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.
The Council to determine certain categories of development applications. My name is David Ryan. I'm the chairperson of the panel. And the other panellists with me today are Wayne Carter and Elizabeth Kincaid, state representatives, and Paul Rogers, who's community representative on the panel. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land, the Darug people, their elders past and present. As courtesy to others, please keep your microphones on mute at all times unless I call upon you to speak. This meeting is being audio visually recorded , and the audio recording will be by podcast on the Council's website. Any part of this meeting that has been 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 that is recorded is voluntary. Any person who does not wish to be recorded should not address the panel.
Under the panel's code of conduct, panel members are required to disclose any pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest in relation to matters on today's agenda, and each of the panellists has completed a disclosure form. I declare that I have no conflicts of interest in relation to today's agenda, and I ask each of the panel members whether they have any conflicts of interest to declare. Wayne.
Thank you. On today's agenda, we have three items. Yeah , because we're online, the format we'll be adopting is that we will hear speakers who've registered on each of those items at the beginning of the public hearing. The panel will then, after having heard all speakers on all items, we will then retire to consider the matters raised in closed session. Thereafter, we'll return and there will be decisions made. That gives people the opportunity to, you can stay online if you wish, but I can't guarantee how long that process will be where we'll be away from the camera. So we will return to make the decision. You may, however, prefer to not stay online and wait to review the podcast.
In relation to all the matters, the panel has read Council's assessment report and has read all written submissions. So please be aware that you, we take it as read that the panel is familiar with the issues that have been raised. However, you do have the opportunity to present to the Council for three minutes. There will be a timer that you can probably see there that'll give you a guide as to how long you are in that process. I do have the discretion there to extend that time, but please try to stick with that as much as possible. Because we have several speakers on the same matters, it's best to utilise your time by not necessarily repeating things that have already been said by a previous speaker.
We'll take into account everyone's comments, and you can probably , the preference is for you to express any agreements that you have with previous speakers, but then deal with matters that may be, new matters that haven't been raised in more detail. At the end of your submission, if you would please remain on line so that panel may have some questions for you. After we've heard from those speaking against the recommendation of the reports, we will then give the applicants' representatives an opportunity to speak as well and to answer any questions.
CP - DA0342/21 - Lot 12 DP 608508, 95 Old Pitt Town Road, PITT TOWN
Unknown
The first item , which is the first item on the agenda, itemised as item 11, which is DA 0342/21, 95 Old Pitt Town Road, Pitt Town. I have a number of speakers registered. I will advise
First speaker is Dennis Edgar. However , if , when you put yourself off mute, Mr Edgar, if you could just announce your name and address and commence your presentation for, say, three minutes. Sorry, it's Denise Edgar. I apologise for that.
That's okay. Yes, my name is Denise Edgar. I did put in an objection to this DA. There's been two DAs on this property, and I note that the owner or the applicant has changed their DA again.
I noticed that the applicant has changed the DA yet again. My concerns are, first of all, the flood evacuation route, and I totally support the position of the Pitt Town Progress Association, their formal position, in that no further development. In this area should take place until the flood evacuation route is fully upgraded
Over the complete length of the flood evacuation route. The last few floods that we've had have indicated or shown us just how poor the flood evacuation route is. So that's my first point, and I don't think that that has been dealt with in the changes that have been made by the applicant. And the only other thing that I really am concerned about is the amenity of the current neighbours to this development. I don't think that even reducing the number of people to 76, I don't know how that number has been arrived, where that number has come from, but anyway, just reducing the number of people to 76 doesn't mean that the neighbours are not going to be severely impacted by this. And I don't think that we can't, I know that you can't say, okay, well, we can't make a determination based on what may happen in the future.
However, the history of the three-mander in Auburn shows that that's not the intention here. The intention is to have a lot more people attend. So what is going to be put in place, what safeguards are going to be put in place by Council so that this doesn't happen here? So they're my two main concerns. There are others, but for the day, thank you for allowing me to speak. Okay. The planning panel has
Hi. Hi, I'm Jackie Taylor. I live about four doors down from the proposed site, which is about 70 metres or so. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. I feel very disheartened about this whole process. I fear none of our many objections will have any bearing on the outcome of this application. The council has made clear its position and is bound by legislation restricting them from making sound common-sense decisions in fear of being taken to the Land and Environment Court, like our neighbours in Glenhaven. Communication from the council has been sparse recently, not through lack of trying on our part. And I only received the notification for this planning panel meeting just yesterday.
My family and I live close to the property of interest, and I'm speaking against the application because this temple will significantly change the enjoyment of, sorry, our quiet rural home. I understand this place of worship falls under permissible use of the site according to the RK zoning legislation. However, I feel very strongly that once the temple is authorised to operate, it will eventually grow to such an extent that our sleepy neighbourhood will be changed forever. Unfortunately for the applicant, they submitted plans to council back in late 2019 as part of their first DA attempt, exposing their grand plans. We had a glimpse of a large three-storey ornately decorated temple with the ability to accommodate many worshippers.
Those original plans are now imprinted on all of us as a reminder of their end goal. The applicants were so excited about their new temple site that they have been advertising it on banners and newsletters within the Shrimanda community, spruiking the benefits of a large parcel of land at Pitt Town. It would comprise a big new temple with a school, a library, a kitchen, and hold weddings, functions and festivals, and cater to 1,500 people. We alerted Council to this intended site use, included in attachment 2 to item 11. This triggered the temple to amend their banners to ensure that they are seen not to be advertising plans, which, let's be honest, they'll probably eventually achieve, but are not supposed to make public just yet.
Up until now, Hawkesbury Council was supporting its residents regarding this application and had demanded the applicant address a host of major items. The Council did not support the application in early 2020 and again in 2022. However, lucky for the applicant, they have managed to secure the services of Mr. Stimson, who has successfully navigated their approval for the largest Hindu temple at Camps Creek. Mr. Stimson has also demonstrated his excellent knowledge of adequately satisfying the Council's requirements, at least on paper, with little regard for those who live near the site. The main reason for our objection is the potential for this site to increase exponentially, along with worshippers' numbers and the resulting impacts this will have on traffic, noise, and the condition of our already broken roads .
Apparently, this application can only be assessed using information supplied in this DA and not looking forward at their true intentions. This is really disappointing.
We bought our property to live a rural lifestyle away from neighbours, noise and a pleasant bush outlook. The temple operates 365 days a year. Whilst it may only start with the magic number of 76 worshippers, that will soon grow, and I'd imagine another DA will arrive in my postbox soon enough, with amendments to enlarge the temple footprint and increase the parking facilities. Why does it have to be nestled amongst rural residential properties in a quiet neighbourhood that rely on rainwater to feed their tanks and don't have sewer connected? Can't a more suitable site be chosen, for example, an industrial unit located in an area where traffic and noise would not even raise an eyebrow? And when the people attending the temple
Room to park in the 20 spots provided, and they have to park along the crumbled edge of the potholed, scarred Old Pitt Town Road, who do we call to complain? The compliance officer, as I was advised. They will come out and ask what's going on and politely ask them not to do it again. What a great deterrent. For these reasons, I do not support this application. Thank you.
Miss Taylor, you'd made mention you saw the words or the numbers 1500. Can you just—what was that again? I just was taking a note. Was that a suggested number of adherents, or what was that about?
That was not included in their original DA, but we managed to go onto the Shraman's site and noticed a banner behind the altar, and it was advertising—we've got a copy of it. It should be in the— Appendix . It clearly said 1,000 can cater to 1,500 people. It was on a banner advertising. It was also on a newsletter that was distributed to the members of Chamandi.
That No, no, the Pitt Town, brand new temple at Pitt Town, with all of what it will hold: a school, a kitchen, a library, yoga centre, can cater to weddings functions, can cater up to 1,500 people
Yes, we've sent that to Council. We've sent that. Apparently we've been told they can't take into consideration things that were not physically in the DA. But we believe that that is their true intention, given the size of the site and also— Sorry. Yes,
I can see that if Mr. Zamit's not there at the moment, I will come back to him. I can see that we have Marie Atkins here, Saskia Atkins. Do you want to introduce yourself and you have three minutes.
Hi, my name is Marie Atkins. I'm an accountant in the local area. I've lived here since 1995, and I've raised my children here, and I still run my business here in the Hawkesbury. I currently live in Oak Street in Pitt Town in the village. We've seen massive changes since purchasing our Dream Acreage, and we understand that nothing stays the same forever. My children used to be safe to cross Saunders and Pitt Town Roads alone to catch public transport to school, and the increase in traffic in that area alone contributed to our decision to move. During the time we lived in Oakville and now Pitt Town, we've seen a dramatic increase in the number of vehicles in the area, a huge increase in population and development, but little to no change in infrastructure.
The property that's being considered for this development on Old Pitt Town Road is accessed by single-lane roads in all directions: Old Pitt Town Road, Stock Route Road, Pitt Town Road, and Airstrip Road. All of these roads have no lighting. Some have no centre lane. None have kerb and guttering, and all are in a state of disrepair. Trees and grasses are growing right up to the road's edge, making visibility poor. And I think Jackie mentioned parking along the side of the road. Well, that's just not a possibility. And as Denise mentioned, this development lies along our flood evacuation route. Our area is well known for the number of transport businesses that are locally based, and there are already a huge number of heavy vehicles on these roads.
So vehicles on this route are currently competing for space against trucks, deer, and potholes. For the safety of our existing residents and for the safety of any attendees to this proposed meeting place, no decision should be made on development or increase in either population or visitors to the area until our roads are safe. Back when Linwood was proposed, we raised our concerns about traffic at the intersection of Saunders and Pitt Town Road and light noise that would result from that approval, and we were told Council would consider a roundabout at that intersection and would ensure that light noise would not affect the neighbours. That was 2009. And the intersection there, while it has been widened very recently, has caused more confusion than safety.
The DA then did not address our concerns as neighbours, and the development was passed. The massive neon sign added later and approved by private certifier with Council taking no responsibility. I'm afraid—sorry—I'm afraid that this development will follow the same path. We can't really afford any extra traffic on these already busy roads. That's it. Thank you.
There's a question, Mr Atkins. Thank you very much for coming along. Can you just clarify, could you clarify that you live in Oak Street? How far is that from the site?
It's probably about, I don't know, maybe four to six kilometres. So noise isn't going to be a concern for us. The concern for us is that the road and the evacuation route runs right past this proposal,
The road is ridiculous in the mornings anyway for people going to work. So I just don't think that that road can cope with the extra traffic. It's , it's—
The way it is at the moment, people are driving down the centre of the road to avoid the potholes. And I know the potholes aren't going to be there forever, but they've been there for three years now with nothing.
All right. The famous, you made mention of a word, Linwood. As a local, I know what you're talking about. Perhaps for the panel, could you just expand what is Linwood?
So, where Linwood is a golf club. Where I was living before, it was what Jackie had said. It was a nice little rural country area. There were no streetlights. There were no industry—well, no heavy industry. We had, you know, a couple of poultry farms around us, and that was about it. And Linwood was proposed back in 2009 as a small golf club, and we were concerned at the time that it would impact our enjoyment of our own property. And council—I went to a council meeting at that time, and council addressed it, and they were, you know, what they told us was good. You know, we'll put a roundabout in. We'll make sure that it doesn't impact traffic. It will probably close at about 9 p.m. And on the whole, that has been the case.
But that intersection there is just bedlam. It's—there's been, I think, two fatalities on that intersection recently , I think. Correct me, I could be wrong. And I'm just sort of concerned that this development being a meeting place, a place for people to gather and enjoy themselves, is going to follow the same path as the golf club, that it's constant traffic day and night, that there's occasional music, fireworks, that massive neon sign which used to shine in our bedroom windows, which is why we left there, all of these— and that was added after. That was— so how can we guarantee that these things aren't going to happen with this development as well?
Zannett, would you like to take yourself off mute and introduce yourself? Three minutes to present to the panel. Mr. Zannett? So I'm having a bit of technical issues at the moment. I've only just got back in the building, so unfortunately I've missed a bit of it. Sorry, you're in your car, so that's fine. We can hear you if you can hear us. Yep, yep, I can hear you now. So I've
Only just got back in the building, so unfortunately I've missed a bit of the start of it. Just a couple of issues I have is mainly I see that there's now a 2.1 fence that's going to go around, say, the shed or the temple, as it's called. I don't believe that will be adequate enough for a soundproofing of the venue, being how many days they're planning on actually running for. Issue being, I sleep upstairs with a one-year-old daughter, and I believe the noise is going to come straight through my window, as my bedroom window actually fronts to that property. So that's one of our main concerns. I'd like to know if they are actually planning on doing soundproofing inside the venue to actually stop any noise from coming outside of the temple itself.
Loitering and car parks. Obviously our roads that are set up are not adequate for the amount of traffic that may be looking now to come in and out. The corner of my road is already a dangerous blind spot. I fear if we have an overflow of cars that are parking actually on the side of the street, I'll have zero or very, very limited visibility trying to get out of my property.
There's, yeah, noise. I notice there's looking to do 15 people, which is Monday to Friday. I don't believe that those numbers will actually be adhered to, and big concern will be who do we contact for compliance on them breaching, say, the 15 people? So is there going to be like a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week number that we can contact that council organises, or is this a matter then that falls to the already overexerted police force? So I know they need to follow the DA, but whether that actually happens, where it goes to from there. I've got young children that play in the yard. I don't want a lot of strangers being able to see my children ranging from one year old up to 11 year old playing in my backyard.
This is the main reason why we moved into a rural property setting. It's just, yeah, it seems very overwhelming at the moment. We purchased property February last year, and had I known that there was a DA that was coming in the process, there is no way in the world I would have purchased it. I paid top dollar for this property for its privacy, and now I feel I'm going to be forced to have to sell it. If this gets approved, I'll be looking at selling. But my issue then is how much has my property then devalued because of this? It's already looking to be devalued because of the current interest rates. If we're now putting right next to, say, a mosque, unless you are of the same, I won't say cultural but religious belief, I don't believe my property is going to be of interest to you, because it's now going away from the actual setting that it was first purchased for.
That's, they're my main concerns. So, yeah, the biggest one is the fencing. I don't believe that's going to be anywhere near adequate for it. So , yeah, everything else is in already my objection letter.
No, that's it for now. The other issue we had is I only just received this letter in the mail on Tuesday, which was nowhere near enough time for me to actually put anything together. I run my own company, so I've had to take time away from my own meetings to now deal with this on short notice. That's probably the only other concern I had. It just wasn't enough time to really prepare a proper speech for you for today.
Sorry, that was my question to other panelists, whether they had any questions for you, but I don't— Oh, sorry. That's all right. I don't believe there were. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Zamit, if you could put yourself on mute again. No ,
Andrew Kearnes(staff - Manager, Strategic Planning)
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, written submission from Kelly Cook, who's speaking against the recommendation. I strongly object to the DA application for 95 Old Pitt Town Road, Pitt Town. I apologise for the haphazard nature of my objection letter, as received no response to my previous objection and have five minutes' notice to write such letter. Reasons for my objections are as follows. Old Pitt Town Road is failing heavily. The Minister for Planning, Minister for Roads NSW, have formally confirmed that there will be no funding available in order to upgrade this route in the near future. And there's reference to a letter in the material that panel members have in that respect, with that letter.
The proposed development of this site will certainly increase traffic use of this roadway. The submitted DA proposes that the venue caters for a large number of worshippers and guests on a regular basis. A lack of local public transport requires attendees to travel by private transport. This road requires major upgrades in order to meet the demand of any further increase in traffic as a result of this development. This does not even include the damage and wear that will happen to the only evacuation route for Pitt Town residents in flood, even if there is not added traffic in such times. Pitt Town is a historic Macquarie town with a rural aesthetic and many historic sites. The proposed design of the venue in this DA is out of character for the Pitt Town area.
It does not embody the rural or historic values of the area, and the domes set atop the venue will be an eyesore. Rural areas are generally quiet in nature, which is the case in Pitt Town. A large venue where many guests congregate will contribute significant noise pollution, as a result causing disturbance to local residents who live in rural areas of Pitt Town to enjoy the peace and serene lifestyle. We believe this venue will cause disturbance. The large venue set on the boundary or fringe of such an important area protected by a diversity that is Skyborne National Park will most certainly have a detrimental impact: pollution, noise, disturbance to wildlife, etc. Thank you.
That is all of the registered speakers against the recommendation, I have. We have registered two representatives who are speaking in favour of the recommendation, Jeff Ferris-Smith and Warwick Simpson. Do I have either of those gentlemen here , and if so, could you take yourself off mute and
Oh, okay. So I apologise for that then. It would have been helpful if you had been a little bit earlier so you could have heard what the— The speakers had to say and address them
I believe you understand what the main concerns were, and if you could, as part of anything else that you wish to present to the council, if you could address some of the key issues . But just for your information, some of the issues that were raised by the speakers before you related to the traffic and road suitability, unsuitability of the road , given its flood evacuation route status, concerns about amenity of neighbours, particularly their adjoining neighbour was concerned about the noise that could be generated from it , privacy issues , potential soundproofing of the inside of the venue.
Particular concerns raised about the future intentions of the operator here as to what might be planned for the future, but not part of this development application. So there are other matters that you would have seen raised in submissions, written submissions, that you would like to address.
Sure. Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, in general, we obviously support the recommendation, and we think that the report speaks for itself. This application is Obviously, a redesign of a previous application, and is of a scale that is far more appropriate for the site and its locality. It utilises existing structures on the site and also includes aspects that, you know, potentially will mitigate any of the potential impacts that come out of it. Speaking to some of the specific things you raised, David, in terms of its general use, we have a population that will not be there all the time. There's a peak usage on a Sunday afternoon of up to a maximum number of people. Throughout the rest of the week, it's, I think, 15 to 20 people as a maximum.
So I think that speaks to broader issues of traffic and potentially flooding, and I think that's what you said before , matters like evacuation, etc. In terms of amenity of neighbours, and particularly the adjoining neighbour, we have, as you'd be aware in the report, included a fairly substantial acoustic barrier that is set back from the boundary some distance, 2.6 metres from memory, which gives two things: obviously plenty of opportunity for some dense landscaping in there, which we have increased since lodging the DA, and also the retention of Rural style fencing in between the two properties, which is a good outcome driven by Council.
Soundproofing, I believe we've addressed most of that in the acoustic report, et cetera, so I don't have anything further to add on that. In terms of future intentions,
Sure. The approach by the Hindu organisations that we support and assist, their approach is to look for... So in terms of potential increase of populations, or congregations I should say, their intention is not to increase it beyond what we're seeking approval for now. They'll go and seek site in western Sydney somewhere else.
So I think in general, I don't know that Jeff's got much to add. He's the architect for the project, but we obviously support the recommendation and hope that the panel sees that too.
I'm the registered architect for the project. Both Warwick and I inherited this project, we'll call it that way, weren't involved with the previous one, and so that gave us the ability to advise our client on what we thought was approvable, again because I think we are all aware that there was a very large structure previously. So that's the nature on which we've done this, and again I concur with what Warwick said. Every communication from us with our client is that they've heard the community and that the scale of what was proposed before was not accepted, and again this is their genuine attempt to meet their needs. And again I believe that they have that realisation also that in the longer term they're going to have to look for a different site if they want something of a more substantial nature.
And the only other comment that I would want to make is that we utilise that existing building just as it was the right size and it's just a basic frame for us. But acoustically that can be as soundproof as is required by condition of consent. The walls and everything, that can all be essentially contained sound within side, and then we've got just the doors, and as Warwick said, there's acoustic reports speaking to that. So just wanted to say that inherently there's no reason that the building wouldn't be and can't be modified to create a high level of sound attenuation. Yeah, so that was all I had to add.
Not at all. Again, working in this space for Christian churches and Hindu organisations, always the big assembly halls are an issue and a point of conjecture, even with the Christian churches, because they're quite loud these days. And yeah, we always have to meet the NCC and the building code with acoustics. But again, I wouldn't be adverse to there being conditions of consent that say it's got to achieve a certain acoustic attenuation with the building. That's very common with assembly halls of this nature and can be readily accommodated here. It's just a steel-framed building, so there's plenty of opportunity inwardly in the frame itself and then on the outside skin to attenuate that sound.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Stimson, can you just clarify again, Mr. Ferrismith indicated he was the architect. Your role here, you're the applicant or what ?
Right. So I wanted to take you, the plan, the report that we have has 12 annual special events noted on page 7, first paragraph there. I want to take you to a publication that I received from the Australian Hindu Cultural Association that identifies nine specific religious festivals and days of significance. And in particular, as indicated, there's one usually every month, and it's related to the lunar calendar as part of the observance. But in particular, in March, there's a festival called the Maha Shivaratri, which is a whole-night vigil. So I imagine that's a 24-hour night vigil. And then in September, October, there's a festival called the Nafa Rafi, which is a 10-day festival. And then in October, November, there's the Diwali festival, which is the very famous Festival of Lights, which is a two-day festival.
So it doesn't take too much to look at those suggested 12 annual events will be extrapolated with an additional whole-night vigil, a 10-day festival, and a two-day festival. And would you agree with that, that there are additional festivals associated with the particular faith? Do you agree with that?
No, this would be— The best way to describe the Hindu religion is that Hindu is the umbrella, but within that umbrella there are a number of specific parts of the Hindu religion. So not all of those religions apply to every single Hindu organisation. I take your point, though, that what you're suggesting is that there potentially more , or maybe some more information could be provided around those that we're seeking. You've identified the [unclear], that is one that I think from memory is common across all of the Hindu religions. But I don't agree with how you've put it, but accept that maybe the client can provide some more details for you to give a proper response to that
I say, I am reading from a particular document. One of the concerns I have, if I may, Chair, following on from that, the suggestion is if you're looking at a whole-night vigil and a 10-day festival in September-October and a two-day festival with Diwali in November, there's no provision in this proposal for food preparation on site. Now, I would put it to you that the provision of not having food and not having a kitchen effectively does not take into account the specific needs of the young, the very young, and also doesn't take into the needs of those who would be regarded as disabled or differently abled, and certainly doesn't take into account the necessities to assist the elderly in terms of food and sustenance, a cup of tea, hot water, a cool drink, something to eat, etc.
And so I'm particularly concerned that there's no provision at this stage within the structure for what I would call broadly a kitchen to even to assist and facilitate sustenance for the 76 persons that have been identified. Why is there such a shortcoming?
Jeff might be able to speak to the specifics of the internal layout, but what I would contribute is that, again , many Hindu organisations will prepare their food and, you know, refreshments, if you like, for the day, you know, at their own homes and bring them in. We do have a kitchen, albeit a residential one, that is associated, like obviously within the dwelling that's there at the moment. So I don't believe that there's nothing there to cater for, you know, the congregation. Jeff, do you have anything to add about the design brief from the client?
Yes, if I could just add also to what Warwick was saying, or your cultural question, Paul. I'm privileged enough to have worked with several Hindu organisations doing mandirs and temples, and I guess to add to what Warwick was saying, each one of those— yeah, Diwali is the only commonality that I've discovered with them. And so again, just like there's different denominations within Christian faith, this brand of Hindu has nothing to do with the BAPS organisation, which is another one and a third one that I'm doing, and I actually get to go to all of their cultural events. And other than having an overlying Hindu faith ... Their celebrations, other than Duvali, are very disparate. So I would suggest that the best approach would be clarifying what this organisation celebrates and when, as I've never been heard or had any details of overnight or even extended celebrations from this organisation.
So I guess I just wanted to speak to that and say that very much, as an architect and someone who's not of the Hindu faith that comes in and asks a lot of questions about these things to my clients and not assuming that there's a commonality between them all. For example, this denomination, men and women are treated—not treated, I shouldn't say that, I suppose—both in the same place at the same time. Another Hindu organisation that Warwick and I are working for is there's full separation of men and women at every stage, including eating and drinking, and worship. They're separated. So again, people would think that's a fundamental difference, and it is. Yeah. So to speak to that, and again, my observation was that, again, as Warwick said, the organisations that I deal with, the communities will often, they work as a community, they make their food and their drink and they'll bring it and then serve it from side tables and they'll have their water jugs that they'll put on.
And again, for this number of people, the client was wanting to have the kitchen in the domestic building. There's obviously water in this location, and again, that's something that I'd be happy to add in drinking fountains or wash hand basins if that's appropriate. But yes, when it comes to the serving of food, that's brought on each occasion from the community. It's very community-based. At this scale, particularly just with the 70 or so people, I
Hope that helps. I was seeking to clarify that none of us are in the business of speculation. This is all a matter of application and Council's consideration of any reports that are made available. And certainly, I think it would be a
Minimum of an expectation that we should have details of the various religious festivals that this particular sect within the Hindu faith would be undertaking, because the document I'm reading to and referring to is one put out by the Australian Hindu Association that particularises nine which are common, and I've identified two , three that are particular of more than a one-day duration. So I think we need to just lift our game a little bit to actually find out specifically what this applicant proposes at this site. And also, even if the food and drinks are all brought on, certainly proper food handling expectations in a public place would warrant the necessity for washing up and refrigeration and/or reheating.
So I think there needs to be a little bit more done than simply saying that there's a domestic dwelling with the caretaker, but I'm assuming that Mr. Simpson, you're referring to that .
So we have the domestic dwelling of the caretaker providing the cooking and refrigeration and heating. So I think that needs to be taken on board by both Council and you as the applicant. So I would commend that to you, that it's an unresolved matter insofar as I'm concerned, and it needs to be better attended to. Would you see that, Mr. Ferris-Smith? Do you think you could work with Council to get that sorted?
Yeah, absolutely. I think they're all valid points. No objection from Warwick or myself with that. Yep. Again, obviously we're trying to have an appropriate development and also make sure that it doesn't get bigger and out of control. But I think that there's certainly the ability to add appropriate kitchen support facilities, even though the intent, I want to make clear, is that there's no cooking or food preparation intended on the site.
And final question for me, Mr. Chair. Gentlemen, you may or may not have heard that one of the members of the community made reference to an earlier plan. I just wondered, your thoughts made reference to a banner that had 1,500 as an anticipated number of people being on this particular site. Now it's true that that particular application has not been proceeded with, but what can you tell the community in relation to the issue of 1,500? What does that reference historically mean, and does it have any significance to this proposal?
Mr. Simpson I'll just repeat what I believe the question was, and that was associated with the previous application, where it was a banner that indicated, you know, probably celebrating, oh, 1500 people will come to this site when this is approved. And Paul is asking, how does that relate to this, or what our comments would be? And certainly, as I said, we weren't associated with the previous application, but what I do know is I've never discussed anything with the client. Like, I've never had the client indicate a festival or that number of people being on the site. We've pushed and asked about maximum number of people, and the client has been, what's the word, has indicated that they understand and intend to stick to the numbers that are approved for.
So again, and, you know, my job is to also read them, make sure they're not trying to just tell me what I want to hear, but never have I heard an indication of those sort of numbers with this application.
No, I agree. As Jeff said, we inherited it, and our advice to the organisation was that the first DA represented a significant overdevelopment of the site, and we started with first principles when we came on board to try and, you know, meet the objectives of the zone, minimise the impacts on the locality, and create a development that would work for the organisation, which is, of course, permissible land use.
Terms of any condition issued, and that the maximum numbers, as part of this application, are 76, and any variation to that, anything over that, would be in contravention of the conditions of consent. So, from the perspective of the general public, that is what, if the panel was minded to approve this application, or as recommended by the council, those would be the limitations that would apply. There are concerns about future intentions, and from the panel's perspective, whilst those concerns are understood, you've heard what the applicant's representatives had to say about those, but if there was any desire by the applicant to wish to expand the operation beyond what I've just described, that would have to be subject to another development application. So that's more for clarity rather than anything else.
I just wanted to, I had one question just to confirm in my mind, really. The rear of the property, so behind the 2.1 metre acoustic fence, that will not be used. That's shown as restricted site area and no public access, so that won't be used by any of the members of the church — I mean the temple — although will be part of any sort of bushfire management. Is that correct? Indeed,
I had two questions about the impacts on the neighbouring properties. One was about the nature and design of the acoustic fence, and the other is about how to prevent the impact of headlights on the adjoining property when people are leaving the site at night. Now, the applicant could respond to those, or we can leave that to conditions of consent if the panel is of a mind to consent to the application.
Okay. Again, we were in discussions, I believe, with the council. Warwick, you could correct me if I'm wrong. It was decided that in terms of rural character, the fence would be a timber fence, and that it's got an RW rating of 25, as sound attenuation. So that's the detail that has been provided in the report, is that, again, it's to be of a rural character and achieve those levels of attenuation. And then with car parking again, I think, did I misunderstand it? Sorry, Mr. Chair, did you say that the hours are restricted to 9 a.m. till 11 a.m., or was that just a special events? That was
Okay. And so, yes, I mean, I would imagine, Warwick, it would be the same at this time. We'd be happy to receive conditions of consent if that's deemed appropriate by the committee.
Thanks, Mr. Carter. Thank you. I don't have any further questions. Council staff, was there anything that you wish to comment on or add before I close this item?
Thank you very much. Okay, well, thank you everyone who's presented on this item. As indicated at the beginning, we will deliberate on that after we've heard speakers on the next two items. Certainly , when the meeting returns to open panel meeting, you can observe online , and the minutes of the panel decision will be made public within the next week. So thank you again. That closes this item.
The Panel unanimously approved the application subject to the recommended conditions with the addition of the following conditions:
1. The applicant undertakes regular monitoring of post construction radio frequency (RF) and electromagnetic energy (EME) around the telecommunications facility for a period of six months, and makes this available to Council and publicly available.
2. The submission of a construction management plan to Council to ensure no removal of trees as part of the development.
PANEL REASON FOR DECISION:
The Panel has considered:
The proposed facility will provide improved mobile phone coverage to the locality, and will provide a service that is needed for the Bowen Mountain locality and its surrounds.
The development would have a positive social and economic impact to the locality as it is integral to the provision of quality telecommunications infrastructure and will provide for improved telecommunication connections for businesses and community, or in the event of a natural disaster or emergency.
The application is considered to be in the public's interest by providing improved telecommunication services, and the ability to interconnect remote residential areas.
The matters raised in public submissions and representations at the Panel meeting have been assessed in detail.
The Panel considers that these concerns have been adequately addressed in the Council report and through the imposition of conditions.
In response to community concerns, the Panel acknowledges the applicant's acceptance of the condition to monitor levels of radio frequency (RF) and electromagnetic energy (EME) around the proposed facility for a period of six months following its construction and to make this available to Council and the public.
The Panel members voted on the matter the results of which were as follows:
I have several speakers speaking against the recommendation registered. For those who weren't in the meeting at the beginning, I will announce those who have registered to speak in the order I have them. I'll ask that you provide your comments within three minutes, the three-minute time limit. I ask you to observe that, but I do have discretion if you need to ask me to extend your period of speaking, because I have a number of speakers. I'd suggest that if, rather than repeating something you may have heard from a previous speaker, if you just indicate your agreement with what has been said and then maybe move to points that haven't been ventilated by previous speakers.
Once I announce your name, if you could just unmute yourselves, introduce yourself and where you address, and say restrict your speech to three minutes. The first person registered I have is Sarah Kasim . I can see you're online there. Yes,
Thank you. Thank you for hearing our point of view here in Bowel Mountain because it has been quite a disappointing process. Like we heard with the Pitt Town residents, I still haven't actually received formal communications from the council about this panel. Only reason why I'm here is because I had spoken to another resident who received a correspondence. So it has been a disappointing experience. But needless to say, I'm happy to be able to share a little bit more about why this is such a terrible idea to put this in this location.
So firstly, you know, the proximity of this tower is in an RU5 zoning area is supposed to be roughly about 300 metres away from residents. Now, the exemption is down to, it says 2.5 metres from a residence, from the south side boundary, which you would have seen in the actual report itself. However, on actually viewing the site, you will actually see that it is not that distance at all. It is actually less distance from that house, which is at, they say in the report here it's 4.5 metres. It is definitely not 4.5 metres. We're talking a metre. It's really not far at all. So I do question the discrepancies with the heights and the measurements that are actually in place within this report in itself.
For instance, the existing antenna that is on the site, they've stated it as 18 metres on page 43, but then 20 metres on page 45. Now , it's actually a 15 metre tower, so they're wrong. In both of those pages, which is quite frustrating to read because such a structure that's going to implicate so many different people in the street, you do want them to just get that right. Now, I've got so many things to say. Now, the flora and fauna, they have stated on page 41 and page 51 saying that there will be no modifications to the flora and fauna, which is meant to be masking that tower from being in place, whereas page 50 says that they're going to avoid it. Now, if you go forward into the council regulations and what they've recommended, they need to have a driveway in front of that.
From here, it is the width of four meters with heavy concrete because there's going to be a lot of different infrastructure trucks that need to come in to help construct this tower. Now, with that sort of concrete that's being put down, those trees have to go. There's no ifs or buts about that. The way that it is set out, and I don't know, I'm sure that there's photos there, they have to go, which then completely eradicates that whole premise that it will be hidden. It doesn't matter what color they paint it, it is unfortunately going to be very much an eyesore in this area. Now, it's going to be sitting 8.5 meters past the tree lines. So how can you not see that, even with those trees in place?
It says here also the minimal noise states that there'll be only minimal noise from the air conditioners. Minimal noise still means noise, and it means it's going to be running 24/7. And when you have a neighbor on one side that's 2.5 meters that side, and then 4 meters on the other side, unfortunately that noise is probably going to be heard, and it's just not good enough, to be honest. They've completely dismissed the site E, which is the Crago Observatory. What I would say is that it's an economic cop-out, to be honest, because we are actually at the same topography as site A. But unfortunately what they've said here is that it's going to interfere with other Optus networks. Now, there's no other towers around from Optus, so that actually doesn't make sense .
Yep. And also, can I just, one other thing, just one other thing, and then I'll let everyone else talk. It's only a 3G and a 4G tower after all of this, after all of this stuff has happened, and 3G, as anyone who in the tech industry would know, is going to be phased out, you know, middle to late 2024. So we have to take that into consideration as well. Why isn't it 5G if they're going to put anything up at all? I've got more, but I'll let other people talk. So, but thank you.
Eight metres away. Because I wanted to ask the next question. Your site-specific observations as to the, a metre as opposed to 4.5 was very specific, as if you've obviously been there, seen that, and made a sort of a rough measurement. Is that so?
That's correct, yes. We literally look out over it, and we've had many community meetings at that site. The person who lives right, who could literally touch the tower, he has measured it as well as to where they are supposed to be putting the site compared to where his house actually is located.
You've identified some perceived anomalies in the report, but you've also said the actual tower is 15 metres. How did you get that measurement? Where's that data from?
It has been in reports previously. I'll have to find them and pass them on to council if needed. But yeah, there has been discrepancies throughout the entire DA, to be honest. They even got the address wrong, so it wasn't very thought out in terms of how they actually put together the actual DA in itself, which just shows to us that it could be more so an economical , you know, push to put it on a coexisting building rather than looking at other options which would be much better suited for what they require and what their development side of what they actually need. If they've only got 3G and they've got 4G, right, they're going to eventually have to upgrade that. And that's going to become an issue if it's so close up against these residential dwellings.
I've got two more matters. You raised the issue, I think in the concluding, you said that you were an IT person, and to me a mobile phone is something that I use. That's all I want to know about a mobile phone. So tell us, if you can, it's 3G, 4G now. You've said 3G is going to be phased out in 2024, and that 5G. What levels of additional radiation, what additional equipment? This
Is what I would also ask the applicant as well, to be honest, because I'm not an IT person, but I have looked into when these things are going to be obsolete. So I have run people like Telstra, I've spoken to other people in that field. However, what I would ask from the applicant is simply exactly what you're asking. I would like proper evidence as to why they're able to put a tower so close, not just saying, Well, it's safe due to this. Well, you know, let's actually explore that and give us the physical evidence as to why that's the case in terms of that radiation that's actually being emitted. Because our street doesn't want to become a guinea pig. Just because we don't have the adequate studies in Australia doesn't mean that those studies aren't viable in other countries, and I think we need to take that into consideration as well in this case.
All right, thank you. Just the concluding question, if I may, Chair. You talked about tree removal at the point of access for trucks for any construction, etc. Now — I'm a little bit lost because we haven't had the opportunity for a site inspection. What sort of trees are you talking about? What sort of variety? What sort
Okay. So if you've got— it's on page 47 of the report, and Figure 6 on that, if you've got that handy, that's the size of the trees. So it's not going to cover much, to be honest.
I think this council might address that perhaps later, an observation from Council as to those trees. Thank you for pointing those trees out. Thank you. Nothing
Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I... I'm a resident and ratepayer at 13 Red Gum Crescent, Bowen Mountain. My family and I wish to object to the proposal for the tower on the following grounds. Firstly, the radiation. The proposed site is far too close to existing residences, as we've seen previously. The plans indicate the tower will be about 15 meters from residence. We've just heard that it'll be much closer. According to the proposal in Help 1989, states that if a facility does not emit less than 0.2 microwatts per centimeter squared radiation, it must be at least 300 meters from a residential dwelling. This documentation does not identify whether or not this minimum 0.2 microwatts per centimeter squared is met.
It only states that there's no site where the 300 millimeter requirement can be met on Bowen Mountain. That's really no reason to start breaking zoning requirements. Also, we've talked about visual impact. The proposal notes to minimize visual impact, no tower may be constructed closer than 100 meters or three times the height of the tower, whichever is the greater, to any residential dwelling. And being so close to the nearest residences, the subject site is certainly located within 100 meters from the nearest dwelling. It should be noted that in the early 1990s, a similar proposal was put by Prospect Electricity. At that time, a helium balloon on a 33 meter line was used to demonstrate the height of the then proposed tower.
The impact of this demonstration was such that the proposal was vetoed by council. There are even more houses today that would be affected than there were at that time. With respect to property values, in 2017, Rajapaska et al. documented in Australia that proximity to cell phone towers negatively affects house values. Placement of the facility in the proposed location would likely significantly reduce property values for many of the approximately 70 homes in the nearby vicinity, with the largest impact to be felt by those in the immediate proximity of the tower. While this might not be a concern under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Protection Act, as noted by the consultant, it is certainly a major concern for the approximately 70 homeowners, ratepayers and council voters living in close proximity to the proposed tower.
Also , other options to the proposed option A that was presented appear to have been too easily discounted by the consultant, who appeared, as has been previously said from the documentation, to simply choose the cheapest option for Optus by piggybacking onto the current Endeavour Energy site. Bowen Mountain has significant non-residential areas that have elevation and are not close to homes, which should be more carefully considered. Kurrajong Heights also has existing towers that could possibly be used instead. It is our opinion that these options have not been sufficiently investigated and may provide more successful outcomes for all stakeholders. And I'd ask you to please note that other objections were raised in our submission.
But three minutes has not permitted the time for discussion here, so thank you very much for the opportunity to address the meeting.
Thank you. May I also ask, just note that I'm also president of the Bowen Mountain Association, who has also submitted an objection to this proposal as well, but we weren't able to mandate me as the speaker for that organisation in time for this meeting. Okay,
Thank you for clarifying that. Could you put yourself back on mute, please? And could I ask Mr. Glenn Gossim to take yourself off mute and you have three minutes.
Thank you very much. Mr. Kerr raised a lot of points that I was going to be raising myself, so I definitely agree with a lot of his points as well as Mrs. Casim as well also raised quite a fair few points. The actual site E that is being incredibly easily dismissed. is the same topographical height as the proposed site A. There's really no evidence at all as to why that facility can't be used. They said that there's possible interference , and that's pretty much how they've written that off. There's a possible interference with other existing Optus network. I don't know too much about the goings-on of the towers, but I thought that in line of sight, tower between tower is probably the best form of method, and site E has that 100%.
Also, with the property values, my property is directly opposite the actual site itself. Now, look, it does state in there that they don't have to consider any negative loss of property values. We've had several real estates from the area come out, and I've actually been a real estate agent myself, and they all adhere to around about a 30% loss in property value for our home and other homes very, very close in the local vicinity. That's an absolute huge loss. We originally bought the place as it was a rural zoning, so we didn't ever think that something like this was going to be able to be put into a rural zoning. It doesn't meet any of the zoning requirements. Also,
Just in regards to the actual tower itself and the closest neighbour, like Mrs. Kassam said previously, we've all been there and done site inspections and those sorts of things. That gentleman has a second-story balcony, and his second-story balcony, whether he chooses to spend a lot of time out there or not, Standing off that balcony, he's almost literally going to be able to put his hand on that tower. Now, I don't know in what area ever that should be allowed to have a structure built so close to a residential home like that.
Mr. Casson. Apologies, put yourself back on mute , please . Now, I have other speakers registered. I did have—I noticed Mr. Dale Ryan on the call here. I did have you down for your submission to be read out. However, do you wish to have the opportunity to
We can't hear you, Mr. Ryan, so I'll give you some time if you do wish to try and get yourself on the call to do so. If you can't— Then Council's Strategic Planning Manager will read your submission for you, but I'll see how you go and come back to you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the first one is from Pauline Visard, who has made some representations against the recommendation of the report. So no full and frank exposition of this project was given to Bowen Mountain Association or residents. Many residents did not know about it or sight the 51-page application, let alone have time to read it before the opposition closure dates. No development signage was placed on the front fence of the proposed site. Please refer to 5.4, noise and vibration, on page 40. There will be no noise or vibration impacts associated with the telecommunications tower. The equipment shelter will emit only minimal noise from the air conditioning units, which enable the equipment to stay within normal operating temperature.
These air conditioners will run 24/7. And at the end of this paragraph, given the isolated location of the proposed equipment shelter in the context of the area, this site is a little over 15 metres wide. Further, in the second paragraph, as the proposed facility does not immediately adjoin any residential properties, there are residential properties opposite and on both sides of the site. One property about four metres to the fence line from the proposed pole, and the other 11 metres from it, and clearly visible from both residents' living areas, as is the radiation area warning sign. The final sentence: Additionally, the vast separation distance from the development site and the residents' land uses will negate any potential noise impacts generated during construction.
What is the vast separation distance? Desktop plans look impressive, but an on-site visit quickly exposes the close proximity of the 33.5 metre monopole to the surrounding private dwellings. Young school children frequently play in front of this site as they wait for the school bus. Quarterly maintenance offered in a bushfire prone area is totally inadequate, as is evidenced by the leaflet of build-up at the front and rear of the site incorrectly described throughout the application as 18 Lieutenant Bowen Drive. Of extreme concern for the residents in this street is the electromagnetic radiation and its effects on medical devices. Do the same health and safety measures apply to all providers on the pole?
How frequently are tests done? What about malfunctions after severe electrical storms? Mobile phone base stations shall be located in accordance with the following table. See location criteria. A minimum of 300 metres from any residential dwelling unless annual average exposure at any such premises is less than 0.2 uW per centimetre squared. What exactly does that mean? Finally, a few gum trees won't hide the 33.5 metre monopole or the visible radio frequency emissions from it. Thank you.
A resident of Bowen Mountain. The following is a written submission to voice my opinion against the recommendations for DA 0308/21. Firstly, I wish to make it clear that I believe Bowen Mountain does need better mobile phone coverage, but not at the risk to residents' health and wellbeing. I have made my objections clear previously regarding the so-called co-location and how I believe that it is in breach of numerous zoning laws. My property will be within 4.5 metres of the new monopole and the equipment shelter. And as I have previously explained, NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guideline, scheduled facilities and areas, Part 1, Section 3.1, Part 7, Item number 2F, states that the likely level of noise from the operation of the co-located facility are required to be less than or equal to the noise that resulted from the original facility.
The noise levels will be in fact far greater than the existing facility due to the fact that three new air conditioning units will be installed and will be running constantly to regulate the temperature of the new infrastructure. The existing facility emits zero decibels of noise due to the fact that there are no engines, generators, or air conditioning units of any kind currently at the site. So if the new facility emits even minimal noise, as stated by the applicant in Section 1 reports for determination acoustics, then it is clearly in breach of the aforementioned clause. If this is true, then how can the DA be approved? Bowen Mountain is a small residential community that has very few structures which breach the tree line or have a negative visual impact on the area.
Yet I believe the proposed monopole will not be hidden as per the applicant's suggestions and will be an invasive eyesore for the entire community and a blight on the pristine bush outlook we have all come to love and admire. I believe that the proposed DA application needs to be rejected and an alternative site chosen for any future mobile tower. Thank you.
Next one I will read is from Robert Blumenthal, speaking against the recommendation. I would like to have the following submission read at the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel on Thursday 20th of October 2022, considering the telecommunications facility at Bowen Mountain. The proposed location for the Optus tower may be expedient for Optus, but it will and is causing a lot of angst for local community members, mainly in regard to the visual impact, its close proximity to residences, and the possible impacts on lowering housing prices. There is a perfectly suitable alternative location for the tower on the Burralow Fire Trail near the cargo observatory. This may not be an expedient location for Optus, but it does solve the angst for the local community.
Also, the residents living next to the current tower and infrastructure already put up with poor maintenance of the site, noise from air conditioning units and possible radiation issues. This is not the site for a larger tower, being so close to residential homes, and Optus should find an alternative.
Sorry, Mr. Ryan, can we just stop you there? Can we ask if there's any participants in the meeting that is watching this meeting on YouTube that you remove yourself from the YouTube channel because it's creating a feedback in the audio.
So what I'd like to say, all the points I would have covered have been covered, except for one item where the applicant hasn't really addressed the New South Wales Government guidelines for telecommunications installations, which states, you know, specific heights, distance from rural zoning boundaries, and I just cannot understand why they haven't addressed that. And in the council report as well, that government guideline for telecommunications installations hasn't been addressed. That's all I would like to add.
I'd like to back up Ms. Kezan's view with the construction. I'm a retired construction engineer, and there really isn't access available to carry out a proper construction on that site. There would have to be trees removed to do that efficiently. Yes,
That is all. The speakers are registered to speak against the recommendation . I have registered Mr. Philip Hull, speaking in favour of the recommendation. Mr. Hull, are you representing the applicant? Yeah
Good morning, Chair, panel members. Yeah, my name's Philip Hull. I'm a planning consultant. I'm working on this occasion for Optus. I think I've listened carefully to the— sorry, I've read all the written submissions. I've listened carefully to the verbal submissions today. I think most of, if not all of the points raised are actually covered in the officer's report. I don't really want to dwell at length on any of those points, other than to say I'm quite happy to respond to any questions from the panel, or indeed try and respond on any of the points from the submissions if the panel would think that would help you in determining the application. There are a couple of points to stress, though, I think, which come out again and again.
The first one is radiation exposure and EME and health. Now, we can understand, Optus understand, of course, there are concerns. However, I would point you to an extensive literature on this subject. Both from ARPANSA. ARPANSA are referred to in the officer's report. Go onto their website, and they have an extensive literature about EME and health. I won't go into their conclusions; you can find those for yourself. However, that is based on long-term studies of EME and health. And if ARPANSA, which is an Australian organisation, is enough for you, go to the World Health Organization. So both of those organisations, independent of government and governments, have their own conclusions on that matter.
So there's extensive research on that. The second point was to do, I think with—I'll put together a couple of points. One was visual impact, and I think that's more than adequately covered in the officer's report, whereby—and I tie that together with the colocation of facilities. Now, rather than—if actually, if you look in the telecommunications—terrible word—telecommunications guidance, including broadband on the New South Wales government website, there is guidance in terms of where you locate these facilities. Now, the Greenfield is actually our last port of call. We're actually encouraged by the New South Wales government to try and co-locate facilities wherever possible. That means where there's an existing pole.
I mean, for example, here it could be an existing Telstra pole or a Vodafone pole, or there's the EE pole, or it could be the roof of a building. So rather than being in conflict with guidance, I think we're actually going with guidance on that matter. The visual impact, of course, there's something there already; we're replacing an existing pole. I think the point which hasn't come out too well, though, it's in the officer's report on public interest, is the increasing need. For good telecommunications policies. I'm actually working from home. I'm lucky at home I've got good broadband, so I'm actually on my laptop, and next to me is my mobile phone. Why are we using mobile phones for? Decreasingly to make phone calls, increasingly to make our lives easier and to enable people to do a whole range of facilities from their home, which they wouldn't previously been able to do.
The last point on that, I'll just touch in the 3G, 4G, 5G. So yes, 3G will be going out. 4G, as you probably look, as you're travelling around, when you've only got 3G on your mobile phone, you can't do very much. I've only got 4G on my mobile phone, and I can do a lot on my mobile phone with 4G. There will be 5G eventually, but 5G is a different animal. We're introducing 5G in urban areas. Into rural areas, there'll be quite a long time in coming. However, when we do get to 5G, all it means is we'll be replacing some of the existing antennas with new antennas. The criteria in guidance for that in terms of EM health won't change. So when that point comes, if it comes to the point where we want to add 5G, we will also do a similar consultation exercise with local residents.
They will be able to make their comments, and we will respond at that time. There is plenty of, I don't know where everybody lives, in urban areas there's quite a lot of 5G now. We still have to go through all the hoops in terms of location of facilities. I hope, sorry, I hope I'm within my three minutes, and I hope I've picked up all of the points that I think are pertinent to the determination of the application. Quite happy, sir, to answer any questions you or the other panel members have.
To address things that have come up that have been raised . So, but if I could, before I pass on to my other panel members, a couple of things that were raised in the presentation to us was that I'd like you to address. Firstly, the alternatives that were considered, and there was a concern expressed that some of the alternatives were too easily dismissed and weren't given adequate consideration.
Another related to the construction impacts, the inevitable construction impacts, said to— sorry, the construction impacts said to inevitably impact on the trees, and whether that's been adequately addressed. And the other was compliance with New South Wales guidelines, particularly as they relate to distance from houses.
Okay. First of all— sorry, sir. Yeah, I'll have a go. I haven't got all my notes to hand. I'm looking at the officer report. Well, actually, 201, I'm not quite sure the guidance that Mr Ryan referred to. The only guidance I'm aware of, obviously we have to comply with the EP&A Act in terms of a development application. Telecommunications facilities as such do not have a zoning. By definition, we are always located in terms of a different zoning. That could be urban, it could be rural. That's a planning matter, which the officer addressed in the report. I'm a bit at a loss to know what that guidance is, sir, that he's referring to. I've already referred to the guidance which is on the New South Wales— Website, which is telecommunications facilities, including broadband. That's the only guidance I'm aware of.
I'll see if Mr Ryan is still able to communicate, and if he is, if he could just unmute yourself, Mr Ryan, if you're able to provide any enlightenment on which guidelines you're referring to.
I was going to add, sir, if there is other guidance I'm unaware of, and if Mr Ryan makes it available to you, I'm quite happy to make further written submissions on that in due course, if that would be helpful.
Okay, well, the guidance, I've given you the guidance. It's government guidance. It was actually specifically brought out, God knows how long ago, Bob Carr, a long time ago, really, to kind of deal with this policy void, if you like, for telecommunications facilities.
2010, yeah, that's some time ago. They're robust. They haven't changed. Oh, sorry, they have changed very slightly recently in terms of the naming, but the guidance as far as telecommunications facilities have not changed. So I would just simply refer to the panel to that guidance and let you draw your own conclusions whether we follow the guidance or not. I believe we do. The planning officer believes we does. I'm not sure what Mr Ryan is talking about, whether there is any other guidance. I say I can quite happily respond to that in written form, should that be helpful.
Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you . Oh, good. I think it's the same guidelines, 2010, New South Wales Government, which states, to replace an existing tower, you cannot go over the height of the existing tower, and Within the rural zoning, which this community comes under,
Sorry, I'll try and help you there, sir. I think Mr. Ryan is confusing the guidance where we actually are able, in RU zonings, to construct telecommunications facilities within defined parameters. The distance matter is correct. If we were locating the facility in an RU rural zoning and we met the distance requirements, we're actually able to do that without the need for planning consent. On this occasion, that's not the case, so we needed to submit a development application to Albury City Council. If we were in a location—he is right—but if we were in a location where we were not requiring planning approval from council or from the panel, there are criteria laid down. Mr. Ryan has kind of got the criteria right, but those are only in circumstances where we don't need planning consent. I don't know if that helps you, sir, or if that deals with Mr. Ryan's concerns.
Yes, yeah. Now, I've addressed the criteria which are necessary for the determination of a planning application within the DAM, within the Statement of Environmental Effects. We will need a construction certificate in due course should the application be approved. These are normally planning conditions laid down by council in terms of control of these activities. Sorry, I did quickly go through the planning conditions. There's no doubt there are conditions there. I think you'll have to look to council reports and turn to council. I would say all of those matters are controlled by the legislation and by a construction certificate and by planning conditions. I hope they're covered there. I haven't checked.
I think what would be a consideration for the determination of this application is that if, as a result of construction, there is an inevitable need to remove some of the trees which have been identified as part of the justification for the visual impacts of the proposal , if they necessarily have to be removed in order to construct the tower, that's a consideration.
I understand the point, sir, I understand the point. There currently is an existing facility there. There are no doubt there traffic goes in and out. Construction of a telecommunications facility on this occasion would mean removal of the existing pole. Normally, a low loader truck would reverse into the site. A hole has to be dug into the ground. They have to pour concrete into the ground. The kind of construction activities are fairly similar to any other... Kind of facility of that nature, be it electricity, be it telecommunications, be it fairly minor residential or commercial development. So there's nothing unusual in terms of the construction activity. In fact, our construction activity is quite limited in terms of the complexity of trades which normally take place in building sites.
We don't have that kind of detail. So all of this, of course, must be inspected by either a council certifier or a private certifier at the time. If so, or you have concerns of that nature, I was wondering whether you would wish to put some form of a condition in of that nature, that should such impacts, whether there should be control of such impacts or whatever. I can't visualise in my head. I'm actually the planning consultant. I'm not the builder. I haven't got the builder with me today. We subcontract the building out. It's, I can't, sorry, I can't really answer off the top of my head, no. But I can invite appropriate or suitable conditions or comments by yourselves as to how, if you think there's an issue there, how we could address it.
Alternatives. One thing that's important about telecommunications facilities is I invite you, invite anybody, hopefully when people travel around they get fairly continuous coverage in their mobile phone. What's actually happening with your mobile phone is it's picking up a signal from different base stations as you go around. That's how it works. You'll go into black spots. Now, if you actually, when you go out, that's quite interesting. When you go out and do your site visit, have your mobile phone and you'll notice you're going to go into quite a lot of black spots where you'll get no mobile phone coverage at all.
That's because there are no base stations nearby. The importance of a base station, it must be fairly close to where people live. It just simply doesn't work. The further you get away from them, the ability to get a signal recedes to the point where you don't have to get very far away before you get no signal at all. You can't put them somewhere else. You have to put them where people live. That's the whole point. Going back to the guidance, the first thing we have to look is, are there any other mobile base stations in the vicinity that we can co-locate on? The answer is no. There was one Telstra possibility, and that was down the hill. There are very few, if any, other alternative structures that we could locate.
I've been to Bone Mountain on several occasions, sir, and when you go, you'll appreciate it, the rural nature of it. There aren't very many opportunities to co-locate. The officer's report deals with it and a number of the speakers dealt with. This is a constrained rural location with many environmental constraints. We're actually above the national park where telecommunications facilities are discouraged. There are a number of environmental planning constraints in the area, so we have to consider all of the environmental constraints before we find a suitable location. Just hopefully, just to finish on that point, and it ties with visual impact. The tower itself must be above the trees. It doesn't work otherwise.
You can't just fire signals into trees; they don't work. So it must be just above the trees. Then ideally, the ideal location is right in the middle of Bow Mountain. It covers the maximum number of people. The more you move it away, the more towers you actually need to cover the area. Again, Burn Mountain, it's a strong community. We recognise that. It is a community, and there's no doubt about that. It's a fairly isolated community. As you go up there, you'll notice that it's a community on its own. It's not an urban extension. It's a rural community. So there, I think I covered it in the— I looked at all the alternative locations. We had discussions with various landowners. We discussed it with council, and the location we come up with obviously has to be a compromise against all of the environmental constraints, the physical constraints.
Also, one last point I missed: the tower being above, they have to talk to each other as well. It has to get radio transmission from another location. When you're there and you look across, you'll see quite a lot of tall towers on the hills opposite. So it needs to get a radio signal first of all from another tower. The Americans use the term cell net. It's a net of cells, and they have to communicate with each other. So I think that's covered in the officer report, and if there is any ambiguity or misunderstanding, hope I've covered any outstanding points. But if you have any other concerns, please feel free and I'll try and add to that if I can.
Yep. Thanks, Chair. My question is about alternative location on that site, and there was quite a bit made by some people about, some of the objectors, about the fact that it's at the front of the site, the fact therefore it's reasonably close to the houses across the road, the fact that it's right next to the property on the immediate southern boundary. Some of that could be addressed if the tower was on the western end of the site, you know, behind the existing building, behind the existing tower, and in about the centre of the site. You know, has that been considered as an alternative? Would it make much difference? And, yeah, what are the reasons that the front of the site was chosen?
Yes, it has been considered. I think, gentlemen, you really will appreciate when you do the detailed site visit, the proximity of the existing EE tower. How close is it? There's a balcony of the adjoining house which is looking straight at the existing tower. It is a small site. It is a constrained site, there's no doubt about that. We looked at swapping that out. We looked at swapping it out with the lattice tower. We looked at swapping it out with the pole. And I'll go to your last point first, and I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. The site is still pretty well screened. I took a number of photos. I've submitted a few in the SEE. I've done some photo montages, which, please go to the photo montage locations, and I hope I'm being fair.
There may be others. The answer is I don't think it will make much difference. Listening to the submissions received, honest, wherever we put it would receive objections. Wherever we put it, there will be somebody who is going to say it impacts upon me. So we dealt with detailed site investigation, and that was considered to be within the site. We aren't talking about a few metres. I mean, it's a very small site. So, with respect, I think to the question as, draw your own conclusion, I don't think it makes much difference, no.
Had just a few questions. Is there, the current site, is it currently supported by air conditioning units that operate 24/7? Do you know? That I couldn't answer because it's not our site. I guess it probably is, I don't know. Again, look, I can try and find out if you want, and I can put a further submission. I mean, again, I think you'll judge this from the site visit. Air conditioning, we all have air conditioning. Perhaps we shouldn't with global warming, but we do. There will be some air conditioning. We generally say the air conditioning is similar in terms of noise emissions to domestic air conditioning systems. Council will have considered this and they will have looked at their own environmental health.
It's a matter which is conditionable, of course. There are numerous of these facilities all over the place. It should not be any different in terms of noise impacts to an ordinary domestic dwelling. But again, that's up to council if they have concerns, they can condition that.
One of the issues that came up, as you probably appreciate, the extensive delay was consultation with RAAF at Richmond Air Base. I'm not sure whether there's an existing light on the tower. Again, I'd have to check that. I've not really— sorry— I've not really looked at the existing tower. I'm looking just at the proposed facility. No
Okay . It's a fairly— if it is, I would need to look at the existing, need to look at the drawings. It's probably there in the drawings. Again, I think you'll be able to see it when you're on site.
Okay. Oh no, again, look, I can't answer you off the top of my head because I'm not responsible for the current facility. It's not an Optus facility. That's okay . Sorry, can't help you any more on that. Sorry.
Well, universal coverage, the need for coverage has to be balanced between where people live and work and need it. Most people—I'm a town planner—so most people are encouraged to live and work in urban areas. There are rural communities. We should not
Is a cost associated. The federal government have a program of black spots to provide coverage. We do a lot of this. We do provide rural areas extensive federal government cost, at public cost. I personally have been out to many parts of regional and rural New South Wales where it is considered, if you like, a benefit to keep rural communities going by providing an element of telecommunications facilities. That's limited. It is costly.
Obviously, the intensity of coverage within urban areas is much greater than rural areas. I cautioned about the 5G, for example, by saying I think it's appropriate that in an area like Bow Mountain that people do have 4G because 4G allows you to conduct a normal range of facilities. It's not my decision where 5G goes, other than to say all the 5G work we're doing at the moment is in urban areas where the demand is greatest, where the population density is greatest, I think. This is an appropriate response to post-COVID reality, where a lot more people are working from home, for example, where this actually allows them to not to conduct all of their economic activities, but to certainly conduct a lot more economic activity from working from home. And it is a trade-off, it is a balance. Sorry, did I not get your point? Sorry.
No, you certainly did, and I just want you to focus a bit more. Without this new proposal, Bowen Mountain will be left without universal coverage in the Bowen Mountain area.
And so what you're alluding to, the benefits associated with working from home and also being in a bushfire-prone area, the telecommunications would improve in relation to communications during those sort of critical crisis times.
Right. Second point first is telecommunications are part of essential infrastructure It's not defined as such, but if you look at, for example, Rural Fire Service guidance, yes, the Rural Fire Service look on it as essential infrastructure. That's why when we're locating in areas, bushfire-prone areas, we have to go along with the RFS guidance in terms of APZs, in terms of fireproofing material, because if there is a bushfire— now, I'm not sure whether Bowen Mountain was hit in the last big bushfire. Certainly as you drive up— If you go up Bells Line of Road to the Blue Mountains, for example, you can still see extensive areas which were devastated in bushfires. This, you're right on that point, the ability to obviously to report a bushfire and save property and help save life is part of essential infrastructure, not defined as such.
If that was the point you're making, yes, but there isn't actually a definition anywhere as such.
All right, well certainly in relation to the fire, there's certainly ember attacks and burnout is certainly at the forefront of exposure to fire. I want to take you to radiation. One of the issues that have been brought to my attention, both within the reports and generally, is the amount of angst we've heard today associated with potential radiation. And even one of the officers of council talked in terms of the radiation being emitted here is in the shape of a mushroom. I thought it would come out more like a sphere. Now, the concern that I had was the distancing. We've heard today from one of the residents saying the 4.5 metres is more aligned to be one metre. And somebody even made reference to you could reach out and touch this tower. My concern that I have is that we just don't have enough
Actual application of the effects of radiation on this site. We've got lots of policies and lots of guidelines and lots of conditions and matters of speculation. But I'm particularly concerned about the radiation that will be emanating from this site with this proposal to the people who live within one metre or thereabouts, within the guidelines talking about what it should be at 50 metres or 100 metres. And as I say, whether it's something that can be given some assurance that this proposal does not cause or create any radiation effects of a material harm, because the speculation and uncertainty simply drives community angst. There needs to be some certainty. I don't get that certainty from this report, and I feel I need some guidance.
And you're the expert that's come to us today from the applicant's perspective. What guidance and certainties or assurances can you give that the radiation levels here will be of no material effect to the residents that are within that one metre of this proposal? What comfort do we take away from this?
Can I just refer you to page 48, the Office report, Principle 3: Health Standards, of where we begin when we're looking at this issue. So we produce an EME environmental report. That's not an Optus report. It's not a government report. The guidance is actually in our PANS, the Australian Radiation Protection Nuclear Safety Agency. So on their website they provide guidance. Actually, there is a—go on their website and actually it talks about EME reports and how they're constructed. It's a model, of course, it's a model. The touching of the tower at the base, that's not part of the consideration of EME. EME is emanating from the antennas, which are at the top of the tower. They do go out in a kind of a mushroom.
And there are a number of antennas pointing in different directions. As you get very close to one, I mean, I'm actually trained. I have to have specific training to work, to be allowed to go and work on these things. Nobody can go up there normally. There are zones immediately in front of the antennas which nobody can actually get to, and then there are other zones. What happens is, as you move further away, the EME levels decrease. The figure given in the report, the maximum human exposure levels calculated at 1.82. Now, 1.82, where 100 is the safe level, so we're less than 2% of the safest level. I think I have to refer you, rather than to say Mr. Hall would say that, wouldn't he, he's working for Optus, can I please refer you once again to ARPANSA and to, if necessary, the World Health Organization for extensive guidance on that matter. Now, being actually close— Yes, sorry.
No, it's actually— sorry, I should have got the copy of the report in front of me. Have you got access to the statement of environmental effects? It's an appendix to it . My apologies, I'm working from home, I never—
Maybe the council officers might have, but I think what we're looking at is at what distance, where is the safe zone? You say yourself there's a zone in front of the antenna that nobody goes in front of, obviously. Oh, that's literally in
That's high But there must be some fallout. There must be some saturation point where there's an element of immersion within this saturation point that provides some sort of exposed risk. And I suppose I'm trying to work that out as to where that risk is.
Sorry, my apologies, sir. I am working from home today and I don't have a copy that I would be able to find if I come out of my computer. Perhaps somebody has a copy of the manager's strategic planning, got a copy of the report to hand. It is explained in that document, sir, about what these levels are and where safe. Can I say, as far as the guidance is concerned, everywhere is safe. Now, somebody will come back and say, well, in 50 years' time we might all die of something. Yes, of course that's the case. We're never going to know that. It was the same with lead in petrol, and it's the same with numerous other things. In terms of existing knowledge and understanding based on large-scale international studies, as found within our PANZA and the World Health Organization, this proposal is considered to be safe.
Now, there's the perceptions of safety are not necessarily something that I could deal with. Of course they're not. We can only base it on our understanding of present knowledge and understanding. I'm sorry I don't have the figures immediately in front of me, but I hope, sir, if you're referring to that documentation, on rare occasions, if it is considered that there is an element of doubt, we can undertake actual measurements over a period of time. If the panel had doubts about that matter and they wished to put, say, a planning condition that actual measurements need to be undertaken after a period of three months or six months or something, and if they varied significantly—and I've never come across it myself— I'm trying to
I mean, these 1.82, to me, this is my job. I do this all day and every day. That's an exceptionally low figure, an exceptionally low figure. Within urban areas, that easily could go up to 10, 15, 20 percent. Go down George Street and look at any building. And look at the number of antennas on the roofs of the building where we've got apartment buildings nearby, and you would expect to see in an urban area figures 10 times that,
Which would also be acceptable. Could I take you back to what you said a moment ago. You representing the applicant could and are comfortable with the idea of providing a form of monitoring. Is that like a six-month period of monitoring
It would be something, I think we would— what we would do, sir, is if the panel wished to give guidance whether you are able to formulate the exact words in any planning condition or whatever, but we wouldn't have a problem with that, no. The
Yeah, post-construction monitoring. So what we would do is— these obviously, yeah, until it's built, you don't know the actual levels. So these are only a calculation.
I would have thought as soon as it's built and working, on day one literally, the actual levels would be known, so it could be done quite quickly. That's not going to change over time very much. It does change slightly with the intensity of use, so when nobody's using their mobile phones,
I've never— doesn't mean there's never been a planning condition to that effect. I'm not a planning lawyer, and I don't know if challenged whether such a condition would be robust, but I could certainly go back to Optus. I don't think they'd have a problem in principle
Well, if the applicant is comfortable with it, and Optus certainly needs— dare I say, with no disrespect, Optus needs to enhance its public image in many ways, I'm sure such a condition would be well received, or at
Number is, I'm not sure whether council staff have that report, but I have looked at that, and my understanding is within something like zero to 50 metres, the percentage actually reduces to something like 0.94 percent . But if the council staff happen to have that whilst we're still in public meeting, then I might—
Could I just add something on that, sir? Sorry, that was the point I was trying to make. It's actually the closer you are to it, actually it's the lowest figure. The safest place to be is right at the base of the tower. Then there are, as you go out, it goes 0 to 50. That's because the antennas are at the top of the tower, not the bottom. But you have the report. I mean, apologies, I don't have it in front of me, but the guidance and how this is done is laid down within ARPANSA, and I refer you please, sir, to the ARPANSA guidance on how EME reports work. Look, I'm a town planner. I'm not an expert on this particular subject. There are many others who are who've written extensively on that matter, who know better than I.
Thank you. So just for— I know it is in the report, but the community hasn't necessarily seen that report. So if the council staff do happen to have that table that refers to the figure as it relates to, I think, zero to 50 metres distance, Mr. Kane
Yes, I can confirm the figures provided for zero to 50 are 0.94. It then, between 50 and 100 is 0.54. At its highest at 1.82, it's between 100 and 200 metres. Then at 200 to 300, it's 1.53 . 300 to 400, 0.7, and then tapers off at 400 to 500 at 0.39.
Sorry, sir, if I can just add to that, I think that clarifies the point where 1.82 is the maximum, and that's between 100 and 200 metres. So the closer ones are lower, and as you go further away it's lower. That's what the report identifies. So the people who live very close to it are actually, their levels are much lower
Sorry, I don't want to dwell on the point, but the 1.82, please consider that in terms of what's an acceptable standard, an acceptable standard is much, much higher than 1.82
Off the top of my head, I couldn't answer you. It's unusual for a greenfield, brand new; we would very rarely do it. Going back to the telecommunications cons, while we're moving the pole slightly, and I'll have to come back again. When you do your site visit, you will appreciate how close the existing tower is to a residential property. It's very close. Effectively, whilst we're moving it slightly, we're swapping out an existing tower. Now, whether that existing tower is a telecommunications tower or an EE tower or any other sort of tower is, with respect, I'd say that's academic, because what you're being asked to consider is the visual impact of the new development. If we can kind of take away—look at concrete towers as one thing, visual impact and where you are in terms of vis-à-vis the existing tower and any additional visual impact.
The telecommunications facility is something on the top of the tower. Now, if you're looking at the base of the tower, you're going to see a concrete pole, whether it's an existing concrete pole or a new concrete pole. So the telecommunications facility at the top of the tower—look at the existing top of the tower, and there's a lot of EE infrastructure at the top of the tower. It's a communications tower, yes. If there were nothing there and this was a greenfield and we were considered it in terms of a brand new development, we would do nothing there at all. That is very unusual. Of course it's unusual, and we wouldn't be there. We wouldn't even attempt to be there. We wouldn't expect to be there.
So on this occasion, what you'll be asked to consider is compare the visual impact of the existing EE tower with the new—oh, sorry, one point, of course. This is a combined facility with new EE facilities which need to be improved and upgraded in any event. Now , I'm not an expert on the Electricity Act. But I think they would probably be able to do quite a lot of improvement and upgrade work without the need consent anyway. It's not my—I'm a telecommunications man. I don't do— I don't do electricity.
Clearly there's some disquiet as well. Was there any consultation undertaken by Optus in relation to, or prior to, this to gauge public considerations into this? Yes
There was indeed. Thank you for reminding me, actually. I'd forgotten. We're not required under the EP&A Act to undertake additional consultation over and above that undertaken by Council in their normal planning processes. Who Council consult, where they consult, when they consult is not our business. That's their matter. However , on this occasion, we undertook— I actually hand-delivered all the letters myself, so I remember. We looked carefully at the area, and rather than taking an arbitrary line on the plan, I walked around the area and tried to anticipate which of those residents would perceive they would be impacted by the proposal, and we sent them an additional leaflet with details.
Now, that's a long time ago. My recollection is we only had one or two responses. Now, whether that was the same area that Council ultimately consulted on, I can't help you. Council would be able to advise you on that matter.
At the end of that, I'll be adjourning the meeting to go into closed session for the panel to deliberate on these items, and then we'll be coming back into
Item 13 DA0239 - 21 Lot 1 DP 715623 87 Bells Line of Road Kurrajong and Moving into Closed Session
Unknown
I'll now proceed to the third item, which is item 13 in the agenda. This is DA 0239/21, 87 Bells Line of Road, Kurrajong. I only have one registered speaker, no speakers against the recommendation. I have Mr. Cannon Cunio speaking for the item. Mr . Cunio, I can see you're online. Could you announce yourself and who you are and who you're representing?
To impose a three-minute limit, but if you could just provide us with whatever information you'd like to provide us with, and then there may be questions from the panel.
Yeah, sure. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Great. Okay, so good morning everyone, the council and panel. Thank you for providing the opportunity to speak to this matter. My name is Gannon Cunio, and I'm an associate planner here at Mecone, and we're acting on behalf of the owner of the site. So Mecone has been engaged by the proponent to review the proposed development and the documentation submitted as part of the application to Council. We've reviewed the documentation submitted and Council's assessment report prepared for the panel meeting, and whilst we agree that there are some concerns that require addressing, we're seeking deferral of the determination of this application to address some of those concerns.
So based on our review of Council's report, we've found that there are three main concerns raised through Council's assessment. The first being probably the most prevalent is in relation to servicing of the site and in particular wastewater. The second being height, and the third being traffic and parking. So I'll just address each of those separately quickly. So, in relation to the servicing of the site, we've had discussions with the — we've coordinated with the wastewater consultant on the proposed development, who's confirmed that the concerns raised can be addressed by way of an amended design, which includes a slight redesign of the wastewater location, the storage location. It can be within or below the building.
So the current design requires site to be serviced twice a week, which has been raised as a concern by Council. However, the wastewater consultant has confirmed that an increase in the storage capacity will allow for a reduction in the number of times that the site would be required to service. This could be undertaken potentially on a weekly basis, so rather than twice a week, and we would request that a time window be provided, or the time window be allowed for, so that a cartage truck can service the site a number of times to be able to service the site and the development. So, in relation to servicing and wastewater, we believe that this can be addressed, and with revisions to the plans and additional information to be provided by our wastewater consultant, yeah, we can address that issue that has been raised by Council in their report.
So, the second concern relating to height, I believe that this has been addressed in the amended plans. It appears that there's some clarification required. The plans that are provided, in particular the reference to section B to B in Council's assessment report, the height breach actually relates to a component that's in the background of the section plan. It doesn't actually relate to the section. So I'll draw your attention to — I'm not sure if you've got the plans available in front of you now, but there's a plan that has a height blanket towards the back of the package, and it actually shows the height breach only relates to a balustrade on the lower — sorry, the upper terrace. So all areas covered by red are below the 10 metre height limit, and that balustrade on the top level there, you can see that there's a slight breach in the— In the height limit, which I guess I'll get to in the next point, but that will be rectified through an amendment to the design.
So, in terms of height, we believe that that's been addressed, and with an amended design, the height breach will be removed completely. And so the third and final issue being the traffic and parking can also be addressed by way of amended plans. So we've had discussions with the proponent, and they confirmed that they're accepting of an amendment to the design, which will significantly reduce the terrace areas, terraces and balconies. So I had a discussion with Council, the assessing officer, earlier this week about some of the concerns, and one of them was mainly that the outdoor areas and the terrace areas were quite significant, and they were included in the calculation of the parking areas.
So by us removing those or reducing them to a point that would be considered acceptable, we believe that we can address the main concern being that there was insufficient parking provided for the development. So that covers the three main issues, and as mentioned, we believe that the concerns raised by Council can be addressed by way of amendment to the proposal, again, which the proponent has confirmed they're willing to do, and we're requesting that the determination be deferred to allow us time to be able to make those necessary changes and submit the additional information that Council requires to end up being supportive of the development.
Just, if that were to be deferred, what time frame, so, under Procure to get applications through the system as quickly as possible, what time frame is required for that? Absolutely
I haven't exactly confirmed timeframes with the proponent. However, I believe that a couple of weeks would be needed. They are able to make the amendments to the plans in-house. I think it would be more so, judging by the information that Council has requested or mentioned as inadequate information as part of their report to the panel, we would need to engage a civil engineer to be able to provide some plans in relation to excavation and those sorts of things, stormwater design, and some road reconstruction associated with the, I think it's Timbs Hill Road. So, yeah, it just depends on the timeframes that they would need to be able to prepare those plans and then get them back to Council for referral to the relevant departments within Council for assessment.
Knowing how busy everyone is at the moment, a couple of weeks would be quite optimistic . Thank you for that. Open up to questions from the panel , Ms Kincaid. Yes,
You were. Yes. So this, as the representative of the proponent, so you were advised a week out. Correct. And have you communicated to Council your intention to make this variation of seeking an adjournment today, or is this the first that Council has been heard of this?
No. So, as mentioned previously, I discussed with the assessing officer of the application just to seek out whether there would be, whether there's opportunity for us to be able to address the concerns raised by Council. And I believe that there is. Council's officers seem forthcoming in providing some information that we are able to fix these sorts of issues that have primarily been raised through the assessment of the application. And we're happy to work with Council to be able to get this to a point where Council can support the proposal
And what do you say about the suggestion and consideration that this is an overdevelopment of the site? Do you think that is a fair assessment, or do you think that's an unfair assessment? And do you think these proposed variation of plans, et cetera, will address that suggestion ?
Yeah, definitely. So I don't like to use the term overdevelopment of the site. I think that there's ways of mitigating and managing the actual design to make it of an appropriate scale to meet the objectives of the zone. Being a rural sort of area, Currajong is, I think the development needs to sort of fit in with the existing character while also providing opportunity for expansion in economic development, particularly in these areas. So I think that definitely with the amended plans, we can definitely address those concerns raised, both through submissions and Council's assessment, and provide a development that is more palatable to the community and to Council.
Thank you, Mr. Canedo. Are you familiar with the term Stalking horse. No. A stalking horse is a personal thing that is used to conceal someone's real intentions. And it's been suggested to me that this application is a stalking horse, being an overdevelopment, that is effectively a guise for a further application down the track when you take into account the two substantial restaurants and the various other business entities here, that a proposal or an amended proposal could be made for a licensed premises, a hotel, a pub in the future. And so that's the stalking horse, that here we have a commercial proposal and that, in effect, the true reason behind this is for something else at a later point in time. And that is, from a community perspective, a community concern. Have you heard that?
I haven't. Both the phrase or the intention of this being a hotel, there's been no discussion about that whatsoever. And I don't believe that there would be a hotel on this site. I don't think that the site would be entirely suitable for that sort of use. And whether it's come about as part of a submission or community discussions where they think that that sort of thing is going to happen, to my knowledge, there is absolutely no intention for it to be used as a hotel. And that's all I can say on that. But
My questions were around the height in particular, and the submission has answered those questions that I had raised myself about how the heights were shown as background. Yeah, so I'm good now, thank you.
Yeah, I believe it's a drafting error where it's showing that it appears as like an 11 metre high building, but it's only that balustrade. So by us reducing that, it'll address that.
Mr, can I just confirm, did you say that, were you involved in the submission of this application as town planners, or have you been brought in more recently to provide advice?
That's correct, yes. I wasn't involved in the submission of the application or the preparation of the additional information. Mecon has been engaged later in the process, more so as part of this, a review of Council's recommendation. So we've met with the proponent and sort of discussed the opportunities for amendments to the design. They're seeking to want to get this development to a point of recommendation for approval, in which case Mecon is of the same opinion, but we did advise them that there would be some amendments required and some more additional information submitted to Council to be able to satisfy the concerns raised in the report. So yeah, Mecon has been engaged later in the process. We weren't involved early.
So just to clarify then that question that Mr Rogers raised initially, it is probably the case that the applicant was aware of these concerns before last week. It's just that you only been engaged recently to assist the applicant.
Yeah, that's correct. So I'm looking at a strategy moving forward rather than the issues that have been raised today. But I can appreciate that it's the panel's responsibility to consider all those matters. But yeah, my purpose of being here is to seek deferral of the determination to allow those things to be addressed, which the proponent is definitely happy to do.
Will deliberate now. I'll be adjourning the meeting to deliberate, and we will then open up again to confirm our decisions, and you're welcome to tune in on that, or the minutes will be available within the week. So thank you again for your time. Thank you all. I will now close the public part of this meeting. It's 12. 34.
The panel has deliberated on the three items before us on today's agenda and has made the following determinations. I'll read from the panel minutes. In relation to the first item, which is item 11, 95 Old Pitt Town Road, Pitt Town,
The panel has unanimously approved the application subject to the recommended conditions, with the addition of the following points to be added to condition 52. The complaints register is to be maintained. The register is to include all complaints, both verbal and written, on all issues in addition to noise, and all responses and mitigation actions are to be recorded in the register. The register is to be made available to Council at any time on request. A permanent sign shall be placed in a location outside the place of worship that is visible from the public domain, providing 24-hour contact details in the case of complaints. Add number two, add a condition to ensure swimming pool fencing is provided in accordance with relevant standards.
Number three, include an additional clause in condition 30 that requires the walls of the assembly hall to have a minimum acoustic performance of— W26 .
Relation to the reasons for this decision, the panel has considered the assessment report, the submissions and the representations made during public address, including issues of amenity, noise and traffic, and that there are conditions in place to manage and minimise these impacts. The use is permitted in the zone, and the limited scale and intensity of the use is considered to be compatible within the rural environment. The proposal is utilising part of the site, which minimises the scale and intensity of
Approved the application, subject to the recommended conditions, with the addition of the following conditions. The applicant undertakes regular monitoring of post-construction radio frequency, RF, and electromagnetic energy, EME, around the telecommunications facility for a period of six months and makes this available to Council and publicly available. 2.
Considered the public interest. The proposed facility will provide improved mobile phone coverage to the locality and will provide a service that is needed for the Bowen Mountain locality and its surrounds. The development would have a positive social and economic impact to the locality, as it is integral to the provision of quality telecommunications infrastructure and will provide improved telecommunications connections for businesses and community , or in the event of a natural disaster or emergency. The application is considered to be in the public interest by providing improved telecommunications services and the ability to interconnect remote residential areas. Matters raised in public submissions and representations at the panel meeting have been assessed in detail.
The panel considers that these concerns have been adequately addressed in the council report and through the imposition of conditions. In response to the community concerns, the panel acknowledges the applicant's acceptance of the condition to monitor levels of radio frequency, or electromagnetic energy, EME, around the proposed facility for a period of six months following its construction, and to make this available to the council and the public. In relation
87 Bells Line of Road, Kurrajong, the panel unanimously refused the application for the recommended reasons for refusal contained within the council's assessment report, with the addition of the following reasons. The design of the facade enclosing the interface between Tensile Road and adjoining properties is not compatible with the locality and they will have a significant negative impact on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties. To the size and location of the outdoor terrace areas will have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the surrounding locality. Those are all of the items considered by the panel today, and with that, I will close the public meeting at 3.54 and thank all the panellists and the council representatives and everyone else who participated in the meeting for their participation. Thank you very much.
