20 April 2023 - HLPP

Welcome everybody to the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel meeting for the 20th of April 2023. Before I continue with some formalities, I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which the council chambers that this is live streamed from is located, and that's the Dharug people and their elders past, present and emerging. Now, a few formalities. This panel has been appointed by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces and the Council to determine certain categories of development applications. My name is Louise Byrne. I'm the chairperson for today's panel. Now, the other panellists with me today are Elizabeth Kincaid, who is an expert member and has expertise in the area of town planning; Wayne Carter, also an expert member whose expertise in the area of engineering; and Paul Rogers is a community member of

The

Panel, and he has significant experience in local government issues and community issues in relation to the local government area.

Now,

As a courtesy to others, please keep your microphones on mute at all times unless I call on you to speak. The meeting is being audio-visually recorded, and the audio recording will be via podcast on the Council's website. Now, any part of this meeting that is held in a closed session will not be recorded. Now, in 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, and any person who does not wish to be recorded should not address the panel. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the panel, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation, or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting.

Now, under the panel's Code of Conduct, panel members are required to disclose any pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary interest in the matters on today's agenda, and each panellist has completed disclosure forms. As a matter of formality, I, Louise Byrne declare I have no conflicts of interest in relation to today's agenda, and I ask each of the other panel members to whether they have any conflicts of interest to declare. Ms Elizabeth Kincaid. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I have no conflicts of interest to declare in relation to this panel today.

Thank you.

Mr Wayne

Carter .

Thank you, Chair. I have no conflicts of interest in regard to today's meeting.

And Mr Paul Rogers. Yes,

Thank you, Chair. No conflicts of interest to declare in relation to the matters before today's panel.

Now, the panel—thank you, Paul—the panel will deal with items in the agenda, which is on, the agenda is on public papers available on the papers available

To the public. But as we progress through the agenda, only those persons who have registered to speak will be permitted to address the panel. And those making submissions are given three minutes to speak, although I may permit extra time where appropriate to do so. So at the end of your submission, please remain in the meeting to permit the panel to ask questions.

For each item on the agenda, once all submitters have addressed the panel, the panel may adjourn into closed session to deliberate. This may take some time. Generally, the panel will resume the meeting to announce its decision in public.

The determinations of the panel will be confirmed in the official minutes, which will be available on the Council's website most likely by the following Tuesday. Okay

To the agenda, and

The first item on item for consideration is DA 0200/22, in respect of 1, sorry , 88B Bulga Matter Road, Barangbing 2758 , and the legal description is Lot 3, DP 270515. Without going into further detail myself about this DA, I'll ask the council officer who's had carriage of it to speak. Thank you.

Thanks, Madam Chair. As you mentioned, this application is known as DA 0200/22, and it involves the use of five existing structures as part of an ecotourist facility. It has been referred to the Rural Fire Service for advice and was referred to them as integrated development. Upon review of the application, the RFS have provided general terms of approval. It has also been reviewed internally by council staff looking at issues such as sewer, building matters, fire, flora and fauna. No objections have been raised, so this application is recommended for conditional approval.

Okay, so I see we have Mr. Buckett in the meeting. Can you hear me, Mr. Buckett?

I think you need to put your microphone on now.

Okay, I've got it.

You've also got listed Mr. David Jones, your consultant to speak. Is he? Oh, I can see he's in the meeting, but I can't see his photo. Are you there, Mr. Jones?

Yes, Louise. I've got a video problem which I haven't been able to sort, but I can hear you quite well. Everyone

We can hear you as well. So which one of you wants to speak first?

If I speak first, is that okay with you, Louise?

That's fine.

And basically, just to keep it brief, I mean, this application's had a very extensive assessment by the RFS Council and any number of consultants, as you can see from the depth of the report.

Can I just speak for a minute? We can hear some background noise. It may be from your spot .

Yeah, it's from mine.

Well, perhaps can you

I'll just leave it up to Dave and I'll watch and I'll go back to mute. Yeah, mute yours.

Yes, because we're picking up other conversations in the vicinity, Mr. Buckett, so if you could put your microphone on mute, that would be helpful.

Thanks, Michael. Okay, sorry about that. As I was saying, the application's received an extensive assessment over a period of time by Council, RFS, and I can just endorse the— Plans recommendation for approval. We've reviewed all the various conditions that the council is seeking to apply, and none of those present any real issues or problems in terms of, you know, being able to comply with them. So we're happy to accept the recommendation and endorse that and hope the panel agrees. Thank you very much, Lloyd.

Okay. Now, do any of the panel members have anything they'd like to ask Mr Jones?

I do. Oh,

Thank you.

Mr Jones, I'm confused. How many cabin buildings were approved under the original MA 1380-01?

There were five cabins originally approved.

How many of those were built?

Two were built.

But there are five cabins on site now.

Yes. So that's why there's requirements for building information certificates on works that have been carried out on the — essentially, well, I should say two were built originally, so there are now five cabins that have been built. Three of those weren't built on the positions shown on the fairly vague site plan originally . So this is really all just to pull it all into compliance, this application. So

When this— Development's completed that's before us today.

Yep.

How many cabins will there be on site?

There'll be five cabins on site.

Five. Okay. That's all my questions, thank you.

Sorry, if I can just jump in there, just to clarify one thing, there were six approved.

Oh, okay.

There was a double cabin. Was that in the number that you were referring to, David?

Okay. My understanding that

There

Were five under the original approval.

I understood there were six cabins in five buildings. Ah

Of course, right, yeah. One of them was a twin. Apologies for that, yeah.

What I'm not clear on is how we get to nine cabins. If there were five built and this application is seeking to regularise the use of those five cabins under the current LEP, and there will be, when this is finished, there will be five cabins, or six cabins in five buildings, either way, but there will not be nine cabins.

No.

I think it's, yeah, six cabins in five buildings will be the outcome of this approval. Thank you.

So, Mr Johnston, just to clarify, there are four further approved cabins pursuant to an earlier consent that has been commenced, but those four— Cabins , which are four separate buildings, haven't been built, correct?

That is correct. That is my understanding, and that's what's referred to in the statement of environmental effects.

Is that correct, Mr. Jones?

Hello? Yes, that's probably a fair summation, yes.

Are you clear now, Mr. Carter?

Not at all, not at all. There's an original application, MA1380/01, a bit over 20 years ago. That was an application for six cabins in five buildings. There are five buildings built there. There have been no subsequent successful development applications for additional cabins, that I'm aware of. There was an earlier one for regularising the use of two, and that didn't get approval, et cetera. So there are five cabins on the site now—well, five buildings on the site. If we exclude the other minor buildings, there are five buildings on the site now, and this proposal is not to build any buildings, is it? So what am I missing?

Well, this is a new application under eco tourism, so it allows for two of the cabins, which are,

I guess, can be approved under eco tourism, but may not be able to achieve the standards required under the original tourism approval.

So this

Is now

An application to build additional cabins or not? No

Look, I tried

To. Andrew, can you please clarify, just because in fairness, Mr Carter, who's only come into this matter more

Recently, it is a little confusing, and my apologies if it's unclear in the report. I did try to address this, but perhaps maybe I made things more confusing, I'm not sure. But essentially, whilst there are no buildings being constructed, essentially this application, if it's approved, that it would allow potentially up to nine cabins. That's by virtue of, essentially, this application is just dealing with the use, but it is essentially for extra cabins in addition to what were previously approved. So my understanding is that the applicant still wishes to construct four cabins under the original consent, which, as we talked about in the closed session, the legal advice received indicates that that consent has been secured.

So they are able to develop the land in accordance with that previously issued consent. There have been, as a part of this application, two of the cabins that were shown under the original approval have essentially been altered and are being covered by this particular consent. This looks to formalise and use five cabins. There are still four under the original consent that they potentially could build. Now, I don't know, Lionel may not do that, but I believe that he could. He's likely to do that in the future. So that's why I'm making reference that essentially the approval of this would result in potentially nine cabins being constructed on that site. I just mention as well that under the original consent, there was a condition that said there are to be no more than 18 guests, and that I've continued that requirement and imposed a similar condition under this consent.

So whilst there would be additional cabins, the total number of guests allowed will be maintained as previously approved.

So, Andrew, can I just pursue that for a minute, just so I can understand the maths. So there were originally six cabins approved, and that was in five buildings, and there are five buildings on the site. The only conclusion I can come to is, are we saying that two of the original cabins were built as approved, and another three buildings were built not in accordance with that original consent, so therefore they're unapproved buildings, and we're applying for use of those now , those unapproved buildings. As well as the two approved buildings. And somehow — not somehow, sorry, the original consent is still live, so they're going to use the original consent to also build another four cabins. That's the only way I can figure out what is being said here. Is that correct?

That's generally correct.

So it is somewhat confusing, and as I said earlier, some of us here have gone through the history in previous panel meetings. But all we— and it's important you do understand that, Mr Carter, because the council is obviously, and I think entitled to assess it in terms of what's already approved on the site that hasn't yet been built. Am I correct there, Andrew?

Yeah. Again, it is confusing. As, you know, as has been mentioned, that essentially two of the cabins, they couldn't be considered as existing use rights because they weren't built in accordance with the consent. So basically they were looking to sub out two of the cabins and get them formalised as a part of this consent. So that's dream cabin and the love studio. So the applicant has sort of maintained that they were developed in accordance with the original consent, but the locations and the appearance changed, so they needed to be formalised. So then there are three additional existing cabins, and they're looking to be formalized as well. So this— Are

We considering those three additional cabins that you mentioned?

I have been taking it as additional.

That's why I'm

Referring to nine.

They kind of don't exist in terms of the original consent. They're buildings that have been built there, cabins that have been built there without any consent, without any approval. And so now we're seeking to use those. But we also want to build the ones that we're saying weren't built on the original consent. That's the only way I can get to nine cabins. Yes.

Well, can I just speak to this? This matter rose out of a regulatory procedure by council, right? You've talked about two that were built ostensibly without approval. So then there was this complication that an eco tourism was left off the LEP as being a permissible use on the land. So the applicant, Mr. Buckett, then he had lodged a DA and relying on existing use rights. That went through a couple of these meetings and was ultimately rejected by the panel. And then the LEP was amended in that period. And then Mr. Buckett lodged this new DA, which simplifies the situation of him regularising the use of the five cabins. So that's all we're really determining today. And I'm not saying it's not relevant, the issues you've raised, but that's what we're looking at today. Is that correct?

Yeah,

I see I've got a question coming up too, but I'll just check with Andrew. That's a correct sort of short summary?

That's

The short

Version. And I mean that essentially this relates to the use of five buildings, but you could look at it that it's for three additional. Cabins.

Who had already been approved, right?

Earlier . No, no. So, Wayne's right. What he's referring to, essentially, look, I mean, I don't know that the applicant may not build the remaining cabins under the original consent.

Theoretically,

He could. And so the way that I've considered this is that it's for the use of five cabins and essentially the addition of three cabins in, like, I guess, in addition to what was previously approved, if that makes sense.

Thanks, Andrew.

Are you—is that, is that— Yes. Now, I've got a question here, I think from Mr. Rogers.

Yes, if I may Two questions, either of Mr. Jones, Mr. Bucket. Welcome, gentlemen. My questions relate to your understandings and intentions in relation to disability access and koala habitat. So disability access first. What's your intentions? What arrangements are in place? And how do you see disability access to each of the cabins that you're proposing? Is there sufficient access for persons with disabilities? What arrangements are in place? What's your overall intentions providing that level of access to these particularly unique cabins in a wilderness area?

I'll get Mr. Jones to reply to that first because it is a technical question.

I was going to say Lionel would be more familiar with that.

Oh, okay.

Lionel. Mr. Bucket. Because some do have are accessible, others obviously aren't. So long can clarify.

Can you, can you particularise which ones do and which ones don't, please?

So, Paul, could you repeat the question again? Because there's a bit much noise here and I've asked them to be quiet

It's two questions. First one up is sort of disability access. Sort of an overarching comment as to your commitment and your engagement with disability access to the existing cabins. So which ones do have disability access, which ones

Don't? Well, I'll object to that, him being questioned with no notice, singling out specific buildings there. You can ask him generally what his attitude is to disability access, but he shouldn't have to answer, with no notice, which ones could provide. This is going on the record, okay? Which ones could provide disability access and which ones couldn't, because they're very technical considerations. So you can ask him generally what his attitude is, or your words, if someone wanted to come in and needed disability access. But I don't think he should have to answer in respect of each structure, something that we had no notice of and is a very technical question.

Well, Mr Buckett, it's a fairly open question in terms of your commitment to disability access. You are an experienced provider of hospitality in the sector. Tell us

What

Disability access is available

To these cabins. We have people with disabilities come here now already, and Dream Cabin... is like great cabin for disability. But also, all of them have had people with various disabilities. So normally you do get people with disabilities, and they'll let you know, and then you ask them what their requirements are, and generally they've always stayed.

And in terms of any future disability-type issues, are you looking at implementing any additional access in this proposal, or what you've got is what you've got?

You know, what I've got is what I've got. All

Right. So can I ask you a question in relation to koala habitat? Yeah. The report indicates that during a period of a fauna study, there was no koalas seen, but there are particular trees that were regarded as quite specific to koala habitat. What's your views? Have you seen koalas? Has there been sightings of koalas up there in many years? And what's your view in terms of retaining—

The nearest koala colony is on the other side of Bells Line Road to me, probably about five kilometres away. Generally, I've been here for, like, a very long time. I've never seen koalas here, and it hasn't— you know, while it's got a few trees that koalas eat, koalas like grey gum trees, and they're a few kilometres away. So maybe you might get koala travelling through. I'd love to have koalas, but generally this place was full of lyrebirds until the bushfires. So it's a different landscape. It's not really a koala habitat. Other than passing through

So are there some particular trees that are actually on your property that would be seen as feed trees for them on their way through?

No, not really. I have koalas at my house at Mount Laguna. Koalas, you know, koalas will eat a lot of different trees, but they walk right through your forest to find a grey gum and eat a grey gum. So in the studies at Mount Laguna, the koalas will return to the same trees. I've got about three trees around the house where there's marks from the university studies that koalas keep going back to. This is not a great place for koalas, but it would be nice if it was. Right.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Do any other participants in the meeting, other council officers or panel members have any further questions of either Mr Buckett or Mr Jones? Yeah,

Thank you, Chair. I just have a question. Sorry to take it back to the number of cabins that have been approved and built

No problem. We've got the time because there's not too many matters on the agenda. Okay,

Thank

You .

I just wanted to— so there's a number of cabins that are part of the original consent that haven't been built, and that consent could be used to build those cabins. Given that there's some cabins on site that are not— that , you know, may have been part of that consent, but have been built without the consent, is it possible, given the current layout, to construct the cabins identified as part of that original consent? Is there any overlap? Like, will there be— any of these cabins be on the same spot on the site or parts of the same spot? Like, is it physically possible to build the— The cabins that are part of the original consent, given that there are now the five cabins that you are seeking to regularise the use of as part of this consent.

Is that to me?

Yes, I think either yourself or Mr Jones. The question has come from Ms Kincaid, who's on the panel. She's the planner. Sorry if I didn't—did I introduce all of you at the beginning? I think I did, yes.

You

Did, yep

Maybe I better say that first because I've got people doing a meeting for the coronist thing in the background. Weird, I don't want to chew up their time. They could be, but I'm not— if I do, because the nature of the place, it's wilderness area and it's a privacy thing, I wouldn't build them without having to do a fresh DA and move them so that they are more private. Other—you know, people don't like to come and line up in cabin side by side to experience wilderness. So from a commercial point of view, at the moment, we wouldn't build them without doing another DA to put better locations so that people still have privacy.

Just to jump in there, so the plans that have been prepared in support of this application show where those buildings are located in relation to the existing structures. So there is room. Obviously it'll be a matter for the applicant as to whether or not they pursue that. But there is room, and it's within the approved asset protection area endorsed by the Rural Fire Service.

Yes, I was just going to point the panel to the site plan, which actually shows the position of the two

Cabins

Which really sit close to the approved positions, and then there are three other positions. And as Lionel said, I think you would probably be more responsive to the site and submit a separate DA, or an additional DA. If there were going to be cabins added, you wouldn't necessarily put them on the approved positions. In fact, you certainly wouldn't.

Yes, and that would be subject to modifications approval.

Okay, so that answered you. Yep. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, yes.

So is there any other further questions of the applicant and his consultant in item one, this DA about the Eco Tourism Development at Arambing?

Okay, well, Mr Buckett, Mr Jones, we will defer determining that until we've considered it in private session, but you will be notified. Hang around. I'm not sure, you can come back into the room. Is that right, Tracy?

Through you, Madam Chair, yes, they can enter the meeting again. I can pop them in the waiting room, and then they can come at the end, or they can continue watching it on our YouTube channel and to hear the outcome of your decision.

Okay.

All right. Well, I'm going to move on to the next matter now.

And this is,

This is before the panel because it's Council's own application for approval for a new structure at 1 Livingston Street , Windsor. So it has to come to the panel to be determined.

The DA is number 03/06/22, and it's for outdoor recreation facility. It includes demolition of existing structure and construction of a new two-storey building containing club facilities, canteens, storage areas and amenities. And who was, whoever was the council officer who had carriage of this matter.

Thank you. Yes, this application before the local planning panel is the demolition—

Just state your name since, since— Yes. Oh

Sorry. Yes, I'm Sunzida, the town planner assessing this application. Thank you. Okay. So this application is for demolition of an existing two-storey building and construction of the new two-storey building at the same location. The site is owned by Council and the building is owned by Council. It is located in the Governor Philip Park, which is a community land, and under the plan of management, the building has been identified as a leasee. So the construction of the building involves the ground floor contains the amenities for the public use and the member use, and the storage for council use. There is a canteen and a crash boat storage area, and the first floor is for the club facility control room, the toilet, storage area, and the canteen.

So the existing building has been built in 1985. It has been significantly damaged by 2021 flood events. So the council is proposing to build the same building on the same location, the similar footprint, and slightly reduced height. So the issues involved with this assessment of the application was mainly the flooding impact and the compliance with our council's flood policy and flood clauses. The zoning is RE1, public recreation, which permits the facility for recreational facility outdoor. The Windsor Foreshore Parks Plan of Management identifies the building, and it says that the existing clubhouse building plays an important role for the operation of the Governor Phillip Park. Like there are a number of boating races happens in the river throughout the year, and the building plays an important role in this matter.

Council's development engineer has looked into the proposal based on the flooding issues. The site is significantly flood affected. It is under 7.3 meter below of the one in 100 flood level. But however, the Council's flood, Schedule of Flood Related Development Controls and the Flood Policy allows recreational facility outdoor buildings to be constructed on H6 flood category. The new construction will be more flood-compatible materials, and the new technology, which is identified in the flood report, which is concrete block construction rather than brick and concrete, which is an improved method of construction.

And it complies with every other clauses of the flood policy. So therefore, Council is recommending approval of the proposal based on the conditions .

Okay, well, I have a simple question. I actually went and viewed this building , the current building. So it wasn't washed away by the 2021 flood, was it?

It is damaged, but isn't washed away. It is damaged.

Okay. I understand why Council may well want to replace it, looking at the structure as I did. Can you just explain to me, it wasn't easy to see, when, where it approaches—it's very near the water, obviously because of the nature of its use— where it relates to the water, I could not see. Is there a ramp there or how is there a boat? How are the —what's the practical use of the building? Are there boats stored there that then launch into the water there, or is it simply a clubhouse for people who use motorboats? Can you just explain in simple terms

How

It operates?

Yes. In the report, there is an aerial image of the subject site, and you can see there is a boat launching facility next to it.

What page is that on, please?

What page it is? 43.

So that's the aerial, yes. It's just not very easy to see what actually happens in the building and how it integrates, how it relates to the river.

Okay, so the boat launching—

Go a little further

Yes So the boat launching facilities are nearby within this park, and this building actually operates all the races happens on the river, and it has the public amenities, the toilets and canteens for the users of the park, and for the club members at the ground floor. They have the storage area for council uses, and from the upstairs, where the club uses, they are controlling the events. Okay

So sorry to interrupt. Have you finished? Sorry.

Yes.

Yeah So the boats, I did go down to the boat ramp as well, which is just around at the end of that road, isn't it? So that's where all the boats are launched that people are using, what have races and functions and activities . Yes. So no boats are launched down from this structure into the river, right there, where you can see in that area looks like just muddy or something. You can't figure four. I'm looking at figure four.

It is figure four, and there is a big car parking area, and there is a boat launching facility from there.

Yes, but it's just the top right corner of that area, isn't it?

Yes, that's right.

Because the river takes a sharp turn there, doesn't it?

Yes, that's right.

And so there's no boat launching. From the building into the water there?

No.

No, and there's no boat ramp. What will be built there? What's proposed to be built between the structure, or how's it proposed to be

Treated?

At the moment, the whole building is fenced off, and

There's very, very significant foliage

Weeds and, you know, reeds and grasses So you can't see what's in that area. I'm just interested to know how the building relates to the river right there.

Okay. Looking at the plan of management, and the works are currently undertaken by the Parks section of the council, they are planning to have some terrace seating area between the club building and the river. Sorry to interrupt you, was that in this report? No, that is not part of this development application. Sorry, the report, the management plan for the park, I think you mentioned, is an extract of that. You then said that council's planning to put seating.

Is that document, the plan of management for the park

Is that

Extracted into here?

Okay, that is not in this report because that is currently undertaken by the Parks section. They are working on it. Yes, that's a future plan.

Okay. All right. So you've answered my question. I think that there's no activity of boats entering the water or persons entering the water right at the location of where the club is.

Yes, there is no such direct boat entering from the water from the building.

Okay. Now, have we got any other — have we got questions from any members of the panel, please?

Yes, Chair. Just to assist that, South Creek is the little creek in which the actual boat ramp allows the launching of the boats that then travel 20 or 30 metres into the Hawkesbury River proper. So it's a small creek that runs into the proper river. On the right-hand side of picture four that you were looking at. Yes,

Thank you.

So it's not a river itself. Certainly,

Is it appropriate for me to ask that fairly broad generic question that I raised in private session?

Yes, you may. Yes,

Thank you, Chair. The question that I have is, in the proposal, looks at 1.672 million dollars is the estimated cost for this construction, and it's made reference to as for boating on the river. Boating on the river exceeds pleasure boating of rowing and sailing. This is specifically a lease to the Powerboat Club, and one would ask the question: 1.6 million dollars, same site, same sort of building, with future flooding, how is this all justified? What alternatives will look at raising the site, alternative sites? How can the taxpayers really, from a community perspective, be expected to accept that? Replacing new with the old with new, is any better? We're going to get more flooding. So that's something that I am particularly concerned about, bearing in mind the quite specific use for the powerboat community, as opposed to a broader community of rowers and sailors and those sorts of things.

This is quite a lot of money, and the particular site, were alternative sites available? And I'd be interested in that observation, please.

Senator, are you willing to answer that, or would you like me to

Yes.

Any comments initially?

Yes, you can go ahead, Greg, and I will comment on it.

All right. Thank you for the question. Look, regrettably, although you are dealing with members of the council here, the members of the council present in the media at the moment are just in development assessment, so we're not acting for the council as the applicant. However, we did have a bit of a chat with them in the closed session, or just before that, and I understand that the proposal is in accordance with the plan of management for the Governor Phillip Park generally. So where there are plans of management, so the council will have adopted a strategy for improvement of facilities and provision of facilities. So that included the car park, the boat ramp,

This

Clubhouse. Senator alluded to these other improvements that they want to do where they need to restore that slip circle fader that, if anyone has seen the property that's in front of the building there. So that work doesn't form part of this application. But I understand that those sorts of decisions about the spending of public money would have been made by councilors at the time that that plan of management was created and adopted. So I suppose that's all we can really say about that. Our job is just to assess the application as it comes in. That's what Cencitta has done. In terms of the appropriateness of that public expenditure, that is a matter for others. I don't think we have the knowledge to answer that question here.

Well, I think that's correct , isn't it, Mr Rogers?

I don't think they can answer that question

About spending money. But it is appropriate to ask. It's appropriate to be answered in terms of accountability and transparency, bearing in mind that there's only just so much to go around and that we are a community that uses the river on a recreational basis. So there's a competing interest here. So thank you for clarifying.

I would suggest if we're after a specific answer in relation to that, then we'll have to defer to others, and perhaps this matter may not be able to be determined today, if that's be the case.

Well, I don't think it's part of the planning panel's core purpose. We have to deal with the DA that's before us. Would other panel members have any difference of view on that?

We don't know.

I think the council office, council lawyers, if so minded and interested in that sort of determination, would make their own inquiries through the council proper. But I

Don't think you've suggested that we might defer the determination of this. Mr. Miles.

No, no, if the panel wishes to defer because they want an answer to that question. Then we as officers would need to defer to others in the organisation. Oh, I see

Yes, okay.

We can

Discuss that. We can discuss that between us, yes, in private session. And does anyone want to make any other comments on this development or have any other questions on this development?

Okay, I'm happy to go use sort the other panel members' view, and my view is that we have an application in front of us for determination. Yes,

That's right. That's what I said, yep. You're agreeing with me. Thank you. Do you have anything to say about the development at all?

No, I'm happy with the information provided. Oh

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to ask you to explain. I know you said that building has been there for like 40, more than 40 years, the existing building. Can you just go into a little bit more detail about what's being done to, I guess, make this proposal more, like, able to withstand the floods? Like what are the things about this building that , you know, helped to ensure that it's going to have, if not similar, but greater longevity than the existing building?

Are you happy to answer that? Yes.

Yes.

Ms

Allen. I've got some thoughts, but as the building coordinator, so I would be responsible for certification of such a structure. But, Sensita, if you've got some specific detail that the applicant's provided, I'll mean I'll let you say something first

Yes. The applicant provided a flood impact and evacuation assessment report and— They mentioned, like, they actually looked into the floor area footprint, the height, whether they have any significant additional impact of floodwater. The building is located at the same location within slightly reduced footprint and slightly reduced height, which says, like, it will not have any additional impact on the flood water or the hydraulic character, whatever is having now, and it will not reduce any flood storage. And talking about the building itself, they are proposing a concrete filled concrete block construction, which is defined as substantially more flood compatible material rather than existing brick and concrete structure.

So our engineer and our building coordinator has looked into the reports and the methodology and the plans, and they are happy with the method of construction, that it is a more improved mechanism

Is that? Yeah, okay, thank you. I mean, if there was any further information, that would be useful, but that general assurance is helpful. Thank you.

Elizabeth, through the Chair, if I could just add from my observation of the plans, it's basically going to be designed as a hose-out building, as far as I can see it. For example, the upper floor, there's no surfacing on the floor; it's polished concrete floor, so that's going to contribute toward hose-out. It's going to be, you know, steel and concrete-filled blocks, so most of the structure appears to be steel-stairs, concrete-filled blocks. The concrete-filled blocks will make it a stronger structure. The flood flow there, it's not a high-velocity flood flow, so that should be fairly effective in terms of making the building strong enough to withstand underwater experience at that site.

And as I say, there's a lot of wet areas will be hose-out. It doesn't get down to detail of fittings and fit-out. Kitchen , etc., or canteen, so I can't comment on that. But I did notice those additional details, which are relevant to Elizabeth's question in particular. Thank you.

Can I just ask something? What do they do with sewerage disposal? Is there any special way they protect that from going into the river when there's flooding?

It is connected with a septic system, which is a pump well, pump-out system. So it is contained, and the proposal has been looked by our infrastructure section, because this area is under council sewer management system, and they are happy with that existing system. But before the construction certificate, the applicant has to talk with the relevant section to understand whether they need to upgrade any or make it bigger, the existing well system.

Well,

I'm just thinking,

Is it made secure in the event of a flood so it doesn't leak out? Is there any—

It is secured, and about this matter, the infrastructure section didn't raise any issues, so they are happy with it.

All right. So I'm probably asking a bit outside your expertise. But if it's gone to the relevant people and they're happy with it, is there anything you want to add to that, Greg?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I would suggest the answer to the question is no. There's no proper sealing. It's no different to any other septic tank. Yes. So the upshot is, yes , in the event of a flood, it will be sewerage potentially contaminated. Yes. Into the floodwater, hence the reason why, I mean floodwaters generally are considered quite contaminated in any case. So, but I suppose the only saving grace is the dilution factor, just with that volume of water. In time, everything will sort itself out. But no, it's not properly sealed. It's just contained, pumped out as on a needs basis, depending on, because it'll go for weeks not being occupied and then one weekend it'll be super busy, you know, so that's just the nature of the operation.

Right. Okay, well I don't have any further questions. Does anyone have anything further they want to ask or mention about this development application?

Next item in our agenda, and this matter came before us because it categorised as sensitive development, as it's designated development and falls for the panel to determine. It's DA

0114/22, and the proposal is for subdivision of part of the land into three lots, Torrens title. The address is 35 Haddon Ridge Road, Wilberforce, and the total area is 94 hectares. Is that the total area under subdivision or the total area of the land? I'm not sure. Anyway, I believe it was the officer responsible for who has carriage of assessment of this matter is Ms Natalie Pigott, who's present in the virtual meeting today. Can you just briefly explain to the panel what this development's about and the details? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As you said, this is a three-lot subdivision. The total site area is 94 hectares, and the subdivision proposed will create two lots of 10 hectares and one residual lot of 74 hectares. As you mentioned, this is designated development, but it is also integrated development, as it is special purposes, so it was referred to the RFS, and they have provided their general terms of approval . The three allotments proposed will have a designated building envelope with asset protections, which is identified on the subdivision plans. And as part of this application, the access handles driveways will be constructed, together with the level of detail that is required for this construction is part of the application.

Okay, well, thank you for that. Do we have any questions from the panel? I believe, Ms. Pincay, you had a question

You wanted to ask. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I had a question in relation to the configuration of the subdivision and the what is effectively battle-axe type arrangement for the residue lot, which is the 74 hectare lot, and just the potential, firstly, whether or not a configuration like this is something that Council would normally support in a location like this, and what options have been considered to address any potential impact of that driveway running right along full length, I guess, at the boundary of the adjoining property.

Okay, well, I'll ask you to go first on that, Ms. Pigott, and then I note that we have Ms. Lisa Wrightson in the meeting , who's in San Francisco, from her father. But I'll ask the council officer to speak first, and you will have an opportunity to address any other questions as well, Ms. Wrightson.

Thank you, Chair. So in terms of the location of the driveway for the residual lot, it is— Located there simply to service where the indicative building envelope is due to the 1 in 100 ANEF levels of the site, which I believe is about 14.2 metres. So in order for that residual lot to support a residential development, it needs to be located on the site outside of above that 14.2 metre level. In terms of consistency of driveways and their locations, this is actually consistent with the majority of the sites that are a result of a previous subdivision where I believe lots 22 to 27 have actually got boundary driveways to outbuildings. And in terms of subdivision pattern, this would be consistent with a battle-axe type configuration , in terms of battle-axe would have consistent driveways along boundaries.

I'll let you go back to that, Ms. Kinkaid, but can I just ask a question, Mr . Pickett? I'm just looking at the subdivision plan.

Those four—one, two, six smaller lots that you mentioned, all of them have access to the street, right? They're built on the street, Haddon Ridge Road. So when you said they have access to the other areas of the land or something, other buildings? Yes.

So they have outbuildings. Attached to the, obviously, built at the behind the dwellings, and majority of them have a driveway along the boundaries to that outbuilding.

It's not shown there. It's just in within their own lots, is it? It

Is in their own lots, yes.

Okay, so the proposed road to the, what's shown as the indicative plan for house, I'm assuming, is also going to be a battle- is a battle axe, right, behind lot 22 . Have you got the plan in front of you? Yes. Okay. I'm just basically understanding the plans. Has anyone else got any questions about the plan before we go back to Ms . Kincaid?

Chair, maybe I can help with that, I hope. Oh,

Thank you.

What we're referring to as a battle axe is, in fact, a strip of land that is 20 metres wide. That's the same as a full-size road reserve.

Yes.

So, so we're thinking on a different scale. You know, we're thinking of a battle axe block with probably a three metre handle or something like that. That handle is marked on the subdivision plan as being 20 metres wide. So it's exactly the same as having a road reserve next to your property. So it's not like the

Road in the handle is going to be built right next to the fence of the adjoining property, which, by the way, is some 12 , 13 metres away from the house anyway. I'm just looking at the, you know, the street view here. So yeah, just, you know, 20 metres wide is that handle. So it could be as much as 15 metres away, plus the gap to the house, you know, could be more than 20 metres from the house.

I see.

Yeah,

But you talked about all of them having some sort of access at the back. That's all. That's not part of this development. All I'm trying to work out is what's actually part of this DA for a subdivision. So the thing, it's to create lot one, and we see where it's—I'm looking at the subdivision plan, which is , first, there's only one. The others are an overview on to land . It's this attachment one to this item, and it's the second page. The subject of this development application is to create lot one, lot two, and lot three out of what was one whole parcel, and to also have the indicative house locations , right? But also that road that's going between lot, currently lot 22 and proposed lot 2 , to an indicative house. Is that correct?

Correct. So that would be a driveway.

Yeah, but they're the four elements, if you like, subject of this DA. Correct. Or call them elements. Okay then, as—sorry, Ms King, was your question answered, or do you have something?

Well, yeah, I appreciate it's a very wide driveway, 20 metres, as are all the driveways. I just wanted to understand, is this normal practice, which you said yes, it is normal practice, and what has been considered, or can anything be considered to address the potential impact on the existing— Property at 22. You did mention going to the Chair's point that there is some existing access roads within those properties. I can't see from any of them. I can't see them either. Yeah, if there is one on lot 22, but I just know that this is an issue that has been raised in submissions, and I'm just wondering if there's anything that can be done or would normally be done to address the impact on that property at 22. So

There is the opportunity to provide screen planting if that was something that the— I note with the submission that they didn't actually want any kind of screening to interfere with their rural outlook, but that certainly is a potential to have screening, screen planting, and the owner of the property actually has the opportunity, if they want to do so, outside of the SDA, if they were of a mind to provide some kind of plantings along there, they can do so. But that would be something that could alleviate some of their concerns in terms of privacy , noise impacts, and those sorts of things. We certainly have the opportunity to condition that, but I was mindful that they were of a mind not to have screen planting, so I have not included that as part of a condition of consent.

However, if the panel were of a mind to consider that as reasonable, then that's something that we could include in the conditions of consent.

Okay. Any further? Is that—

Do you

Want to say

Anything further, Ms Kinkade? No, thank you for that. I mean, I know that we're going to hear from the applicant shortly, and maybe that's something they might address, Chair, when they address the panel. But I have no other questions. The information provided by council answered mine. Okay.

Is anyone on the panel want to ask something of council officer before we move to Ms. Rogers?

Yes

My apologies in taking up time previously. An enthusiastic six-month-old little poodle snoodle helped me with my Mayoral yesterday, and that's where my plans disappeared behind a cabinet. Now that I've got the plans, I know we need to deal with the application before us, but I'm just interested. There was comment about the Haven Farm was the property prior to subdivision. Now , I'm assuming that the subdivision, those smaller lots that have been referred to, with these additional larger lots, is this the end of potential subdivision, or is it a question of there is capacity for the retaining 74 hectares to be further subdivided in the future? I'd just be interested in, I know we need to deal with the ones before us, but I'm interested if we are looking at this access road of 20 metres, could it end up being an access then to further subdivisions into more prone and vulnerable land ?

I'm just interested in what the future might look like if these two larger lots are approved. What would be the future? Is this the end of Haven Farm as we know it, or is there potential further subdivision later?

I'll answer the first question in terms of, is there potential for further subdivision. This area has a minimum lot size of 10 hectares. So this site does have a previous history in terms of there was an application before Council that was refused for a five-lot subdivision, which was appealed to the Land Environment Court. So for your first question, yes, there is potential for further subdivision. However, given that it's part of House Creek wetland, the environmental impact to that wetland would almost sterilise any further subdivision on this site from an environmental point of view.

But

I'm sure that , yes, the short answer is yes, there is potential. Whether or not that potential would actually be successful is another question.

And I'll just interrupt for a second. The Land Environment Court refused a six-lot subdivision. I noticed it was refused. Was one of the considerations what you've just mentioned about the environmental effect on the wetland?

Correct.

And how long ago was that case, do you know roughly? It

Was 2020, I

Believe, from memory. Quite recent. Yeah

It was originally five lot, and then it went to six lots.

And that was refused. Refused. And they were 10 hectares though? Yes. Okay. Any other questions of Mr.. .

Thank you for that.

Well, Ms. Wrightson, do you have anything you want to say to the... Hello, and pub in this session.

Good morning. I'm Lisa Wrightson. I'm from Barker Ryan Stewart. We're the planners acting for the applicant for this proposal. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions. I may just add a couple of things just in response to some of the questions from Natalie. Obviously, we've looked at a range of options, as you can tell from the court case to today for this site, and with council's assistance, this has been seen as the best and probably most intense outcome that is suitable for the site. I know there's been discussions at different times about the potential to change the minimum lot size for the residue, potentially to limit that size, but that would be up to council in the future, and that would help in protecting, I guess, the wetland area.

Obviously, that's not part of this DA and can't be considered, but I just wanted to let you know that it has been considered. There is also a farm and environmental management plan that is being adopted as part of the conditions for all the allotments to look at maintaining and protecting and limiting any impacts on the adjoining wetland and the vegetation on the site. Also, in relation to the 20 metre wide access handle, similarly, as what Natalie said, we had considered looking at some planting along that side boundary to reduce any impacts, but as she mentioned, the owner of that site wasn't keen on that, but we'd be happy if the panel was looking at a condition. To put some planting there to assist with that screening.

It was provided there purely to enable the dwellings to be out of the flood level and give as much land as possible to the other two sites, so that there wasn't going to be vegetation clearing or impacts on the important vegetation along the wetland and waterway to the north.

That's really all I've got to say. Thank you very much for your time and allowing me to speak. Thank you very much, Ms Wrightson. Has anyone got any questions of Ms Wrightson? No? No, just a historical question. Havem Farm, what was the farm used for, because of such a prone position with the water and flooding, what farming was there?

It was

Cattle grazing. And is there any cattle grazing still there?

I believe so, yes.

And I seem to remember historically that there is, out that way, there's, you can graze like Crown land, as long as the cattle can move freely up and down. It's like a passageway. It's just, I've seem to lost the current term, but it's sort of cattle can move from one property to another property to another property. Stock routes, I think

You mean. Stock routes

Yes. Is there a stock route out that way?

Not that I'm aware of.

Not that way. All right. Okay. Thank you.

Couldn't tell you, sorry. Greg, you might know.

Yes, I was just going to say, sorry, Madam Chair. Yeah, Paul, there's a Common, not out there, but Common is the name I think you're probably looking for. Yes.

Further up. St Ann's

The only one I'm aware of is the St Ann's one . There is hay in common, but you ...

Too many bicycles out there nowadays. No, I just wanted to make sure that we weren't, you know, encroaching upon something that was historic or like that. Thank you.

Am I able to respond? Is that possible? If you would like, yes. I just thought I'd add a bit to it. The original Haddon Farm was a dairy farm, so it was across a number of properties, including this one. It wasn't just this farm; it was across probably three or four originally, of a larger area. And the wetland and those areas were extensively grazed and managed. And part of what continues on the properties, the grazing of the wetland to reduce weeds and manage that across the board, and that currently occurs and will continue to occur.

Okay, well, thank you for that. That's been very helpful, and thank you for coming into the virtual meeting. Thank you. Addressing the meeting. Okay, well, I think that we can adjourn the public meeting now. Am I right on that, Tracy?

You're live. Well,

Thank you everybody, and thank you for your assistance today. I'm going to just read out the results of the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel meeting, the 20th of April, as follows. Now, there were three item, three development applications on the agenda, and the panel has approved and granted consent to the three development applications the subject of the meeting today. And those three development applications are as follows. The first item was for DA 2000, sorry, 0200/22 in respect of 88B Bulga Matta Road, Berambing, being Lot 3, DP 270515, consent subject to conditions that are published in the papers today has been granted. The second development application and item on the agenda today was for DA 0306/22 in respect of Lot X, DP 161237, being 1 Livingstone Street, Windsor, and it's been approved, the grant of consent subject to conditions.

And the third item was for DA 114/22, being Lot 28, DP 1184227. 35 Hardenridge Road, Wilberforce. That was approved and the grant of consent subject to conditions. Now the details of each of those development applications will be in Council's minutes of the meeting today and publication of the results of the meeting today. Just in case anyone's not clear, the first DA was for ecotourist facility. The second DA was for demolition of an existing sporting facility and rebuilding of that facility.

And the third item was for a three-lot subdivision on the subject land. So I now wish to close the meeting, and I thank everyone, including members of the public, for attending the meeting today. Any queries that you can't work out from the Council meeting minutes online and record of the meeting, you can make inquiries at the Council. I'm just speaking to you, Mr. Buckett, in that respect. Okay , thank you everyone. The meeting is now closed.