PM Submission Object - Sallie Strang - MCU18/0084

 

unsettled. There are other noises that are commonly associated with multiple car parking spaces that can
disturb my horses. These other noises can include the starting of car engines, music, people talking at the cars
and as they make their way to and from their cabins night and day. The operational plan included in the
development application confirms that this is likely to occur late at night. The use of solely a vegetation
screening on the development site even when eventually established will have very limited noise attenuation
properties in such a situation. In fact, the existing branched tree canopy can potentially exacerbate it.

The proposed communal car parking area is considered to be too close to the boundary of my land and where
my horses continually graze. It is noted that the plans show 6 spaces including the disabled space and its clear
space as required by the applicable standard. It is noted that the town planning report/operational plan
references 7 spaces and up to 8 spaces. The 150 metre distance from this proposed communal parking area
to the main house on the development property may mean that the proposed parking of other vehicles near
this house may not in fact occur and other areas around the proposed carpark area will most likely be utilized
for overflow parking.

There would be a need for night lighting to be provided to assist in pedestrian access between the communal
carpark and individual cabins and possibly the site mangers’ residence around which overflow parking is
proposed. The development application fails to provide sufficient information on such a design and
operational element which could potentially have an impact of my equine uses on my adjoining rural land. It
is therefore not possible to comment on such an important consideration because of the poorly documented
development application.

5S: The development application fails to provide adequate visual buffers to my rural property.

The development application does not adequately indicate how an effective landscaped screen buffer would
be established in such a narrow boundary setback as being proposed and how such a buffer will be
established before the proposed use lawfully commences. Mention is made in the development application
of joining the local landcare group and also land for wildlife, however such membership does not guarantee
appropriate landscaping is designed, installed, established and maintained and that this proposed landscaping
does not result in a potential fire hazard. The information provided within the development application on
proposed landscaping is disappointing and complicates my ability to make informed responses to the
proposed development.

The development site is currently devoid of suitable vegetation that would provide an effective vegetated
screen (look at Photograph 3). It should be noted that the existing pine trees on the subject site (as evident
from Photograph 2 and 3) in reality provide poor visual screening at ground level and the vegetation at the
required height is limited solely to the odd trunks of several trees. The majority current vegetated screening
that the development application is relying on is that vegetation established on my property and not that on
the development site. Horse paddocks commonly do not include low shrubs or trees with low branches for
obvious reasons. It is not considered fair that now | need to landscape my property so that | can screen off
the proposed detached motel villas.

It is considered that the vegetated screening should be provided and maintained wholly within that site that
requires the screened buffer. This should be a major consideration when a non-rural use such as being
proposed in a rural area with cabins as close as 26 metres from the boundary fence of an ongoing rural use.
Further it is considered that the adjoining landowners, such as myself, should not be required to maintain a
vegetated screen to provide the level of amenity expected in a rural zone.

Alternative screens such a long solid fencing, are not considered acceptable for rural settings such as within
the development property along my boundary fence.

5|Page Council Reference: MCU18/0084