger canopy trees, and the rest are all predominantly the same size, which I'd be guessing somewhere in the order of 25 years old, maybe 25 years old if that.
The reason why I say that is because the two trees which are growing on the dam wall are significantly larger than those within the identified EEC. So, and when you look at the The EEC areas, there is very little ground cover, very little understory remaining. So it's possibly debatable that, or you could consider most of the site isn't of high quality, but maybe that section immediately adjoining the western boundary is. Thank you.
Yeah, I'd like a little more description, if I could, Greg. Ben actually asked you to address the green algal bloom, which is actually on that small nutrient dam at the moment, and I note that it's on the other side of the major dam from the turf farm existing. So where would those nutrients be coming from, and what do you believe their cause by?
Yeah, hi, Graham. Thanks for the question. I guess just from experience on a previous or another site in the district, where we have experienced a very high coliform count in the water, it's possibly from contaminants above the dam. Certainly nothing that the muskets have contributed to, because I don't see there's any real activity that they've been carrying out other than just tidying up the site, picking up leftover farming surplus materials. But we surveyed that dam for volumes, and I would suggest there's probably a metre to a metre and a half of silt in it, and it's possibly runoff from the— Effluent disposal area, which could be contributing to that. And I can only suggest that there's a nutrient source above the dam which is contributing, and nothing more.
In a farming situation, that, I mean, certainly in a turf farming situation, that'd be dealt with. And at the moment it's effectively in the same state as it was when the last owners left the property.
I take those comments on board, but we actually have had a fairly wet season over the last month and a bit, and I would have thought that those nutrients would have actually dissipated by now. So I'm just curious as to what's keeping it there.
Well, I'm not sure, Graham, but the nutrients were there when we surveyed it well before Christmas. It looked quite toxic, to be quite honest, and I could only suggest that there's an accumulated load from possibly an on-site effluent disposal, like an absorption trench which isn't working. There's nothing else above the dam which would contribute. The farming activity that was carried out by the previous owners is long ceased. So I don't have anything else to offer, Graham, I'm sorry. I mean, I'm looking at a near map image right now from the 3rd of April, and the dam is quite full, and you can certainly see the algal growth on the surface. But that growth, that algae, was there well before Christmas before we had water in that, I mean.
There was two of us working around the dam, and my associate actually was almost lost into the mud when we were trying to survey it. I'm not sure, Graham. I can't offer anything else.
I've got one further question. I note at the Derrygrove end of the property on the eastern side, there's a fair bit of undulation in the ground surface , and part of that undulation actually feeds to the neighbour's dam up high. And I just wondered, with the collection from , or collection of any nutrients that might come from a turf farming activity, how you would propose to then resolve not impeding the flow that would, you know, the neighbour actually enjoys in a rural sense.
Graham , as far as— I'll address nutrients to start with . The way we've designed the nutrient control ponds are purely there to manage nutrient loads when the fertiliser's applied, some short time after harvesting. We've designed our dams, our ponds, dams, nutrient control devices for the one— there actually, there's two components of them. The lower 25% of the ponds is for sediment control and for wet storage. The upper, to the top water level, is for capturing the 20% AEP storm event if it occurs, and only if it occurs, during the week after the application of fertiliser. And the idea is to, for the farmer working to his farm management plan, is to reduce the water levels of those ponds to a level where, say, the 25% storage volume, and then that water is pumped to the primary.
Before that, if there is any water stored, is pumped into the primary dam and held there. If we receive up to a one in five year storm
We would then collect all the nutrients and recycle them until such time as the crop would absorb any nutrients collected. With regards to the benefit that the downstream owner experiences, there is nothing preventing the muskets from building a dam or a pond, with council approval, of course, that captures water, providing that their— we appreciate that every property that we have, including the Chandler's property, has what we call a maximum harvestable right , which is about 10% of the annual flows. It's about that created by storm events or rain events over an annual period, and that's calculated on position and property area. If a landowner exceeds that MHR, the maximum harvestable right dam capacity, there is an automatic referral to Water New South Wales for compliance.
And they need to have a— at this point in time, they need to have a water access license with a specific volume over and above the maximum harvestable right to contain or be able to use or harvest the water. So if the muskets have a, which they do have, and I've checked these, if they have, or within their water access licence volume, they are able to harvest that water for commercial use or whatever use it is. And therefore they would be collecting waters above the Chandler's property. And there is nothing under the legislation which prevents them or stops them from doing that.
Yes, I've got a sort of few questions wrapped into one. My impression, because I don't really know much about turf farms, my impression is that the property is a relatively small-sized turf farm, that it's on sloping land that is just outside what the guidelines should be. It's pretty close to a couple of neighbouring houses. There's experience with the buffer zone not really working on the existing turf farm, the small part of the site. All those things come together sort of put in my mind that there's a bit of a higher threshold that needs to be met by this turf farm because of these sensitivities which aren't typical to most turf farms, but I'm willing to be corrected on that. And so I'm just wanting to understand from your professional experience, is what I'm saying right?
And if it is to be a turf farm, then it seems to me that the quality of the information that's been supplied to Council... has been quite poor, but then you've said you haven't had sufficient time to put the good information in, and that, and I haven't seen the most recent information. So I just want your professional view on those comments.
Yeah, thanks, Michael. From what my experience with turf farms in the Hawkesbury, I mean, we all live in a rural location. A lot of these rural pursuits, the commercial rural pursuits butt onto or adjoin rural residential or at least residential areas. I mean, all we have to do is look along Terrace Road at North Richmond towards Freemans Reach. We can look at Freemans Reach itself, parts of Wilberforce. So I believe that there has to be some form of harmony between, or at least an acceptance by both parties, be it commercial operations, and I won't just say turf farms, I'm talking about intensive plant agriculture with market gardens. There has to be some harmony and I guess some concessions or appreciation by both parties that each has to live side by side, otherwise the rural community in the Hawkesbury won't work.
With regards to setbacks and buffers, I certainly appreciate Mr Chandler's and Mr Starkey's concerns. I mean, with exception to, I won't call it an exaggeration, but I don't believe that turf farms are an environmental... They don't provide, place the same amount of environmental pressure on communities surrounding the development as what a market garden would, yet a market garden doesn't have to go through the same amount of assessment that turf farms do. From my perception, the way I see it is that turf farms only have a very, very small period, or actually why I say very small, a three-month period of serious commercial activity. The remainder is not a lot different to somebody slashing their paddocks or mowing their yards.
I mean, it's really just watering and mowing for the remainder of the year, where a market garden would be considerably higher in intensity. So look, in regards to this proposal, I think there are concessions that could be made to accommodate the concerns, and I do believe that the adjoining neighbours need to accept those concessions and possibly work with the applicant to make this operation feasible. As far as your comments, a couple of things I've got here. One is that the green algae that Graham raised, I'm looking at a 3rd of April this year aerial photograph, and Mr Chandler's dam is covered by about a third of that same green algae. So I don't know where that's coming from at all, pardon me.
In regards to the size of the farm, you've got to appreciate this is just another extension of the existing operation. We're proposing something like 4.9, let's say round figures, 4.5 hectares of further turf farm to annex the existing 3.6, which is already at the rear of 54, and which then annexes to and works with the farm which is operating on 982. So I think the claim that it is too small and it doesn't really work, I think we've got to look at it in a larger context. Thank you.
Lot of those things could be done by development condition, I guess. But if I was living next door, I would be concerned about sprays and pesticides and when that's carried out and the wind direction when it's carried out and all that sort of thing. Can you just comment on that? Because to me that's the most important issue.
Okay, thanks, Michael. As Ben said, there isn't a lot of pesticides applied to turf farm, unlike a market garden. And any fertilising that is applied is applied at about half a metre off the ground. So, and common sense approach, I mean I've called it best farming principles or practices inside the farm management plan, you wouldn't be applying anything to the property, or if it was a windy day, purely because of that spray drift, potential for impacting on your buffer zones, potential wasting of material, and certainly, you know, an attempt to be a pretty good neighbour, you certainly wouldn't be applying anything that would have impact on the dwellings immediately adjoining.
Thank you. Excellent. Mr. Handy, I think you referred to some additional information that was provided. We did receive some more information just this morning, which we obviously haven't had time to look at, and we would not be making our own assessments of any further information. We'd be relying upon the council staff to provide any feedback to the panel. In that regard, I'll just give the council staff notice that I'll give them an opportunity to advise us whether they have had an opportunity to look at any of that additional information and possibly to respond to some of the matters that you've raised. But before I do that, I'll hear from Mr Fraser.
Which is that the development application that's being made is essentially a good application. And as Mr Harrison noted, much of the concerns which are raised could be dealt with in conditions. The circumstance is that this is an RU1 zone. That's the highest order of rural zoning. It's not R5 large lot residential. So the objectives of the zone are to achieve actual commercial use, farming use of the lands. That has to be done in balance with impacts upon neighbours, whether they are occupying them as large lot residential, effectively, or whether they are the farmers. But the emphasis is on this sort of development being appropriate.
Now, what I apprehend ought happen today is that you will defer the matter, and if that was to occur, there's a number of things you would get from the applicant on my guidance. The first is the guidance you've got from the Council on whether or not this is designated development is flawed, and I will address that if I have time in a moment.
There will be consideration, there will be a peer review of the Fraser Ecological Report, if my advice is followed, and that will include reviewing whether we've actually got an EEC there, or whether, and to what extent, the current proposal for removal of that vegetation is going to be maintained. So that will be carefully reviewed.
So what you can expect to get during a period of deferral will be firstly, you'll get a legal analysis from me covering the question of designated development and other applicable planning instrument operations. I anticipate you'll get a peer review of the Fraser Ecological Report, and you will certainly get three important things, which could have been conditioned, but we'll do them ahead of time. You'll get a detailed landscape plan that responds to some of the matters which the neighbours have raised today. You'll get a landscape management plan for a similar purpose, and you'll get a proper farm management plan which will deal with questions of pesticide use, in what circumstances, in what wind conditions, etcetera, etcetera. So then you will get a package of material which will enable you to properly assess the matter.
Mr Monaghan's addressed whether it's a natural water body that is within 100 metres. There are a number of cases which show that the approach Mr Monaghan's taken is correct, and I'll provide citations of those in my further exposition. Importantly, this idea that this is another turf farm and within 250 metres of the existing operation, the council's reasoning is, Oh, this is a separate DA, therefore it's a separate operation. Well, you'll all be familiar with developments where there's separate DAs for different aspects of developments. So that's the reason the council gives. You heard from Ben this morning. Thirty
Thank you. So, but we can give more information about that, but that is not a problem. And really the only matter which caused me concern was the question of should it be affect the environment, and that's what I want my client to address in any time of grace you give us to provide further information. Which will also give those persons, neighbours, an opportunity to see exactly how we'll operate the place.
I don't know. I'm just a bit disappointing that this sort of level of information hasn't already been supplied a lot earlier, so it could be assessed properly, because it's
I think this property is on the threshold of a number of issues, and so it does need a greater level of analysis than you might normally have, even for a larger turf farm on flatter land and with neighbours not so close at hand. So I just think that it's been a bit—what's the word?—not cavalier, but, from my understanding, the information just hasn't been available soon enough in enough detail. So it's a shame. I just make that comment. For me, it's not very professional putting an application in that's insufficient.
Well , I wasn't involved with this matter earlier, and I've come to the conclusion that there should be more detail. But what concerns me in this matter is that the report from the council, upon which you're going to rely if you were, say, to refuse it, what's been said to you about whether or not this is a designated development proceeds on a flawed basis. And whilst you've said a moment ago, one of the members said a moment ago, we'll be guided by the council, well, the fact is the panel has to form a view of its own whether or not this is a designated development, and to proceed to find that it is on the basis the council's put to you would be very unfortunate, in my respectful submission to you.
So you would want to have a proper analysis, which proceeds upon appropriate principles to assist you in that determination. If it turns out that I personally form the view that this, no matter what is proposed, this is designated development, then I will advise my client and they will do an EIS, which will be necessary. But we accept your criticism, Mr Harrison. We understand where that comes from. But the panel is now the consent authority and we would ask you to await further information before determining the matter.
So the clock did run down for you. I would be interested if you could do it in less than two minutes. Give me a little bit more of your submission on the designated development issue
Okay. Which particular category is it? The natural water body, the 250 metre from another turf farm, or the significant effect of the environment that you're concerned about, Mr Ryan?
Well, I understand , I don't understand if your first two submissions on the water body and the turf farm, and I presume you'd say that if those are negated, then we don't have to think any further. But I would like to hear what you have to say about the significant effect on the environment.
The first to note about that category is it's the complete impact of the development on the environment, not just the EEC. Having said that, I haven't been able to be satisfied myself about that question. So, on the basis of the Fraser Ecological Reports, the view has been come to that a peer review of that, so that a proper conclusion could be made about that particular category. I have a suspicion that what is there doesn't warrant a description as an EEC. Even if that's the case, it's still a necessity to be done by the panel of whether that impact is a impact anyway to the extent which removal is required or requested. So I can't, because I haven't been able to form a conclusive view about that, that was why I made the recommendation.
In fact, it was by a new consultant planner involved with the matter, but that consultant planner suggested the idea of a peer review, and I agree with that. I certainly think some more work needs to be done there to deal with what the impact on the environment is.
The other issues which are dealt with in the reasons or the draft reasons for refusal starting at page 57 of the council's report are all matters which can be dealt with either by way of condition or by way of the more detailed plans that will put forward. We would like the opportunity to put those plans forward because we do want the neighbours to understand that we're taking our responsibility seriously, and they'll see what controls there are and what they'll be able to enforce against us if we breach them, because inevitably there'd be a condition saying, carry out the development in accordance with your own management plans. So there'd be opportunity for a better neighbour outcome if they were provided up front.
No, thank you. Thank you, Mr Perosa. Thank you. I did flag that I'd be asking, I believe we have the council engineer on board, but a member from council might be able to just respond to my question about whether there had been opportunity to review the additional information that was provided very late, and I preface that by saying my expectation is that there probably hasn't been time and additional information does need to be provided much earlier than that if it needs to be considered, but nonetheless the council may or may not have had a look at that. And if there's any responses the council officer would like to make to any of the technical matters raised in submissions before us today.
Just start, and if it appears that the panel can't hear you, then if they could just indicate to me that they're not hearing you and we might just have to deal with it in another way.
Okay. Very short, Mr Chair. Thanks for the opportunity for that comment. I only received that additional information late this morning, so I will review the additional information with the assessing officer and will provide the comment in due course.
Okay, thank you. And is there anything that was raised of a technical nature in the submissions today, the verbal submissions to the panel that you wish to respond to?
Thank you, Sam. Okay, well, thank you all the speakers. As I said at the introduction, that now will end the public hearing part of the panel's meeting. Due to the issues with the way these meetings are operating now, we will move, the panel will move into closed session where we'll make our determination on the two matters before us, and our decision will be posted on the council website within 48 hours. So thank you to everyone for participating. I think we're all struggling, but getting through those challenges of technology and other things, so appreciate everyone's forbearance with all of that. So thank you, and
