Further submission from applicant 13.10.2023

         (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.

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
         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
         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
 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
 reverse amenity impacts.


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