Further Council Report MCU21-0110

                              (k)      the proposed development will not result in any unacceptable impacts with respect to
                                       traffic, bushfire risk, amenity or environmental values;

                              (l)      the proposed development includes an environmental offset component for the loss of
                                       trees, which will result in a substantial net environmental gain.

                    8.        Council’s grounds for refusal do not contain particulars of the reasons why the built form and
                              density of the proposed development is unacceptable. The proposed development complies with
                              the planning scheme requirements for site cover and plot ratio. Again, the built form is
                              considered to be sympathetic to the existing topography and will present as a low-scale
                              development being below the existing tree line, is three storeys in height and presenting as two
                              storeys to the road frontage.


                      It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development will not involve unacceptable
                      acoustic amenity impacts as:

                               (a)       The acoustic impacts of plant, equipment and services associated with the
                                         proposed development have not been adequately assessed;

                               (b)       If it is the case there are indeed acoustic impacts, no measures have been
                                         proposed to ameliorate those impacts.




                                                                                                  4
                    9.        The noise impact assessment report in support of the development application demonstrates that
                              the plant is designed and selected to comply with the design noise limits set out in Table 6.1 of




                                                                               T
                              the report. The proponent would accept a condition in terms of condition 12 in the draft conditions
                              package which requires the acoustic report to be updated to address the impacts on the
                                                                             EN
                              residential amenity of using the loading docks, including the use of trucks and service vehicles
                              using those docks.

                      The proposed development conflicts with the State Planning Policy – State interest – emissions
                                                               M

                      and hazardous activities as it is in proximity of an existing Sewage Treatment Plant and risks
                      inhibiting the sewage treatment plant from functioning safely and effectively due to potential
                                                              H


                      reverse amenity impacts.
                                               C



                    10.       Firstly, the reference to a ‘valid submission from Unitywater’ in the Council meeting minutes
                                            TA




                              suggests that Unitywater made a properly made submission during public notification of the
                              development application, which it did not.

                    11.       Council’s odour expert has reviewed the odour impact assessment report lodged in support of the
                                AT




                              development application and advised that he agrees with the assessment and recommendations
                              set out in the report. Council’s, Unitywater’s and the applicant’s consultants have agreed on the
                              terms of conditions to be imposed to mitigate the risk associated with any reverse amenity
                              impacts. The applicant accepts the proposed conditions (but for condition 13, for the reasons
                              discussed in paragraph 12 below).

                    12.       Any suggestion that complaints made by resort guests to the Department of Environment and
                              Science (DES) will lead to restrictions on the operation of the existing sewage treatment plant is
                              unfounded. The applicant intends to proactively deal with any complaints itself (in accordance
                              with the odour complaint management plan referred to in condition 14 of the draft conditions
                              package). The applicant’s odour expert has provided comprehensive advice about the reasons
                              why a complaint made to DES is unlikely to lead to enforcement action being taken against
                              Unitywater, in circumstances where the complaint will be investigated and addressed by the
                              resort operator.

                    13.       With respect to condition 13 in the draft conditions package, the requirement to notify resort
                              guests of the potential for odour to be noticeable represents an unreasonable imposition on the
                              development. Unitywater and the applicant’s odour expert share the view that such notification
                              may lead to guests associating any odour with the sewage treatment plant. Further, the evidence
                              of the experts is that in fact, no odour should be noticeable.




                    Letter - Mr L Sengstock - Submissions on grounds for refusal - 02(43623133.1).docx                             4
Document Set ID: 22632986
Version: 7, Version Date: 07/11/2023