Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club Draft Amendment No. 65 to Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan (LM LEP) 2004

Transcription

1 Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club Draft Amendment No. 65 to Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan (LM LEP) 2004 Local Government Area: Name of Draft LEP: Lake Macquarie City Council (LMCC) Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan (LMLEP) 2004 (Draft Amendment No. 65) Subject Land: Lot 20 DP Tables: 2A Maude Street, Belmont Table 1: Conversions from LMLEP 2004 to draft LMLEP 2012 that affect the subject site and this Planning Proposal Table 2: Proposed changes to the LMLEP 2004 map and instrument under Option 1 Table 3: Proposed changes to the draft LMLEP 2012 map and instrument under Option 1 Table 4: Proposed changes to the LMLEP 2004 map and instrument under Option 2 Table 5: Proposed changes to the draft LMLEP 2012 map and instrument under Option 1 Table 6: Comparison of the Planning Proposal against the Draft Centres Policy Table 7: Comparison of the Planning Proposal against the LHRS Sustainability Criteria Table 8: Comparison of the Planning Proposal to relevant SEPPs Table 9: Consistency with applicable Section 117 Ministerial Directions Attachments: Attachment 1: Locality Map Attachment 2: Aerial showing proximity of the subject site to Belmont Town Centre Attachment 3: Aerial Map and Current Zones Attachment 4: Option 1 Proposed map changes under LMLEP 2004 Attachment 5: Option 1 Proposed map changes under draft LMLEP 2012 Attachment 6: Option 2 Proposed map changes under LMLEP 2004 Attachment 7: Option 2 Proposed map changes under draft LMLEP 2012 Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 1

2 Attachment 8: Comparison of land uses under LMLEP 2004 Attachment 9: Comparison of land uses under draft LMLEP 2012 Attachment 10: Copies of government agency consultation letter from Hunter Water Corporation and letter from Roads and Maritime Services Attachment 11: Copy of the published amendment, including instrument and maps Amendment No. 65 to the LMLEP 2004 was published on 8 March The Amendment included the following changes to LMLEP 2004: Added seniors housing as an additional permitted use on part of the site under Schedule 7 Additional development allowed on certain land of LMLEP Updated the definition of the map in LMLEP 2004 to include Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2004 (Amendment No 65) Sheet 2. Rezoned part of the site from Zone 6 (1) Open Space Zone to Zone 6 (2) Tourism and Recreation Zone to reflect the private ownership of the site and correct a zone boundary anomaly. A copy of the published amendment including the instrument and maps, is provided in Appendix 11 of this report. The Planning Proposal below explains how and why the LEP Amendment was made. Part 1 Objectives or Intended Outcomes This Planning Proposal seeks to amend the LMLEP 2004 to facilitate the development of seniors housing on part of the Belmont Sportsman s Club land by adding part of the subject site (approximately 1.05 hectares) to Schedule 7 Additional development allowed on certain land of LMLEP 2004, to enable seniors housing as permissible with development consent. It is proposed to re-develop the western portion of the site, containing the three existing bowling greens, as seniors housing. The eastern portion of the site, containing the Belmont Sportsman s Club building and associated car parking, is not part of this Planning Proposal and will retain the existing zone and land use. The subject allotment is currently zoned 6(1) Open Space (approximately 0.25 hectares) and 6(2) Tourism and Recreation (approximately 1.75 hectares). See Attachment 3 Aerial Map and Existing Zones for details. Although the allotment has a split zoning, it is entirely in the private ownership of the Belmont Sportsman s Club. The split zoning of the land is an anomaly that results from changes to allotment boundaries and planning instruments over time. To resolve this anomaly, it is proposed to include a minor zone boundary adjustment as part of Option 1 so that the whole of the subject allotment is zoned 6(2) Tourism and Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 2

3 Recreation. Refer to Attachment 4 for the minor zone boundary map changes proposed under LMLEP 2004 for Option 1. Community Consultation The revised Gateway Determination issued on 30 August 2012 required Council to amend their Planning Proposal to show two LEP Amendment options to enable seniors housing on the subject site. Council was allowed to show their preferred option to amend Schedule 7 of LMLEP 2004 to enable seniors housing on the subject as permissible with development consent, but was also required to show the Department of Planning and Infrastructure s (DoPI) preference to rezone the land for medium density residential development to Zone 2(2) Residential (Urban Living). The Planning Proposal showing two options was exhibited to the public for comment for a period of 29 days from Monday 15 October 2012 until Monday 12 November Council received sixteen submissions, all specifically supporting Option 1, an amendment to Schedule 7 of LMLEP Two of the submissions were petitions containing 373 signatures in support of Option 1. Four submissions were letters from community groups supporting Option 1. The remaining letters were from individuals supporting Option 1. Clause 58(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) states that the relevant planning authority may, at any time, vary its proposals as a consequence of its consideration of any submission or report during community consultation or for any other reason. As a result of the significant public support for Option 1, Council has varied this Planning Proposal in accordance with Clause 58(1) of the EP&A Act, to specifically support the LEP Amendment progressing as an Amendment to Schedule 7 of LMLEP The amended Planning Proposal is also in accordance with the resolution of Council on 10 December 2012 to endorse draft Amendment No. 65 as an amendment to Schedule 7 of Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2004 (LMLEP 2004). Draft LMLEP 2012 Standard Instrument LEP The NSW Government introduced a Standard Instrument for new LEPs in all local government areas to create consistent LEP terminology and format across the state. LMCC is in the process of preparing draft LMLEP 2012 to comply with the Standard Instrument. As far as possible, the Standard Instrument LEP for Lake Macquarie will be a conversion of the current LMLEP 2004 to fit the Standard Instrument requirements. Draft LMLEP 2012 is to be exhibited to the public for comment between 24 September and 24 December It is likely to be gazetted in Therefore, this Planning Proposal considers both LMLEP 2004 and draft LMLEP The conversion of LMLEP 2004 to draft LM LEP2012 as it relates to the subject site is summarised in Table 1 below. Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 3

4 Table 1: Conversions from LMLEP 2004 to draft LMLEP 2012 that affect the subject site and this Planning Proposal Provisions under LMLEP 2004 Zone 6(1) Open Space Zone 6(2) Tourism and Recreation Schedule 7 Additional development allowed on certain land Standard Instrument Conversion Zone RE1 Public Recreation Zone RE2 Private Recreation Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses and inclusion on the Additional Permitted Uses Map Part 2 Explanation of Provisions The recreational zoning of the subject site and relationship with adjoining land prohibits the use of the site for seniors housing under both the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) and Clause 41 of LMLEP 2004, as described below in Part 3, Question 2. Therefore, the applicant has requested an LEP amendment to enable seniors housing on the site. Table 2 outlines the changes proposed to the LMLEP 2004 map and instrument under the proposed LEP Amendment. Table 2: Proposed changes to the LMLEP 2004 map and instrument under Option 1 Amendment Applies to: Instrument Schedule 7 Additional development allowed on certain land Explanation of Provision Include part of Lot 20 DP as an item in Schedule 7 of the LMLEP 2004 to enable seniors housing as permitted with development consent on the site. Instrument Dictionary Add Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2004 (Amendment No xx) to the definition of the map. Map Zone Map Show the whole of the subject site as Zone 6(2) Tourism and Recreation, as shown in Attachment 4. The LEP Amendment proposes the following changes to the draft LMLEP 2012 instrument and maps: Table 3: Proposed changes to the draft LMLEP 2012 map and instrument under Option 1 Amendment Applies to: Instrument Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses Explanation of Provision Include part of Lot 20 DP as an item in Schedule 1 of the draft LM LEP 2012 to enable development for the purpose of seniors housing as permitted with development consent on the site. Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 4

5 Map Additional Permitted Uses Map Map Land Zoning Map Map Lot Size Map Map Height of Buildings Map Include approximately 1.05 hectares of the western portion of Lot 20 DP on the Additional Permitted Uses Map, as shown in Attachment 5. Show the whole of the subject site as Zone RE2 Private Recreation, as shown in Attachment 5. No change required. Note: Zone RE1 Public Recreation and Zone RE2 Private Recreation do not have a minimum lot size depicted on the draft Lot Size Map. No change required. Note: Zone RE1 Public Recreation and Zone RE2 Private Recreation do not have a minimum height of buildings map depicted on the draft Lot Size Map. However, Clause 4.3 of draft LMLEP 2012 contains provisions that require the height of buildings to be compatible with: the height of other buildings in the immediate vicinity or locality; with site attributes; and with the proposed land use; as well as considering the provisions of any relevant DCP. Part 3 Justification A. NEED FOR THE PLANNING PROPOSAL 1. Is the Planning Proposal a result of any strategic study or report? The subject site is not identified in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy 2006 (LHRS), but the Planning Proposal does fulfil the objectives and vision of the LHRS to focus infill development around centres and to cater for the needs of an aging population. Lifestyle 2020 is Council s citywide strategic planning document that informed preparation of the current LMLEP The subject site is not specifically identified in Lifestyle 2020, but the Proposal does fulfil the strategic directions to retain social diversity across the City by encouraging opportunities for housing that meets special needs, such as older people or people with physical or psychological disabilities and of focusing activities at Centres to maximise accessibility. The urban structure map contained within Lifestyle 2020 (p20) encourages retirement homes and seniors housing within a ten minute walk of town centres such as Belmont, a five minute walk of bus stops, and in high amenity areas, such as adjacent to public open spaces. The Belmont Sportsman s Club site meets each of these criteria because the site is within a five to ten minute walk of Belmont town centre, which provides a range of retail and commercial activities, social services and community facilities and is a major destination for the local bus service. The site is also adjacent to sporting fields and other public open space. 2. Is the Planning Proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way? A number of options were considered to proceed with seniors housing development at the Belmont Sportsman s Club site, as outlined below. Option 1 Additional permitted use Council s preferred LEP Amendment option is to add part of the subject site (approximately 1.05 hectares) to Schedule 7 Additional development allowed on Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 5

6 certain land of LMLEP 2004, to enable seniors housing as permissible with development consent. Schedule 7 of LMLEP 2004 permits a particular land use on a particular parcel of land. The land uses permitted with consent under the zone also continue to apply. DoPI argue in their revised Gateway Determination dated 30 August 2012 that the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 and Clause 41 of the LMLEP 2004 provide adequate alternative mechanisms to facilitate seniors housing development more broadly within the LGA. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that the SEPP and Clause 41 are facilitating an adequate supply of seniors housing in Lake Macquarie. The section 65 certificates issued by DoPI permitting exhibition of draft LMLEP 2012 for public comment, request Council to investigate opportunities for seniors housing in existing urban areas close to urban services. In response, Council intend to produce a report on seniors housing opportunities in Lake Macquarie as an attachment to the section 68 report to DoPI following exhibition of draft LMLEP The report will include a series of maps showing seniors housing opportunities and outlining mechanisms to protect these opportunities. Council has developed a list of criteria for identifying such sites, and the subject site fulfils many of these, including being free of slope and bushfire constraints, having ready access to urban services such water, sewer and transport, and access to shops, employment, recreation, medical and other services. Council undertook consultation with representatives of the aged care industry in December 2010, who indicated that the worst-case scenario for potential seniors housing sites is for them to be zoned residential, raising the land value and competition from other land uses to a point that precludes seniors housing. A copy of minutes is provided as supporting information to this planning proposal. The DoPI Planning Team Report to the Gateway panel, dated 28 June 2012, notes that Lake Macquarie City Council approved 53 applications for seniors housing between 2005 and 2009, with the majority of approvals on the western side of the Lake. The bias toward seniors housing approvals on the western side of the Lake does not reflect the existing population distribution in Lake Macquarie, which also has significant population and urban areas to the north and east of the Lake. There is demand from residents to remain in local suburbs as they age to maintain their social and support networks. The bias for seniors housing on the western side of the Lake likely substantiates the advice from the industry that seniors housing generally occurs on the urban fringe because larger, cheaper land holdings are available with less competition from other developers. However, there is a need to provide more seniors housing in proximity to town centres to ensure better access to services and infrastructure for seniors. Development of the subject site for seniors housing would help to meet this need. DoPI released a draft LEP Practice Note in September 2012 to provide guidance on including additional permitted uses in Schedule 1 of Standard Instrument LEPs. Schedule 7 Additional development allowed on certain land of LMLEP 2004 is proposed to be converted to Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses under draft LMLEP 2012, so the draft LEP Practice Note applies to this Planning Proposal. The draft LEP Practice Note recommends avoiding extensive use of Schedule 1. However, the land use zones in the Standard LEP template are not capable of accommodating the best planning outcomes in all circumstances. Restricting use of Schedule 1 in all instances will sacrifice good local land use planning in favour of simple and standardised planning controls, which is contrary to the needs of local Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 6

7 communities. The use of Schedule 1 is legitimate and necessary in some instances to achieve the best planning outcome. The draft LEP Practice Note recommends that Schedule 1 should only be used in exceptional circumstances where there is no other acceptable solution to progress the matter. As discussed above, rezoning may raise the land value and competition to a point that seniors housing is not the most profitable or viable use of the site, so it is not an acceptable solution for providing seniors housing specifically. Other potential options are discussed below and none of them are considered acceptable solutions for providing seniors housing on the subject site. Option 2 Rezoning to Medium Density Residential The revised Gateway Determination issued on 30 August 2012 requires Council to amend their Planning Proposal to show two LEP Amendment options to enable seniors housing on the subject site. Council was allowed to show their preferred option to amend Schedule 7 of LMLEP 2004 to enable seniors housing on the subject as permissible with development consent, but was also required to show the Department of Planning and Infrastructure s (DoPI) preference to rezone the land for medium density residential development to Zone 2(2) Residential (Urban Living). Seniors housing is a permitted land use in Zone 2(2) Residential (Urban Living), however there is no mechanism available via a rezoning to ensure seniors housing occurs on the site if the LEP Amendment is progressed as a rezoning. Refer to Attachment 6 for the proposed rezoning under LMLEP 2004 for Option 2. Seniors housing is permitted with development consent in the 2(1) Residential Zone, 2(2) Residential (Urban Living) Zone, 3(1) Urban Centre (Core) Zone, 3(2) Urban Centre (Support) Zone, and the B4 Mixed Use under LMLEP Under the draft LMLEP 2012, seniors housing is permitted with development consent in the R1 General Residential, R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential, the B1 Neighbourhood Centre, B2 Local Centre, B3 Commercial Core, and B4 Mixed Use Residential Zones. Land adjoining the subject site is zoned 2(2) Residential (Urban Living) and 3(2) Urban Centre (Support) Zone under LMLEP It would therefore be most appropriate to rezone the site to 2(2) Residential (Urban Living) or 3(2) Urban Centre (Support) Zone. DoPI have indicated that their preference is for the land to be zoned 2(2) Residential (Urban Living), as outlined in their letter dated 30 August 2012: The preference is for the land to be zoned for residential development as it is within close proximity to the Belmont town centre and adjoining residential land, and seniors living development is consistent with the objectives of a residential zone. Although the subject site does not comply with the provisions of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 or clause 41 of the Lake Macquarie LEP 2004, these provide adequate alternative mechanisms to facilitate seniors housing development more broadly within the LGA. I also note the proposed development will result in the loss of land for open space and recreation, whether it proceeds as an additional permitted use or as a rezoning. DoPI argue that seniors housing development is inconsistent with the objectives of the open space zones. However, the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, and Clause 41 of LMLEP 2004 already set aside local planning controls and objectives that prevent the development of seniors housing. The SEPP and Clause 41 of the LMLEP 2004 recognise that, in appropriate locations, the need to provide seniors housing for an ageing population is a more important outcome and overriding objective than compliance with zone objectives. Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 7

8 There is no mechanism available to ensure seniors housing occurs on the site if the LEP Amendment is progressed as a rezoning. Zone 2(2) Residential Urban Living permits many land uses with consent that are not permitted under the current zone. The land uses currently permitted on the site have a recreation and tourism focus, while the land uses permitted in Zone 2(2) have a medium density residential focus. Attachments 7 and 8 contain tables comparing the land uses currently permissible in each zone under the LMLEP 2004 and the draft LMLEP Council does not support rezoning the subject because there is currently 5100ha of land zoned 2(2) Residential (Urban Living) and only 400ha of land zoned 6(2) Tourism and Recreation in the City. It is undesirable to zone land from 6(2) to 2(2), without some form of replacement being provided for the 6(2) zoned land. Rezoning would permit a range of land uses that are not appropriate on the site given the existing ratio of 2(2) to 6(2) land. Council is specifically supportive of seniors housing on the site rather than the other land uses permitted with consent in Zone 2(2) Residential Urban Living and feels that there is ample 2(2) Residential (Urban Living) zoned land available to accommodate other forms of medium density housing in proximity to the Belmont town centre. SEPP 1 Development Standards and Clause 41 of the LMLEP 2004 SEPP 1 aims to make development standards more flexible. It allows determining authorities to approve a development that does not comply with a development standard, where the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. Clause 41 of the LMLEP 2004 permits development for the purpose of retirement villages in Zone 2(1) Residential or on land that is not within Zone 2(1), 7(1), 7(4), 8 or 9, but part of or all of which immediately adjoins, or is within 400 metres of, land within the 2(1) zone. The subject site adjoins land in Zone 2(2) Residential (Urban Living), but Clause 41 of LMLEP 2004 does not apply to Zone 2(2). The subject site is approximately 620 metres southeast of land in Zone 2(1) Residential and therefore exceeds the distance requirements of Clause 41. Legal advice received from Councils City Solicitor, dated 4 May 2004, indicates that the dimension of 400 metres reflects a development standard amenable to the provisions of SEPP 1. However, the 620 metre distance between the subject site and Zone 2(1) would equate to a 64.5% variation to the 400m development standard, which is a substantial variation. The proponent would also need to address Clause 41(5)(a) of the LEP 2004, which requires that the land on which the development will be carried out is of sufficient size to accommodate a minimum 70 unit retirement village development. The concept plan provided to Council for pre-lodgement discussions was for 42 residential units. Therefore, the proposal is substantially inconsistent with two of the land use planning standards contained in Clause 41 of the LMLEP Given the departures required, it seems that there is little merit in progressing seniors housing on the site under SEPP 1. SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 Clause 24 of the SEPP provides that DoPI may issue a Site Compatibility Certificate for seniors housing on land that is used for the purposes of an existing registered club where the land adjoins land zoned primarily for urban purposes. The Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 8

9 Certificate permits seniors housing in locations where it is otherwise prohibited by local planning controls if the proposal meets the other applicable requirements of the SEPP. Clause 4(5) of the SEPP provides that: (5) Application of Policy to land zoned for special uses and existing registered clubs For the purposes of this Policy (and for the avoidance of doubt), a consent authority must not treat: a) land on which development for the purposes of special uses is permitted, or b) land that is being used for the purposes of an existing registered club, as being land zoned primarily for urban purposes unless it is satisfied that most of the land that it adjoins is land zoned for urban purposes. A Site Compatibility Certificate for the subject site was sought from DoPI in July 2011 on the basis that the Belmont Sportsman s Club is an existing registered club and the site adjoins land zoned primarily for urban purposes and therefore meets the requirements of Clause 4(5) of the SEPP. Attachment 3 shows that adjoining land to the west of the subject site is within Zone 3(2) Urban Centre (Support) and adjoining land to the northwest is within Zone 2(2) Residential (Urban Living), which fulfils the definition of land zoned primarily for urban purposes. Adjoining land to the south, east, and northeast of the subject site is Zone 6(1) Open Space and contains sports fields, a senior citizens centre, and a childcare centre. DoPI did not grant a Site Compatibility Certificate for seniors housing on the subject because land zoned open space is not considered to be used primarily for urban purposes under Clause 4(6)(a) and Schedule 1 of the SEPP. DoPI obtained legal advice that the SEPP does not apply because a greater proportion of the boundary adjoins land zoned for open space and therefore most of the land adjoining the subject site is not land zoned for urban purposes. The proposal otherwise meets the aims of the SEPP to increase the supply and diversity of residences that meet the needs of seniors or people with a disability and to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services by locating seniors living developments within existing urban areas, in this case adjacent to the Belmont town centre. Ideally, amendments should be made to the SEPP to address the inconsistency between the aims and intent of the legislation and the instances where suitable land adjoining urban centres is excluded from the SEPP. However, amending the SEPP is a lengthy process and a review of the SEPP is unlikely to be scheduled while the State Government is undertaking a comprehensive review of the NSW Planning System. An LEP Amendment for the Belmont Sportsman's Club site is being progressed based on advice that it would be timelier than an amendment to the SEPP. Amending the Land Use Table for the 6(2) Tourism and Recreation Zone An option for providing seniors housing on the site would be include seniors housing as a land use that is permissible with consent in the 6(2) Tourism and Recreation Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 9

10 generally under LMLEP This would mean that seniors housing would be permissible with consent on all land zoned 6(2) Tourism and Recreation. Council does not support amending the land use table for Zone 6(2) Tourism and Recreation generally because the majority of land in this zone across Lake Macquarie is likely to lack the size, location, or characteristics appropriate for seniors housing development. A study of 6(2) Tourism and Recreation across the LGA would be required to support such an amendment. Such as study would be extensive and would result in lengthy delays to the proposal. Creating a new zone It may be an option to create a new zone to apply to sites that are specifically suitable for seniors and disability housing across the LGA. This would help to address the seniors housing industry concerns that they cannot compete for centrally located residential land. However, there is no such zone available within the Standard LEP template, so creating such a zone is impractical. This solution would also require significant LGA wide studies that would result in lengthy delays to the proposal. Therefore, Council does not support creating a new zone for the site. Standard Instrument LEP The draft SI LEP for Lake Macquarie is a conversion from the existing LEP 2004 and is therefore not an appropriate mechanism to undertake an LEP Amendment. Therefore, this matter will be progressed independent of the draft LMLEP 2012, either before or after its gazettal. 3. Is there a net community benefit? The Proposal will deliver a net community benefit. It will facilitate seniors housing within easy walking distance of the Belmont Town Centre. Table 6 below assesses the Proposal against the relevant criteria for determining a proposal s merits listed in the Draft Centres Policy. Table 4: Comparison of the Planning Proposal against the Draft Centres Policy Draft Centres Policy Criteria Will the LEP be compatible with agreed State and regional strategic direction for development in the area (e.g. land release, strategic corridors, development within 800 metres of a transit node)? Comparison against the Planning Proposal Yes. The Proposal for seniors housing is consistent with the strategic directions of the LHRS to provide higher density aged care facilities close to an existing urban centre. The LHRS notes that an ageing population is one of the regional challenges facing the Hunter. The Lower Hunter is characterised by a population which is older than, and continuing to age at a rate faster than, the NSW average. The ageing of the population requires a different approach to the provision of housing, as smaller and easier to maintain dwellings become necessary. Belmont contains major bus routes, particularly along the Pacific Highway. At present seven different bus routes service Belmont. The site is within a 400 metre walk of bus stops on the Highway. It is also approximately a metre walk from the site to the Belmont Bus Terminus located at Lake Macquarie Retirement Village on Gibson Street to the southeast of the Belmont Sportsman s Club. Therefore, the site is well within 800 metres of a transit node. Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 10

11 Is the LEP located in a global/regional city, strategic centre or corridor nominated within the Metropolitan Strategy or other regional/subregional strategy? Is the LEP likely to create a precedent, or create or change the expectations of the landowner or other landholders? Have the cumulative effects of other spot rezoning proposals in the locality been considered? What was the outcome of these considerations? Will the LEP facilitate a permanent employment generating activity or result in a loss of employment lands? Will the LEP impact upon the supply of residential land and therefore housing supply and affordability? Is the existing public infrastructure (roads, rail, utilities) capable of servicing the proposed site? Is there good pedestrian and cycling access? Is public transport currently available or is there infrastructure capacity to support future public transport? Yes. The LHRS encourages greater opportunities for housing to be provided within the existing urban areas and specifically identifies Belmont as a Town Centre which provides a shopping and business centre for the district, including health and professional services mixed with medium density and higher density residential. Other landholders of 6(2) Tourism and Recreation zoned land may expect that they will be able to add seniors housing as an additional permitted use to their land or that they will be able to rezone their land for residential purposes. However, the subject site has a specific list of attributes that makes it suitable for seniors housing and use of an additional permitted use clause avoids setting a negative precedent for 6(2) zoned lands in Lake Macquarie. The cover letter from DoPI for the section 65 certificate to exhibit draft LM LEP 2012, dated 3 April 2012, recognises that Council needs to undertake further investigations to identify opportunities for seniors housing in existing urban areas close to urban services. The intent is to produce a report and a series of maps to be reported to Council and included in the section 68 report for draft LM LEP The maps will identify land within 400m of an urban zone that is free of significant constraints, has access to adequate urban services, and is of sufficient size to accommodate aged accommodation. Land proposed to be zoned SP3 Tourist under draft LMLEP 2012 is excluded from the study because these are considered to be prime tourism sites. However, the subject site is proposed to be zoned RE2 Private Recreation, and while tourist related land uses are permitted with consent on the site, it is not considered a prime tourism site. The site meets the majority of criteria contained in the brief for the strategic seniors housing study being undertaken by Council at the request of DoPI. It is unlikely that many other 6(2) Tourism and Recreation zoned landholdings would meet these criteria. Within Belmont for example, the other 6(2) zoned lands include the Lake Macquarie Yacht Club, the Belmont 16 Foot Sailing Club, and Spinnakers Leisure Park, which are not suitable sites for seniors housing because of their tourism significance. As outlined above, other 6(2) zoned lands within Belmont are unlikely to be suitable for uses other than tourism and recreation due their significance, size, environmental attributes and location. Yes. The Proposal will not result in a loss of employment lands. The LEP will facilitate employment opportunities within any future seniors housing development, as well as generating demand for support services. Yes. The LEP Amendment will allow seniors housing development in close proximity to the Belmont Town Centre, where infill and higher density development is encouraged. This will increase the supply of smaller and easier to maintain dwellings in a well serviced location. Yes. The site is well serviced by major infrastructure and utilities. The Traffic Impact Assessment and preliminary discussions with the Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) indicate that the proposed development will not significantly influence the existing road network capacity and function. The site is within 400 metres or a 5 minute walking distance of the Belmont Town Centre. The surrounding road network contains pedestrian footpath infrastructure. Shared cycle and pedestrian Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 11

12 paths along the Lake foreshore and the Fernleigh Track provide recreational and commuter access for Belmont residents. Seven bus routes currently service the Pacific Highway, Belmont, providing access to a variety of destinations. The Belmont Bus Terminus is located at Lake Macquarie Retirement Village on Gibson Street to the south-east of the Belmont Sportsman s Club, less than a 5 minute walk away. Three bus routes run along Glover Street, to the immediate south of the Belmont Sportsman s Club. Will the Proposal result in changes to the car distances travelled by customers, employees, and suppliers? If so, what are the likely impacts in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, operating costs, and road safety? Are there significant Government investments in infrastructure or services in the area whose patronage will be affected by the Proposal? If so, what is the expected impact? Will the Proposal impact on land that the Government has identified a need to protect (e.g. land with high biodiversity values) or have other environmental impacts? Is the land constrained by environmental factors such as flooding? Will the LEP be compatible/ complementary with surrounding land uses? What is the impact on amenity in the location and wider community? Will the public domain improve? Yes. The site will provide housing within 5 minutes walking distance of the Belmont Town Centre. This will have a positive impact in reducing distances that residents will have to travel to access retail, commercial, medical, recreational, and other services, thereby reducing associated environmental and financial costs. Reduced car use will have a positive outcome on greenhouse gas emissions, personal vehicle operating costs, and local traffic. The Pacific Highway is an RMS road. The Traffic Study submitted by the proponent and preliminary discussions with the RMS indicates that the proposed development will not significantly affect the existing road network capacity and function. Connections to the electricity, water, wastewater, and telecommunication network will be funded by the developers and would need to be determined at Development Application (DA) stage. The subject allotments is affected by an easement for overhead electricity lines, an easement for an electricity sub-station and an easement for underground electricity cables, which are colocated in the north of the site. Any future DA on the site would be required to demonstrate that it has considered and designed in accordance with this infrastructure. The subject site is not land that the Government has identified as having a need to protect. The site is part of the urban fabric of Belmont and does not have biodiversity or ecological value. Hazmat Services Pty Ltd prepared an Environmental Site Assessment for the Belmont Sportsman s Club site, dated June 2012, including a contamination assessment and an acid sulfate soils assessment. Two samples collected at approximately 1m depth indicate that potential or actual acid sulfate soils are not present within soils at the site represented by the samples collected. The report finds that the site is not considered to present any unacceptable risks to the environment or human health, and remediation or management of site soils and groundwater is not considered necessary. A Preliminary Flooding Assessment found that the subject site is affected by localised ponding of runoff due to the sites location in a natural drainage depression. The Assessment establishes a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) level for this site. Any DA for seniors housing on the site would need to ensure that all proposed floor levels are located above the PMF level, which is achievable. Refer to Section C, Question 9 for more details. The land is not considered to have any other significant environmental factors that constrain the development of the land. Yes. The Proposal for seniors housing is consistent with existing urban development located to the northwest, west, and south of the subject site. The Proposal will not affect existing public recreational lands to the northeast and east because the Study Area is separated from these sites by an access road and the Club building. Impacts on the public domain are minimal because the site is privately owned. Consideration of Council s Development Control Plan at the DA stage will help to minimise the impacts of any development on the public domain. Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 12

13 Compatibility between any future seniors housing development, the existing Club building, and the adjoining Seniors Citizen Centre and Child Care Centre to the south, are matters for consideration in the detailed design of a DA. Will the Proposal increase choice and competition by increasing the number of retail and commercial premises operating in the area? If a stand-alone proposal and not a centre, does the Proposal have the potential to develop into a centre in the future? What are the public interest reasons for preparing the draft plan? What are the implications of not proceeding at that time? Not applicable the Proposal does not involve retail and commercial premises. Not applicable the western boundary of the subject site is zoned 3(2) Urban Centre (Support) and forms part of the Belmont Town Centre. The proposal helps to address the need for seniors housing in Lake Macquarie, which has an increasing need for housing options for older people, with the number of people aged 65 years and over forecast to increase from 30,755 (in 2006) to 56,270 in 2025, as described by the LMCC Social Plan. The Social Impact Assessment (SIA) submitted by the applicant provides evidence that the bowling greens are underused. The Belmont Sportsman s Club is seeking a more viable use of the western portion of the site. The implications of not proceeding are that the Belmont Sportsman s Clubs may pursue another land use that is permissible with consent in Zone 6(2) under LM LEP 2004, resulting in a missed opportunity for well located seniors housing. B. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK 4. Is the Planning Proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy (including the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and exhibited draft strategies)? Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (LHRS) 2006 The Proposal is consistent with the objectives and outcomes in the LHRS. The LHRS notes that an ageing population is one of the regional challenges facing the Hunter and encourages greater opportunities for housing to be provided within the existing urban areas and identifies Belmont as a Town Centre that provides a shopping and business centre for the district, including health and professional services mixed with medium density and higher density residential. Appendix 1 of the LHRS contains sustainability criteria for proposed development sites outside the designated areas of the Strategy. Table 7 contains an assessment of the Proposal against the sustainability criteria of the LHRS, demonstrating that the site is an innovative LEP Amendment proposal that has merit to be considered even though it is outside of the regional strategy process. Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 13

14 Table 5: Comparison of the Planning Proposal against the LHRS Sustainability Criteria LHRS Sustainability Criteria 1. Infrastructure Provision Mechanisms in place to ensure utilities, transport, open space, and communication are provided in a timely and efficient way. 2. Access Accessible transport options for efficient and sustainable travel between homes, jobs, services and recreation to be existing or provided. 3. Housing Diversity Provide a range of housing choices to ensure a broad population can be housed. 4. Employment Lands Provide regional/local employment opportunities to support the Lower Hunter s expanding role in the regional and NSW economies. Response to Sustainability Criteria The Proposal is generally consistent with the objectives of the LHRS, with Lifestyle 2020, and with section 117 directions, as outlined elsewhere in this report. The provision of infrastructure to the site, including utilities and communications is economically and technically feasible, given that the existing Club building has access to these services and the site is adjacent to the Belmont Town Centre and associated residential development. The traffic impact assessment indicates that the proposed development will not significantly influence the existing road network capacity and function. Refer to Section C, Question 9 for more details of the traffic impacts of the Proposal. If the LEP Amendment proceeds, any future DA for seniors housing will be would be levied for Section 94 Contributions subject to relevant legislation, ministerial directions, and the contributions plan in place at the time of development approval. These levies may provide funds for the provision and embellishment of public open space and recreation land, as well as community facilities. Any other requirements for infrastructure provision would also be included as conditions of consent on a DA to ensure their timely and efficient delivery. The site is within 400 metres or a 5 minute walking distance for the Belmont Town Centre. The surrounding road network contains pedestrian footpath infrastructure. The site is adjacent to significant recreational facilities, including the Belmont Senior Citizens Centre and Belmont Community Child Care Centre to the south and Belmont Park recreational facilities to the north and north-east. Shared cycle and pedestrian paths along the Lake foreshore and the Fernleigh Track provide recreational and commuter access for Belmont residents. Seven bus routes currently service the Pacific Highway, Belmont, providing access to a variety of destinations. The Belmont Bus Terminus is located at Lake Macquarie Retirement Village on Gibson Street to the south-east of the Belmont Sportsman s Club, approximately metres away or less than a 5 minute walk. Three bus routes run along Glover Street, to the immediate south of the Belmont Sportsman s Club. The site is well located in relation to accessible transport options for efficient and sustainable travel between homes, jobs, services, and recreation. The Proposal will have no net negative impact on the performance of existing subregional road, bus, rail, or freight networks. The Planning Proposal contributes to the provision of aged housing, which is a key objective of State, regional and local strategic planning documents. Council s Ageing Population Plan notes that older people who move from their own home are often constrained by a lack of suitable housing alternatives within their local community and there is a need for additional supply in well located, well serviced areas. The subject site meets the criteria for well located seniors housing. The Proposal does not involve the provision of employment generating land, however any future seniors housing development will provide local employment and business opportunities. Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 14

15 5. Avoidance of Risk Land use conflicts, and risk to human health and life, avoided 6. Natural Resources Natural resource limits not exceeded/environmental footprint minimised 7. Environmental Protection Protect and enhance biodiversity, air quality, heritage and waterway health 8. Quality and Equity in Services Quality health, education, legal, recreational, cultural and community development and other Government services are accessible A Preliminary Flooding Assessment found that the subject site is affected by localised ponding of runoff due to the sites location in a natural drainage depression. The Assessment establishes a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) level for this site. Any DA for seniors housing on the site would need to ensure that all proposed floor levels are located above the PMF level, which is achievable. Refer to Section C, Question 9 for more details. Hazmat Services Pty Ltd prepared an Environmental Site Assessment for the Belmont Sportsman s Club site, dated June 2012, including a contamination assessment and an acid sulfate soils assessment. Two samples collected at approximately 1m depth indicate that potential or actual acid sulfate soils are not present within soils at the site represented by the samples collected. The contamination assessment was undertaken in accordance with assessment criteria for standard residential with garden/ accessible soil (home-grown produce contributing less than 10% of vegetable and fruit intake, no poultry), which is the most stringent of the four assessment criteria listed in the NSW DEC (2006) contamination guideline. Desktop review findings, analytical results and field observations indicate that no potentially contaminating activities have been carried out at the site, so the potential for contamination at the site is low. All of the soil samples reported below the site assessment criteria for heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, total petroleum hydrocarbons, BTEX, and organochlorine pesticides. The report considers that, based on the data set obtained during investigations, the site does not present any unacceptable risks to the environment or human health, and remediation or management of site soils and groundwater is not considered necessary. The site is not constrained by high slope, high erosion, bushfire, or coastal hazards. Potential land use conflicts between the proposed seniors housing with the Belmont Senior Citizens Centre and Belmont Community Child Care Centre to the south, the Belmont Park recreational facilities to the north and north-east, and the existing Club building on the subject site, can be resolved at the DA stage through good design and impact assessment. The Proposal does not have a significant affect on natural resources. The Proposal will not affect agricultural or resource land. The subject site contains three existing bowling greens and other hardstand areas and does not contain any native vegetation or habitat. The Proposal will not impact on animals (within the meaning of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) and plants (within the meaning of that Act), and their habitats. The subject site is not located within any existing wildlife corridors identified on Council s Native Vegetation and Corridors Map. Seniors housing development is not expected to impact on air quality. Water quality and stormwater management planning can be undertaken at the DA stage. Appendix 2 of the LHRS lists major infrastructure projects planned for the Hunter region. Between 2006 and 2015, Belmont is identified as receiving the following major infrastructure projects and upgrades: Belmont Hospital transitional care unit refurbishment Belmont Hospital upgrade Belmont High School new hall /gymnasium Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 15

16 Belmont wastewater treatment works, refurbishment clarifiers Belmont wastewater treatment works, Stage 3 construction upgrade Belmont wastewater treatment works, upgrade Windale to Belmont wastewater treatment system Hunter New England Health is the key provider of health services used by older residents. Services include inpatient and outpatient treatment at Belmont and John Hunter Hospital s. General practitioners (GP s) are the first point of contact for assistance for many older people and a variety of GP s and allied medical services are available in the Belmont Town Centre. Council s Ageing Population Plan states that in March 2007 the Eastlake area had better access to general practitioner s (GP) services (1 GP for every 1,586 residents) than the Westlake area (1 GP for every residents1,884), although the rate is still lower than the NSW average (1 GP for every residents 1,392). General Practitioner Access After Hours (HPAAH) services have been established and are located at John Hunter Hospital, Belmont Hospital, and Toronto Polyclinic to help address this shortage. Council s Section 94 Plans state that open space and recreation land is provided at a rate higher than the state average for Lake Macquarie residents. Community consultation undertaken to inform Council s Sporting Facilities Strategy notes that the Belmont Park recreational facilities adjoining the subject site currently experience medium to high levels of usage, with additional capacity available. Bowling facilities are duplicated at the Belmont Bowling Club, which is located in the centre of Belmont. The Belmont Bowling Club, constructed in 2008, offers a more modern bowling green than the Belmont Sportsman s Club does. The Belmont Sportsman s Club currently offers Tombola, Social and Competition Darts, Bingo and Housie, Line Dancing, Poker, and raffles activities, with capacity for additional activities. The Belmont Senior Citizens Centre and Belmont Community Child Care Centre adjacent to the subject site offers cultural and community services. The Belmont Senior Citizens Centre is the highest ranked facility in Council s Community Facilities Strategy because it has very high levels of utilisation, is in very good condition having had a major upgrade in 2009/10, and is suitable for its function. No further intervention or upgrades are planned in the short term. Regular hirers of the facility include the Belmont Senior Citizens, the CWA, a karate group, and dance groups. Alternative facilities available for cultural and community events include Belmont Community Centre, Belmont Neighbourhood Centre, Belmont Library Meeting Room, Marks Point Community Hall, and various local Club facilities. 5. Is the Planning Proposal consistent with the local council s Community Strategic plan, or other local strategic plan? Lifestyle 2020 Strategy (LS2020) and draft Lifestyle 2030 Strategy (draft LS2030) The Planning Proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of LS2020 Strategy by contributing to a well serviced and equitable city, a well designed and liveable city, and an easily accessible city. The strategy encourages medium density housing, including retirement housing, in proximity to centres. The Urban Structure Map contained within LS2020 encourages medium density housing, including retirement homes and seniors housing within a ten minute walk of town centres such as Belmont, a five minute walk of bus stops, and in high amenity Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 16

17 areas, such as adjacent to public open spaces, as is the case with the Belmont Sportsman s Club site. Draft LS2030 is a review of the performance of LS2020 and includes updated demographic, land supply, and biodiversity information, as well as updated regional and state government policy. Draft LS2030 will be exhibited for public comment with draft LMLEP This Planning Proposal is consistent with the provisions of draft Lifestyle Is the Planning Proposal consistent with applicable state environmental planning policies (SEPPs)? The Proposal is compared to the provisions of the relevant SEPPs in Table 8 below. Table 6: Comparison of the Planning Proposal to relevant SEPPs SEPP Relevance Implications SEPP 1 Development Standards SEPP 55 Remediation of Land SEPP 1 aims to make development standards more flexible. It allows determining authorities to approve a development proposal that does not comply with a set standard where the standard is shown to be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The SEPP provides planning controls and provisions for the remediation of contaminated land. Clause 6 of the SEPP provides that, when preparing an environmental planning instrument, a planning authority is not to change the use of land, unless: (a) the planning authority has considered whether the land is contaminated, and (b) if the land is contaminated, Not Applicable - Clause 41 of the LM LEP 2004, permits development for the purpose of retirement villages in appropriate locations where the land satisfies the criteria specified in subclause (5). Clause 41 applies to land within Zone 2(1) and land that is not within Zone 2(1), 7(1), 7(4), 8 or 9, but part of or all of which immediately adjoins, or is within 400 metres of, land within the 2(1) zone. While, the dimension of 400 metres reflects a development standard amenable to the provisions of SEPP 1 the subject site is approximately 620 metres southeast of land zoned 2(1) residential, which is a substantial variation of 64.5% from the 400m development standard. The proponent would also need to address Clause 41(5)(a) of the LEP 2004, which requires that the land on which the development will be carried out is of sufficient size to accommodate a minimum 70 unit retirement village development. The concept plan provided to Council for pre-lodgement discussions was for the development of 42 residential units. Given the substantial variations sought to Clause 41 of the LEP 2004, it is considered that SEPP 1 cannot be used to progress seniors housing on the site. Clause 6 of SEPP 55 requires a preliminary investigation of land for LEP Amendments that propose to carry out development for residential, educational, recreational, or child care purposes where there is no knowledge (or incomplete knowledge) as to whether development for a purpose referred to in Table 1 to the contaminated land planning guidelines has been carried out. Hazmat Services Pty Ltd prepared an Environmental Site Assessment for the Belmont Sportsman s Club site, dated June 2012, including a contamination assessment and an acid sulfate soils assessment. The Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 17

18 SEPP 71 Coastal Protection the planning authority is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for all the purposes for which land in the zone concerned is permitted to be used, and (c) if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for any purpose for which land in that zone is permitted to be used, the planning authority is satisfied that the land will be so remediated before the land is used for that purpose. Note. In order to satisfy itself as to paragraph (c), the planning authority may need to include certain provisions in the environmental planning instrument. The provisions of SEPP 71 apply to the subject site because it is located within the coastal zone. The matters for consideration set out in Clause 8 of the SEPP need to be taken into account by council when it prepared a draft local environmental plan. contamination assessment was undertaken in accordance with assessment criteria for standard residential with garden/ accessible soil (home-grown produce contributing less than 10% of vegetable and fruit intake, no poultry), which is the most stringent of the four assessment criteria listed in the NSW DEC (2006) contamination guideline. Desktop review findings, analytical results, and field observations indicate that no potentially contaminating activities have been carried out at the site, so the potential for contamination at the site is low. All of the soil samples (six in total; two on the western bowling green; two on the middle bowling green; and two in the southern car park) reported below the site assessment criteria for heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, total petroleum hydrocarbons, BTEX, and organochlorine pesticides. The report considers that, based on the data set obtained during investigations, the site does not present any unacceptable risks to the environment or human health, and remediation or management of site soils and groundwater is not considered necessary. The Proposal complies with the matters for consideration under SEPP 71. Matters (b), (c), (e), (f), (j), and (k) are not applicable because the subject site is not located on or adjacent to the coast, is not visible from the coast, is not affected by coastal processes, and is not directly accessible from the coast. The Proposal fulfils matter for consideration (a) by meeting the aims of the SEPP, set out in Clause 2. The Proposal will have minimal impact on native vegetation and heritage. The subject site is not located in a coastal area, so the Proposal will not impact directly on the coast. Visual amenity can be maintained by ensuring that the type, bulk, scale and size of development is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area at the DA planning stage. Seniors housing is a suitable development for the site because it is compatible with the surrounding residential and urban land, in fulfilment of matter for consideration (d). The Proposal will not impact on animals (within the meaning of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) and plants (within the meaning of that Act), and their habitats, in accordance with matter for consideration (g). It also will not impact on fish (within the meaning of Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994) and marine vegetation (within the meaning of that Part), and their habitats, in accordance with matter for consideration (h). The subject site is not located within any existing wildlife corridors identified on Council s Native Vegetation and Corridors Map, in accordance with matter for consideration (i). Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 18

19 SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 The SEPP aims to encourage the development of high quality accommodation for an ageing population and for people who have disabilities. In some instances, the SEPP sets aside local planning controls that would prevent the development of housing for seniors or people with a disability that meets the development criteria and standards specified in this Policy. The SEPP also sets out design principles and ensures support services are provided for seniors or people with a disability. The Proposal will not impact on known Aboriginal heritage items or places or other heritage items, in accordance with matter for consideration (l) and (n). Stormwater management to reduce the impacts of development on the water quality of coastal water bodies can be addressed at the DA stage, in accordance with matter for consideration (m). The Proposal contributes to compact development around the Belmont Town Centre in accordance with matter for consideration (o). Clause 24 of the SEPP provides that a Site Compatibility Certificate may be sought on land that is used for the purposes of an existing registered club and land that adjoins land zoned primarily for urban purposes where seniors housing is otherwise prohibited by local planning controls. The applicant sought a Site Compatibility Certificate from DOPI in July 2011 to allow a DA for seniors housing to be assessed under SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) because the site contains an existing registered club and adjoins land zoned primarily for urban purposes. Pre-lodgement meetings with Council s Development Assessment and Compliance (DAC) department, as well as communications with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DOPI), have indicated that the proposal for seniors housing is not permitted under the provisions of LMLEP 2004 or State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) Clause 4(5) of the SEPP provides that a consent authority must not treat land being used for the purposes of an existing registered club as land zoned primarily for urban purposes unless it is satisfied that most of the land that it adjoins is land zoned for urban purposes. DOPI advice indicating that the SEPP does not apply in this instance because land zoned Open Space is not considered to be used primarily for urban purposes. While the north-eastern and eastern boundaries of the site adjoin medium density residential and urban centre support zones, the majority of the site boundaries abut land zoned 6(1) Open Space. Although the Proposal fulfils the objectives and intentions of the SEPP, it does not meet the legal requirements for obtaining a Site Compatibility Certificate due to the wording and interpretation of Clause 4(5) of the SEPP. DOPI have encouraged Council to proceed with an LEP Amendment as a way of progressing seniors housing on the site. Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 19

20 SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 This policy requires the RMS to be consulted in relation to certain types of traffic generating development. It also contains provisions relating to the development of infrastructure. The Proposal does not qualify as traffic generating development, as listed in Schedule 3 of the SEPP. The subject site does not have direct access to a classified road and is located approximately 150m from the intersection of Maude Street with the Pacific Highway, which is a classified state highway. Apartments and residential flat buildings of 300 or more dwellings are classified as traffic generating development, but the Proposal will facilitate development of approximately 42 units. Any other purpose not listed in the table must generate 200 or more motor vehicles before it becomes classified development. Even though SEPP (Infrastructure) does not apply to the site, consultation with the RMS is required prior to undertaking community consultation in satisfaction of section 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). 7. Is the Planning Proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s.117 directions)? An assessment of the Planning Proposal against the applicable Ministerial Directions is provided in Table 9. The Table addresses whether the Proposal is consistent with what a relevant planning authority must do if a direction applies. Table 7: Consistency with applicable Section 117 Ministerial Directions Ministerial Direction & Relevance 1.3 Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries The aim is to protect the future extraction of State or regionally significant reserves of coal, minerals, petroleum and extractive industries. 2.2 Coastal Protection This direction applies to the coastal zone. 3.1 Residential Zones The objectives of this direction are to include provisions in a draft LEP that facilitate housing choice, efficient use of infrastructure, and reduce land What a relevant planning authority must do if this direction applies A relevant planning authority is required to consult with the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) to identify any mineral, petroleum and extractive resources in the area subject to the Planning Proposal. A Planning Proposal must include provisions that give effect to and are consistent with relevant NSW Government coastal policy. (4) A planning proposal must include provisions that encourage the provision of housing that will: (a) broaden the choice of building types and locations available in the housing market, and (b) make more efficient use of existing infrastructure and Consistency / Comment The Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction. The subject site is located within an existing urban area and contains existing urban development, it is therefore considered unnecessary to consult with the DPI. The Planning Proposal is of minor significance to the coastal zone, as described by the comparison of the Proposal to SEPP 71 in Table 8. The Proposal is therefore consistent with this direction. This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a Planning Proposal that will affect land within an existing or proposed residential zone and in any other zone in which significant residential development is permitted or proposed to be permitted. This direction applies because seniors housing is a type of residential development. The Proposal is consistent with this Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 20

21 consumption on the urban fringe. 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport The direction requires consistency with State policy in terms of positioning of urban land use zones. 4.1 Acid Sulfate Soils The direction applies to land that has been identified as containing potential Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) services, and (c) reduce the consumption of land for housing and associated urban development on the urban fringe, and (d) be of good design. (5) A planning proposal must, in relation to land to which this direction applies: (a) contain a requirement that residential development is not permitted until land is adequately serviced (or arrangements satisfactory to the council, or other appropriate authority, have been made to service it), and (b) not contain provisions which will reduce the permissible residential density of land. A planning proposal must locate zones for urban purposes and include provisions that give effect to and are consistent with the aims, objectives and principles of: (a) Improving Transport Choice Guidelines for planning and development (DUAP 2001), and (b) The Right Place for Business and Services Planning Policy (DUAP 2001). This principle requires that a draft LEP is consistent with the ASS component of the model Local Environmental Plan (ASS model LEP), or that it is supported by an environmental study. A relevant planning authority must not prepare a planning proposal that proposes an intensification of land uses on land identified as having a probability of containing ASS on the ASS Planning Maps direction as follows: (4)(a) the Proposal is for seniors housing, for which there is currently a shortfall in Lake Macquarie, so the Proposal will help to broaden the choice of building types and locations, (4)(b) the Proposal is located in close proximity to the Belmont Town Centre and public transport routes and will therefore make more efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, (4)(c) the subject site is surrounded by urban development to the north-west, east, and south. Therefore, the Proposal reduces the consumption of land for housing and associated development on the urban fringe by infilling a strategically located site. (4)(d) N/A the design aspects will be assessed at the DA stage. (5)(a) the applicant will be required to demonstrate that satisfactory arrangements have been made to adequately service the site for seniors housing development prior to obtaining development consent. Further consultation to be undertaken with service providers following Gateway determination and prior to community consultation under section 57 of the Act would help to determine whether a voluntary planning agreement is necessary to ensure the provision of services to the site, (5)(b) the Planning Proposal does not contain provisions that reduce the permissible residential density of land. The Planning Proposal is consistent with the aims objectives and principles of Improving Transport Choice and The Right Place for Business and Services because it is in close proximity to Belmont Town Centre, which is an existing public transport node. Concentrating development around Belmont Town Centre encourages walking and cycling as alternative forms of transport. The Planning Proposal complies with the principles of concentrating development in centres, mixing uses in centres, aligning centres within transport corridors (the Pacific Highway), linking public transport with land use strategies, and improving opportunities for pedestrian and cycle access. The planning proposal is consistent with this Direction. The subject land has the potential for Class 3 ASS, which applies to works beyond 1 metre below the natural ground surface and works by which the watertable is likely to be lowered by more than 1 metre below natural ground surface level. Hazmat Services Pty Ltd prepared an Environmental Site Assessment for the Belmont Sportsman s Club site, dated June 2012, including a contamination assessment and an acid sulfate soils assessment. Two samples Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 21

22 4.2 Mine Subsidence and Unstable Land This seeks to prevent damage associated with mine subsidence 4.3 Flood Prone Land This seeks to ensure that development of flood prone land is consistent with the NSW Government s Flood Prone Land Policy 5.1 Implementation of Regional Strategies 6.1 Approval & Referral Requirements The objective of this direction is to ensure that LEP provisions unless the relevant planning authority has considered an ASS study assessing the appropriateness of the change of land use given the presence of ASS. The direction requires consultation with the Mine Subsidence Board (MSB) where a draft LEP is proposed for land within a mine subsidence district. This direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that creates, removes, or alters a zone or a provision that affects flood prone land. Planning proposals must be consistent with a regional strategy released by the Minister for Planning. This direction seeks to minimise the inclusion of provisions in planning instruments that require the concurrence, consultation, or referral of development collected at approximately 1m depth indicate that potential or actual acid sulfate soils are not present within soils at the site represented by the samples collected. Based on the data set obtained during investigations, the report considers that the site does not present any unacceptable risks to the environment or human health, and remediation or management of site soils and groundwater is not considered necessary. The site is considered suitable for the intended residential land use. This provision is not applicable. The applicant has provided a letter from the Mines Subsidence Board, dated 5 July 2011 confirming that the site is not located within a Mine Subsidence District. Therefore, consultation is not required with the Mines Subsidence Board. This provision is not applicable because the subject land is not identified as flood prone land or low lying land on Council s property conditions. In a DA pre-lodgement meeting on 19 April 2011, Council advised the applicant that additional flooding provisions apply to retirement villages. A Preliminary Flooding Assessment found that the subject site is affected by localised ponding of runoff due to the sites location in a natural drainage depression. The Assessment establishes a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) level for this site. Any DA for seniors housing on the site would need to ensure that all proposed floor levels are located above the PMF level, which is achievable. Refer to Section C, Question 9 for more details. The Proposal is consistent with the strategic directions of the LHRS to provide higher density aged care facilities close to an existing urban centre. The LHRS encourages greater opportunities for housing to be provided within the existing urban areas and identifies Belmont as a Town Centre that provides a shopping and business centre for the district, including health and professional services mixed with medium density and higher density residential. Appendix 1 of the LHRS contains sustainability criteria for proposals outside the designated areas of the Strategy. Table 7 contains an assessment of the proposal against the sustainability criteria of the LHRS, demonstrating that the site is an innovative LEP Amendment proposal that has strategic merit. The Proposal is consistent with the direction as follows: (a) consultation is being undertaken with government agencies at the LEP Amendment stage of the development to reduce the need for concurrence, Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 22

23 encourage the efficient and appropriate assessment of development. 6.2 Reserving Land for Public Purposes 6.3 Site Specific Provisions applications to a Minister or public authority (a). It also sets out consultation and approval requirements, if such provisions are to be included in a planning instrument (b), or if a planning instrument identifies development as designated development (c). This direction provides that a planning proposal (4) must not create, alter, or reduce existing zonings or reservations of land for public purposes without the approval of the D-G of DOPI. It also contains requirements for (5) the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, (6) stipulations for the use of any land reserved for a public purpose, and (7) the removal of reservations for acquisition at the request of a public authority. This direction contains provisions that discourage unnecessarily restrictive site specific planning controls. consultation, and referrals at the DA stage. None of the provisions outlined in the Tables at the start of this document will create excessive concurrence, consultation, or referral requirements. (b) N/A No Ministerial or public authority concurrence, consultation or referral requirements are generated by the Planning Proposal. (c) N/A The Planning Proposal does not identify any development as designated development. The draft LEP will not involve the reservation or acquisition of land for public purposes. The subject allotment is currently zoned 6(1) Open Space (approximately 0.25 hectares) and 6(2) Tourism and Recreation (approximately 1.75 hectares). See Attachment 3 Aerial Map and Existing Zones for details. Although the allotment has a split zoning, it is entirely in the private ownership of the Belmont Sportsman s Club. The small portion of the site zoned 6(1) Open Space is on the southern boundary of the site, adjacent to other land zoned 6(1) Open Space associated with the Belmont senior citizens centre and the Belmont childcare centre, which are owned by Council. The land zoned 6(1) within the subject site is not reserved for public purposes and there is no acquisition layer over the land, as Council has no intention to acquire the land for public purposes and therefore the Proposal consistent with the direction. The split zoning of the land is an anomaly that results from changes to allotment boundaries, land ownership, and planning instruments over time. To resolve this anomaly, it is proposed to include a minor zone boundary adjustment as part of Option 1 so that the whole of the subject allotment is zoned 6(2) Tourism and Recreation. Refer to Attachment 4 for the minor zone boundary map changes proposed under LMLEP 2004 for Option 1. This Direction applies because the Planning Proposal will amend another environmental planning instrument in order to allow a particular development proposal to be carried out. The Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction because it proposes to allow seniors housing on the relevant land without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in the principal environmental planning instrument being amended. Furthermore, this Planning Proposal does not contain or refer to drawings the show details of the development proposal. The proponent has prepared preliminary designs for the site in anticipation of being able to lodge a Development Application on the site in the future, however these plans do not Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 23

24 constitute any part of this planning proposal. Council is not seeking to allow seniors housing to be carried out in all land zoned 6(2) Tourism and Recreation because much of the zone across the LGA is not of suitable size, location and characteristics to accommodate seniors housing. Council is also not pursuing to rezone the subject site to a residential, mixed use or urban centre zone in order to permit seniors housing with development consent because it would result in the permanent loss of land zoned for recreation and open space purposes. Other zones permit land uses other than seniors housing, such as medium to high density standard residential development, so there would be no guarantee that seniors housing would be pursued on the site. Therefore, site specific provisions are justified in this instance. C. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC IMPACT 8. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the Proposal? The subject site contains three existing bowling greens and other hardstand areas and does not contain any vegetation or habitat. The Proposal will not impact on animals (within the meaning of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) and plants (within the meaning of that Act), and their habitats. The subject site is not located within any existing wildlife corridors identified on Council s Native Vegetation and Corridors Map. 9. Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the Planning Proposal and how are they proposed to be managed? The applicant has provided environmental investigations to support the LEP Amendment request. A summary of the environmental issues is provided below. Hydrology, Water Quality, and Flooding The Preliminary Flooding Assessment prepared by Northrop Consulting Engineers, dated 8 August 2011, found that the subject site is affected by flooding from localised ponding of runoff due to the sites location in a natural drainage depression. Survey details indicate that piped stormwater discharge from the subject site is limited to an existing 600mm diameter pipe which runs east underneath Belmont Sportsman s Club. It is anticipated that once the capacity of this pipe is reached water will pond within the subject site to the existing natural drainage depression threshold level of 4.75m Australian Height Datum (AHD). At this level, overflow would occur at several places around the perimeter of the depression including Maude Street, Cahill Oval, and along the southern side of the Club. A peak flood level of 4.8m AHD was adopted for the site for a 1% Average Exceedance Probability (AEP) / the 1 in 100 year storm event. Figure 2 of the Preliminary Flooding Assessment indicates that the existing bowling green surfaces are above the 1% AEP event, so it will be achievable to construct the habitable floor levels of the proposed seniors housing development about the flood level. Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 24

25 The proposed development recommendations of the report are as follows: Habitable floor levels of the building are recommended to be set at a minimum of 5.3m AHD to give a freeboard of 500mm above the 1% AEP flood levels, as per the provisions of Lake Macquarie Development Control Plan No. 1 (DCP No. 1). Due to the nature of the site, the existing flood levels are governed by weir overflow and not by flow conveyance. To maintain the existing site flood levels, the proposed development must maintain and / or develop and overland flow route through the site to Maude Street. Preliminary calculations indicate that this can be achieved with an overflow weir width of 10 metres and a maximum threshold level of 4.55m AHD. Fill material must not be placed where it may affect or dam the existing peak flows. Development must allow for the conveyance of stormwater flows from Ernest Street in the west and Glover Street to the south to and through the subject site. Stormwater management and design can be further investigated at the DA stage, but the Preliminary Flooding Assessment demonstrates that it will be possible to address localised ponding of water in the study area to make the site suitable for seniors housing development. Traffic Based on the RTA s Guide to Traffic Generating Development, the proposed seniors living development could generate up to 17 additional vehicles per hour to and from the site during the morning and afternoon road network peak periods. The Traffic Impact Assessment prepared for the site by Intersect Traffic, dated September 2011, finds the additional traffic would not cause the local road network to reach its mid block technical capacity threshold. Sidra modelling of the existing intersection of the Pacific Highway and Maude Street shows that the intersection is currently operating at or exceeding its capacity. As a result, delays, queues, and poor levels of service are experience, particularly during afternoon peak hour traffic. The Traffic Impact Assessment finds that the additional traffic generated by this development is negligible compared to the existing traffic volumes through the intersection and will have very little impact in terms of additional delay and queue length at the intersection over the assessment period of 10 years. The Traffic Impact Assessment concludes that it is unreasonable to require this Planning Proposal to upgrade the intersection, as the problem is an existing network issue. The Traffic Impact Assessment also notes that the development is unlikely to warrant the provision of additional cycle infrastructure, but that the southern side of Maude Street does not contain an existing footpath. To facilitate safe pedestrian movements, there is likely to be a need to construct a concrete footpath on the southern side of Maude Street from the subject site to the Pacific Highway in the east and a pedestrian refuge may be required on the southern leg of the Ernest Street and Maude Street intersection. Contamination As discussed elsewhere in this report, a preliminary contamination assessment, including soil sampling and spot sampling of the areas of concern, has been undertaken by Hazmat, dated June On the basis of the data set obtained during the investigation, the site is considered suitable for the intended residential Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 25

26 use. A copy of the Environment Site Assessment is provided as part of the exhibition material for this planning proposal. Noise The proposal will need to assess the potential noise impact from the existing Club on any future seniors housing development. A Noise Impact Assessment will be required as part of any future DA. Visual Andrews Neil Urban Design Group prepared a draft Visual Impact Statement for the site, dated July Under the LMCC Scenic Quality Guidelines 2004, the subject site is within the Belmont North Landscape Setting Unit, with a scenic quality rating of moderate, and a moderate viewing level. Development in the surrounding area comprises a mixture of single and two storey residences, with a medium density residential flat building adjoining the subject land to the west. Seniors housing would be visually complementary to the surrounding residential land uses. To mitigate the visual impact of development, any future DA will need to provide a Landscape Plan and demonstrate that the design achieves integration with surrounding land uses and built form. Bushfire The site is not bushfire prone land. Geotechnical The site is not identified as having any significant geotechnical constraints. A letter from the Mines Subsidence Board, dated 5 July 2011 confirms that the site is not located within a Mine Subsidence District. No further consultation is required with the Mines Subsidence Board. Heritage The site does not contain and is not within proximity to any known heritage or Aboriginal heritage items. 10. How has the Planning Proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects? HDB Town Planning & Design prepared a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) for the Proposal dated March The two main social and economic effects of the Proposal are the need for seniors housing and the potential loss of recreational land. These two impacts are outlined in more detail below. Seniors Housing The social profile of Belmont contained within the SIA and strategic documents such as the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy, Lifestyle 2020, and Council s Ageing Population Plan outline the need to provide housing for an aging population in Lake Macquarie. The LHRS notes that an ageing population is one of the regional challenges facing the Hunter and there is a need for smaller, easier to maintain dwellings for seniors. The Planning Proposal will meet this need by facilitating the provision of approximately 42 x 1 and 2 bedroom seniors housing units. Lifestyle 2020 encourages medium density housing, including retirement housing, in proximity to centres within the City s Urban Area. Council has an Ageing Population Plan that outlines (pp7-8) that over the coming decades Lake Macquarie will have more people aged 65 years and over than is currently the case, at the same time as experiencing a decrease in the proportion Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 26

27 of the population that is young and an increase in the proportion that is aged. The Plan notes that older people who move from their own home are often constrained by a lack of suitable housing alternatives within their local community and there is a need for additional supply in well located, well serviced areas. The Planning Proposal will help to meet this need. The proposed LEP Amendment meets the objectives of both the Ageing Population Plan and the Social Plan by providing an opportunity for well-located seniors housing that that is connected, sustainable, and accessible to public transport and town centre services and facilities. The Proposal will facilitate seniors housing in a location that offers close proximity to services such a public transport, retail and banking facilities, medical services and recreational land. The Section 94 Contributions Plan Citywide - Belmont Catchment outlines that it is important that people residing in larger scale retirement complexes of 25 units or more have access to facilities such as communal meeting areas, barbeque facilities, outdoor seating, and some recreational facilities, as well as bus services. The needs of future residents, such as the need for common meeting and recreational space and services such as meals and house keeping, are details that can be resolved as part of any DA. Prior to lodgement of a DA, the applicant would be required to update the SIA to better evaluate the availability and capacity of community, recreational, and transport facilities in the area and detail the onsite facilities that might reasonably be provided to meet the needs of residents. The proponent will also be required to demonstrate compliance with the site criteria, design principles and other provisions of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 as part of any DA. Recreational Land The Proposal potentially affects the supply of privately owned recreational land, by permitting seniors housing with development consent on the site. The SIA states that approximately 30 Bowling Club member s use one of the greens 2-3 times per week and the other two greens have been unused for at least 3 years. The Belmont Sportsman s Club is therefore seeking a more viable use of the western portion of the subject site. An alternative, modern bowling facility is available at the Belmont Bowling Club, located off Singleton Street, within the Belmont Town Centre. The Belmont Sportsman s Club hosts rugby league, baseball, cricket, and soccer sporting clubs, in addition to the bowling club, which will not be impacted by this Proposal. The onsite impacts of the Planning Proposal on recreation are reduced by the availability of alternative local facilities and the ongoing role of the Club within the sporting and recreation community. While the Proposal will enable the three bowling greens to be replaced with aged care housing, the existing 6(2) Tourism and Recreation Zone will be retained. This will ensure that recreational and tourism land uses continue to be an option for development and use of the subject site. Prior to lodgement of a DA, the applicant would be required to update the SIA to better evaluate the availability and capacity of community, recreational, and transport facilities in the area and detail the onsite facilities that will be provided to meet the needs of residents. The Section 94 Contributions Plan Citywide - Belmont Catchment outlines that it is important that people residing in larger scale retirement complexes of 25 units or more have access to facilities such as communal meeting areas, barbeque facilities, outdoor seating, and some recreational facilities, as well as bus services. The proponent will also be required to demonstrate compliance with Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 27

28 the site criteria, design principles and other provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) Net benefit The site is a good location for seniors housing because it is within 400 metres or a five minute walk of the Belmont Town Centre and it has access to urban services such as water, sewer, electricity, telecommunications, public transport, retail shopping, banking, medical practitioners, and recreational land. Furthermore, the site is over 1 hectare in size, is not a prime tourism site, is relatively free of physical constraints, and contains and is surrounded by land of generally low gradient for easy pedestrian access, all of which are criteria for seniors housing development. The current 6(2) Tourism and Recreation Zone permits many recreational land uses with development consent. Including seniors housing as an additional permitted use on the site would ensure that tourism and recreation land uses are pursued on the site, or alternatively that seniors housing in pursued on the site. In this instance, it is considered that the community benefit resulting from the provision of seniors housing would be a net benefit, despite the loss of private recreational land. Rezoning the site for medium density residential housing would allow any medium density residential housing land uses to be undertaken on the site with development consent. Council considers that the loss of private creational land for such an outcome is not a net community benefit. There is already ample medium density zoned land and opportunities for medium density development in the LGA and in Belmont. 11. Is there adequate public infrastructure for the Planning Proposal? The site offers ready access to existing public infrastructure. Belmont contains major bus routes, particularly along the Pacific Highway. At present seven different bus routes service Belmont. The site is within a 400 metre walk of bus stops on the Highway. It is also approximately a metre walk from the site to the Belmont Bus Terminus located at Lake Macquarie Retirement Village on Gibson Street to the south-east of the Belmont Sportsman s Club. Connections to the electricity, water, wastewater, and telecommunication network will be funded by the developers and would be determined at the DA stage. These services are already available in the area and consultation with Hunter Water Corporation and the Roads and Maritime Services will be undertaken in accordance with the Gateway determination issued on July 2012 and subsequent Gateway determination review dated 10 August The Traffic Impact Assessment indicates that the Proposal will not significantly influence the existing levels of service and capacity of the local road network. 12. What are the views of State and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the gateway determination? A letter from the Mines Subsidence Board, dated 5 July 2011 confirms that the site is not located within a Mine Subsidence District. No further consultation is required with the Mines Subsidence Board. The Gateway Determination issued by DoPI on 13 July 2012 states that consultation is required with Hunter Water Corporation (HWC) and with Transport for NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) under section 56(2)(d) of the EP&A Act. Agency consultation was undertaken simultaneously with community consultation under s56(2)(c) of the EP&A Act. In accordance with condition 5 of the Gateway Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 28

29 Determination issued on 13 July 2012, each of the public authorities was provided with a copy of the planning proposal and relevant supporting material and was 21 days to comment on the proposal. Hunter Water Corporation (HWC) The letter from HWC is dated 26 October 2012 and a copy is provided in Appendix 10. HWC did not raise any concerns with the Planning Proposal. HWC s analysis indicates that there is presently sufficient capacity in the water supply system and the sewer system for the proposed development. Further consultation and assessment is required at the Development Application stage of the project. NSW Transport Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) The letter from RMS is dated 2 November 2012 and copy is provided in Appendix 10. Maude Street is an unclassified local road and Council is the roads authority for all public roads in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. The Pacific Highway is a classified (State) road and consent is required from RMS for traffic control signals and facilities under Section 87 of the Roads Act RMS has no objections to the Planning Proposal. The impact of any future seniors housing development on the subject site is likely to have negligible impact on the State road network. Further consultation with RMS may be required at the Development Application stage of the project. Part 4 Details of Community Consultation The Gateway Determination issued by DoPI on 13 July 2012 states that community consultation is to be undertaken in accordance with section 56(2)(c) of the EP&A Act. In accordance with Condition 4 of the Gateway Determination, the planning proposal and other relevant material was made publicly available for 28 days between Monday 15 October 2012 and Monday 12 November The exhibition material was provided in accordance with Section 4.5 of A Guide to Preparing LEPs (Department of Planning 2009). DoPI approved the form of the Planning Proposal for public exhibition purposes on Monday 8 October Community consultation was undertaken simultaneously with agency consultation under s56(2)(d) of the EP&A Act. Council received sixteen submissions, all specifically supporting Option 1, an amendment to Schedule 7 of LMLEP Two of the submissions were petitions containing 373 signatures in support of Option 1. Four submissions were letters from community groups supporting Option 1. The remaining letters were from individuals supporting Option 1. Clause 58(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) states that the relevant planning authority may, at any time, vary its proposals as a consequence of its consideration of any submission or report during community consultation or for any other reason. As a result of the significant public support for Option 1, Council varied this Planning Proposal in accordance with Clause 58(1) of the EP&A Act, to specifically support the LEP Amendment progressing as an Amendment to Schedule 7 of LMLEP A list of the main issues raised in the public submissions and a planning comment on each is provided below. Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 29

30 Building heights Would not like to see the site covered by a three storey development. Town planning comment Height controls are provided in Section of the Lake Macquarie Development Control Plan No. 1 (LMDCP 2004). There are no height controls for the 6(1) Open Space Zone and 6(2) Tourism and Recreation Zone. For the 2(2) Residential (Urban Living) Zone, the height above ground level specified by the LMDCP 2004 is 10 metres (3 storeys). Clause 29 of the LMLEP 2004 applies to development applications when a proposed building exceeds 8 metres in height. The consent authority must consider whether the height is compatible with the heights of other buildings in the immediate vicinity or locality, as well as with the site attributes. This clause would apply to proposed buildings over 8 metres in height in the 6(1) and 6(2) zones. Considering 3 storey development is permitted in the neighbouring 2(2) Residential (Urban Living) Zone, Council could consider a Development Application for 3 storey development on the subject site, regardless of whether it is an application for seniors housing. These controls have been converted into the draft LMLEP 2012 and the draft LMDCP The height control maps under draft LMLEP 2012 do not prescribe a maximum height in the RE1 Public Recreation and RE2 Private Recreation zones. Existing Clause 29 of LMLEP 2004 has been included in draft Clause 4.3 of LMLEP Option 2 could result in a block of flats Option 2 could result in a residential flat building on the site, which the submission believes would not be the best outcome. Town planning comment Residential flat buildings are permitted with consent in the 2(2) Residential (Urban Living) Zone under LMLEP Other land uses are also permissible with consent. Clause 28A of LMLEP 2004 applies to residential flat buildings in Zone 2(2). The subject site meets the size and width requirements of Clause 28A for a residential flat building under LMLEP 2004 and these provisions are being converted to draft LMLEP 2012 and draft LMDCP It is therefore possible for a residential flat building development to take place on the site if the LEP Amendment progresses as a rezoning. Good location for seniors housing The submission provides anecdotal evidence of interest in seniors housing on the site. The submission cites the proximity to recreational facilities and sporting groups as a reason why the site is a good location for seniors housing. Town planning comment The subject site fulfils many of the criteria for well located seniors housing, including being free of slope and bushfire constraints, having ready access to urban services such water, sewer and transport, and access to shops, employment, recreation, medical and other services. The subject site is within 400 metres walking distance of the core commercial area of the Belmont Town Centre. It is also adjacent to the Belmont Senior Citizens Centre and Belmont Community Child Care Centre to the Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 30

31 south and Belmont Park recreational facilities, including Cahill Oval, Miller Oval, Lumsdon Field, Molly Smith Netball Courts, and tennis courts, to the northeast and east, which provide recreational opportunities. Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 31

32 Attachment 1: Locality Map Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 32

33 Attachment 2: Aerial showing proximity of the subject site to Belmont Town Centre Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 33

34 Attachment 3: Aerial Map and Current Zones Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 34

35 Attachment 4: Option 1 Proposed map changes under LMLEP 2004 Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 35

36 Attachment 5: Option 1 Proposed map changes under draft LMLEP 2012 Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 36

37 Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 37

38 Attachment 6: Option 2 Proposed map changes under LMLEP 2004 Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 38

39 Attachment 7: Option 2 Proposed map changes under draft LMLEP 2012 Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 39

40 Attachment 8: Comparison of land uses under LMLEP 2004 Permitted with consent 2(2) Residential (Urban Living) 6(2) Tourism and Recreation Animal establishments Backpackers accommodation Bed and breakfast accommodation Boarding houses Car parking facilities Caravan parks Child care centres Clubs Community facilities Drainage Dwelling houses Earthworks Eco-tourism facilities Educational establishments Emergency services facilities Entertainment facilities Environmental facilities Function centres General stores Group homes Helipads Home businesses Home industries Hotel or motel accommodation Manufactured home estates Marinas Multiple dwelling housing Places of public worship Pubs Professional consulting rooms Recreation facilities Residential flat buildings Restaurants Roads Seniors housing Serviced apartments Signs Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 40

41 Small lot housing Sporting facilities Stormwater management facilities Telecommunications facilities Tourist resorts Utility installations Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 41

42 Attachment 9: Comparison of land uses under draft LMLEP 2012 Permitted with consent R3 Medium Density Residential Zone RE2 Private Recreation Amusement centres Animal boarding or training establishments Attached dwellings Bed and breakfast accommodation Boarding houses Building identification signs Business identification signs Camping grounds Caravan parks Charter and tourism boating facilities Child care centres Community facilities Dwelling houses Eco-tourist facilities Educational establishments Emergency services facilities Entertainment facilities Environmental facilities Environmental protection works Exhibition homes Filming Flood mitigation works Function centres Group homes (except group homes (transitional) Health service facilities Helipads Home based child care Home businesses Home industries Hostels Hotel or motel accommodation Information and education facilities Kiosks Marinas Markets Multi dwelling housing Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 42

43 Neighbourhood shops Places of public worship Recreation areas Recreation facilities (indoor) Recreation facilities (outdoor) Registered clubs Residential flat buildings Respite day care centres Restaurants Roads Secondary dwellings Seniors housing Signage Tourist and visitor accommodation Water recreation structures Wharf or boating facilities Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 43

44 Attachment 10 Copies of Agency Consultation Letter from Hunter Water Corporation Letter from Roads and Maritime Services Planning Proposal Belmont Sportsman s Club 44

45

46

47

48