Planning Proposal Amendment to Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2004 F3 Freeway Service Centre

Transcription

1 Planning Proposal Amendment to Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2004 F3 Freeway Service Centre Local Government Area: Lake Macquarie Name of Draft LEP: Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2004 (Amendment No 76) This Planning Proposal has been prepared by Council using information provided by the proponent in the report titled Planning Proposal Submission to Lake Macquarie Council relating to the Proposed Service Station on the northbound site of F3 Freeway, August 2012, and associated annexures prepared by Elton consulting for Blaxland Properties. Part 1 Objective of the Planning Proposal The objective of the Planning Proposal is to amend Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2004 (LMLEP 2004), and the draft Standard Instrument LEP (draft LMLEP 2013), to enable the establishment of a highway service centre adjacent to the F3 Freeway near Cooranbong. The subject land comprises two sites; Lot 4 DP (northbound site), and Lot 211 DP (southbound site) (see Figure 1 & 2). It is proposed that the highway service centre will include 24- hour fuel, petrol, gas and diesel with separate dispensing areas for cars and trucks, an ancillary 250m 2 convenience retail shop, restaurants (including sit down, takeaway and drive through facilities), toilets and washrooms, and car and truck parking. The northbound site is currently zoned 1(1) Rural Production Zone and 7(1) Conservation (Primary) Zone, while the southbound site is currently zoned 1(1) Rural Production Zone (see Figure 3). It is proposed that the 7(1) Conservation (Primary) Zone will be expanded on both sites to provide adequate protection to land considered to be of conservation value due to the presence of threatened species and endangered ecological communities (EECs). The balance of each site will remain in a 1(1) Rural Production Zone (Figure 4), with an enabling clause applying to part of this land to permit the proposed development (Figure 5). Each of these zones will be converted to an equivalent zone with the implementation of the Standard Instrument LEP. The 1(1) Rural Production Zone will become a RU2 Rural Landscape zone, while the 7(1) Conservation (Primary) Zone will become an E2 Environmental Protection zone (see Figure 6). The existing definition of Highway Service Centre in the Standard Instrument LEP is proposed to be added to the Dictionary of LMLEP 2004, with an enabling clause to permit this use with consent on part of each subject site. The Additional Permitted Uses map will indicate where the enabling clause applies in draft LMLEP Building height controls will be transferred from the DCP to the LEP during the implementation of the Standard Instrument LEP. It is likely that the proposed development will be assessed under these new provisions. Consideration has been given to appropriate building heights to ensure that the envisaged scale of development can be realised on the subject land, while maintaining the character of the area and vistas from the Freeway. The height required to support the proposed development is 10 metres. The proposed building heights are reflected in the building height maps (Figure 7). The proponent has indicated a desire to subdivide land to be used as a service centre, from the parent lot. This would allow the residual land to be used for a rural use or as a biodiversity offset allotment. This could be undertaken either by application under State Environmental Planning Policy 1 Development Standards (SEPP 1), or clause 4.6 in the case of the Standard Instrument, or by inserting an additional clause within the LEP, which would provide more certainty to the proponent. The process will be much more efficient by inserting a provision in the additional uses section of the LMLEP The precise size of any residual land will not be known until a development application has been approved for the service centre. As such, it is appropriate to include a clause to facilitate subdivision of the land into no more than two lots as outlined in Part 2.

2 Part 2 Explanation of the Provisions Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2004 If the amendment is adopted prior to the implementation of draft LMLEP 2013, the amendment proposes the following changes to LMLEP Inserting in Schedule 7: Schedule 7 Additional development allowed on certain land Item No Column 1 Column 2 19 Land at Cooranbong being part of Lot 4, DP , zoned 1(1) Rural Production Zone and 7(1) Conservation (Primary) Zone; and part of Lot 211, DP , zoned 1(1) Rural Production Zone Development on part of Lot 4, DP , and part of Lot 211, DP for the purpose of: a. a highway service centre b. a shop not exceeding 250m 2 c. Subdivision of Lot 4, DP , into no more than two lots to separate the highway service centre site and access ramps from adjoining rural and environmental land. Each lot is able to be less than the minimum lot size. The subdivision does not generate a dwelling entitlement. Dictionary highway service centre means a building or place used to provide refreshments and vehicle services to highway users. It may include any one or more of the following: (a) a restaurant or café, (b) take away food and drink premises, (c) service stations and facilities for emergency vehicle towing and repairs, (d) parking for vehicles, (e) rest areas and public amenities. On the advice of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, use of the Standard Instrument definition for highway service centre is proposed. It is proposed that highway service centre be added to the dictionary of LMLEP The definition does not provide for an ancillary shop, which has led to the amendment also proposing a shop not exceeding 250m 2. Subdivision of the parent lot to enable the highway service centre to be separated from the residual rural land is proposed to be accommodated by enabling the subdivision of Lot 4 DP and Lot 211 DP into no more than two lots, which will be less than the minimum lot size provided by the LEP. The subdivision is not to generate a dwelling entitlement. Draft Lake Macquarie Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan The following changes are proposed to draft LMLEP Inserting in Schedule 1: 14 Use of certain land at Cooranbong

3 (1) This clause applies to land at Cooranbong identified as "Cooranbong Area 1" on the Additional Permitted Uses Map. (2) Development for the purpose of a highway service centre, shop not exceeding 250m 2, and signage on Lot 4 DP and Lot 211 DP (3) Subdivision of Lot 4 DP and Lot 211 DP into no more than two lots to separate the highway service centre site and access ramps from adjoining rural and environmental land. Each lot is able to be less than the minimum lot size. The subdivision is not to generate a dwelling entitlement. An amendment to Schedule 1 will identify the subject land and provide for a highway service centre and shop not exceeding 250m 2. The Standard Instrument LEP does not provide adequately for signage in the RU2 Rural Landscape zone, which has led to the proposed addition of signage as a use on the site. Subdivision of the site, as mentioned previously, is proposed to be supported by inserting a clause to enable subdivision of Lot 4 DP and Lot 211 DP into no more than two lots which will be less than the minimum lot size otherwise permitted by the LEP. Amending the Additional Permitted Uses Map Apply Cooranbong Area 1 to part of Lot 4 DP and part of Lot 211 DP The enabling clause is to apply to part of each site to ensure the development is positioned appropriately and to ensure the resulting development is not within conservation zoned land (see Figure 5). Amending the Height of Buildings Map Apply category K 10 metres maximum building height to Lot 4 DP and Lot 211 DP A height of 10 metres is necessary to support the proposed development on the site, particularly the canopy for the area to be used by trucks. A category exists in the draft Lake Macquarie Standard Instrument LEP, which is K 10m. This will need to be applied to part of Lot 4 DP and part of Lot 211 DP (see Figure 7). Amending the Minimum Lot Size Map Apply AB1 20 hectares to the land proposed to be zoned RU2 and apply AB2 40 hectares to the land proposed to be zoned E2 on Lot 4 DP and Lot 211 DP The Minimum Lot Size map needs to be consistent with other land zoned RU2 and E2. The enabling clause in Schedule 1 will enable the subdivision of land as outlined above (see Figure 8). Part 3 Justification for the Provisions A. Need for the planning proposal 1. Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report? This Planning Proposal is not the result of a strategic study or report. The proposal has been put forward by the landowner and assessed by Council as having merit. The subject land meets the requirements of the Roads and Maritime Services in terms of distance from another service centre. Threatened flora and fauna species were identified on-site, however, the concept design has positioned the proposed development to minimise impacts to these. The development will provide employment opportunities to the local community and support the ongoing role of the F3 Freeway as the primary transport corridor in the region. The subject land is not identified in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy or Council s Lifestyle 2020 Strategy for future commercial or employment lands. As such, commercial or industrial zones for the land are not envisaged.

4 A comprehensive Local Environmental Study (LES) has been undertaken for each site, which examined land use opportunities and constraints in detail. The findings of these investigations are discussed further in the following sections of this report. 2. Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way? In order to enable the proposed development an LEP amendment is necessary. The amendment will ensure that the proposed development and its various uses are permitted on the subject land with development consent. A clause enabling additional uses on the land will facilitate the proposed development. It is proposed that land to be used for the service centre will be subdivided from the parent lots to enable residue land to be sold and used for a separate use. This could be facilitated by including provision for the proposed subdivision within the enabling clause, or by assessing an application under State Environmental Planning Policy 1 Development Standards (SEPP 1) or in the case of the Standard Instrument, clause 4.6. The process for undertaking this subdivision would be much more efficient by inserting the proposed subdivision clause as outlined in Part 2 above. Inclusion of highway service centre in the land use table under an urban zone could support the proposed development; however, inappropriate uses could result on the subject land if the land is rezoned for this purpose. The subject land is appropriate for providing the very specific use of a service centre to support the ongoing function of the F3 Freeway as the primary regional transport corridor. However, broader uses that would be supported by applying an existing zone and associated uses in the land use table, such as an industrial or commercial zone, may lead to inappropriate use of the site. Expansion of such zones in this area is not supported by any strategy. An enabling clause is the most appropriate path in facilitating the proposed service centre. 3. Is there a net community benefit? Given the additional employment opportunities offered by the proposed development and the measures proposed to ameliorate any environmental impact likely to result, the proposal is considered to provide a net community benefit. A Net Community Benefit Test has been undertaken and provided below. Net Community Benefit Test Will the LEP be compatible with agreed State and regional strategic direction for development in the area (e.g. land release, strategic corridors, development within 800 metres of a transit node)? Is the LEP located in a global/regional city, strategic centre or corridor nominated within the Metropolitan Strategy or other regional/subregional strategy? Is the LEP likely to create a precedent, or create or change the expectations of the The F3 Freeway is identified as a major road linking key regions along the NSW east coast, and is critical to the area to support business, employment, services, and recreational opportunities. The Planning Proposal will support improvements to this key regional transport link, by providing important facilities to support road users as growth occurs in the region and to improve safety for travellers. The proposal is ancillary to the F3 Freeway, which is identified within the LHRS as the primary transport corridor within the region. The proposal will help to further strengthen the role of this route in the continued development of the region, assisting passenger and freight movements between the Sydney metropolitan area and the key growth areas in the Hunter region. It is not likely that the proposal will set a precedent or alter the expectation of

5 landowner or other landholders? Have the cumulative effects of other spot rezoning proposals in the locality been considered? What was the outcome of these considerations? Will the LEP facilitate a permanent employment generating activity or result in a loss of employment lands? Will the LEP impact upon the supply of residential land and therefore housing supply and affordability? Is the existing public infrastructure (roads, rail, utilities) capable of servicing the proposed site? Is there good pedestrian and cycling access? Is public transport currently available or is there infrastructure capacity to support future public transport? Will the proposal result in changes to the car distances travelled by customers, employees, and suppliers? If so, what are the likely impacts in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, operating costs and road safety? Are there significant Government investments in infrastructure or services in the area whose patronage will be affected by the proposal? If so, what is the expected impact? landholders. The Department requires that a distance of 24km is provided between service stations along the highway (refer Ministerial Directions Section 117 Direction 5.4). There are currently very few opportunities for new highway service centres in this stretch of the Freeway, particularly sites that have disturbed land/cleared areas previously associated with the construction of the F3 Freeway. It is also noted that the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) requires that highway service centres be provided in close proximity on both northbound and southbound approaches. The sites are also relatively small pockets of land. For these reasons the Planning Proposal will not set precedence or change the expectations of the landowner or other landholders as the sites are uniquely places to accommodate the proposed use. The proposal has not been influenced by other rezonings, and is not likely to result in additional spot rezonings in the locality. As such, the proposal is not part of a cumulative rezoning process. The proposal is a one-off to provide additional supporting development for the function of the Freeway. The development that is intended to follow the LEP amendment will generate permanent employment opportunities for the local community. The LES has established that the number of jobs generated by the development will be 472 construction jobs, 99 on-going jobs, and 183 jobs through the multiplier effect. The proposal will not have an impact on the supply of residential land. Consultation has occurred with a range of State agencies and service authorities. This process determined that there is adequate infrastructure to support the proposal. This is discussed further under Part D of this report. The proposal will support increased traffic volumes on the Freeway as growth occurs in the region. The proposal is responding to growth rather than being a catalyst for additional vehicle use. As such, the affect of the proposal in this regard is likely to be negligible. The F3 Freeway is a significant transport corridor, which forms part of the National Highway. The proposal is intended to support increasing use of the Freeway due to growth in the region. As such, the proposal is likely to support the ongoing function of the Freeway.

6 Will the proposal impact on land that the Government has identified a need to protect (e.g. land with high biodiversity values) or have other environmental impacts? Is the land constrained by environmental factors such as flooding? Will the LEP be compatible/ complementary with surrounding land uses? What is the impact on amenity in the location and wider community? Will the public domain improve? Will the proposal increase choice and competition by increasing the number of retail and commercial premises operating in the area? If a stand-alone proposal and not a centre, does the proposal have the potential to develop into a centre in the future? What are the public interest reasons for preparing the draft plan? What are the implications of not proceeding at that time? A detailed Local Environmental Study has been completed for the subject land, which determined the proposed use can be supported. Placement of the proposed development away from land use constraints such as flood prone land, implementation of noise attenuation measures, as well as maximising use of cleared land and resolution of biodiversity offsets, will minimise potential environmental impacts of subsequent development. These findings have been considered in preparing the LEP amendment. Further discussion of environmental implications is contained in Part C of this report. The proposal is complementary to the function of the F3 Freeway, and will support increasing use of the Freeway as growth occurs in the region. Subsequent development on the site is likely to be typical of a highway service centre. There are options available either for the proposal to be integrated with the local road network and community, or for the development to remain separated. This, and the design of subsequent development on the subject land, will be considered further upon assessment of a development application for the proposed development. The proposal will support a second service centre along the F3 Freeway, which will provide additional competition to the F3 Freeway service centre at Warnervale. The proposal (in conjunction with the southbound site) is a one-off stand-alone proposal, and is not likely to develop into a centre in the future. The proposal will provide an additional service centre along the F3 Freeway, which will support increasing traffic volumes as growth in the region occurs and will generate additional jobs for the local community. B. Relationship to strategic planning framework 1. Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy (including the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and exhibited draft strategies)? The proposal will play a role in supporting the increasing use of the Freeway as growth in the region occurs. The Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (LHRS) indicates an expected population growth of 160,000 people, translating to an anticipated demand for 66,000 jobs by It is likely that the F3 Freeway will remain a primary transport route, linking the region to Sydney and providing a thoroughfare for the north coast. The proposal will support the ongoing role of the Freeway in providing efficient transportation within and through the region, including supporting the development of the identified future freight hub and employment lands.

7 2. Is the planning proposal consistent with the local council s Community Strategic plan, or other local strategic plan? The following assessment of the proposal has been undertaken against the Strategic Directions of Council s Lifestyle 2020 Strategy: A City Responsive to its Environment The part of the northbound site subject to the proposed development has experienced some disturbance from previous use of the land. The proposal will clear approximately 2.29 hectares of Dry Open Forest and 1.84 hectares of Cleared Land with Scattered Trees. The land proposed to be cleared does not contain any Endangered Ecological Communities; however, threatened species were identified within the proposed development footprint. The Flora and Fauna Assessment identified that: the proposal will require the removal or modification of relatively small areas of suitable habitat for the threatened flora species A. inopina, G. parviflora, T, juncea, Little Eagle, Squirrel Glider, Eastern False Pipistrelle, Eastern Freetail-bat and Greater Broad-nosed Bat. The part of the southbound site subject to the proposed development is degraded and predominantly clear of vegetation, however, the proposal will clear approximately 4.23 hectares comprising 0.25 hectares of the Swamp Sclerophyll Forest Endangered Ecological Community. The subject land is capable of supporting bushfire defendable space without substantial clearing existing vegetation, and the part of the land subject to the proposed development has not been identified as being flood prone or affected by acid sulphate soils. The final design and associated extent of vegetation clearing will need to be considered further as part of the development assessment process for the proposed development. The proposal provides further support to the existing Freeway transport corridor. It is believed that the proposal is appropriate to support increased freeway traffic, as growth continues in the region. Design measures will need to be implemented to mitigate environmental impacts resulting from the development. These will be assessed following the LEP amendment. The subject land is capable of supporting the proposed development; however, further consideration is necessary regarding the management of threatened species and biodiversity loss and the management of biodiversity offsets. In this regard, a Statement of Commitments has been provided, which outlines the commitments the developer has made in relation to biodiversity offsetting and conservation management to meet the improve or maintain principle for biodiversity. The subsequent development resulting from the LEP amendment will be assessed on its merits upon submission of a development application. A Well Serviced and Equitable City The development of the land for the proposed use will provide additional employment opportunities in the local area, while providing services to people travelling through the local government area. The proposal is a stand-alone development that is not related to the establishment of town centres or connectivity within neighbourhoods. It is intended that the proposed development will have separate access and parking areas for Freeway traffic and local traffic. A Well Designed and Liveable City The specific design and siting of the development proposed will be considered upon receiving a development application, however, the concept design indicates that the development will be positioned to minimise environmental impacts while meeting engineering and design requirements for Freeway access and egress. A City of Progress and Prosperity The Freeway is the primary transport corridor in the region and an increased traffic volume is expected as regional growth continues. The proposal will contribute to the ongoing function of the Freeway as the primary transport corridor, which will provide support for other

8 investment in the region. The proposal will also lead to employment opportunities directly by providing jobs to the local community. An Easily Accessible City It is important to ensure that appropriate services are available to traffic using the Freeway, and to ensure its ongoing efficiency as the primary transport corridor in the region. The proposal will provide for the needs of Freeway users, and provide a benefit to Lake Macquarie City s economy by capturing some trade from Freeway users that would otherwise occur at the service centres located at Warnervale or Beresfield. 3. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable state environmental planning policies? An assessment has been undertaken to determine the level of consistency the proposal has with relevant State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs). The assessment is provided below. SEPPs Relevance Implications SEPP 1 Development Standards SEPP 33 Hazardous and Offensive Development SEPP 44 Koala Habitat Protection The SEPP provides for flexibility of development standards where justified. The SEPP aims to ensure that a consent authority is adequately informed and has sufficient information to effectively assess an application for development, and to minimise adverse impacts associated with the development. The SEPP aims to provide proper conservation and management of Koala habitat by requiring the identification, conservation, and management of actual and potential Koala habitat. SEPP 1 will be replaced by clause 4.6 of the Standard Instrument LEP. The development process will be more efficient and the intent clearer if subdivision provisions are included in the additional development section of the LEP. The SEPP will need to be considered upon submission of a subsequent application for development. Further investigations will be necessary to support development of the site in this regard, however, these are not considered necessary for the Planning Proposal to proceed. The sites were assessed for activity by Koalas using the following methods: A search of the Bionet Atlas of NSW Wildlife was undertaken to identify records of Koalas in the area. The sites were surveyed on foot to identify the density of tree species listed as Koala food trees in SEPP 44, with any species of Koala food trees being inspected for signs of Koala usage. Trees were inspected and identified for presence of Koalas, scratch and claw marks on the trunk and scats around the base of each tree. The proportion of any trees showing signs of Koala use was calculated for the whole

9 SEPPs Relevance Implications SEPP 55 Remediation of Land The SEPP requires the subject land to be suitable for its intended use in terms of the level of contamination, or where the land is unsuitable due to the level of contamination, remediation measures are required to ensure that the subject land is suitable for its intended use. of the site. The southbound site does not contain potential or core Koala habitat as defined by SEPP 44. Two Koala food tree species Eucalyptus haemastoma and Eucalyptus robusta as listed on Schedule 2 of SEPP 44 were observed within the northbound site. These species constitute more than 15% of the total number of trees in the upper or lower strata of the tree component. Based on the habitat, the site was considered to form potential koala habitat as defined by SEPP 44. No Koalas were observed during the fauna survey and no evidence of Koala habitation, such as scats, claw and scratch marks, were located on the site. The LES has therefore determined that the sites are not considered to form core koala habitat as defined by SEPP 44. Consequently, the proposed rezoning/development is assessed within the LES as being in compliance with the objectives and controls of this SEPP as outlined in the fauna and flora assessment. The proposed zoning/development will be consistent with this SEPP. Contamination assessments were undertaken for both sites by Douglas Partners (February 2013), including field investigations and soil sampling. The assessments identified any potential contaminant sources on-site and off-site. The results indicate an absence of gross contaminants in the soil samples tested in both sites, with the analyte concentrations below the relevant guideline values. The areas of contamination potential, being rubbish dump sites, can be made suitable for the proposed development subject to appropriate management plans and

10 SEPPs Relevance Implications SEPP 64 Advertising and Signage SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 SEPP (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive industries) 2007 The SEPP aims to ensure that signage and advertising, particularly in road corridors, in appropriate to the location and setting of a proposed development. The SEPP aims to provide a consistent planning regime for the delivery of infrastructure. It also provides provision for consultation and assessment. The SEPP aims to manage the development of land for mining, petroleum, and extractive development in a manner that provides social and economic welfare of the State, and provides controls to promote ecologically sustainable development. remediation/validation works, if required, at DA stage. Overall, the LES found the proposal to be suitable for rezoning based on contamination and geotechnical investigations. The SEPP will need to be considered in the design and assessment of any subsequent application for development of the subject land. Development resulting from the proposal is not likely to require implementation of the provisions of the SEPP. This SEPP includes provisions for the compatibility of proposed development with mining, petroleum production or extractive industry. It requires an assessment of compatibility with a development application. The geotechnical and contamination assessment undertaken by Douglas Partners found that: the northbound site lies within the West Lakes mine subsidence district, and is located outside the western edge of the mined area; and the southbound site lies within the West Lakes mine subsidence district and is located within an area which has been previously undermined. Although the southbound site is currently affected by three licences/leases relating to mining and exploration, discussions with Centennial Coal indicate that mining in this locality has ceased. Furthermore, a letter dated 4 December 2012 from the Mining Subsidence Board advised that they had no objection to the proposed rezoning. The MSB indicated that development approval is likely to be given for the proposed development,

11 SEPPs Relevance Implications however will likely be subject to conditions relating to structural engineering issues. Any future development of the southbound site will require approval from the Mine Subsidence Board. 4. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s.117 directions)? An assessment has been undertaken to determine the level of consistency the proposal has with relevant Ministerial Directions. The assessment is provided below. Ministerial Direction 1.1 Business and Industrial Zones 1.2 Rural Zones Relevance Aims to ensure a draft LEP maintains and protects business and industrial lands and that new zones are established in accordance with strategic policy directions. Aims to protect agriculturally productive land by preventing a draft LEP from rezoning land from rural to an urban land use, or intensifying the permissible density of rural land; unless it is consistent with a Department of Planning regional strategy or justified with concurrence from the Director-General. Consistency N/A The Planning Proposal is not proposing to rezone the part of the site subject to the proposed development, however, it will facilitate the development of the site for a service centre, which is considered a more intense land use. This is not consistent with the Direction; however, the proposal is not inconsistent with the objective of the Direction, which is to protect the agricultural production value of rural land. In this regard, the inconsistency is considered to be of minor significance. The subject land is underutilised for agricultural production, and much of the site is vegetated and of high biodiversity value. The proposed use will create local employment opportunities and provide additional services to motorists as growth occurs in the region, and use of the Freeway increases. The proposed subdivision of the land will not result in an increase in density of development. The LEP amendment will need to ensure that the subdivision of residual land will not add to the residential development

12 Ministerial Direction 1.3 Mining, Petroleum Production & Extractive Industries 1.4 Oyster Aquaculture 1.5 Rural Lands 2.1 Environmental Protection Zones 2.2 Coastal Protection Relevance Aims to ensure that the future extraction of State or regionally significant reserves of coal, other minerals, petroleum and extractive materials are not compromised by inappropriate development. Aims to protect Priority Oyster Aquaculture Areas that may be affected by a draft LEP by requiring oyster aquaculture leases to be identified, as well as identification of land uses that may impact on oyster aquaculture activities, and the implementation of measures to mitigate land use conflict. Also requires consultation with the Director-General of the Department of Primary Industries. Aims to protect agricultural production land by requiring a draft LEP affecting rural or environmental protection zones (including changes to minimum lot sizes) to be consistent with the Rural Planning Principles and the Rural Subdivision Principles listed in the SEPP (Rural Lands) Aims to protect and conserve environmentally sensitive land by requiring appropriate provisions in a draft LEP and no reduction in environmental protection standards. Aims to protect the environment and character of coastal areas by requiring a draft LEP to include provisions that are consistent with State Government coastal policy documents. Consistency potential of that residual land. The Director-General agrees that the proposal is of minor significance regarding this direction. This direction is not applicable, as the proposed development will not prohibit the mining of coal or other minerals, production of petroleum, or winning or obtaining of extractive materials, or affect future extraction of State or regionally significant reserves. The Department of Primary Industries did not raise any objection to the proposal. N/A N/A The proposal is consistent with this direction. High value conservation land will be preserved or offset. N/A

13 Ministerial Direction 2.3 Heritage Conservation 2.4 Recreation Vehicle Areas 3.1 Residential Zones 3.2 Caravan Parks and Manufactured Home Estates 3.3 Home Occupations 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport 3.5 Development Near Licensed Relevance Aims to conserve items of environmental heritage by requiring a draft LEP to include provisions to facilitate the protection and conservation of Aboriginal and European heritage items. Aims to protect sensitive land or land with significant conservation values from adverse impacts of recreation vehicles by prohibiting a draft LEP from enabling of a recreation vehicle area in environmentally sensitive locations, and requiring certain matters to be considered in other locations. Aims to facilitate housing choice, efficient use of infrastructure, and reduce land consumption on the urban fringe by requiring certain provisions in a draft LEP. Aims to provide opportunities for caravan parks and manufactured home estates by requiring a draft LEP to maintain provisions and land use zones that allow the establishment of Caravan Parks, and to take into account SEPP 36 when identifying zones and locations for Manufactured Home Estates. Aims to encourage low impact small businesses in dwelling houses by requiring a draft LEP to permit home occupations without consent. Aims to improve access to housing, jobs and services, increase transport choice and reduce motor vehicle use by requiring a draft LEP to be consistent with Improving Transport Choice- Guidelines for Planning and Development, and The Right Place for Business- Planning Policy. Aims to ensure the safe operations of aerodromes, ensure their operation is not Consistency The proposal is consistent with this Direction. Part of the subject land falls within the identified Sensitive Aboriginal Cultural Landscape. As such, an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment has been undertaken, which did not find any items of significance. The proposal is consistent with this Direction and does not include a recreation vehicle area. N/A The proposed amendment is consistent with this Direction, does not affect opportunities for caravan parks or Manufactured Home Estates, and is not applicable to this proposal. The proposed amendment does not relate to dwelling houses and is not applicable to this proposal. N/A N/A

14 Ministerial Direction Aerodromes 3.6 Shooting Ranges 4.1 Acid Sulfate Soils 4.2 Mine Subsidence and Unstable Land 4.3 Flood Prone Land 4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection Relevance compromised by development, and to ensure noise mitigation measures in residential areas affected by aircraft noise by requiring draft LEP preparation to include consultation with the Department of the Commonwealth responsible for aerodromes, as well as the implementation of development controls to mitigate land use conflict and noise impacts. Aims to maintain public safety and minimise land use conflict associated with shooting ranges. Aims to mange adverse impacts arising from the presence of acid sulfate soils by ensuring that Council considers the affect of development on land identified as having a probability of containing acid sulfate soils; and requiring that a draft LEP be consistent with the Acid Sulfate Soils Model Local Environmental Plan; and a range of other matters. Aims to ensure development is appropriate for the potential level of subsidence. The direction requires consultation with the Mine Subsidence Board where a draft LEP is proposed for land within a mine subsidence district. Aims to ensure that LEP provisions are commensurate with flood risk and consistent with the NSW Flood Prone Land Policy and Floodplain Development Manual. Applies where the draft LEP will affect provisions to flood prone land. Aims to reduce risk to life and property from bushfire. Requires an LEP to have regard for Planning for Bushfire Protection, amongst other matters. Applies to land that has been identified as bushfire prone, and requires consultation with the NSW Rural Fire Service, as well as the establishment of Asset Protection Zones. Consistency N/A N/A N/A N/A The proposal is consistent with this Direction. The site contains land identified as bushfire prone land, and Asset Protection Zones and defendable space will be required. Water supply for fire fighting purposes can be provided, and there is capability to provide a secondary access to the site, although this may only be used for emergency

15 Ministerial Direction 5.1 Implementation of Regional Strategies 5.2 Sydney Drinking Water Catchments 5.3 Farmland of State and Regional Significance on the NSW Far North Coast 5.4 Commercial and Retail Development along the Pacific Highway, North Coast 5.5 Development in the vicinity of Ellalong, Paxton and Millfield (Cessnock LGA) 5.6 Sydney to Canberra Corridor 5.7 Central Coast 5.8 Second Sydney Airport: Badgerys Creek 6.1 Approval and Referral Requirements Relevance Aims to give legal effect to regional strategies, by requiring draft LEPs to be consistent with relevant strategies. The direction requires a draft amendment to be consistent with the relevant State strategy that applies to the Local Government Area. Aims to protect water quality in the Sydney drinking water catchment. Aims to maintain agricultural land for future generations and to minimise land use conflicts relating to agricultural activities. Aims to manage retail and commercial development along the Pacific Highway. (Revoked 18 June 2010) (Revoked 10 July 2008) (Revoked 10 July 2008) Aims to avoid incompatible development within the vicinity of the proposed second Sydney airport. Prevents a draft LEP from requiring concurrence from, or referral to, the Minister or a public authority unless approval is obtained from the Minister and public authority concerned. Also restricts the ability of a Council to identify development as designated development without the Director General s Consistency purposes. The proposal is not of a scale to be specifically identified in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy, however, as growth in the region occurs, the proposal will provide some employment opportunities, and will support increased use of the F3 Freeway. The proposal is consistent with the Strategy in this regard. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A The draft amendment is consistent with this requirement and does not propose to require concurrence or referrals, and does not identify development as designated development.

16 Ministerial Direction 6.2 Reserving Land for Public Purposes 6.3 Site Specific Provisions 7.1 Implementation of the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 Relevance agreement. Aims to facilitate the reservation of land for public purposes, and to facilitate the removal of such reservations where the land is no longer required for acquisition. A Council must seek the Minster s or public authority s agreement to create, alter, or reduce existing zonings or reservations in an LEP. A Council can also be requested to rezone or remove a reservation by the above. Aims to reduce restrictive sitespecific planning controls where a draft LEP amends another environmental planning instrument in order to allow a particular development proposal to proceed. Draft LEPs are encouraged to use existing zones rather than have site-specific exceptions. Aims to give legal effect to the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney Consistency This Direction is not applicable to this proposal and will not have implications for public land reservations. The proposal is not consistent with this direction, however, it is considered to be of minor significance. The subject land is appropriate for providing the very specific use of a service centre to support the ongoing function of the F3 Freeway as the primary regional transport corridor, however, broader uses that would be supported by applying an existing zone and associated uses in the land use table, may lead to inappropriate use of the site. An enabling clause is the only appropriate path in facilitating the proposed service centre. The Director-General agrees that the proposal is of minor significance regarding this direction. N/A C. Environmental, social and economic impact 1. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal? A flora and fauna assessment was undertaken for the subject sites by Conacher Environmental Group, which determined that the proposal will not result in any significant ecological impacts. The assessment reviewed existing information including regional and

17 local biodiversity strategies, available literature and studies, flora and fauna databases such as BioNet Bionet Atlas of NSW Wildlife, and aerial photography. In addition, field surveys were undertaken in accordance with the Lake Macquarie City Council Flora and Fauna Survey Guidelines (2012). The Local Environmental Study found as follows: Northbound The proposed development, which is the intended outcome of the Planning Proposal, is not likely to have a significant effect on threatened species, populations, endangered ecological communities or their habitats. Careful selection of the development pad site has occurred to avoid important biodiversity on site. In summary the pad site location: Does not contain any EECs. Does not contain any threatened flora or fauna species. Contains 11 hollow bearing trees, which would be offset by the retention of the remaining 37 hollow bearing trees on site of which 22 would be placed in the conservation zone to be conserved permanently and in perpetuity. Contains 1.1ha of Dry Open Forest (Coastal Plains Scribbly Gum Woodland) which would be offset by the retention of at least 2.75ha of like-for-like vegetation in the conservation zone thus satisfying the required 2:1 offset ratio. Contains some Disturbed Land with Scattered Trees vegetation community which is not considered as a valuable community as the EECs and native vegetation, and for which offsets are not required because of the cleared and disturbed nature of the land. A 2.75ha offset area has been identified in the north-western corner of the site, which contains Dry Open Forest Vegetation and some 22 hollow bearing trees. This land is proposed to be contained with a conservation zone and therefore provides a satisfactory offset for the proposed clearing in the pad site. Southbound The proposed development, which is the intended outcome of the Planning Proposal, is not likely to have a significant effect on threatened species, populations, endangered ecological communities or their habitats. Careful selection of the development pad site has occurred so to avoid important biodiversity on site, and where impacts have been unavoidable, necessary mitigation measures have been implemented. In summary the pad site location: Contains 0.3ha of Disturbed Melaleuca Shrubland (Paperbark Swamp Forest) Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplain EEC, which would be removed. The overall retention of 1.5ha of combined EEC on site means an offset ratio of 5:1 for EECs is achieved as required under Council s biodiversity offset policy. Contains 0.4ha of Dry Open Forest (Coastal Plains Scribbly Gum Woodland) and 0.3ha of Regrowth Heath, for which 1.75ha of offset area would be required. Whilst the entire 1.75ha of offset area is not contained in the conservation zone, it is noted that there is ample supply of Dry Open Forest and regrowth in the southwest corner of the site, outside of the development pad site, which will be retained in its current rural zone. To zone this portion as conservation would result in an unusual zoning pattern with a pocket of conservation land surrounded entirely by rural lands (both on and off site). The concept plan does not envisage any development outside of the pad site, thus there will be ample Dry Open Forest and Regrowth Heath vegetation retained on site. Does not contain any Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora. Does not contain any habitat trees, tree hollows and other habitat attributes, and does not contain any nest trees for forest owls.

18 Contains 1ha of Threatened Species Habitats which would be required to be cleared as part of the future development. However, 2ha of this vegetation is proposed to be retained in the proposed conservation zone which means the required offset ratio is achieved. An area of approximately 3ha is proposed to be zoned as conservation. This area contains the highest concentration of valuable vegetation on site, being the majority of the site s Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs) as well as some Wetland Vegetation (Freshwater Wetland Complex), some Regrowth Heath and some Dry Open Forest. 2. Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed? In addition to the management of biodiversity, further studies have been completed to support the proposal as part of the detailed Local Environmental Study. The findings were as follows: Geotechnical and Contamination A preliminary geotechnical and contamination assessment was undertaken for the subject sites by Douglas Partners. The results indicate that the sites are considered suitable for development as the soil and groundwater contamination risk is generally low and in parts of the sites is moderate. Additional field work and soil sampling was undertaken as a second phase of the environmental assessment to ascertain the actual on-site contamination risks. These results indicate an absence of gross contaminants in the soil samples tested. At Development Application stage a management plan may be required to manage areas where possible contamination from dumping of rubbish may be present. However, these issues do not inhibit the rezoning/development of the site in accordance with the concept plan. Overall, contamination will not present a constraint to development. For the northbound site, removal of the existing dam and any accumulated sediment is recommended during future site preparation and earthworks. Flooding, Drainage and Hydrology Flooding, hydrology and water resource management studies have been undertaken by Northrop to determine whether flooding has any impact on the sites, and whether it is feasible to implement Council s policies relating to stormwater management. For the northbound site, flooding is caused by both flooding of local upstream catchments, as well as the regional Jigadee Creek catchment. The flood extent on site does not impact on the proposed development layout, as shown in the concept plan, and no significant impacts to flood level upstream or downstream of the subject site are expected due to the proposed development. For the southbound site, the flood extent does not impact on the proposed development layout, as shown in the concept plan, and no significant impacts to flood level upstream or downstream of the subject site are expected due to the proposed development. Stormwater management techniques have been considered as part of the investigation, with reference to Council s current policies and guidelines. A number of potential options have been considered and documented in the LES, and are suitable for implementation on the subject site. Once treatment measures in line with Council s policies are implemented, the water quality leaving the site post development would be considered to be of an acceptable standard, and for the southbound site superior to the current situation. Through a review of these flooding and stormwater management issues, it is considered that it will be feasible to implement Council s policies as part of future development of the sites, with a high level of water management to protect downstream ecosystems. The Planning Proposal is therefore considered appropriate from a flooding and stormwater management perspective. Bushfire Hazard A bushfire assessment was undertaken for the subject sites by Conacher Environmental Group. The purpose of the assessment was to detail the bushfire hazard investigation for the

19 sites and address the relevant requirements of Planning for Bushfire Protection (PBP) (Rural Fire Service, 2006). Part of the northbound site is mapped as bushfire prone land by Council. The majority of the site is mapped as Category 1 vegetation, with some areas that are less heavily vegetated mapped as either Category 2 or located within a 100m buffer area to Category 1 vegetation. The majority of the southbound site, with the exception of the cleared area in the central part of the site, is mapped as bushfire prone land. The majority of the bushfire prone land is mapped as being land located within a 100m buffer area to Category 1 vegetation. The southeast corner of the site, as well as small pockets adjacent to the northern boundary, are located within an area mapped as Category 1 vegetation. The assessment has concluded that with the implementation and maintenance of appropriate separation distances (i.e. defendable space) between buildings and bushfire hazards, as well as the implementation of other measures as suggested above, the overall aims and objectives of PBP can be achieved with the future development of the site (as envisaged in the concept plan). Aboriginal Archaeology A due diligence Aboriginal archaeological assessment was undertaken for the sites by Streat Archaeological Services in conjunction with Archaeological Management and Consulting Group. Site inspections were also undertaken on the 15th and 16th of January 2013 by archaeologist Benjamin Streat of Streat Archaeological Services together with representatives of all registered stakeholder groups. No new or previously recorded Aboriginal archaeological or Cultural Sites were located as part of these site inspections on either site. Results of these inspections indicate that the sites are disturbed and do not contain any Aboriginal archaeological objects or deposits. Results of the field work indicate: No new open artefact Scatters; No new isolated artefacts; No grinding grooves; No stone resource sites; No scarred trees; No sandstone shelters; No burials; and No ceremonial or social sites. There are also no Aboriginal archaeological sites or places recorded within the sites according to the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) or from other relevant sources of information. More general desktop analysis, not based on the site inspection, revealed that there is a record of one confirmed Aboriginal archaeological site containing a potential archaeological deposit located within the vicinity (100m) of the sites, according to a search of the AHIMS (SITE ). That site is located on an unnamed tributary of Dora Creek to the south east of the subject site. The background desktop research also suggests that parts of the sites that are undisturbed and which contain certain landscape features, being streams/creeklines and/or ridge tops, ridge lines or headlands, have some potential for open artefact scatters, potential archaeological deposits and isolated finds. Notwithstanding many other types of archaeological finds are unlikely to be located at the sites because the type of soil landscape is not supportive of, or conducive to, these finds. As such there is no likelihood for any of the following types of Archaeological finds at the site: Grinding Grooves, Stone Resource Sites, Scarred Trees, Sandstone Shelter sites or Burial sites. Ceremonial/Social Sites are also unlikely to be present at the site.

20 Overall it is concluded that disturbed areas of the site should be utilised for the proposed future development pad site, as far as possible, as disturbed areas do not have archaeological potential. It is recommended that if any future development which proposes to impact undisturbed areas of the site where there is archaeological potential (based on a landscape feature identified above), further archaeological and cultural assessment should be undertaken at DA stage in accordance with Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales, Part 6 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (DECCW 2010). This further assessment should include a full archaeological assessment including full Aboriginal community consultation in accordance with the National Parks and Wildlife Act Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents (DECCW 2010). Traffic Traffic studies for both sites have been prepared by Cardno. The traffic studies document the existing traffic conditions referencing the Council s DCP, RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, Austroads Guide to Traffic Management and relevant previous studies (e.g. F3 Sydney to Newcastle Kariong Interchange Paramics Modelling Cardno, September 2012). The purpose of the studies was to evaluate the impact of traffic associated with the future development of the land as a highway service centre as well as provide recommended access arrangements. No issues have been raised in the reports that would impact the development of the proposed highway service centres. However, a number of issues have been raised that would need to be address and catered for at future detailed design stage. They include: The location of on and off ramps must continue to comply with RMS and Austroads road safety requirements. Safe ramp access, in terms of ramp location, length, gradient, safety and link to and from the F3, will be an overarching issue for the highway service centre at detailed design stage. The proposed development scenario should provide approximately 101 public car parking spaces, 20 staff car parking spaces, 8 caravan/coach parking spaces and 11 B-Double parking spaces. Cars using the drive-thru area should be diverted to the outside circulation road, as opposed to the main car park, using line-marking and signage, in order to provide guidance to motorists manoeuvring in the site. It is proposed that the car parking circulation function as a one-way operation, in a clockwise loop to reduce the potential risks of conflicts and collisions within the car park. A range of road safety items must be catered for on-site to ensure general road safety for vehicles from the F3 Freeway entering and exiting the highway service centre and within the highway service centre site, such as adequate sight distances, signage, separation of light and heavy vehicles and traffic calming measures. Infrastructure An infrastructure services report was prepared by Barket Ryan Stewart for both sites. The reports build on infrastructure reports previous prepared by Cardno (December 2009 and July 2012). The purpose of the reports was to identify the type and extent of publiclyprovided services needed to support proposed development at the sites, including road upgrade and maintenance, potable water and water effluent system management, as well as examine staging options in accordance with infrastructure capacity. The reports conclude that provision of infrastructure can be accommodated within the development area for both sites. Key issues are summarised as follows: Potable water there are nearby viable connection points to potable water to service the lots. Sewer neither site is currently connected to Hunter Water s sewer system, however consultation with Hunter Water suggests a number of potential connection points to

21 connect to the Hunter Water sewer system. A wastewater servicing strategy should be prepared at DA stage in order to review of the possible servicing options and the most appropriate and preferred option. An alternative to a connection to the Hunter Water sewer network is the use of an on-site effluent disposal system, however this is not preferred. Electricity Connection to Energy Australia s network to service the southbound site will be to the existing 11kV aerial service that runs along the unformed road along the southern boundary of the site. For the northbound site, connection to Energy Australia s network will be to the existing 11kV aerial service traversing within the site. Endeavour Energy has indicated that the developer will be required to construct an 800kVA pad mount substation for the site. Telecommunications Telstra have advised that their network can be upgraded to provide the required telecommunications services to the sites. Telstra will undertake a Business Plan assessment for the sites once details of the development are confirmed. Natural gas Initial conclusions are that servicing the site with gas within a reasonable timeframe and budget will be difficult and hence planning should process on the basis that energy supply will be from the electrical grid or by on-site LPG tanks. The proponent will continue to liaise with the supply authorities as the Planning Proposal progresses and through to DA stage. How has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects? The detailed Local Environmental Study for the proposal included the assessment of social and economic impacts and found the proposal can be supported as follows: Social Impact An overview of the social effects of the proposed development was prepared by Elton Consulting. It provided an understanding of the existing community in the vicinity of the proposed development sites, key issues and potential impacts that are relevant at this stage of the assessment process. Based on the information available from demographic analysis, planning documents, specialty study findings and advice from Lake Macquarie City Council, this study has identified and examined a variety of social factors associated with the development of the proposed highway service centre. Key social benefits and issues that have been highlighted are outlined below: The development will provide access to highway service centre facilities, including fuel, a convenience shop, restaurant and café, toilets, parking and a children s play area for motorists travelling on the F3 thus, providing an opportune safety stop location. Access to these facilities will be available to local residents from an alternative access road to the east of the site, but there will be no through vehicle access onto the F3 Freeway from the local area. Issues which could nevertheless create adverse social impacts include: For the northbound site, there is potential for amenity impacts such as noise for predominantly one resident to the west, but is mitigated through noise attenuation measures. For the southbound site, the nearest residential properties to the proposed development site are at a distance of around 800m, and as such as unlikely to experience direct impacts such as noise or adverse effects from light spill.

22 There may be some potential safety impacts associated with storage and use of hazardous substances, however this will be addressed to comply with Australian Standards and the Relevant SEPP at the DA stage. Construction impacts are possible, primarily for residents of nearby properties for the northbound site, however this is for the duration of construction only and the noise report indicates that the construction noise levels are well within acceptable standards. Noise and Vibration Impact A noise and vibration impact assessment (NVIA) was prepared by SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd for both sites. The objectives of the NVIA were to identify the potential noise and vibration impacts from construction and operation of the twin highway service centre on the nearest most potentially affected receivers. Existing development surrounding the northbound site includes some residential areas. The impact of future operation of a highway service centre has been assessed in relation to the noise impacts on the properties. The assessment has factored in the current noise levels affecting the sites from the F3 Freeway and other noise generators. For the northbound site, three residential receiver locations were used to assess noise impact. The noise predictions indicate that noise emissions from the proposed highway service centre would exceed target noise criteria at Receiver 1 for during the day, evening and night time periods, and at Receiver 2 during day and night time periods. Noise levels at Receiver 3 are predicted to satisfy noise criteria at all times. To mitigate this impact, a 3m high continuous noise barrier measuring 160m in length and located on the western side of the highway service centre location from the truck refuelling area to the drive-thru area, will be incorporated at DA stage. Options for the design of the noise barrier could include a wall constructed from concrete or timber or of transparent panels to retain visual amenity; earth mounds to the required height finished with landscaping or; a combination of the above. For the southbound site, noise predictions indicate that noise emissions from operation of the proposed highway service centre would comply with noise criteria for operation during the day, evening and night. During construction, noise levels are predicted to meet the construction noise criteria during all construction scenarios for both sites. Economic Impacts The proposal is expected to generate a large number of new skilled and unskilled jobs during construction and operation. These may be filled by local residents or residents from elsewhere in Lake Macquarie or surrounding areas. It is estimated that the development could generate approximately 472 jobs in construction, 99 ongoing jobs and 183 jobs via the multiplier effect. D. State and Commonwealth interests 1. Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal? Infrastructure investigations and consultation with service authorities has indicated that adequate services are available to support the proposed development as follows: Potable water supply The sites are within the Morisset-Wyee water supply system area and could potentially be supplied from the Dora Creek Reservoir located near Hawkmount Road.

23 For the northbound site, the nearest potential points of connection to potable water is a DN300mm water main running along the northern verge of Newport Road at the southern frontage for the site and a DN150mm main located on Freemans Drive, west of the site. The preferred point of connection for the proposed development is to the DN300mm main located at the southern frontage of the site given its close vicinity to the site. For the southbound site, the nearest potential points of connection to potable water is a DN300mm water main running along the western verge of Hawkmount Road at the Dora Creek Reservoir and a DN150mm main located on Freemans Drive, approximately 900m west of the subject site. A letter from Hunter Water dated 3 October 2012 indicated the preferred point of connection for the highway service centre site is to the DN300mm main located at the Dora Creek Reservoir. Connection to this service would require the installation of approximately 1,150m of DN150mm main within Hawkmount Road and the unformed road alongside the southern boundary of the site. There is an alternative connection point from Freemans Drive where there is the provision of a 150DN main, however, this is located on the western side of the freeway and is not considered a viable option. Sewer servicing The existing sites are not presently connected to Hunter Water s sewer systems, however advice from Hunter Water indicates there is capacity at the nearest Waste Water Treatment Plant (Dora Creek) to service the sites. Allocation of spare capacity will be distributed on a first come, first served basis. For both sites, it is recommended that a wastewater servicing strategy is prepared prior to DA to review the possible servicing options and the most appropriate and preferred options for development. An alternative to a connection to the Hunter Water sewer network is the use of an on-site effluent disposal system, however this is not preferred. Northbound: There are several feasible options to service the site for waste water disposal. The nearest potential sewer connection points for the site is the dead end (DE) sewer located in Lot 1 DP , 267 Newport Road, approximately 120m from the site boundary. Approximately 120m of sewer lead in works is required to link the proposed development to Dora Creek Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) via the existing gravity sewer network. This connection point lies within the Cooranbong 9 Waste Water Pump Station (WWPS). A second potential sewer connection point is to the existing DE located approximately 600m west of the site at Lot 122 DP , 764 Freemans Drive. This gravity main drains to the Cooranbong 8 WWPS. This sewer then connects to the WWPS which lies within the Dora Creek Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) catchment. Hunter Water indicates that the developer will need to investigate upsizing the impellor or the pumps in the Cooranbong 9 WWPS as the existing pump system has not been designed for the addition of this proposed development. An alternative to this option include a connection to the existing sewer located at 764 Freemans Drive via a public road reserve that runs along the northern site boundary Southbound: In 2009, Hunter Water advised that there is capacity at the nearest Waste Water Treatment Plant (Dora Creek) to service the proposed southbound site. Subsequently, a letter from Hunter Water dated 3 October 2012 indicated that the nearest point for sewer connection is on the western side of the Freeway. Based on investigations of the nearby sewer network and correspondence from Hunter Water there are several feasible options to service the site for waste water disposal. These include: A DE connection point located in Lot 1 DP , 267 Newport Road is within the Cooranbong 9 Waste Water Pump Station (WWPS). The distance of this service from the subject site is approximately 1,800m. Connection to the sewer main at this location will require a private pump to sewer arrangement. A second potential sewer connection point is to the existing DE located approximately 600m west of the site. This is the nearest connection point to the site. This gravity

24 main drains to the Cooranbong 8 WWPS. This sewer then connects to the WWPS which lies within the Dora Creek WWTW catchment. The most viable option for sewer system upgrades, as indicated by Hunter Water, is the first option; connection to the DE connection point located in Lot 1 DP within the Cooranbong 9 WWPS. Hunter Water indicates that hydraulic analysis suggests there is sufficient capacity within the network, although the developer will need to investigate upsizing the impellor or the pumps in the Cooranbong 9 WWPS as the existing system has not been designed for the addition of this proposed development. Electrical servicing Based on the Energy Australia (Endeavour Energy) plans supplied for a nearby development, there is an 11kV service in the vicinity of both sites. Connection to Energy Australia s network to service the sites will be to this existing 11kV aerial service. It has been indicated that the developer will be required to construct high voltage feeder cables within the southbound site from the connection point to the development. A new 800kVA kiosk substation will be required to transform the power supply to 415vac for the future highway service station development. A 5.3m long by 3.3m wide easement will be required at the site of the substation. Minimum clearances to the aerial cables should be maintained to prevent or limit any filling with in the easement. Right of carriageway s will be required to enable Endeavour Energy access to the kiosk substations on both sites. A 60m wide Transgrid transmission line easement bisects both sites. Transgrid has confirmed that the easement is required for future provision of transmission lines to the nearby Eraring Power Station and as such Transgrid is not in a position to reconsider any proposal to have the easement extinguished. A letter from Transgrid has been received indicating that development of car parks, driveways and the like, can occur within the easement. Telecommunications Telstra have advised that their network can be upgraded to provide the required telecommunications services to the sites. They will undertake a Business Plan assessment for the site once details of the development are confirmed. Natural gas supply The nearest gas main to the site is the Sydney Newcastle primary gas main. The closest gas reticulation network is located in Morisset approximately 7km to the south of the Site. Connection to this main to service the site would be very costly and involve a planning, design and construction phase of at least 24 months. The only other alternative is a potential future extension of the Morisset gas network to Cooranbong; however timing for this work is presently unknown. Initial conclusions are that servicing the site with gas within a reasonable timeframe and budget will be difficult and hence planning should process on the basis that energy supply will be from the electrical grid or by on-site LPG tanks. The proponent will continue to liaise with the supply authorities as the Planning Proposal progresses. Roads The RMS has requested that both sites be rezoned concurrently and have indicated they would strongly oppose any proposal for a highway service centre on one side of the Freeway only. The RMS in a letter dated 16 September 2012 to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, advised that the most recent strategic concept designs for the northbound and southbound ramps connecting to the F3 Freeway generally meet the required guidelines subject to a number of matters being addressed. Consultation with RMS will continue to be undertaken to firm up the detailed design and development of the concept plans through to DA stage. 2. What are the views of State and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the gateway determination? Consultation with agencies and service authorities has been undertaken with the following:

25 Department of Planning and Infrastructure Roads and Maritime Services Hunter Water Corporation Office of Environment and Heritage Hunter Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority Department of Primary Industries Rural Fire Service Mine Subsidence Board Responses were received from the following: Department of Planning and Infrastructure The Gateway Determination allowed the proposal to proceed to public exhibition with conditions, which have been met. Mine Subsidence Board No objections were raised. The applicant will be required to seek approval for development of the subject land. Office of Environment and Heritage The response outlined the need for the improve or maintain principle to be met in terms of biodiversity, which could be achieved through on-site biodiversity offsetting. A range of options have been discussed, with the proponent agreeing to provide a Statement of Commitments to deliver offset land on-site and to implement a five year vegetation management plan, which is to be submitted with a subsequent development application. A requirement to undertake an Aboriginal archaeological assessment has also been met, with no items of significance being found on the subject land. Rural Fire Service The response outlined a requirement to meet the Planning for Bushfire Protection guidelines as well as the need to address the planning principles which would exclude inappropriate development in bush fire prone areas. A report completed by Conacher has addressed these matters, and has concluded that the proposal can adequately cater for asset protection, and fire fighting needs. Roads and Maritime Services The response advised that the concept design regarding the access ramps for the proposal are satisfactory, however, these comments are preliminary only. Further advice will be required as the matter progresses. The proponent will be required to consult further with Roads and Maritime Service through the remainder of the LEP amendment process and at the development application stage to ensure compliance with design requirements. Hunter Water Corporation The response indicated that Hunter Water Corporation has no objections to the proposal, however, further consultation will be required at the development application stage. The response also outlined the availability of service infrastructure as previously addressed in this report.

26 Part 4 Details of Community Consultation There has been no previous public consultation regarding this planning proposal. The Gateway Determination established a public exhibition period of 28 days. This is considered adequate for this scale of land use amendment in the context of the locality. The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition between 13 April and 13 May 2013 with nearby residents, State agencies, and the Local Member being notified. The following responses were received: Mine Subsidence Board No objections, however, the applicant is to seek approval for the subdivision or the erection of improvements. Response N/A. Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) OEH have been involved throughout the process and have relative acceptance of the biodiversity offsets provided, however, it has advised that a mechanism to secure the offset in-perpetuity should be provided. The offsets do not meet the BioBanking Assessment Methodology, in terms of the calculated offset ratios, and OEH have advised this will be applied to the proposal at the development application stage if there is no formal agreement to secure the offsets. Response Advice received from Council s Sustainability department indicates that the biodiversity offsets provided are acceptable with the exception of a mechanism to secure the offsets. The proponent offered dedication of the offset areas to Council, however, this was determined not to be acceptable in the absence of an endowment fund for maintenance. The proponent has been requested to secure the offsets through a section 88B-E positive covenant under the Conveyancing Act 1919 by Council staff and OEH. This has not been agreed to. OEH have advised that in the absence of a formal agreement for the security of biodiversity offsets in-perpetuity, it is likely that more stringent requirements will need to be met at the development application stage under the Threatened Species Conservation Act It is also likely that staff would recommend a condition of consent requiring the establishment of a section 88B-E positive covenant to secure the offset areas at the development application stage. The submissions received from residents and the Cooranbong Chamber of Commerce object to the proposal and are relatively consistent in the concerns raised. The issues raised include the following: Cooranbong Chamber of Commerce The submission questions the legitimacy of employment opportunities for locals and has no advantage to the local community. The submission also raises concerns with access to the development, potential loss of property value and lifestyle through noise, light and particulate pollution. Residents The primary focus of the submissions is concern regarding the potential loss of amenity and possible sleep disturbance impacts on nearby residents due primarily to potential noise and light from the proposed development. Concerns are also raised regarding potential loss of property value, social disruption, particulate pollution, stormwater runoff, sewerage management, local access, and lack of local community benefit from the proposal. Response The proposal includes access for local traffic to the highway service centre by way of a separate road and car park, which would not be connected to the road and parking for Freeway traffic. Consultation with the Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) has resulted in advice that the local road network should not be connected to the Freeway. Concerns relating to potential loss of amenity of residents near the northbound site should be considered further, however, consideration of the potential impact requires detailed design plans and supporting documentation, which is usually provided via a development application. A Noise and vibration Assessment was undertaken as part of the LES, which demonstrated that the proposal would meet the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

27 The proponent s response to submissions indicates the Noise and Vibration Assessment meets policy requirements, and that noise levels are predicted to be below existing ambient noise levels. This is due to the affect of the proposed 160 metre long and 3 metre high noise attenuation barrier on existing Freeway traffic noise. Advice received from Council s Waste, Environment, and Rangers Department confirmed that the noise impacts modelled in the Noise and Vibration Assessment meet the NSW Industrial Noise Policy. The advice also indicated that despite the proposed implementation of a noise attenuation barrier, the immediately adjoining resident to the northbound site is likely to experience a loss of amenity as only limited relief will be provided from vehicles close to the barrier. The advice also suggests that heavy vehicles using the exit road are likely to have an affect due to this part of the site being elevated. In order to examine the potential impact, detailed design plans need to be considered through a development assessment process. The additional design effort needed to prepare a development application provides the proponent the opportunity to further consider the design and materials that may be capable of mitigating the potential loss of amenity and address concerns raised by submissions. The issue of community benefit includes consideration of the likely benefit of the proposed services for motorists in addition to potential impact on nearby residents. Advice from Council s Rezoning Advisory Panel indicate the proposed service centre is located in a fatigue zone, and the proposal would provide a rest revive survive point. A development assessment process would enable consideration of the likely benefit to motorists and potential impacts of the proposal. In terms of other issues raised in submissions, the potential impact cannot be determined without further design work being completed by the proponent. The statutory LEP amendment process provides for an assessment of land use capability and environmental constraints. In order to support a development assessment process pursuant to section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act 1979), draft Amendment No. 76 would need to be completed. The amendment would make the proposed development permissible with consent, and would enable a development application to be assessed. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure advised at a meeting held on 4 June 2013 that specific development impacts raised in submissions should be assessed pursuant to the section 79C development assessment process. Adoption of draft Amendment No. 76 would also provide the developer with some certainty in terms of justifying expenditure relating to the preparation of a development application and detailed design work.

28 Part 5 Attachments Figure 1: Subject Land Locality Map

29 Figure 2: Aerial Photograph and Concept Plan for Proposed Service Centre (source: Elton Consulting Planning Proposal May 2012) Figure 3: Existing Zone Distribution LMLEP 2004

30 Figure 4: Proposed Zone Distribution LMLEP 2004

31 Figure 5: Proposed LMLEP 2004 Additional Permitted Uses Maps

32 Figure 5: Draft LMLEP 2013 Additional Permitted Uses Maps

33 Figure 6: Proposed Zone Distribution Draft LMLEP 2013

34 Figure 7: Draft LMLEP 2013 Building Height Maps

35 Figure 8: Draft LMLEP 2013 Minimum Lot Size Map

36 Figure 9: Sensitive Aboriginal Cultural Landscape Map

37 Northbound Site Images Part of site that will be subject to development consistent with concept plan

38

39

40 Southbound Site Images

41

42