Source: http://byron.infocouncil.biz/Open/2015/12/OC_10122015_AGN_389_Attachment_3047_1.htm
Timestamp: 2018-01-22 14:36:53
Document Index: 794926627

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 6']

Planning Proposal for rezoning land at Granuaille Crescent to R2
13.22 - Attachment 1
for rezoning of land at
Granuaille Crescent, Bangalow
Exhibition Version (#E2015/73577)
Authority ref: 26.2014.14.1
1.1. Purpose. 1
1.2. Planning context 1
1.3. Background. 1
2. Site Description. 3
2.1. The Subject Land. 3
2.2. Current Zones and Controls. 3
3. Planning Proposal 4
Part 1 Objectives and Intended Outcomes. 4
Part 2 Explanation of the Provisions. 4
Part 3 Justification. 4
Section A Need for the planning proposal 4
Section B Relationship to strategic planning framework. 4
Section C Environmental, social and economic impact 26
Section D State and Commonwealth interests. 26
Part 4 Mapping. 27
Part 5 Community consultation. 27
Part 6 Project timeline. 27
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
Table 1 Assessment against Sustainability Criteria……………………………………………………5
Table 2 Consistency with Community Strategic Plan………………………………………………….8
Table 3 Assessment against Section 117 Directions………………………………………………...10
Attachment 1: Approved Subdivision Plan……………………………………………………………….6
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.
1.2. Planning context
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
2.1. The Subject Land
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.
Map 3 Current LEP 2014 Zoning
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.
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.
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.
1. Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-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
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.
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.
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.
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.
2. Is the planning proposal consistent with the Council’s Community Strategic Plan or other local strategic plan?
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
Council exhibits all planning proposals to ensure transparency in its rezoning processes.
This planning proposal is consistent with the government’s framework established pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.
This planning proposal is consistent with the relevant Acts Regulations and Policies of Council and the NSW State Government.
The proposed rezoning will contribute to the creation of a vibrant liveable place for residents.
The proposed rezoning will not impact on the biodiversity values, ecosystems and ecological processes of the Byron Shire.
3. Is the planning proposal consistent with the applicable State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)?
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.
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.
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.
4. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s117 Directions)?
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:
Table 3 Assessment against Section 117 Directions
This planning proposal will not affect the boundaries or extent of business or industrial zones.
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.
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.
The site is classified as “non-coastal” under the Far North Coast Regional Strategy because it is located west of the Pacific Highway.
The planning proposal will rezone land from rural to residential.
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.
The subject land does not contain acid sulfate soils.
The subject land is not flood prone land.
The subject land is not bushfire prone land.
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.
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.
(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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
· a newspaper advertisement that circulates in the Byron LGA, which is the area affected by the planning proposal;
Submission of endorsed LEP amendment to Parliamentary Counsel for drafting (if delegated).
Council to make the LEP amendment (if delegated).
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.
Attachment 1: Approved Subdivision Plan