BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL
13.22 - Attachment 1
Planning proposal
for rezoning of land at
Granuaille Crescent, Bangalow
Exhibition Version (#E2015/73577)
Byron Shire Council
Authority ref: 26.2014.14.1
November 2015
This page has been intentionally left blank
BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL
13.22 - Attachment 1
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Purpose
1.2. Planning context
1.3. Background
2. Site Description
2.1. The Subject Land
2.2. Current Zones and Controls
3. Planning Proposal
Part 1 Objectives and Intended Outcomes
Part 2 Explanation of the Provisions
Part 3 Justification
Section A Need for the planning proposal
Section B Relationship to strategic planning framework
Section C Environmental, social and economic impact
Section D State and Commonwealth interests
Part 4 Mapping
Part 5 Community consultation
Part 6 Project timeline
Conclusion
List of maps
Map 1 Site Locality Map – subject land is outlined in red……………………………………………2
Map 2 Subject land outlined in red…………………………………………………………………......2
Map 3 Current LEP 2014 Zoning…………………………………………………………………….....3
List of Tables
Table 1 Assessment against Sustainability Criteria……………………………………………………5
Table 2 Consistency with Community Strategic Plan………………………………………………….8
Table 3 Assessment against Section 117 Directions………………………………………………...10
Attachments
Attachment 1: Approved Subdivision Plan……………………………………………………………….
13.22 - Attachment 1
1.1. Purpose
The purpose of this planning proposal is to amend Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 so that land located at Granuaille Crescent; Bangalow is rezoned from RU1 Primary Production to R2 Low Density Residential. The planning proposal also seeks to apply a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.5:1 and a Minimum Lot Size (MLS) of 600 square metres to the subject land. The subject land is described as part of Lot 232 DP 1194657, part of Lot 231 DP 1194657 and part of Lot 233 DP 1194657 as shown in Maps 1 and 2.
This planning proposal was initially prepared by Planners North on behalf of Instant Steel Pty Ltd for land at Lot 232 DP 1194657, Granuaille Crescent, Bangalow. The proposal requests the rezoning of part of Lot 232 DP 1194657 from RU1 Primary Production to R2 Low Density Residential; apply a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.5:1; and apply a Minimum Lot Size (MLS) of 600 square metres. At the Byron Shire Council Meeting of 27 August 2015, Council considered the planning proposal and resolved:
15- 389 Resolved
1. That Council proceed with the planning proposal to rezone part of Lot 232 DP 1194657, Bangalow (as identified in Map 1 of this report), to R2; and apply FSR of 0.5;1 and MLS of 600 sq metres.
2. That Council amend the planning proposal to include the rezoning of part of Lot 231 and part of Lot 233 of DP 1194657, Bangalow, (as identified in Map 1 of this report), to R2; and apply FSR of 0.5;1 and MLS of 600 sq metres.
3. That Council ensure that the planning proposal is consistent with Gateway determination and/or Council requirements prior to public exhibition.
In accordance with the Council resolution the planning proposal has been amended to include the additional land referred to in 2. of the above resolution.
A residential subdivision of Lot 232 DP 1194657 was approved in December 2014 for four residential lots zoned R2 ranging in size from 656 to 958m2 and one lot of 3,709m2 that contains both R2 and residual RU1 rural zoned land. The rural land is a legacy of a previous rezoning in which this portion was deemed too steep to be rezoned for residential development. The remnant rural land is surrounded on three sides by residential land and is of insufficient size to be productive agricultural land. The approved subdivision designated dwelling envelopes and required a Section 88B instrument to restrict dwellings to these dwelling envelopes (refer to Attachment 1 for the approved plan of subdivision).
The Statement of Environmental Effects accompanying the DA stated the applicant intends to lodge a subdivision application in the future, to create the ‘Ultimate Subdivision of the land’, to include steep sections of RU1 land in the residential lots. Council advised the applicant that a clearer way to achieve the development sought would be to amend the Byron LEP 2014 to rezone the steep portion of the lot from RU1 to R2, subject to a Section 88 instrument that excludes buildings on the land, and then submit a further subdivision application.
In addition, Council staff considered that two small adjacent areas zoned RU1 should also be included in the R2 Low Density Residential zone at this location. Council resolution (15-389), as included above, expands the land subject to this planning proposal to also include part of Lot 231 DP 1194657 and part of Lot 233 DP 1194657. The latter is a small rectangular piece immediately south of Lot 232 and a narrow strip located between Lot 232 and the R2 Low Density Residential zoned land to the east as shown in the Maps 1 and 2 below.
Map 1 Site Locality Map – subject land is outlined in red
Map 2 Subject land outlined in red
The subject land, as illustrated in Map 2 above, is located at the northern entrance of the village of Bangalow in the vicinity of the Bangalow Reservoir site. The land is vacant with no significant vegetation. Parts of the subject land are steep being greater than 30% slopes. It has an approximate area of 3,170 square metres comprising:
· part of Lot 232 DP 1194657: - 2,445 square metres
· part of Lot 231 DP 1194657 - 510 square metres
· part of Lot 233 DP 1194657 - 215 square metres
It is bounded by an existing residential subdivision to the west, south and east, and rural zoned land and Council’s water tower to the north (refer to Map 3).
2.2. Current Zones and Controls
The subject land is zoned RU1 Primary Production under Byron LEP 2014. The Minimum Lot Size for the RU1 zone is 40 hectares. No FSR applies currently to the RU1 land.
Part 1 Objectives and Intended Outcomes
The primary objective of this planning proposal is to zone the subject land from RU1 Primary Production to R2 Low Density Residential under Byron Local Environmental Plan 2014 (LEP 2014).
The area proposed to be zoned R2 is small, is surrounded by residential zoned land on three sides, is not used for agriculture due to its limited size, and has no significant environmental values. It is a logical “rounding off” of an existing urban area.
Part 2 Explanation of the Provisions
The intended outcomes are to be achieved by an amendment to Byron Shire LEP 2014 by:
· Applying a zoning of R2 Low Density Residential to the subject land;
· Applying a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 to the subject land; and
· Applying a minimum lot size of 600 square metres to the subject land.
Section A Need for the planning proposal
No. The planning proposal to rezone the subject land is a consequence of a residential subdivision approval for Lot 232 DP1194657. In addition, Council resolved that two small adjacent areas should be included in the R2 Low Density Residential zone at this location.
The subject land is currently zoned RU1 but is of insufficient size to be productive agricultural land. The RU1 zone is meant to identify rural land that is capable of sustainable primary industries. The zone permits a wide range of uses that would not be appropriate within close proximity to existing residential neighbourhoods including intensive livestock and plant agriculture and rural industries.
The subject land is surrounded on three sides by land zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The objectives and permitted uses of the R2 zone are appropriate for this serviced land in a residential neighbourhood on the edge of Bangalow.
The planning proposal is the only way to change the land zoning and planning controls applying to the subject land.
Section B Relationship to strategic planning framework
Far North Coast Regional Strategy
The Far North Coast Regional Strategy (FNCRS) identifies the Town and Village Growth Boundary for Bangalow. The subject land falls just outside this boundary. Zoning this land for residential purposes is therefore inconsistent with the FNCRS. However, the site is classified as “non –coastal” under the FNCRS because it is located west of the Pacific Highway. A residential zone outside of the Town and Village Growth Boundary must be assessed against the Sustainability Criteria set out in the FNCRS; that assessment is provided in Table 1 below.
In this case the area of the proposed R2 zone is small and is a logical “rounding off” of an existing urban area rather than a genuine greenfield site.
Table 1 Assessment against Sustainability Criteria
|
Threshold Sustainability Criteria for any proposed development site outside designated areas In regional strategies |
Measurable explanation of criteria |
Comments |
|
1. Infrastructure Provision Mechanisms in place to ensure utilities, transport, open space and communication are provided in a timely and efficient way
|
· Development is consistent with the outcomes of Far North Coast Regional Strategy, any subregional strategy, regional infrastructure plan and relevant section 117 direction/s. · The provision of infrastructure (utilities, transport, open space, and communications) is costed and economically feasible based on Government methodology for determining infrastructure development contributions. · Preparedness to enter into development agreement |
· No change in the density or utilisation level of the land is anticipated as a consequence of the Planning Proposal. |
|
2. Access Accessible transport options for efficient and sustainable travel between homes, jobs, services and recreation to be existing or provided |
· Accessibility of the area by public transport and/or appropriate road access in terms of: > Location/land use – to existing networks and related activity centres. > Network – the area’s potential to be serviced by economically efficient transport services. > Catchment – the area’s ability to contain, or form part of the larger urban area which contains adequate transport services. Capacity for land use/ transport patterns to make a positive contribution to achievement of travel and vehicle use goals. · No net negative impact on performance of existing subregional road, bus, rail, ferry and freight network. |
· The land is well located in terms of its proximity to the Ballina and Byron Bay hospitals, airports and the like. No negative impact is anticipated in relation to accessibility for jobs, services or recreation. |
|
3. Housing Diversity Provide a range of housing choices to ensure a broad population can be housed |
· Contributes to the geographic market spread of housing supply, including any government targets established for aged, disabled or affordable housing.
|
· The proposal will broaden the scope for housing choice providing for appropriate infill subdivision within the existing Bangalow Town Centre. |
|
4. Employment Lands Provide regional/local employment opportunities to support the Far North Coast’s expanding role in the wider regional and NSW economies |
· Maintain or improve the existing level of sub-regional employment self containment. · Meets subregional employment projections. · Employment-related land is provided in appropriately zoned areas. |
· The ultimate construction of dwelling-houses within the adjacent approved residential subdivision will provide for local employment opportunities. |
|
5. Avoidance of Risk
|
Land use conflicts, and risk to human health and life, avoided · No residential development within 1:100 floodplain. · Avoidance of physically constrained land, e.g. > High slope. > Highly erodible. · Avoidance of land use conflicts with adjacent existing or future land use as planned under relevant subregional or regional strategy. · Where relevant available safe evacuation route (flood and bushfire). |
· No change in risk is anticipated as a consequence of the Planning Proposal. · The configuration, size and location of that part of the land presently zoned RU1 Primary Production is not considered suitable for agricultural land use. The site adjoins existing urban development to the west, south and east.
|
|
6. Natural Resources Natural resource limits not exceeded/ environmental footprint minimised |
· Demand for water within infrastructure capacity to supply water and does not place unacceptable pressure on environmental flows. · Demonstrates most efficient/suitable use of land > Avoids identified significant agricultural land > Avoids productive resource lands – extractive industries, coal, gas and other mining, and quarrying. · Demand for energy does not place unacceptable pressure on infrastructure capacity to supply energy-requires demonstration of efficient and sustainable supply solution. |
· No change in demand for natural resources is anticipated as a consequence of the amendment to the Local Environmental Plan as proposed. |
|
7. Environmental Protection Protect and enhance biodiversity, air quality, heritage, and waterway health |
· Consistent with government-approved Regional Conservation Plan (if available). · Maintains or improves areas of regionally significant terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity (as mapped and agreed by DEC). This includes regionally significant vegetation communities, critical habitat, threatened species, populations, ecological communities and their habitats. · Maintain or improve existing environmental condition for air quality. · Maintain or improve existing environmental condition for water quality: > Consistent with community water quality objectives for recreational water use and river health (DEC and CMA). > Consistent with catchment and stormwater management planning (CMA and council). · Protects areas of Aboriginal cultural heritage value (as agreed by DEC). |
· The proposed rezoning is not considered likely to result in any impacts in terms of biodiversity, air quality, and heritage or waterway health. |
|
8. Quality and Equity in Services Quality health, education, legal, recreational, cultural and community development and other government services are accessible |
· Available and accessible services. > Do adequate services exist? > Are they at capacity or is some capacity available? > Has Government planned and budgeted for further service provision? > Developer funding for required service upgrade/access is available. |
· The proposal is unlikely to have any impact on health, education, recreation or other services provided by government. |
Bangalow Settlement Strategy 2003
Although this strategy is outdated it remains the current residential strategy approved by Council for Bangalow. It does not identify the subject land as a future urban area because it has little or no housing yield. The subject land (outlined in red on Map 4) is immediately adjacent to Area 1 in this strategy. The zoning of this land for residential purposes is a minor zone boundary adjustment and is justifiably inconsistent with the Bangalow Settlement Strategy.
Map 4 – Investigation Areas for Bangalow (from Bangalow Settlement Strategy 2003)
State and Regional Farmland
The subject land is mapped as regionally significant farmland in the Northern Rivers Farmland Protection Project. It is not identified as Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land (BSAL) in the mapping undertaken recently by the State government.
The subject land is a very small area and it is not being used for any commercial agriculture. It is open mown grass land that is surrounded by residential development. The Northern Rivers Farmland Protection Project (2005) outlines criteria to be addressed in relation to using regionally significant farmland for residential purposes. A response to the criteria is provided in the assessment against S117 Directions in the following pages.
In 2012 Council adopted a 10 year + Community Strategic Plan 2022 (CSP). The plan is based on five key themes being Corporate Management, Economy, Environment, Community Infrastructure, Society and Culture. The planning proposal is generally consistent with the following relevant Goals set out in Table 2:
Table 2 Consistency with Community Strategic Plan
|
GOALS |
COMMENTS |
|
CM1.1 Improve the transparency, effectiveness and accountability of Council. |
Council exhibits all planning proposals to ensure transparency in its rezoning processes. |
|
CM1.4 Comply with NSW State government legislation for local government integrated planning and reporting. |
This planning proposal is consistent with the government’s framework established pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. |
|
CM4.1 Promote community compliance with Acts, Regulations, Instruments and Council policies and standards. |
This planning proposal is consistent with the relevant Acts Regulations and Policies of Council and the NSW State Government. |
|
SC2.4 Create vibrant liveable places and spaces within towns and villages for people of all ages and abilities. |
The proposed rezoning will contribute to the creation of a vibrant liveable place for residents. |
|
EN1.1 Protect, restore and maintain the biodiversity values, ecosystems and ecological processes of the Byron Shire. |
The proposed rezoning will not impact on the biodiversity values, ecosystems and ecological processes of the Byron Shire. |
On this basis the planning proposal is generally consistent with Council’s CSP.
The planning proposal is generally consistent or justifiably inconsistent with the applicable State Environmental Planning Policies. The key SEPP’s that require particular consideration are SEPP 55 Remediation of Land and SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008.
SEPP 55 Remediation of Land
Clause 7(1) of SEPP 55 requires that a Council cannot approve a rezoning application (especially from rural to residential) unless it has duly considered whether such land is contaminated.
Consultants undertook a preliminary site investigation pursuant to SEPP 55 in December 2010 in relation to an earlier subdivision and rezoning proposal. This work covered all of the subject land and is still applicable as no additional potentially contaminating use has been carried out on the subject land since the work was undertaken. The investigation concluded:
“Based on the site history, site inspections and the laboratory results from soil sampling; there is a low level of risk that the subject site is contaminated with residual chemicals from activities associated with current or past land use. Following a review of the results of laboratory analysis of soil samples taken from the subject site it is our considered view that there would appear to be little environmental or health hazard associated with development approval being granted for the future rezoning (from 1(b1) agricultural to 2(a) residential under Byron LEP 1988.”
On this basis the planning proposal is consistent with SEPP 55 Remediation of land.
SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008
This SEPP focuses mainly on the issue of unnecessary fragmentation of rural land and in particular state and regional farm land. The principles in the SEPP are required to be considered as part of the S.117 directions when rezoning land. In this case the land has already been significantly fragmented by past approvals for subdivision and the proposed rezoning is in recognition that this is no longer farmland of regional significance.
On this basis the planning proposal is justifiably inconsistent with SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008.
A summary assessment of the Planning Proposal against the Directions issued by the Minister for Planning under Section 117 of the EP&A Act is provided in Table 3 below.
The planning proposal is justifiably inconsistent with S. 117 Direction 1.2 Rural Zones, 1.5 Rural Lands, 5.1 Implementation of Regional Strategies and 5.3 Farmland of State and Regional significance on the NSW Far North Coast. It is generally compliant with the other S.117 Directions. Details of the non-compliance and how this can be justified are as follows:
13.22 - Attachment 1
Table 3 Assessment against Section 117 Directions
|
S117 Direction |
Application |
Relevance to this planning proposal |
Consistency with direction |
|
1. Employment and Resources |
|||
|
1.1 Business and Industrial Zones |
Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will affect land within an existing or proposed business or industrial zone (including the alteration of any existing business or industrial zone boundary). |
This planning proposal will not affect the boundaries or extent of business or industrial zones. |
N/A |
|
1.2 Rural Zones |
Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will affect land within an existing or proposed rural zone (including the alteration of any existing rural zone boundary). Under this direction a planning proposal must: (a) not rezone land from a rural zone to a residential, business, industrial, village or tourist zone. (b) not contain provisions that will increase the permissible density of land within a rural zone (other than land within an existing town or village). |
This planning proposal affects land zoned entirely RU1 that is proposed to be zoned R2. It will also lower the minimum lot size from 40 hectares to 600 square metres. The inconsistency is justified in this case because the subject land is surrounded by residential zoned land on three sides, is not used for agriculture due to its limited size, and has no significant environmental values. The land is serviced. The inconsistency is justifiable as a minor matter pursuant to sub clause 5(d) of the Direction.
|
Justifiably inconsistent |
|
1.3 Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries |
Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that would have the effect of: (a) prohibiting the mining of coal or other minerals, production of petroleum, or winning or obtaining of extractive materials, or (b) restricting the potential development of resources of coal, other minerals, petroleum or extractive materials which are of State or regional significance by permitting a land use that is likely to be incompatible with such development. |
Nothing in this planning proposal will prohibit or restrict exploration or mining. |
N/A |
|
1.4 Oyster Aquaculture |
Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares any planning proposal that proposes a change in land use which could result in: (a) adverse impacts on a Priority Oyster Aquaculture Area or a “current oyster aquaculture lease in the national parks estate”, or (b) incompatible use of land between oyster aquaculture in a Priority Oyster Aquaculture Area or a “current oyster aquaculture lease in the national parks estate” and other land uses. |
No relevance. |
N/A |
|
1.5 Rural Lands |
Applies when: (a) a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will affect land within an existing or proposed rural or environment protection zone (including the alteration of any existing rural or environment protection zone boundary), or (b) a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that changes the existing minimum lot size on land within a rural or environment protection zone. A planning proposal to which clauses (a) and (b) apply must be consistent with the Rural Planning Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008. A planning proposal to which clause (b) applies must be consistent with the Rural Subdivision Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008. |
This planning proposal will affect land zoned RU1 that is proposed to be zoned R2. It proposes to alter the minimum lot size for the subject land from 40 hectares to 600 square metres. It is inconsistent with the Rural Planning Principles and Rural Subdivision Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 because it is mapped as regionally significant farm land and yet it is proposed for a residential zone.
The inconsistency is justified in this case because the subject land is surrounded by residential zoned land on three sides, is not used for agriculture due to its limited size, and has no significant environmental values. The land is serviced. The inconsistency is justifiable as a minor matter pursuant to sub clause 6(b) of the Direction. |
Justifiably inconsistent. |
|
|
|||
|
2.1 Environment Protection Zones |
A planning proposal must include provisions that facilitate the protection and conservation of environmentally sensitive areas. A planning proposal that applies to land within an environment protection zone or land otherwise identified for environment protection purposes in a LEP must not reduce the environmental protection standards that apply to the land (including by modifying development standards that apply to the land). This requirement does not apply to a change to a development standard for minimum lot size for a dwelling in accordance with clause (5) of Direction 1.5 “Rural Lands”. |
The planning proposal does not alter or remove any environment protection zone. No environmental standards will be reduced by the proposed LEP changes. |
Consistent. |
|
2.2 Coastal Protection |
Direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that applies to land in the coastal zone. A planning proposal must include provisions that give effect to and are consistent with: (a) the NSW Coastal Policy: A Sustainable Future for the New South Wales Coast 1997, (b) the Coastal Design Guidelines 2003, (c) the manual relating to the management of the coastline for the purposes of section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993 (the NSW Coastline Management Manual 1990). |
The site is classified as “non-coastal” under the Far North Coast Regional Strategy because it is located west of the Pacific Highway. |
N/A |
|
2.3 Heritage Conservation |
A planning proposal must contain provisions that facilitate the conservation of: (a) Items, places, buildings, works, relics, moveable objects or precincts of environmental heritage significance to an area, in relation to the historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic value of the item, area, object or place, identified in a study of the environmental heritage of the area, (b) Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places that are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, and (c) Aboriginal areas, Aboriginal objects, Aboriginal places or landscapes identified by an Aboriginal heritage survey prepared by or on behalf of an Aboriginal Land Council, Aboriginal body or public authority and provided to the relevant planning authority, which identifies the area, object, place or landscape as being of heritage significance to Aboriginal culture and people. |
Byron LEP 2014 currently contains provisions that are consistent with this direction. |
N/A |
|
2.4 Recreation Vehicle Areas |
A planning proposal must not enable land to be developed for the purpose of a recreation vehicle area (within the meaning of the Recreation Vehicles Act 1983): (a) where the land is within an environment protection zone, (b) where the land comprises a beach or a dune adjacent to or adjoining a beach, (c) where the land is not within an area or zone referred to in paragraphs (4)(a) or (4)(b) unless the relevant planning authority has taken into consideration: (i) the provisions of the guidelines entitled Guidelines for Selection, Establishment and Maintenance of Recreation Vehicle Areas, Soil Conservation Service of New South Wales, September 1985, and (ii) the provisions of the guidelines entitled Recreation Vehicles Act, 1983, Guidelines for Selection, Design, and Operation of Recreation Vehicle Areas, State Pollution Control Commission, September 1985. |
The proposal does not enable land to be developed for the purpose of a recreation vehicle area. |
N/A |
|
3. Housing, Infrastructure and Urban Development |
|||
|
3.1 Residential Zones |
This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will affect land within: (a) an existing or proposed residential zone (including the alteration of any existing residential zone boundary), (b) any other zone in which significant residential development is permitted or proposed to be permitted. A planning proposal must include provisions that encourage the provision of housing that will: (a) broaden the choice of building types and locations available in the housing market, and (b) make more efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, and (c) reduce the consumption of land for housing and associated urban development on the urban fringe, and (d) be of good design. A planning proposal must, in relation to land to which this direction applies: (a) contain a requirement that residential development is not permitted until land is adequately serviced (or arrangements satisfactory to the council, or other appropriate authority, have been made to service it), and (b) not contain provisions which will reduce the permissible residential density of land.
|
The planning proposal will rezone land from rural to residential. It will not affect the density of residential development. Existing clause 6.6 of Byron LEP 2014 already requires adequate essential services to be available to the land at the time at which consent is granted.
|
Consistent. |
|
3.2 Caravan Parks and Manufactured Home Estates |
Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal. In identifying suitable zones, locations and provisions for caravan parks in a planning proposal, the relevant planning authority must: (a) retain provisions that permit development for the purposes of a caravan park to be carried out on land, and (b) retain the zonings of existing caravan parks, or in the case of a new principal LEP, zone the land in accordance with an appropriate zone under the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 that would facilitate the retention of the existing caravan park. In identifying suitable zones, locations and provisions for manufactured home estates (MHEs) in a planning proposal, the relevant planning authority must: (a) take into account the categories of land set out in Schedule 2 of SEPP 36 as to where MHEs should not be located, (b) take into account the principles listed in clause 9 of SEPP 36 (which relevant planning authorities are required to consider when assessing and determining the development and subdivision proposals), and (c) include provisions that the subdivision of MHEs by long term lease of up to 20 years or under the Community Land Development Act 1989 be permissible with consent. |
No relevance. |
N/A |
|
3.3 Home Occupations |
Planning proposals must permit home occupations to be carried out in dwelling-houses without the need for development consent. |
This proposal does not alter home occupation provisions in Byron LEP 2014. |
N/A |
|
3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport |
Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will create, alter or remove a zone or a provision relating to urban land, including land zoned for residential, business, industrial, village or tourist purposes. A planning proposal must locate zones for urban purposes and include provisions that give effect to and are consistent with the aims, objectives and principles of: (a) Improving Transport Choice – Guidelines for planning and development (DUAP 2001), and (b) The Right Place for Business and Services – Planning Policy (DUAP 2001). |
The subject land is surrounded by residential zoned land on three sides and is very small. There is unlikely to be any impact on public transport as a result of this planning proposal. |
Consistent. |
|
3.5 Development Near Licensed Aerodrome |
Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will create, alter or remove a zone or a provision relating to land in the vicinity of a licensed aerodrome. The main requirements of the Direction are that Council considers the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) as defined by that Department of the Commonwealth for residential purposes, and does not increase residential densities in areas where the ANEF, as from time to time advised by that Department of the Commonwealth, exceeds 25. |
No relevance. |
N/A |
|
4. Hazard and Risk |
|||
|
4.1 Acid Sulfate Soils |
Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will apply to land having a probability of containing acid sulfate soils as shown on the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Maps. A council shall not prepare a draft LEP that proposes an intensification of land uses on land identified as having a probability of containing acid sulfate soils on the Acid Sulfate Soils Planning Maps unless the council has considered an acid sulfate soils study assessing the appropriateness of the change of land use given the presence of acid sulfate soils. |
The subject land does not contain acid sulfate soils. |
N/A |
|
4.2 Mine Subsidence and Unstable Land |
Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that permits development on land that: (a) is within a mine subsidence district, or (b) has been identified as unstable in a study, strategy or other assessment undertaken: (i) by or on behalf of the relevant planning authority, or (ii) by or on behalf of a public authority and provided to the relevant planning authority. |
No relevance. |
N/A |
|
4.3 Flood Prone Land |
Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that creates, removes or alters a zone or a provision that affects flood prone land. A planning proposal must include provisions that give effect to and are consistent with the NSW Flood Prone Land Policy and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005 (including the Guideline on Development Controls on Low Flood Risk Areas). A planning proposal must not rezone land within the flood planning areas from Special Use, Special Purpose, Recreation, Rural or Environment Protection Zones to a Residential, Business, Industrial, Special Use or Special Purpose Zone. A planning proposal must not contain provisions that apply to the flood planning areas which: (a) permit development in floodway areas, (b) permit development that will result in significant flood impacts to other properties, (c) permit a significant increase in the development of that land, (d) are likely to result in a substantially increased requirement for government spending on flood mitigation measures, infrastructure or services, or (e) permit development to be carried out without development consent except for the purposes of agriculture (not including dams, drainage canals, levees, buildings or structures in floodways or high hazard areas), roads or exempt development. A planning proposal must not impose flood related development controls above the residential flood planning level for residential development on land, unless a relevant planning authority provides adequate justification for those controls to the satisfaction of the Director-General (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General). For the purposes of a planning proposal, a relevant planning authority must not determine a flood planning level that is inconsistent with the Floodplain Development Manual 2005 (including the Guideline on Development Controls on Low Flood Risk Areas) unless a relevant planning authority provides adequate justification for the proposed departure from that Manual to the satisfaction of the Director-General (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General). |
The subject land is not flood prone land. |
N/A |
|
4.4 Planning for Bushfire Protection |
Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will affect, or is in proximity to land mapped as bushfire prone land. In the preparation of a planning proposal the relevant planning authority must consult with the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service following receipt of a gateway determination under section 56 of the Act, and prior to undertaking community consultation in satisfaction of section 57 of the Act, and take into account any comments so made. A planning proposal must: (a) have regard to Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, (b) introduce controls that avoid placing inappropriate developments in hazardous areas, and (c) ensure that bushfire hazard reduction is not prohibited within the APZ. A planning proposal must, where development is proposed, comply with the following provisions, as appropriate: (a) provide an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) incorporating at a minimum: (i) an Inner Protection Area bounded by a perimeter road or reserve which circumscribes the hazard side of the land intended for development and has a building line consistent with the incorporation of an APZ, within the property, and (ii) an Outer Protection Area managed for hazard reduction and located on the bushland side of the perimeter road, (b) for infill development (that is development within an already subdivided area), where an appropriate APZ cannot be achieved, provide for an appropriate performance standard, in consultation with the NSW Rural Fire Service. If the provisions of the planning proposal permit Special Fire Protection Purposes (as defined under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997), the APZ provisions must be complied with, (c) contain provisions for two-way access roads which link to perimeter roads and/or to fire trail networks, (d) contain provisions for adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes, (e) minimise the perimeter of the area of land interfacing the hazard which may be developed, (f) introduce controls on the placement of combustible materials in the Inner Protection Area. |
The subject land is not bushfire prone land. |
N/A |
|
5. Regional Planning |
|||
|
5.1 Implementation of Regional Strategies |
Planning proposals must be consistent with a regional strategy released by the Minister for Planning. |
The planning proposal is inconsistent with a key aspect of the Far North Coast Regional Strategy (FNCRS). The subject land is located outside of the Town and Village Growth Boundary for Bangalow identified in the FNCRS. However the site is classified as “non–coastal” under the FNCRS because it is located west of the Pacific Highway. Council can support a residential zone outside of the Town and Village Growth Boundary subject to meeting the Sustainability Criteria. The purpose of the Sustainability Criteria is to enable Council to consider planning proposals that are logical town extensions in the absence of a strategy. In this case the inconsistency is justified because the subject land is surrounded by residential zoned land on three sides, is not used for agriculture, is fully serviced and has no significant environmental values. It is very small (approx. 0.3 hectares) and is an irregular shape. It is a logical correction of a zone that dates back to the LEP 1988. The inconsistency is justifiable as a minor matter pursuant to sub clause 5 of the Direction that achieves the overall intent of the regional strategy and does not undermine the achievement of its vision, land use strategy, policies, outcomes or actions. It will not expand Bangalow beyond its logical residential boundary and eliminates a rural zone that no longer fits with the dominant surrounding land use. |
Justifiably inconsistent. |
|
5.2 Sydney Drinking Water Catchments |
Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that applies to the hydrological catchment. |
The proposal is not within this catchment. |
N/A |
|
5.3 Farmland of State and Regional Significance on the NSW Far North Coast |
The planning proposal must not rezone land mapped as State or regionally significant farmland under the Northern Rivers Farmland Protection Project for an urban use. |
The subject land is mapped as regionally significant farmland on the Departments maps. The inconsistency is justifiable as follows: The inconsistency with the FNCRS has already been justified. It can also be justified against Section 4 of the report titled Northern Rivers Farmland Protection Project – Final Recommendations, February 2005 as follows: The final recommendations state that urban development could be considered on regionally significant farmland if all seven of the following criteria apply. 1. The proposal is not a new urban area or a disjointed suburb. There is no viable alternative because it is correcting an outdated zone boundary. It is a “rounding off” of an existing urban area. 2. The subject land is located next to existing residential zones on three sides 3. It will not be a wedge into regionally significant farmland because the nearest land use on three sides is residential and the fourth side is the Council reservoir and its curtilage. The nearest agricultural land is across Granuaille Road about 100 metres from the subject land. The 0.3 ha of land is already isolated. Allowing an urban zone on this site will not disrupt the use of other farmland. 4. The subject 0.3 ha is currently not used for horticulture or grazing which dominates local agriculture. This land is not critical to the viability of either industry. No agricultural infrastructure or transport routes will be affected by this site being zoned residential. The key road transport links of Granuaille Road and the Pacific Motorway will remain as fully functional road transport links. 5. No impacts arising from the residential zone will compromise the Macadamia production, or grazing being carried out on other significant farmland in the general area. 6. The land surrounding the subject land is not subject to existing land use conflicts relating to agriculture. If dwellings are built on the subject land this will not exacerbate any known agricultural conflicts. 7. No filling is required for the subject land. It is not flood prone. Therefore all seven of the criteria can be met by the planning proposal. |
Justifiably inconsistent. |
|
5.4 Commercial and Retail Development along the Pacific Highway, North Coast |
A planning proposal that applies to land located on “within town” segments of the Pacific Highway must provide that: (a) new commercial or retail development must be concentrated within distinct centres rather than spread along the highway, (b) development with frontage to the Pacific Highway must consider the impact the development has on the safety and efficiency of the highway. (c) For the purposes of this paragraph, “within town” means areas which, prior to the draft local environmental plan, have an urban zone (e.g. “village”, “residential”, “tourist”, “commercial”, “industrial”, etc) and where the Pacific Highway speed limit is less than 80 km/hour. A planning proposal that applies to land located on “out-of-town” segments of the Pacific Highway must provide that: (a) new commercial or retail development must not be established near the Pacific Highway if this proximity would be inconsistent with the objectives of this Direction, (b) development with frontage to the Pacific Highway must consider the impact the development has on the safety and efficiency of the highway. (c) For the purposes of this paragraph, “out-of-town” means areas which, prior to the draft local environmental plan, do not have an urban zone (e.g. “village”, “residential”, “tourist”, “commercial”, “industrial”, etc) or are in areas where the Pacific Highway speed limit is 80 km/hour or greater. |
This planning proposal does not affect commercial or retail uses in proximity to the Pacific Highway. |
N/A |
|
6. Local Plan Making |
|||
|
6.1 Approval and Referral Requirements |
A planning proposal must: (a) minimise the inclusion of provisions that require the concurrence, consultation or referral of development applications to a Minister or public authority, and (b) not contain provisions requiring concurrence, consultation or referral of a Minister or public authority unless the relevant planning authority has obtained the approval of: (i) the appropriate Minister or public authority, and (ii) the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Environment (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General), prior to undertaking community consultation in satisfaction of section 57 of the Act, and (c) not identify development as designated development unless the relevant planning authority: (i) can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Environment (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the class of development is likely to have a significant impact on the environment, and (ii) has obtained the approval of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Environment (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) prior to undertaking community consultation in satisfaction of section 57 of the Act. |
The planning proposal will not include provisions that require the concurrence, consultation or referral of development applications to a Minister or public authority. It does not identify development as designated development. |
N/A |
|
6.2 Reserving Land for Public Purposes |
A planning proposal must not create, alter or reduce existing zonings or reservations of land for public purposes without the approval of the relevant public authority and the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Environment (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General). |
The planning proposal does not create, alter or reduce land reserved for a public purpose. |
N/A |
|
6.3 Site Specific Provisions |
Applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will allow a particular development to be carried out. A planning proposal that will amend another environmental planning instrument in order to allow a particular development proposal to be carried out must either: (a) allow that land use to be carried out in the zone the land is situated on, or (b) rezone the site to an existing zone already applying in the environmental planning instrument that allows that land use without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in that zone, or (c) allow that land use on the relevant land without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in the principal environmental planning instrument being amended. A planning proposal must not contain or refer to drawings that show details of the development proposal. |
The planning proposal does not seek to allow a particular development to be carried out. The planning proposal does not contain schematic drawings. |
N/A |
13.22 - Attachment 1
Section C Environmental, social and economic impact
The proposed land to be rezoned from RU1 Primary Production to R2 Low Density Residential does not contain any significant vegetation and is predominently cleared. The proposal is not likely to result in any impacts on critical habitat, threatened species or ecological communities.
No environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed rezoning of the subject land to R2 Low Density Residential.
The proposal is a minor rezoning of the land to correct what is effectively an anomaly across the site. It will not result in any adverse social or economic impacts on the Bangalow community.
Section D State and Commonwealth interests
The proposal places no increased pressure to local infrastructure provision. Contributions will be levied for water and sewer in accordance with Council’s adopted plans.
State and Commonwealth public authorities have not been formally involved in this planning proposal as it is yet to receive Gateway Approval.
At this stage there do not appear to be any issues of interest to Commonwealth authorities.
This planning proposal seeks the following map amendments to Byron Shire LEP 2014:
· Amendment to the Byron LEP 2014 Land Zoning Map to apply a zoning of R2 Low Density Residential to the subject land shown in Map 2; and
· Amendment to the Byron LEP 2014 Floor Space Ratio Map to apply a FSR of 0.5:1 to the subject land shown in Map 2; and
· Amendment to the Byron LEP 2014 Lot Size Map to apply a MLS of 600 square metres to the subject land shown in Map 2.
Council will commence community consultation in accordance with the Gateway Determination. For the purposes of public notification, the planning proposal is considered to be low impact and a 14 day public exhibition period is recommended.
Notification of the exhibited planning proposal will include:
· a newspaper advertisement that circulates in the Byron LGA, which is the area affected by the planning proposal;
· the website of Byron Shire Council and the Department of Planning and Environment.
The proposed timeline for the completion of the planning proposal is as follows:
|
Estimated completion |
Plan making step |
|
October 2015 |
Gateway determination issued by Department of Planning and Environment. |
|
November 2015 |
Public exhibition of planning proposal. Government agency consultation. |
|
December 2015 |
Analysis of public submissions. Preparation of Council report. |
|
February 2016 |
Public submissions report to Council. |
|
February 2016 |
Submission of endorsed LEP amendment to Parliamentary Counsel for drafting (if delegated). |
|
March 2016 |
Council to make the LEP amendment (if delegated). |
|
March 2016 |
Forwarding of LEP amendment to Department of Planning and Environment for notification (if delegated). |
Statutory analysis undertaken in this planning proposal demonstrates that the proposed rezoning is consistent, or justifiably inconsistent, with State and Council strategies and policies and therefore has sufficient merit to be supported.
The planning proposal should proceed to amend Byron LEP 2014 to apply the R2 Low Density Residential zone, an FSR of 0.5:1 and MLS of 600 sq metres over part of Lot 232 DP 1194657, part of Lot 231 DP 1194657 and part of Lot 233 DP 1194657 as shown in Map 2 of this document.
It is also concluded that the matter is sufficiently minor that no further information or specialist reports are required prior to exhibition.
