Skip to the record
Search everything, all in one place.

Original source · versioned page text

2019-10-28 Special Meeting Agenda

of 44

Page text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

Page text read automatically using OCR, there may be inaccuracies

Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA                                                         28 OCTOBER 2019


Council’s consultant bushfire expert has reviewed the applicant’s BMP and raised concern with
the proposed recommendations of the BMP with regards to the use of a covenant for the Asset
Protection Zones of lots 13 -15 and the recommendation for fire management measures to be
maintained external to the site, both in the National Park and previously dedicated environmental
reserves. Reliance on owners/managers of adjoining public land to provide bushfire mitigation to
improve commercial development yields is not considered appropriate in this circumstance, may
impact on long term biodiversity outcomes and places an undue burden on the third parties.
Furthermore the use of a covenant raises the following issues:
 How vegetation management will be undertaken in a coordinated and consistent approach
   and the impacts for the occupier of a lot should an adjoining landowner not comply with the
   requirements of the covenant.
 The use of a covenant will result in Council being a party to the covenant and potentially
   responsible for any non-compliance.
The concern with the proposed covenant has been raised with the applicant and it was
suggested that the bushfire management area be included either as a road consistent with the
Natural Hazards Overlay code or as common property with a body corporate responsible for the
bushfire management measures.
The use of covenants and easements to provide suitable bushfire controls relies on all lot owners
implementing the control measures to ensure that the purpose of the covenant/easement is
achieved. If one lot owner does not comply with the requirements of the covenant/easement they
will be placing persons and assets of benefitting lots at risk. It is inadequate that in a very high
bushfire hazard area that bushfire control measures be undertaken in an uncoordinated manner,
accordingly the bushfire control measures should be managed by one body such as a body
corporate.
Accordingly this aspect of the proposal cannot be conditioned as it would change the form of the
application. The applicant has indicated they do not support this approach and prefer this issue
be managed via a covenant.
With regard to Lots 23-25, Council’s bushfire expert has concluded these lots do not minimise the
bushfire hazard to people who might work in those lots nor property within those lots. The three
lots present significant challenges with regards to disaster management response and as such
cannot be supported.
Furthermore, bushfire management within the existing environmental covenant areas is not
supported. This is consistent with the assessment of previous applications where all bushfire
management requirements have been required to be contained within the site and not external to
the site.
Road Layout/Traffic Management
Civil drawings and supporting written documentation was provided with the application supporting
the configuration of the new roads and access to the lots. This documentation was reviewed by
council’s consultant traffic engineer who has identified a number of issues with the proposal.
These issues include:
   The driveway for Lot 9 needs to be wider than shown on the plans to satisfactorily
     accommodate design vehicle movements. The resultant change to the access means that
     the utility of that allotment for access to a commercial use is unlikely to be suitable.
   The applicant has been advised that Road B (new private road off Hofmann Drive) would
     need to be to an industrial standard to accommodate the intended uses for these lots with
     development likely to occur after the implementation of the draft planning scheme.
     Constructing the road to an industrial standard will impact on the width and geometry of the
     road. The applicant has not amended the plans to reflect this as the current planning
     scheme does not prescribe industrial uses for the site.


                                                                                     Page 23 of 44
Log in to download the original file

2019-10-28 Special Meeting Agenda(PDF, 5MB).pdf · 5.2 MB (large file)

Large file: the download may take up to a minute.

Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.