Read Built Agenda text version

ITEM-47

DA 09/0227 - 1 BRITANNIA BOULEVARDE, FLETCHER ERECTION OF AN ALDI SUPERMARKET, ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING & SIGNAGE ALDI STORES NJ CLARK PTY LIMITED & DN & A CLARK PTY LTD FUTURE CITY JUDY JAEGER / GEOF MANSFIELD 4974 2709 / 4974 2767

APPLICANT: OWNER: REPORT BY: CONTACT: TELEPHONE:

PURPOSE An application has been received seeking consent to erect a new single storey supermarket including associated car parking and signage. A copy of the amended plans for the proposed development are appended at Attachment A. The original and amended applications have both been publicly notified in accordance with Council's Public Notification policy. A total of 21 individual submissions have been received in response to the original and amended proposal (eleven and ten submissions, respectively).

Subject Land: Map 263 ­ C15 as Gregory's th Street Directory, 26 Edition

Eleven individual submissions, a petition containing 191 signatures and one submission in support of the proposal were all received after the deadline for the original report but have been incorporated now due to the application being withdrawn from the November meeting of the Development Application Committee. The objectors' concerns include traffic, parking, access, privacy impacts, character, height and setbacks, overshadowing, air & noise pollution, stormwater & flooding, zoning, alternative uses, truck sizes, lighting impacts, pedestrian safety, garbage storage, graffiti & vandals, closing of Wallsend Aldi store and fencing. Details of the submissions received are summarised at Section 3.0 of Part II of this report and the concerns raised are addressed as part of the Environmental Planning Assessment at Section 4.0.

The application was the subject of a Public Voice Session held on 13 October 2009. The application was withdrawn, at the request of the applicant, from the Development Application Committee meeting for the 3 November 2009 to allow the applicant the opportunity to further address the permissibility of the use in terms of the local shops definition under the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan (NLEP) 2003. Issues · · · · Whether the proposed development would unreasonably impact on the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings. Whether the removal of the existing trees from the site and the proposed compensatory tree canopy is appropriate. Whether the proposed development would unreasonably impact on the safety and efficiency of the local road network. Whether the proposed land use is permissible within the 3(a) Local Centre zone under the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan (NLEP), 2003.

Conclusion The amended proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant heads of consideration under Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) and is considered to be acceptable; however the amended proposal does not satisfy the requirements of Element 4.10 Tree Management of the Newcastle Development Control Plan (DCP). Given the circumstances of this case, the non compliance with the compensatory tree planting requirements of the DCP is considered to be reasonable. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be approved, subject to compliance with the nominated conditions of consent. RECOMMENDATION The application to erect a new single storey supermarket including associated car parking and signage be approved on the basis of the amended plans, subject to compliance with the draft Schedule of Conditions appended at Attachment B.

PART II 1.0 THE SUBJECT SITE The site comprises Lot 30, DP 869101, known as 1 Britannia Boulevarde, Fletcher, and is located on the southern eastern corner of Minmi Road and Britannia Boulevarde. The site is an irregular shape, having a frontage of 109.678m to Minmi Road, a frontage of 49.257m to Britannia Boulevarde, an eastern boundary of 83.331m and a southern boundary of 141.222m. Total site area is 6656m2. The subject site contains no buildings but includes a stand of mature trees of predominantly local indigenous species located along Minmi Road and a larger grouping on the western end of the site. The land generally slopes down towards Britannia Boulevarde with a shorter cross fall `dip' at the south western corner of the site. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL & BACKGROUND The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects includes the following description of the proposed original development: "The clearing of vegetation on the site; Preparatory earthworks, excavation and site preparation; The erection of an at grade ALDI Food Store with primary frontage to Minmi Road. This food store will include associated storage areas, service/loading dock and staff amenities. The ALDI Food Store will have a total gross floor area of around 1,588 square metres; The provision of an at grade landscaped car park for 96 vehicles around the proposed ALDI Foodstore with frontage to both Minmi Road and Britannia Boulevarde (including 2 disabled spaces). This at grade area will also include a new electricity substation; The provision of landscaping along the frontages of the site and within the proposed car park; The provision of associated services, drainage and infrastructure" The original proposal has been subsequently amended to address traffic requirements for the entry/exit at the Minmi Road frontage. These amendments have altered the car park layout and decreased the car parking proposed to 90 spaces. A copy of the current amended architectural plans, elevations and sections is appended at Attachment A. The various steps in the processing of the application to date are outlined in the Processing Chronology appended at Attachment C. The application was withdrawn from the Development Application Committee meeting for the 3 November 2009 to allow the applicant the opportunity to further address the permissibility of the use in terms of the local shops definition under the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan (NLEP), 2003.

3.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The original and amended applications have been publicly notified in accordance with Council's Public Notification policy. A total of 21 individual submissions have been received in response to the original and amended proposal (eleven and ten submissions, respectively). Eleven individual submissions, a petition containing 191 signatures and one submission in support of the proposal were all received after the deadline for the original report but have now been incorporated due to the application being withdrawn from the November meeting of the Development Application Committee. The concerns raised by the objectors in respect of the proposed development are summarised as follows: · Traffic, Parking & Access ­ Concern is raised that the development will have unreasonable traffic, parking and access impacts. The location of the "..entry/egress for cars and large delivery vehicles on to Minmi Road is as almost the same location" as was previously refused for a proposed residential subdivision. It has been raised how Aldi is allowed an access off Minmi Road and the recently approved Coles proposal (DA05/1781) was not. The location of the entry/egress at Britannia Boulevard is too close to the roundabouts at Minmi Road and Broome Street and does not have sufficient sightlines, especially considering the additional subdivisions recently approved or currently being assessed in the area, and could result increase in traffic accidents and impacts on pedestrian safety. "...that ALDI may acquire land from the subdivision adjoining their proposed development and use that to gain vehicle access from the parking area and delivery dock to St Andrew's Way.." · Privacy ­ The proposed building is close to all dwellings in Broome Street. "This will result in the complete destruction of our right to privacy (a very high building within a few metres of bedroom windows ­ with powerful lighting 24 hours 7 days per week)." Amenity/Overshadowing ­ The proposal states that "it is relevant to note that the orientation of the majority of these dwellings living and private open space areas face east, with their side boundaries facing the site. This ensures that such living and private areas do not face the site boundary". The objectors' argue that the majority of the dwellings have windows and doors facing the site and their living areas/courtyards facing the subject site. Concern is raised that the proposed landscaping will result in increased overshadowing of neighbouring residential properties. Amenity Noise/Air Pollution ­ "The impacts of the noise and air pollution on residents health and safety outweighs the convenience". The proposed development will have unacceptable impacts in terms of noise and air pollution.

·

·

·

Character, Height & Setbacks ­ The proposal raises concern due to the height and setback of the proposed building and is considered not in keeping with the neighbourhood. Stormwater/Flooding ­ "We already experience a build up of water runoff during periods of heavy rain ­ we feel that large paved areas such as the proposed car parks will greatly increase this problem." Zoning/Suitable Site ­ "..the proposed ALDI store will proposed convenient shopping for the Fletcher area but is far from necessary, as the Maryland Shopping Centre is less than 3km from the proposed site and 5km for Wallsend Plaza." "When we bought this property we were told that the land was zoned for housing and there is a plan showing this. It would appear that the rezoning has taken place without any of the residents being told, perhaps it is now the time for that rezoning to be reversed." "The residents would claim that this is a semi-rural setting and this development is not in the spirit of this zoning." It is "...felt that the ALDI development should be moved elsewhere and an alternative use made of the site like residential housing or a park." Alternative uses ­ It is suggested that alternative uses such as a child care centre or medical centre would be more appropriate use of this site. A "..previous owner of the development site intended to built a child care centre" .".however the Council decided against it for safety reasons because the child care has an entrance into Britannia Boulevarde". Truck Sizes ­ Concern is raised that Aldi trucks will exceed the 5 tonne load limit that applies from the Summerhill roundabout to Minmi. Lighting Impacts ­ Concern is raised regarding the potential lighting impacts "..with powerful lights 24 hours 7 days per week.." close to residential properties. Pedestrian Safety ­ Concerns are raised regarding pedestrian safety and access around the site. "The existing bus stop is along this section of Britannia Boulevard. This is a busy bus stop for school children. As others will have reported, it is very common to see children sitting in the gutter as there is no bus stop seating. Other children will also sit in the median strip or on the small roundabout. We are very concerned that traffic will be unnecessarily directed into the residential estate." Garbage Storage ­ "The proposed bin storage is adjacent to proposed residential lots which will cause noise and odour problems. It should be located against the building away from neighbours." Fencing ­ Concern is raised regarding the type of fencing provided and the loss of existing vines growing on the current fence.

Closing of Wallsend Aldi Store ­ It is suggested that the approval of the current application would allow Aldi to close their Wallsend store. Graffiti & Vandals ­ ".. problems of graffiti and vandals drawn to the location after hours is another huge concern, particularly when it will not have the security as a shopping centre would."

·

·

·

· ·

·

·

·

· ·

The application was the subject of a Public Voice Session held on 13 October 2009. The objectors' concerns are addressed under the relevant matters for consideration in the following section of this report. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING ASSESSMENT The application has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under the provisions of Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, as detailed hereunder. 4.1 Statutory Considerations [Section 79C(1)(a)(i)&(ii)] The subject property is included within the 3(a) Local Centre Zone under the provisions of the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan (NLEP), 2003, within which zone the proposed development is permissible with Council's consent. The proposed development is also consistent with the zone objectives. The question of permissibility of the proposed use was raised following Public Voice by residents and Councillors Jackson, Boyd, Sharpe and King. It was queried whether the current proposal was a local shop or a shop as defined under the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan 2003, as included below. On 24 April 2009, the definition for "local shop" was amended by Amendment No 4 of the LEP. The amended definition of "local shop" is as follows: local shop means a shop that: (a) is of a nature and size that is suitable to serve a surrounding population of approximately 5,000 people, and (b) Is not a bulky goods retail outlet, convenience shop or sex aid establishment. shop means a building or place that is used for the purpose of the selling by retail, or hiring or displaying for the purpose of selling or hiring, of items (whether goods or materials) but does not include a convenience shop, bulky goods retail outlet, local shop or a sex aid establishment. The application was withdrawn from the agenda of the Development Application Committee 3 November 2009 to allow the applicant an opportunity to further address the issue of permissibility. The applicant has now subsequently submitted a covering letter from the Aldi, their own legal advice (Baker & McKenzie) and an economic report (Hill PDA) appended as Attachment D, E, & F respectively. A review of the additional information submitted by the applicant has been undertaken by the Council's solicitors which is appended as Attachment G. The legal advice noted that the submitted economic report (i.e. Hill PDA) concludes that ."the population which will be relevantly `served' by the proposed shop is its `primary trade area' which he concludes is the suburb of Fletcher" (i.e. at its full development population of 6000 people).

Council's legal advice indicates that "the proposed Aldi is about 1,500m2 and, in Mr Hack's opinion, is of a suitable size to serve the population in the definition of `local shop' and they advise that "..we think the Council is entitled to rely on that report (i.e. economic assessment by Hill PDA) in characterising the development as a `local shop' within the definition in the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan" It is confirmed, based on the further information submitted by the applicant and Council's legal advice, that the proposal is considered to be permissible within the 3(a) Local Centre zone as a local shop. The proposal is not contrary to the provisions of any relevant State Environmental Planning Policy. 4.2 Merit Considerations 4.2.1 Relevant Strategic Policies There are no other relevant Strategic Policies other than those discussed in this report. 4.2.2 Newcastle Development Control Plan [Section 79C(1)(a)(iii)] a) Car Parking Element 4.1

The proposal has been assessed by Council's Senior Development Officer (Engineering) in terms of traffic and parking and is considered to be acceptable subject to appropriate conditions of consent. This aspect is addressed in greater detail at Section 4.2.3 (c) of this report. b) Flood Management & Water Management - Elements 4.3 & 4.5

A Concept Drainage Plan for the management of stormwater runoff from the site has been submitted in support of the proposed development. The Plan has been assessed by Council's Senior Development Officer (Engineering) who advises that the design is satisfactory in terms of the guidelines set out in Elements 4.3 and 4.5. These aspects are addressed in greater detail at Section 4.2.3 (d) of this report. Appropriate conditions are recommended to ensure that the submitted Concept Drainage Plan is implemented as part of the site development works. c) Landscaping - Element 4.4 & Tree Management - Element 4.10

A 'Tree Report' prepared by Treescan Urban Forest Management has been submitted in support of the application. According to the report, the site is treed with predominately local indigenous species comprising Grey Gum, Spotted Gum, Grey Ironbark and White Stringybark. The proposed development will require the removal of 121 trees, of which 111 are identified as having either a medium or high Tree Retention Value (TRV) and therefore are retainable. One of the high TRV trees will be retained as part of the proposed development.

According to the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE), prepared by de Witt Consulting: "Due to the need for at grade parking surrounding the proposed ALDI Store, there is no alternative design solution that would result in reduced tree removal. There is also not alternative space for any substantial compensatory tree planting." To compensate for the loss of the trees, some replacement trees are incorporated in the proposed landscaping works. According to the SEE: "Tree replacement will form part of the proposed landscaping works and a landscape Plan has been prepared by Site Image and is included in Appendix 7. The landscape concept has been designed to integrate with the overall architectural concept whilst improving the streetscape. Landscaping will be concentrated along the street frontages of the site and within the car park to provide softening of the built form. This will include both tree, shrub and native grass plantings." The original landscape plan has been assessed by Council's Landscape Architect, in consultation with Council's City Arborist (Natural Assets), and was considered to be unsatisfactory because it did not include a tree vaulted planting system, the species selection proposed and the inadequate number of trees proposed able to provide future shade cover in the car park. The applicant subsequently submitted a revised landscaped plan which has addressed the above issues, including increasing the number of proposed trees from 17 to 43. The revised plan has been assessed by Council's Landscape Architect and is deemed to be satisfactory. Using the methodology for determining compensatory tree planting set out in the DCP, the combined area of the canopies of the retainable trees proposed to be removed is 4,720m2. This figure equates to 71% of the area of the site; however, it should be borne in mind that the canopies of the retainable trees overlap upon each other. When the canopies of the existing trees are viewed in a one-dimensional plane their total area does not exceed approximately 50% of the area of the site. The revised landscape plan incorporates 43 trees which, when mature, will provide a total canopy coverage of 2150m2. This figure equates to 32% of the area of the subject site. Applying the requirements of Element 4.10 to 'green field' sites has been problematic. According to Council's Principal Strategist - New Communities: "Adopted by Council in May 2008, NDCP Element 4.10 aims to provide for the sustainable expansion of the urban forest canopy by seeking design solutions that accommodate trees as part of the development proposals. Since its adoption Council has received a number of development applications for green field sites where the aims and intent of the element has been difficult to achieve. The Element has worked relatively well for the assessment of trees associated with infill development proposals; however, in terms of green field sites, the large number of trees involved has prohibited design solutions that can incorporate trees that are identified as retainable.

Further to this, Council has sought legal advice on the monetary compensation aspect of the Element where funds are used to provide for off site planting to compensate for the loss of retainable trees on a given development. The advice indicates that the only mechanism available for off site compensatory tree planning is by way of a voluntary planning agreement. This will require the review and amendment of the Element 4.10 so that these anomalies can be rectified" In respect of appropriate canopy cover targets, the Strategist advises that: "A NCC working group consisting of internal and external stakeholders from the development and arborist sectors has been examining the issue of LGA urban forest canopy targets. Research has shown that, in a number of cities in the United States with similar climate and land use patterns to Newcastle, canopy targets of 40% have been established. The existing canopy cover in Newcastle is 21% (excluding SEPP 14 wetlands) therefore it is reasonable to propose that 30% cover is achievable in Newcastle in the medium term (5-10 years)." As indicated previously in this report, the revised landscape plan will provide a compensatory canopy coverage equivalent to 32% of the area of the subject site. It is a matter for Council to decide whether or not the proposed removal of the trees is acceptable in the circumstances of this case, given the proposed compensatory tree planting. To enhance the visual impact of the Minmi Road frontage of the carpark of the proposed development and to provide additional shade, it is recommended parking space No. 55 be deleted to provide an additional landscaped garden bed incorporating a taller growing tree species. An appropriate condition has been included with the draft conditions (refer to Attachment B). d) Commercial Development Element 6.1

The proposal generally complies with the provisions of this Element. Outside of the Newcastle City Centre the DCP does not have many urban design requirements for commercial developments of the type proposed. 4.2.3 Impacts on the Natural and Built Environment [Section 79C(1)(b)] a) Density, Character, Streetscape, External Appearance, Height, Bulk & Scale

The amended proposal is for the erection of a single storey supermarket building with associated car parking. The proposed supermarket building varies in overall height from 4.4m at the parapet to 8.9m at the top of the plant room. The proposed plant room is located at the north western corner of the building and forms a relatively small portion of the overall roof bulk. The majority of the proposed roof forms a `split skillion' with the higher portion being 5.7m in height.

The proposed building is setback 3.312m from the southern boundary, approximately 6.2m from the eastern boundary, 15m from Minmi Road and 55.8m from Britannia Boulevarde. The Newcastle DCP 2005 does not contain setback or heights requirements for commercial developments as proposed. The proposal was also assessed, for a comparison only, against the building height envelope under Element 5.2 (Urban Housing) and complies. While this provision does not apply to commercial development, its compliance with the envelope demonstrates that, it terms of height and setback, the proposed development is comparable to a possible residential development on the land. The position of the proposed plant room at the north western corner of the building does contribute to overall bulk of the building. This positioning of the plant room was chosen in the amended design to minimise any acoustic impacts on neighbouring properties (i.e. this location being the furthest away from neighbouring residences) and, as such, on balance is considered to be acceptable. The elevations of the proposed supermarket are intended to be constructed of precast concrete panels, metal sheeting and highlight glass panels. The western elevation incorporates the proposed main entry and includes a larger section of windows. The southern elevation while 3.312m from the boundary is 4.4 metre in height and its visual appearance will be partially softened by the proposed landscaping along the southern boundary. Overall the character, external appearance, height, bulk and scale of the development is considered to be satisfactory. b) · Amenity Impacts (Overshadowing, Privacy, Views & Noise) Overshadowing

The applicants have submitted a shadow diagram illustrating the impact on the neighbouring sites to the west (see copy at Attachment H). The shadows cast are considered to be reasonable, with the neighbouring dwellings receiving a minimum of three hours of sunlight between 9am-3pm on the 21 June, which is comparable to the residential standard within the Newcastle DCP - Element 5.2 (Urban Housing) ­ no specific commercial standards apply in this regard. · Privacy

The design and position of the proposed supermarket would be such that it would generally not impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties. Furthermore, the position of the proposed boundary fencing in combination with the intended landscaping would also mitigate potential privacy impacts.

The southern elevation of the proposed supermarket includes a single window and door which would be screened by the proposed landscaping and fencing. The eastern elevation proposes highlight windows which, due to the relative angles, would not result in privacy impacts. Overall, the southern and eastern elevations, which face towards the existing and future neighbouring residences, will not generate any unreasonable privacy impacts. · Views

The proposal will not have any unreasonable impact on views or outlook. While the proposed development will replace a `green and open' vista from some properties, this has mostly been achieved via the use of open style fencing along the rear boundary. The erection of the proposed solid 1.8m high fence on the southern boundary of the site, (which does not require any consent as 'exempt development',) would predominately remove this outlook. c) Traffic, Parking & Access

The traffic, parking and access of the proposal have been assessed by Council's Senior Development Officer (Engineering) and are considered satisfactory subject to the recommended conditions of consent. The officer's detailed assessment is as follows: (i) Traffic Generation "The traffic consultant submits that Aldi stores generate 160 to 240 vehicles per hour (vph) during the weekday and weekend peaks. Based on Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) rates for supermarkets, this store would be predicted to generate a peak hour traffic generation of 180 vph therefore the adopted rate used in the traffic report is considered suitable. The report has reviewed the operation of the Britannia Avenue / Minmi Road roundabout and the Minmi Road / Kurraka Road intersections post development and with ten year compound traffic growth at 2 %. Existing traffic volumes were determined from manual intersection counts carried out by the consultant." It is considered the amended proposal is satisfactory having regard to the traffic impacts. (ii) Parking "The proposal provides parking for 90 vehicles. Under the requirements of Element 4.1 of Council's 2005 DCP the proposal should provide at least 51 spaces therefore the proposal exceeds Council requirements.

The proposal provides a staff parking area adjacent to the loading bay providing for 10 parking spaces. This is supported due to its proximity to the loading bay though the size of the parking area is queried as Aldi staffing levels tend to be very low and it is thought the proposed staff parking area would be in excess of the stores needs. However, as sufficient customer parking is provided, no objections to the proposed staff parking area are raised. A review of the balance of the parking layout indicates that the proposal would appear to comply with AS2890.1-2004 and provides excellent circulation through the site. The parking areas should be suitably lit for security and personal safety reasons. Particular care will need to be made with the staff parking area given its isolation from the rest of the site." Appropriate draft conditions have been recommended within Attachment B to address these issues. (iii) Access "Access is proposed via both Minmi Road and Britannia Boulevarde. Britannia Boulevarde will operate as a left turn in and left turn out access. The proposal will be restricted to a left in-left out egress at the Minmi Road frontage via the installed of a 900mm wide median from the roundabout across the width of the site. The proposed access within the Britannia Boulevarde will be restricted by the existing median and, as a left in-left out egress, is unlikely to experience any queuing or significant delays. Swept turning paths have been provided showing service vehicles (19 m AV) using the Minmi Road access. These show a left in and left out operation confirming that the amended design achieves satisfactory vehicular access and that these large vehicles do not cross the centre line of Minmi Road. It is considered the amended proposal is satisfactory having regard to the vehicular access requirements". The conditions proposed by Council's engineer have been included within the recommended conditions (Attachment B). (iv) Other Matters The amended proposal has been redesigned to include pedestrian footpath along the Minmi Road frontage of the site.

Several further issues were raised following Public Voice and late submission regarding: a. Why Aldi is proposing access to Minmi Road when Coles (221 Minmi Road ­ 05/1787) was not allowed access? b. Why heavy vehicles would be allowed to access the proposed Aldi store when a 5 Tonne load limit applies to Minmi Road? c. Traffic and pedestrian safety issues associated with the Minmi Road and Britannia Boulevard accesses; d. Access for heavy vehicles at the intersection of Minmi Road and Woodford Street lights: e. Increase in traffic due to future development; f. Queries regarding the traffic assessment and vehicle counts; and g. Suitably of roundabouts for access by the proposed development: Council Senior Development Officer (Engineer) has provided a further detailed response to these issues, as follows: · Aldi's access to Minmi Road: "In regard to access off Minmi Road it is considered that to deny access to Minmi Road for a commercial development on this site would result in additional traffic being pushed onto Britannia Boulevard. However, to ensure road safety on the relatively busy Minmi Road the access has been restricted to left in and left out only and a dedicated left turn deceleration lane is provided to allow vehicles turning into the site to manoeuvre out of the through traffic lane when decelerating. The issue of the Coles access to Minmi Road is slightly different in that the proposed Minmi Road access was close to the departure side of a future signalised intersection. Signalised intersections result in significant platooning of traffic that accelerates out of the intersection. It was considered too dangerous to even consider the provision of a deceleration lane at this location therefore a left turn in access off Minmi Road to Coles was not supported. However a left turn out access onto Minmi Road from the Coles development has been supported as this movement is considered less dangerous for approaching traffic and provides benefits to the servicing of the development." A further investigation of previous applications within the vicinity of the subject site was undertaken in response to questions raised as to why the subject development was being allowed access to Minmi Road but previous developments were restricted access. An earlier application DA 01/0441 for a six lot residential subdivision was submitted on 8 March 2001. This application was ultimately withdrawn 25 October 2001, because it was not generally supported by Council's officers for a number of reasons including the Development Control 42 - Fletcher Western Precinct intended the subject land to be part of a commercial precinct.

Furthermore, the proposal utilized access to Minmi Road when an additional side street access joining at Minmi Road at a new intersection (i.e. likely to be an extension of St Andrews Way) was intended to be provided in the future. At this time access was still being restricted to Minmi Road. It is further advised that Development Control Plan (DCP) 42, which discouraged access onto Minmi Road, was repealed when the Newcastle Development Control Plan 2005 was adopted. The DCP 42 intended a much larger commercial area along Minmi Road via a second access into the estate, in the vicinity of St Andrews Way, with the possibility of including a Child Care Centre and Service Station also using the second access. More recently the Department of Planning approved a Major Project application (`Dan Land' 06/X007) for a proposed residential subdivision (on the northern side of Minmi Road near Britannia Boulevard) which includes direct access of lots onto Minmi Road. Similarly, the adjacent land to the east of the subject site is approved for a residential subdivision (DA 06/0660) which included a second access road joining St Andrews Way to Minmi Road. Ultimately, this access was not supported by the Development Applications Committee (DAC), 20 November 2007 for a number of reasons: · Concerns raised in public submissions concerned about increased traffic in local streets, · The proposed second access conflicted with the original position of an access onto Minmi Road from the abovementioned `Dan Land' subdivision, and · There was insufficient need on traffic grounds to justify an additional intersection onto on Minmi Road given the location and operation of the existing Britannia Boulevarde/Minmi Road intersection. An alternative design without a second access to Minmi Road was subsequently approved by DAC and any possibly of a second access road to the estate in the locality of the subject site was removed. This decision was meant that the subject site and current proposal have no other options for access other than via Minmi Road and Britannia Boulevard. Based on the Council's traffic assessment, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of access and it is unlikely that refusing access to Minmi Road could be justified and defended in the Land and Environment Court. Load limit on Minmi Road: "Minmi Road is a light traffic road and is restricted to traffic with a gross vehicle weight of less than 5 tonnes. However this load limit on Minmi Road would not stop service vehicles being allowed to access the Aldi site as these service vehicles would be exempt from the load limit as their destination lies within the load limited section of the road. The light traffic limit on Minmi Road was implemented as a way of restricting traffic routes for heavy vehicles to the Summerland Hill waste disposal depot, thereby reducing the impact of the waste depot by reducing the number of heavy vehicles utilising the road. It had nothing to do with the structural or geometric adequacy of the road to cater for the heavy vehicles.

It is considered the road is of sufficient standard to cater for heavy vehicles and no objection is raised to this development because it will only generate an additional single heavy vehicle delivery per day to the site which legally can access the site as it is exempt from the load restrictions on Minmi Road. " Safety of proposed Minmi Road access: "As previously mentioned, to ensure road safety on the relatively busy Minmi Road the access has been restricted to left in and left out only (raised central median) and a dedicated left turn deceleration lane is provided to allow vehicles turning into the site to manoeuvre out of the through traffic lane when decelerating. The access will also need to be designed to comply with AS2890.1-2004 Parking facilities ­ Off street parking facilities, which has specific requirements in regard to vehicular and pedestrian sight lines. It is considered after a site inspection and an assessment of the concept design that conformance with the standard can be achieved at the site." Pedestrian safety issue of traffic utilising the Britannia Boulevard access: "Pedestrian safety is a risk at any access crossing to any development no matter the size of the development. The assessment criteria then becomes designing a suitable access to ensure an acceptable level of safety exists at the access. Noting that no situation is completely safe as poor decisions by drivers and/or pedestrians can result in accidents even at the safest locations. Australian Standard 2890.1-2004 Parking Facilities Part 1 off street car parking details minimum standards required for off street car parking facilities including access crossings. One of the main criteria in this respect is that suitable pedestrian sight lines be provided at the access to ensure drivers exiting the site can see pedestrians and pedestrians approaching the access can see the vehicles. This means suitable sight triangles from the access need to be maintained by limiting obstructions to less than 600 mm high within the sight triangles (2 m x 2.5 m) at the access. The Britannia Boulevard access has been assessed and is considered adequate though a suitable condition of consent in regard to the AS2890.1-2004 pedestrian sight line requirements has been recommended to reinforce the requirement to the developer and in particular any Principal Certifying Authority approving Construction Certificate plans. It should also be noted that no heavy vehicle movement is proposed within Britannia Boulevard as they will be required to use the Minmi Road access. The provision of the alternate Minmi Road access will also distribute traffic better through the site and reduce the amount of traffic that may have used the Britannia Boulevard access if it was the only access.

The other point to note in terms of pedestrian safety is that the peak Aldi traffic periods are generally on a Thursday evening after 4.30 pm and Saturday mornings. These peaks will not coincide with pedestrian traffic peaks around the site associated with children travelling to school." · Ability of semi-trailers to negotiate left turn at Minmi Road / Woodford Street lights: "Turning templates for the 19 metre articulated vehicle have been overlayed on the aerial for this intersection. This exercise has shown that a 19 metre articulated vehicle can negotiate the left turn out of Minmi Road into Woodford Street at low speeds. As these templates are conservative and the intersection being lights will ensure vehicles travel through the intersection at low speed no concerns are raised with the use of the intersection by 19 metre articulated vehicles. Aldi also tend to service their smaller stores using a 16 metre articulated vehicle that would be easily able to negotiate this movement." · Likely traffic at the site due to future developments in the neighbourhood: "The presentation to the Public Voice Committee by representatives of the objectors to the proposal has identified that future development in the area is likely to generate significant additional traffic at the site. This point is not disputed; however the assessment by the presenter of the presentation is very simplified, does not account for traffic distribution patterns and the time horizon that such development will take place. It is highly unlikely that full development of the area will occur in a time period of less than 20 years and in that time there could be many changes to the road network both adjoining the site or external to the site that could change traffic patterns in the area. Therefore, it is common traffic assessment procedure to limit the time horizon for traffic growth when assessing the traffic impacts of developments to 10 years. This time horizon has been adopted by the RTA as a fair and reasonable period to assume little or no changes to the road network are likely to occur except those for which planning is already under way, which will alter traffic patterns in the area. It is then common traffic assessment procedure to assume a likely traffic growth rate on the road network based on likely and known future development in the area. Typical traffic growth rates for developed areas are between 1 % and 2 % per annum while for a developing area a traffic growth rate of 3 % per annum is typical. The traffic assessment carried out by Colston Budd Hunt and Kafes has adopted a 3 % traffic growth rate over a 10 year period which is considered appropriate for this location. Overall it should be stated that the traffic assessment carried out by Colston Budd Hunt and Kafes has been assessed to have been carried out in accordance with the guidelines provided within the RTA documentation Guide to Traffic Generating Developments which is a Land and Environment Court recognised document."

·

Queries regarding the submitted traffic assessment and counts: "The presentation to the Public Voice Committee queries the published results of the Colston Budd Hunt and Kafes traffic counts in the area by providing data for counts carried out by the residents which are significantly higher than the Colston Budd Hunt and Kafes published results. It is difficult to comment thoroughly on the numbers provided by the residents as the period (time and duration) of the count has not been provided. It would appear though that they have tried to mirror the counts by the traffic consultant and the counts were carried out during the same time periods as the traffic consultants i.e. both counts on a Thursday between 2.45 ­ 6.00 pm. The difference between the resident counts and the traffic consultant's counts is because the residents' count has been published as a total count in that period while the traffic consultant's count is published as the peak hourly rate within that period. When carrying out traffic counts correctly the count period needs to be recorded in 15 minute intervals so that the peak hour count within the count period can be identified. This is because all traffic impact assessment should be carried out on the peak hour period for the road network and the development. Therefore, comparing the residents' count and the traffic consultant's counts in this instance is invalid as it would not be comparing the same thing i.e. a peak hour count as opposed to a total count. Again in assessing the traffic impact assessment by Colston Budd Hunt and Kafes the validity of the manual counts was scrutinised and in fact additional information had to be provided by the consultant before the counts were accepted. It was concluded that the counts were of an order that was acceptably to Council based on the expected Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes in the area."

·

Suitably of roundabouts for access by the proposed development: "The public voice presentation also raises the suitability of nearby roundabouts to cater for traffic generated by the Aldi development. Capacity wise the traffic assessment has identified that they can cater for any likely additional traffic as a result of the Aldi development. It is not clear what the relevance of the difficulties buses have negotiating the Broome Street roundabout had to do with the Aldi development, given all heavy vehicle traffic for the development will only use Minmi Road for access. It should be noted that buses as large rigid vehicles with long wheel bases often have difficulty using roundabouts as their turning paths are larger than even articulated vehicles (semi-trailers). The issue of service vehicles using the Minmi Road roundabout was raised with the developer; however, Aldi advised vehicles servicing the site will approach from Wallsend and exit via Minmi therefore would be able to negotiate the nearby roundabout."

Appropriate conditions have been recommended within the draft conditions at Attachment B regarding street lighting, bicycle and motorcycle parking.

d)

Flooding & Stormwater

The flooding and stormwater aspects have been assessed by Council's Senior Development Officer (Engineering) and are considered satisfactory subject to the recommended conditions of consent. The officer's detailed assessment is as follows: "The amended water management plan prepared by Robert Bird Group shows that drainage is to be collected and discharged via a retention tank into Council's drainage system in Britannia Boulevarde. The calculations provided within the water management plan comply with the requirements of Element 4.5 of Council's DCP 2005 and no objection is raised to the proposed water management on the site. Council's records show the site is not flood prone and no flood conditions are required." Appropriate conditions of consent have been included in the draft Schedule of Conditions at Attachment B to confirm the stormwater management arrangements. e) Environmental

The likely environmental impact of the proposal has been assessed by Senior Environmental Protection Officer of Council's Compliance Services Unit (CSU) and is considered satisfactory subject to the recommended conditions of consent. The officer's detailed assessment is as follows: (i) Noise "The occupation and usage of the proposed development has the potential to generate adverse noise impacts on the surrounding residents. The potential noise impacts from the proposed development may be generated by the following various sources. · Mechanical plant

The mechanical plant associated with the proposed supermarket will be located on the roof of the building. The mechanical plant will include a rooftop platform, containing two air conditioning units and refrigeration compressors respectively, and a plant room containing two air conditioning units. The Noise Assessment Addendum letters prepared by Wilkinson Murray Pty Ltd dated 30 June 2009 and 26 August 2009 have undertaken an analysis of the potential impact of these plant items on the residential receivers located along Broome Street. A particular focus on the potential noise impacts of the proposed mechanical plant has been placed on 5 Broome Street as the nearest affected receiver, due to the residential dwelling being of two-storey construction.

Noise modelling has demonstrated the mechanical plant will be compliant with the day, evening and night periods in accordance with the criteria outlined in the Department of Environment and Climate Change's (DECC) `Industrial Noise Policy'. Compliance is dependant on the construction of acoustic barriers on three sides of the mechanical plant platform and treatment of the plant room walls with acoustically absorbent material. These recommendations outlined in the Noise Assessment Addendum letter prepared by Wilkinson Murray Pty Ltd dated 30 June 2009 are to be implemented and certification from an acoustic consultant is required. These recommendations will form part of the consent conditions. Following Public Voice and additional late submissions, further issues were raised regarding acoustic impacts. Council's Compliance Services Unit has provided the additional explanation below: "A response to the query regarding how noise levels are calculated for the mechanical plant is provided below:

· The theoretically propagated noise of 33dB(A) at the residence at 5 Broome

Street is based on the two refrigeration compressors and an air conditioning unit operating during the night time period. The cumulative noise source from these items of mechanical plant is 88dB(A) at the source. Based on spherical spreading and distance attenuation (5 Broome Street is located approximately 30m from the proposed plant deck/room) the unattenuated noise received at the residence would be 58dB(A). Please note, noise is reduced with distance, i.e. the greater distance from a noise source the less noise received, based on a logarithmic scale. Therefore, without any noise attenuation such as a barrier the noise level would exceed the project specific noise criteria of 39dB(A) by 16dB(A). The applicant has proposed to install a noise barrier for the plant deck consisting of two layers of colourbond on a steel frame with acoustic insulation between the colourbond panels. The noise barrier will enclose three sides of the deck and the plant room will be entirely enclosed, with the exception of ventilation louvres facing Minmi Road, and constructed of similar materials as above. The noise barrier aims to achieve a reduction in the amount of noise received by the residence. The proposed noise barrier will achieve a sound reduction index of Rw 25 i.e. the barrier would reduce the received noise level by 25 db(A). The proposed barrier will reduce the noise by absorption. Therefore, distance loss (resulting in 58dB(A) received) coupled with a barrier insertion loss of 25 db(A) will result in a value of 33db(A) received at the residence i.e. 58-25=33dB(A). The received noise from the mechanical plant is less then the project specific criteria for the night period. The addition of 33dB(A) will result in a marginal cumulative increase when added to the existing background noise level based on a logarithmic scale. Therefore, the noise received complies with the Department of Environment and Climate Change's `Industrial Noise Policy' intrusiveness criteria."

Overall it is considered, subject to the recommended conditions of consent, that the proposal is acceptable in terms of acoustic impacts. · Carpark

Vehicles manoeuvring within the carparking area of the proposed supermarket have the potential to generate adverse noise impacts for the surrounding residential dwellings. Noise modelling undertaken by Wilkinson Murray Pty Ltd has demonstrated noise from the carpark area will be compliant with the site specific noise criteria for both the day and evening periods. The noise impact from the use of the proposed carpark is compliant with noise guidelines provided an acoustic fence is constructed along the boundaries of the adjoining residential allotments on Broome Street. A condition relating to the construction of the acoustic fence will be included in the conditions of consent. The Compliance Services Unit (CSU) raised concern with the applicant regarding the potential noise impact of vehicles accessing the carpark after ceasing of trade. The letter prepared by deWitt Consulting Pty Ltd dated 26 August 2009 advises the applicant will install removable bollards or traffic management devices to prevent vehicles entering after hours. Appropriate conditions of consent will be included requiring the installation of the vehicle management measures. The conditions will also address the time periods in which access to the site will be restricted. · Deliveries

The Noise Assessment prepared by Wilkinson Murray Pty Ltd dated February 2009 has developed a noise model including `worst-case' scenarios to assess the potential overall noise impact from the operation of the proposed supermarket. The noise scenarios included noise from delivery vehicles. Noise from delivery activities were demonstrated to comply with the day and evening site specific noise criteria at the residential receivers located along Broome Street. However, the CSU was still concerned the noise from deliveries had the potential to impact upon residential amenity during the early morning (6:00am to 7:00am) and late evening (8:00am to 10:00pm). The letter prepared by deWitt Consulting Pty Ltd dated 26 August 2009 advises the applicant is amenable to the restriction of delivery vehicles to 7:00am to 8:00pm daily. The restriction of delivery times will be addressed by an appropriate consent condition. The submitted Noise Assessment had undertaken an analysis of the potential noise impacts from deliveries on the residential receivers along Broome Street, but did not account for future residential allotments approved by Council at 261 Minmi Road. A subsequent Noise Assessment Addendum letter prepared by Wilkinson Murray Pty Ltd dated 30 June 2009 has undertaken an acoustic assessment of the potential impacts on these future residential allotments. The letter has recommended the construction of an acoustic fence along the north-east boundary of the proposed development.

It is also recommended that an acoustic barrier be constructed along the eastern side of the loading dock to ensure potential noise impacts are mitigated for the future residential dwellings. The requirement for the construction of an acoustic fence and loading dock barrier will be addressed by appropriate consent conditions. · Waste collection

The Site Plan prepared by Suters Architects dated 15 July 2009 shows the bin storage area located in the north-east area of the proposed development. While the bin storage area currently adjoins the boundary of a vacant lot the adjacent property has obtained development consent for a residential use. Therefore, the collection of waste from the proposed development has the potential to impact on future and current residential dwellings. Following Public Voice and additional late submissions, further issues were raised regarding waste aspects. Council's Compliance Services Unit has provided the additional explanation below: "While the bin store may be a potential source of odour the distance and shielding by the proposed building will aid in mitigating any odour impacts for existing residential receivers. The bin store has the potential to cause odour impacts for future residential dwellings to the east, but management measures such as closure of bin lids and regular cleaning and removal of accumulated waste will adequately address any potential odour issues. The letter prepared by deWitt Consulting Pty Ltd dated 26 August 2009 advises the applicant is amenable to the restriction of waste collection to the hours of 7:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday and 8:00am to 6:00pm Saturday and Sunday. The restriction of times for waste collection will be addressed by an appropriate consent condition." · Traffic

The Noise Assessment prepared by Wilkinson Murray Pty Ltd dated February 2009 has undertaken an analysis of potential increases in traffic noise associated with the proposed development experienced at residential receivers in Britannia Boulevarde, Kurraka Road, Broome Street, Scobie Street and Minmi Road. Traffic noise is assessed against the criteria outlined for a local road in accordance with the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) `Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise'. The traffic noise assessment has been conducted during peak times. The predicted noise impact from traffic meets the noise criteria in that it does not increase existing noise levels by more than 2dB(A) at any time. · Hours of operation

The Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) prepared by deWitt Consulting Pty Ltd dated February 2009 notes the proposed hours of trade as 9:00am to 7:00pm daily with variations on Thursday night (9:00pm) and Saturday morning (8:30am). An appropriate condition will address the restriction of hours of trade.

The letter prepared by deWitt Consulting Pty Ltd dated 26 August 2009 notes staff will arrive at the proposed development at 6:30am and leave the site one hour after trade ceases. An appropriate condition of consent will address the hours of operation to include staff leaving the premises and the locking of gates and placement of measures to prevent vehicular access. (ii) Contamination "The Preliminary Contamination Assessment prepared by Douglas Partners Pty Ltd dated July 2009 has undertaken sampling of fill material located at the proposed development site. The Preliminary Contamination Assessment prepared by Douglas Partners Pty Ltd dated July 2009 has revealed the fill material does not contain contaminants exceeding health guideline levels for an industrial/commercial land use. Therefore, the development site is suitable for the proposed development in regards to contamination. However, soils to be taken off site will be required to classified in accordance with the Department of Environment and Climate Change's (DECC) ``Waste Classification Guidelines Part 1: Classifying Waste'. The requirement for classification of soils will be addressed by an appropriate consent condition." (iii) Flora and Fauna "The proposed development site contains a number of semi-mature to mature trees dominated by Grey Gum (Eucalyptus punctata), Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata) and Grey Ironbox (Eucalyptus paniculata). The trees are predominantly located within the western portion of the site and along the Minmi "Road frontage resulting in a broken canopy cover. The site also contains a minimal understorey or shrub layer with groundcover dominated by grass and exotic species. The absence of understorey vegetation suggests a high level of historical disturbance while mature native species indicate the area is a remnant of the Coastal Foothills Spotted Gum ­ Ironbark Forest community. The proposed development will result in the removal of the majority of vegetation on-site. The vegetation removal has the potential to impact upon local flora and fauna. The Ecology and Threatened Species Assessment prepared by Hunter Eco dated December 2008 has undertaken a flora and fauna study for the site of the proposed development. The survey effort undertaken revealed no endangered or vulnerable species of flora or fauna are present on-site. The Ecology and Threatened Species Assessment has undertaken a impact assessment (Seven-Part Test) of the proposed development on endangered and vulnerable species listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 that are known to inhabit the surrounding area. These species include the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) and insectivorous bats such as the eastern bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis). While the proposed development site may potentially provide foraging resources e.g.) squirrel gliders feed on flowers and sap of Spotted Gum and Grey Ironbark, the lack of understorey vegetation and absence of hollow-bearing trees reduces the habitat value for these species.

Furthermore, the vegetation lacks adequate connectivity to surrounding vegetation due to residential development. The connectivity to surrounding habitat to the north-east will be further impinged by the approved residential development on the adjacent property (DA 06/0660). The Ecology and Threatened Species Assessment has concluded the proposed development will result in no significant impact upon flora and fauna. The proposed development includes the clearing of the semi-mature to mature trees on-site. These trees provide habitat for endemic avifauna and mammals. To ensure the safety and protection of these species a suitable qualified ecologist will be required to be present on-site to supervise the tree felling. The requirement for an ecologist to be on-site to inspect the trees for fauna prior to felling will be addressed by an appropriate consent condition." (iv) Noxious Weeds "The Ecology and Threatened Species Assessment identified twenty-two weed species on the proposed development site. The identified weed species include lantana (Lantana camara), which is listed as a noxious weed within the Newcastle Local Government Area. Due to the presence of this species a Noxious Weeds Management Plan should be devised outlining the proposed removal and disposal methods to prevent further spreading and maintenance requirements to prevent re-establishment. The requirement for a Noxious Weeds Management Plan will be addressed by an appropriate consent condition." (v) Construction "The construction of the proposed development has the potential to generate various environmental impacts. These environmental impacts include the following. · Sediment and Erosion

The construction phase of the development increases the potential for sediment to enter the surrounding stormwater system. Sediment and erosion control measures will need to be designed and implemented in accordance with the requirements of `Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction 4th Edition ­ Volume 1' (the Blue Book) published by Landcom, 2004. These sediment and erosion control measures are to be documented in a soil and water management strategy. The soil and water management strategy will form part of a larger Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and is required to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. The requirement for a soil and water management strategy and EMP will form part of the consent conditions.

·

Dust

The construction phase of the proposed development has the potential to generate issues in relation to dust moving off-site. A dust management strategy should be prepared as part of the EMP. The dust management strategy will detail measures to minimise dust generation such as management of stockpiles and bare areas with particular reference to control techniques under adverse meteorological conditions. The issue of dust management may be addressed in the EMP and by an appropriate consent condition. · Noise

The construction phase of the proposed development has the potential to generate adverse noise impacts for surrounding residents. A noise management strategy detailing measures to reduce noise from construction activities should be included in the EMP. The requirement for a noise management strategy will form part of the consent conditions. · Vibration

The construction of the proposed development may result in vibration impacts for surrounding residential dwellings. Therefore, a vibration monitoring strategy should be incorporated into the overall EMP. The vibration monitoring strategy should include a dilapidation survey of surrounding residential dwellings that may be potentially affected by construction vibration. The requirement for preparation of a vibration monitoring strategy and dilapidation survey will be addressed by appropriate consent conditions." As discussed above, appropriate conditions have been recommended within Attachment B to address the issues raised by the Compliance Services Unit. (vi) Lighting The submitted application has provided a lighting 'lux diagram' showing the impacts of the lighting associated with the proposed development and it is considered that the proposal is satisfactory in this regard. 4.2.4 Social & Economic Impacts in the Locality [Section 79C(1)(b)] The proposed development would not have any adverse social or economic impacts in the locality. However, it will have a short term positive economic impact during the construction period and could be expected to have a longer term favourable economic and social impact as the retail facilities 'come on line'. The proposed development would not be likely to have any significant social or economic impacts in the locality.

4.2.5 Suitability of the Site for the Development [Section 79C(1)(c)] The site is within a Mine Subsidence District and is also identified as being Bush Fire Prone land. In respect of the latter, the proposal has been assessed by the NSW Rural Fire Service and no specific requirements were raised. Appropriate conditions have been included in the draft Schedule of Conditions appended at Attachment B in relation to mine subsidence. The site is not subject to any other known risk or hazard that would render it unsuitable for the proposed development. 4.2.6 Submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulations [Section 79C(1)(d)]

It has been suggested by some objectors that the proposed development is not necessary and the subject site should be rezoned for a residential use or as a park. The current 3(a) Local Centre zoning of land has applied since the gazettal of the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan (NLEP), 2003 on 8 August 2003. It is further noted that the creation of commercially zoned land in this location was in accordance with the adopted Development Control Plan 42 (Fletcher Western Precinct). A residential use of the land is permissible under the current zoning and does not require a `rezoning' as both commercial and residential uses of the land are permissible with Council's consent. Similarly, use of the land as a `park' is permissible within this zoning but would effectively require Council to purchase the land and is not a matter for the assessment of the current proposal. This report has addressed the various concerns raised in the submission received in response to the Public Notification procedures under Council's DCP with the exception of: · Truck Sizes ­ Concern has been raised that trucks serving the proposed development will exceed the 5 tonne load limit that applies from the Summerhill roundabout to Minmi.

Vehicles which have a destination at a site which is along a route with a load limit are exempt from the load limit restrictions. In this instance, if Council approves the application, the trucks servicing the Aldi site would be exempt from these restrictions. · Alternative uses ­ It is suggested that alternative uses such as a child care centre or medical centre would be more appropriate. A "..previous owner of the development site intended to built a child care centre ..however the Council decided against it for safety reasons because the child care has an entrance into Britannia Boulevarde".

No application for a child care centre has been lodged on the subject site. It is advised that a child care centre and a medical centre would be permissible uses on the subject site within the 3(a) Local Centre zone under the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan (NLEP) 2003. · That ALDI may acquire land from the subdivision adjoining their proposed development and use that to gain vehicle access from the parking area and delivery dock to St Andrew's Way.

The adjoining property is located within a 2(a) Residential zone under the provisions of the Newcastle Local Environment Plan (NLEP), 2003 within which zone the use of the land for purposes associated with the proposed commercial development would not be permissible. · "The residents would claim that this is a semi-rural setting and this development is not in the spirit of this zoning."

It is considered that the submitted proposal is in keeping with the zone objectives. While the land has historically been `semi rural', the strategic planning and development which has occurred along the Minmi Road corridor since the 1980's (and preceding with the recent Part 3a applications) has lead to the area becoming suburban in nature. · "The existing bus stop is along this section of Britannia Boulevard. This is a busy bus stop for school children. As others will have reported, it is very common to see children sitting in the gutter as there is no bus stop seating. Other children will also sit in the median strip or on the small roundabout. "

It is considered that the traffic safety impacts, and associated traffic volumes, are acceptable based on the engineering assessment. It is not reasonable to suggest that the proposal is unsafe due to children sitting in the gutter, on the median or on the roundabout. These actions are inherently unsafe, and would be so regardless of the currently submitted proposal. · Closing of Wallsend Aldi Store ­ It is suggested that the approval of the current application would allow Aldi to close their Wallsend store.

This is not within Council's powers to control and it is not considered that it would alter the assessment of the current proposal. · "..the proposed ALDI store will proposed convenient shopping for the Fletcher area but is far from necessary, as the Maryland Shopping Centre is less than 3km from the proposed site and 5km for Wallsend Plaza."

The `need' for the current proposal and availability of other retail shops within 3-5 kilometres is an issue of market competition and not a matter for Council's consideration. It is not considered that the current proposal is of a sufficient size and nature to be affecting other commercial centres on a strategic level. · Graffiti & Vandals ­ ".. problems of graffiti and vandals drawn to the location after hours is another huge concern, particularly when it will not have the security as a shopping centre would."

The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects has included a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design assessment and it is considered that design measures have been incorporated to minimise potential issues.

4.2.7 Public Interest [Section 79C(1)(e)] · Sustainability

The proposed development is considered to be satisfactory having regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development. The proposed development would not result in the disturbance of any endangered flora or fauna habitat or otherwise adversely impact on the natural environment. · General

The proposed development does not raise any significant general public interest issues beyond matters already addressed in this report.

ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Copy of current amended plans for the proposed development ­ 1 Britannia Boulevarde, Minmi (DA 09/0227) Attachment B: Draft Schedule of Conditions - DA 09/0227 Attachment C: Processing Chronology - DA 09/0227 Attachment D: Cover Letter from ALDI - DA 09/0227 Attachment E: ALDI Legal Advice (Barker & McKenzie) Attachment F: Economic Report by Hill PDA Attachment G: Council's Legal Advice from Sparke Helmore Attachment H: Shadow Diagrams ­ DA 09/0227

Information

Built Agenda

27 pages

Find more like this

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

1066714


You might also be interested in

BETA
Council Schedule: Belfast - 08/01/09
Section 600
Microsoft Word - Final Implementing Zoning Ordinance
Microsoft Word - AMENDED CHECKLIST-4-05-10.doc
WI.MRB.00002-001 Maintenance Review Board team