Berringer Road Pty Limited v Shoalhaven City Council - [2010] NSWLEC 1140

No judgment structure available for this case.

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Berringer Road Pty Limited v Shoalhaven City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1140
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Berringer Road Pty Limited
RESPONDENT
Shoalhaven City Council

FILE NUMBER(S): 10463 of 2009

CORAM: Murrell C

KEY ISSUES: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION :- Caravan Park for 75 long term sites; contrary to strategic planning; public interest and Native Vegetation Act; site is isolated and social impact.

LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Local Government Act 1993
Native Vegetation Act 2003
Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 1985
Shoalhaven Draft Local Environmental Plan 2009
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 21
South Coast Regional Strategy Department of Planning
Residential Parks Act 1998
Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds, and Movable Dwellings) regulation of 2005
Design Guidelines for Permanent Occupancy of Caravan Parks - Shoalhaven City Council

CASES CITED: BGP Properties v Lake Macquarie City Council (2004) NSWLEC 399
Terrace Tower Holdings Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2003] NSWCA 289
Wygiren v Kiama Municipal Council and Anor [2008] NSWLEC 1233
Emilly II Investments v Rockdale City Council and Anor [2009] NSWLEC 1229

DATES OF HEARING: 26 and 27 November 2009
12 December 2010 -Submissions

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
25 June 2010

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
Mr G Green (solicitor)
SOLICITOR
Pikes Lawyers
RESPONDENT
Mr P Clay (barrister)
SOLICITOR
Morton & Harris RMB Lawyers

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Murrell C

25 June 2010

10463 of 2009 Berringer Road Pty Limited v Shoalhaven City Council
JUDGMENT

1 The applicant is seeking approval for a caravan park with 75 long term sites on a parcel of land of approximately 20 hectares at Inyadda Drive, Manyana between Nowra and Ulladulla on the south coast.

2 The subject site is zoned rural and caravan parks are permissible with consent and as such the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 21 – Caravan Parks also apply.

3 The subject site is Lot 108 in DP 755923 with an asset protection zone on the adjoining Lot 6 along its northern boundary. The site is surrounded to the north by Conjola National Park, Bendalong Waste Management Centre and Sewer Treatment Works. To the east is Inyadda Drive and opposite the road is undeveloped land that has approval for dwellings at varying densities. To the south Lot 6 Berringer Road forms the northern boundary of the Manyana Village and to the west the land is predominantly undeveloped rural bushland. Figure 1 shows the site in the context of the current zonings.

4 The proposal is for the 75 long term dwelling sites to accommodate movable dwellings with the individual sites varying in size between 330 and 500 square metres. The proposed development also contains associated facilities including: a car parking space per site; a managers residence; a convenience store: a, community facilities building; swimming pool; barbeque area; 32 visitors car parking spaces; two tennis Courts; playing areas; internal roads; extension of the water and sewerage services to the site; storm water detention and a pumping station. Figure 2 is a site plan to show the lot layout, roads and community facilities.

5 The application was refused by the respondent 28 November 2008 for the following reasons:

6 The applicant sought a review of the determination under s 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for an amended application to provide for short term resident stay as opposed to long term stay. Council did not determine the review. The applicant’s appeal is against the original proposal of 75 long term or permanent stay sites.

7 The respondent provided a Statement of Contentions as follows:

1. Whether the Application ought to be refused because approval to the use of the land for long term occupation would be contrary to the strategic planning for Manyana.

Particulars

2. Whether the Application ought to be refused because the site is not suitable for the proposed development?

Particulars

3. Whether the Application ought to be refused because the application contains insufficient information to allow a proper assessment.

Particulars

4. Whether the Application ought to be refused because it is contrary to the public interest?

To be resolved by conditions of consent.

6.

To be resolved by conditions of consent.

8 At the hearing the Respondent summarized the contentions as follows:

9 The other issues the respondent stated are capable of being resolved by conditions.

10 The State Environmental Planning Policy No. 21 – Caravan Parks contains a number of aims and objectives as follows:

11 The strategies by which the aims of SEPP 21 are to be achieved include:

Local Government Act

12 Definitions are contained in the SEPP and include: caravan park means land, including a camping ground where caravans or caravans and other moveable dwellings are or are to be installed or placed. Moveable dwelling has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act. The Policy states that in an environmental planing instrument references to caravan parks … includes references to caravan parks within the meaning of this Policy.

13 Clause 8 requires consent for a caravan park and subclause 2 states that before granting development consent a council must determine:

14 Subclause 3 requires a condition be imposed specifying the maximum number of sites for long term residence.

15 Subclause 4(a) states:

nothing in the policy or any other environmental planning instrument requires a separate development consent to be obtained for the installation or placement of a movable dwelling on land on which the development for the purposes of a caravan park is being lawfully carried out.

16 Clause 9 provides that land may be subdivided for lease purposes with the consent of the council and such a site must meet the requirements of the Local Government Local Parks And Caravan Camping Grounds Transitional Regulation 1993 for a site to be used for a long term residence.

17 Matters to be considered under the SEPP are set out in clause 10 as follows:

Local Government (Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds) Transitional Regulation 1993.

18 The Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds, and Movable Dwellings) Regulation of 2005 has as an objective to provide opportunities for affordable alternatives in short term and long term accommodation and this also contains a number of definitions including a dwelling site:

19 Part 3 of the Regulation relates to caravan parks, camping grounds and moveable dwellings including manufactured homes including caravan parks. The Regulations also contain requirements for the operation design construction and maintenance of caravan parks.

20 The council officer’s report states that the proposal generally complies with the regulation for permanent occupancy other than what might need to be included in conditions of approval.

21 The Residential Parks Act 1998 sets out:

22 The Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 1985 as amended zones the subject site 1(d) Rural (general rural) and the objectives of the zone include:

Any purpose other than a purpose for which development may be carried out without development consent or purpose for which development is prohibited.

Boarding houses; bulk stores; bulky goods premises; car repair stations; cluster housing; dual occupancies (other than attached dwellings); generating works involving wind powered generators; industries (other than rural industry extractive industries, offensive or hazardous industries); junk yards; motor showrooms; resident flat buildings; service stations; sexual service premises; shops warehouse.

23 The aims and objectives of the LEP include

24 The Council adopted in 1997 and reaffirmed in 2005 Design Guidelines for Permanent Occupancy of Caravan Parks. The aims and objectives are to –

Provide development guidelines which support the provisions of SEPP No.21 and provide further guidance in the implementation of this State Environmental Planning Policy.
Provide a user friendly document with flexible performance based criteria to guide development.
Ensure that the permanent occupancy of caravan parks is undertaken in a manner which has due regard to the location and character of an area, particularly where an area is suitable for tourists.
Ensure that the permanent occupancy of caravan parks does not adversely affect the provision and supply of tourist accommodation in a locality.
Ensure that sufficient community support facilities are provided with the development and/or are within close proximity of the caravan park.

Definitions

caravan park means land (including a camping ground) on which caravans and other moveable dwellings are, or are to be, installed or placed.

long term occupation means the occupation of a dwelling site for more than one hundred and fifty (150) days in any twelve (12) month period.

long term site means a dwelling site that is specified in the approval for a caravan park as being a long term site.

moveable dwelling has the same meaning as it has in the Local Government Act, 1993.
short term site means a dwelling site that is specified in the approval for a caravan park as being a short term site.
PROVISIONS

Locational Requirements

Performance Criteria

Acceptable Solutions

P1
The attraction of the Shoalhaven as a seaside destination for families is not compromised by the provision of long term occupancy within caravan parks.
Any caravan park within close proximity to a waterway does not remove the opportunity for, or availability of, tourist accommodation. A1 Where a caravan park directly adjoins, or is within 400 metres (direct line) of a beach, river or lake, long-term sites do not exceed 50% of approved sites. The remaining 50% of sites are available for tourist accommodation.

P2 Tourist accommodation has adequate access to beaches, rivers and lakes. A2 Public road access to nearby beaches, lakes and rivers is available.

P3 Development is not located in areas which are affected by flooding, bush fire or any other environmental hazard. A3
Environmental hazards and data source are identified. Applications are supported by details of measures designed to mitigate the risk.
Where sites are located on flood-prone land, compliance with Council’s interim policy for Caravan Parks on Flood-prone Land is demonstrated.

P4 Adequate services are available for the development. A4 Each long term site is connected to-
Town water (or an alternative water supply to Council’s satisfaction);
Sewer (or an alternative sewage disposal system to Council’s satisfaction); and
Reticulated electricity.

To ensure that there is adequate provision for tourist accommodation, particularly in seaside/coastal. areas, and to ensure that the permanent occupancy of caravan parks does not displace tourist accommodation.

Performance Criteria

Acceptable Solutions

P1 Permanent occupation of caravan parks does not lead to the displacement of existing tourist accommodation, particularly in seaside and coastal locations. A1 A proposal within a coastal locality or village is supported by details which confirm that the total number of tourist accommodation sites in the locality or village is not reduced to less than 50% of the total number of sites available; and

A2 New long term sites are confined to either new caravan parks or located within extensions to existing caravan parks.

To ensure that consideration is given to the provision of low cost housing within the locality or land available for low cost housing in that locality.

Performance Criteria

Acceptable Solutions

P1 Proposals identify any existing, or potential, shortage of low coast housing within the locality. A1 The development application is supported by details of-

Cost comparisons between the proposed long term (permanent) sites and the rental housing market in the locality or village.
The current availability of existing long term (permanent) sites within all caravan parks in the locality or villages.
The current availability of alternative rental accommodation in the locality or village.
Appropriate documentation from local real estate agents or other suitably qualified person must be provided.

Design and Siting
To ensure that caravan parks which accommodate long term (permanent) sites are designed to create a sense of identity and provide amenity for residents.

Performance Criteria

Acceptable Solutions

P1 Caravan Parks are designed to are:

protect the environment.
provide suitable opportunities for landscaping.
provide opportunities for solar access.
protect the privacy and amenity of residents
minimise conflicts between permanent residents and tourists located within the same park.
Reduce the intrusive nature of noise
Comply with the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Local Government (Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 1995.
A1 Creative alternatives to the grid system utilised for the layout of caravan parks.

P2 Measures are incorporated in the design and layout of new caravan parks, or extensions to existing caravan parks, to minimise traffic speeds and provide a safe environment for children. A2 A centrally located active recreation area, separated from moveable dwellings by a park access road, is provided.

A3 Areas of open space are dispersed equitably throughout the park.

A4 Residents are permitted to construct privacy screens to enhance the amenity of their homes.

A5 Long-term sites are located in an area separated from short term/tourist sites.

A6 Where permanent residents are to reside within caravan parks consideration is given to the provision of noise abatement devices such as fences, earth mounds and plantings.

A7. Child proof fencing is provided around play area(s) for pre-school children.

A8 Private open space areas adjacent to movable dwellings are provided which can be suitably fenced to create a safe, supervised play area for toddlers, e.g. fenced patio, verandah with childproof balustrade and gate.

A9 For new caravan parks, or extensions to existing caravan parks, traffic calming devices, such as speed humps, are incorporated in the design of all internal roads.

Community Support Facilities
To ensure that sufficient community support facilities are provided with the development and/or are within close proximity to the development site.

Performance Criteria

Acceptable Solutions

P1 Recreational facilities are provided in a manner which suits the needs of residents. A1
Open space areas within the Caravan Park are located, designed and equipped for the enjoyment of all residents.
A well designed and fenced play area with equipment suitable for pre-school age children is located in close proximity to laundry and drying facilities. Provision is also made for older children, including both grass and hard surfaces, with scope for appropriate activities.

P2 Social and community facilities are provided for residents to meet their expected needs. A2 Provision is made for a community room or hall for passive and active recreational activities.

P3 Suitable services and amenities, particularly toilet and bathroom facilities, are provided for permanent residents. A3 All new caravan parks, or extensions to existing parks, provide –
a) for the connection of moveable dwellings on long term sites to reticulated sewage; or
b) individual bathroom/laundry units at the real of each site.

P5 Community support facilities are available within close proximity of the caravan park.

was prepared by the NSW Government - Department of Planning and the summary states:

The Regional Strategy is an initiative of the NSW Government to guide sustainable growth throughout the South Coast over the next 25 years.

Protect high value environments including pristine coastal lakes, estuaries, aquifers, threatened species, vegetation communities and habitat corridors by ensuring that no new urban development occurs in these important areas and their catchments.
Cater for a housing demand of up to 45 600 new dwellings by 2031 to accommodate the additional 60 000 people expected in the Region over the next 25 years.
Increase the amount of housing in existing centres to ensure the needs of future households are better met, in particular the needs of smaller households and an ageing population.
Prioritise and manage the release of future urban lands to ensure that new development occurs in and around existing well serviced centres and towns.
Use the recommendations of the Sensitive Urban Lands Panel to guide the finalisation of the development form and environmental management of the 17 `sensitive urban lands'.
Manage the environmental impact of settlement by focusing new urban development in existing identified growth areas such as Nowra-Bomaderry, Milton-Ulladulla, Batemans Bay and Bega.
Only consider additional development sites if it can be demonstrated that they satisfy the Sustainability Criteria (Appendix 1).
No new towns or villages will be supported unless compelling reasons are presented and they can satisfy the Sustainability Criteria.
No new rural residential zones will be supported unless as part of an agreed structure plan or settlement strategy.
Ensure an adequate supply of land to support economic growth and provide capacity to accommodate a projected 25 800 new jobs, particularly in the areas of finance, administration, business services, health, aged care and tourism.
Limit development in places constrained by coastal processes, flooding, wetlands, important primary industry resources and significant scenic and cultural landscapes.
Protect the cultural and Aboriginal heritage values and visual character of rural and coastal towns and villages and surrounding landscapes.

Evidence

26 The Court met on site with the parties and heard from a number of residents and local concerned groups at the beginning of the conciliation process under s 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act. No agreement was reached and the parties agreed to adjudication under s34(4) with a further hearing. At the hearing the parties noted on the record that all the evidence to the Court should be considered including the site inspection and the objectors submissions.

27 The concerns expressed by resident objectors include that the proposal is contrary to the strategy and the site is zoned Rural General and permanent occupation would be unreasonable in terms of the demands placed on services and the need for the clearing of native vegetation. Concern was also expressed about the edge impacts of the proposal in this sensitive location and the traffic generation and conflicts with existing development.

28 The lack of services and facilities was expressed as a concern and the fact that the site is some 30 km from Milton, 35 km from Ulladulla to the South and 50 km to Nowra. It was stated that Manyana has a population of 363 which is serviced by half a doctor with no schools, preschools and that it is surrounded by National Parks.

29 The 2006 South Coast strategy was referred to and the fact the proposal is contrary to this, residents expressed concern that unplanned residential development of the rural land is and desirable and unsustainable. It was pointed out that there are currently some 66 houses for sale in the area and 20 vacant houses, that a third of the population is permanent while two thirds holidaymakers and that the residential zoned land in Manyana would satisfy demand in to the future. It was also stated that there exists affordable housing in the village and that the manufactured home estate is 75 lots was not necessary and would in fact create an oversupply and jeopardise the development of zoned land.

30 The residents were asked whether their concerns would be satisfied if the proposal was for short term as opposed to long term residents and they object to short term also. The objectors are of the opinion the proposal is a de facto retirement village and would not provide for a good fit in the community of Manyana and that future residents would have expectations of services which are not available including health services and access to same. The development would create complex issues of isolation with people having to be car dependent because the public transport bus service runs in frequently and an ambulance service is some 30 minutes away.

31 The short term proposal is opposed for the same reasons as the long term that is be environmental impact on the State Forest National Park and the fact that there would be impacts from the sewer treatment plant and that the site would require even a holidaymaker to walk and drive with no medical facilities and Milton Hospital some 25 minutes away in shop bought subtract from the income of other stores in the locality impacting on local businesses. The social issues of short and long term would be the same in that there would be no integration with the community with its own infrastructure this would only have the effect of dividing the community. Furthermore be proposed

32 Concern was expressed that the coastal lifestyle of the existing residents would be impacted by the proposed development because the boat ramp is already beyond capacity and the beaches have limited parking. Furthermore, the site was seen to be too far from the beach to walk and the beach is not patrolled and this raises safety issues.

33 The fire captain of Manyana also expressed concern about it would be difficult to protect the caravan park and that the bushfire service is in dire straits with very low membership and the proposed land is within a main corridor of fires.

34 The objectors referred to threatened species including owls and squirrel gliders, that would be impacted in their opinion by the proposal including the need to clear native vegetation and that for every hectare of cleared land a suitable offset would be 25 ha.

35 The Court heard expert evidence on behalf of the respondent from Ms Cinnamon Dunsford, strategic planner with the Council, Dr Judith Stubbs, social planning and research consultant, Mr Michael Smith, threatened species officer of Council, and Ms Donna Hazell and Mr Michael Fiedler native vegetation officers with the Southern Rivers Catchment Authority. For the applicant evidence was given to the Court by Mr John Coady consultant town planner and traffic engineer; and Mr George Porter, social policy and social planning consultant.

36 Ms Dunsford is of the opinion that the proposal is not within the Manyana village and is outside the zone boundaries for the village whereas Mr Coady considers the subject site is contiguous with the village and one must have regard to its physical relationship and not the zone boundaries on the LEP map. Furthermore he states the proposed caravan park on the subject site is contiguous with the planned urban development and he is of the opinion that the commercial zoned land for Manyana is within close proximity some 400 m and that while it may not be taken up at this point in time it will in due course whether that be in 5 or 20 years. See Figure 4.

37 Ms Dunsford is of the opinion that the permanent occupation of the caravan sites is of the most concern and that it results in ‘de facto’ rezoning of the land for residential purposes. Mr Coady is of the opinion that the permanent nature makes little difference as to whether residents stay for 180 days or more.

38 Mr Coady advised that the draft LEP has not been issued with a certificate from the Department of Planning and this is required before it can be exhibited. With respect to the implementation of the Strategy he quotes:

“the South Coast regional strategy will be implemented primarily through local environmental plans, development control plans, the state infrastructure strategy and funds collected as developer contributions."

39 Ms Dunsford considers that the Strategy does not only apply to the new release of lands and that there are other aims including setting out the hierarchy of settlements for the Shoalhaven Local Government Area and this does not support development growth adjacent to a town or village. The Strategy acknowledges that settlement is characterised by many small dispersed towns and villages as evidenced by the quote:

“Allowing settlement to disburse even further has the potential to degrade natural environments, create infrastructure and service delivery inefficiencies and contribute to social isolation and car dependency…

40 Mr Coady agrees that the proposal is a form of long term residential however, in his opinion whether there is sufficient stock of urban land to accommodate expected urban growth is not a matter required to be taken into consideration under section 79C and that while a shortage of urban land to accommodate the expected urban growth market will be considered contrary to the public interest it is difficult to comprehend how an excess stock of urban land could similarly be construed to be contrary to the public interest. In his opinion the proposed caravan site provides an alternative form of residential accommodation to that which is currently available at Manaya.

41 Ms Dunsford considers that the proposed development as a long term stay caravan park is a ‘quasi residential’ use on the rural zoned land located outside of the village of Manyana whereas the 182 lot subdivision approved under Part 3(A) is for a residential use on residential zoned land within the village of Manyana. See figure 4.

42 Ms Dunsford considers that while excess stock of urban land is not contrary to the public interest the proposed residential development on land not zoned to permit residential development has the ability to undermine the function of the settlement of the village.

43 On the question of the land being isolated Mr Coady is of the view that the site is not isolated in the context of existing and planned future urban development at Manyana whereas Ms Dunsford maintains the position that it is located outside the village zone boundary.

44 The issue raised about the adequacy of services and the need to travel to Milton a distance of some 22 km Mr Coady considers that the residents of rural areas and residents of coastal villages generally do not enjoy the same access to retail community facilities as city or town residents and that this is a lifestyle choice when they choose a rural coastal village. Manyana is currently served by small convenience stores at Cunjarong Point and Bendalong, he is also of the opinion that as growth occurs additional retail community facilities will establish at Manyana which is presumably why the Council zoned the land on the northeastern corner of Carvers Road and Inyadda Drive to accommodate such uses.

45 He considers the subject site is conveniently located to the commercial zoned land and the caravan park can be expected to contribute to the demands for those facilities and services. He is further of the view that the future residents of the caravan park will have direct access to a convenience store/kiosk which will form part of the development and which can be expected to respond to the day-to-day requirements of the caravan park residents. In this respect he says that the park residents will have more direct access to convenience goods than other residents of Manyana.

46 He does not consider there is anything inherently wrong with the relatively large lot sizes and this will provide for greater separation between the dwellings and enable the retention of some trees and introduction of new planted species on individual sites as well as providing for private garden recreation space to each site. Furthermore he said the lot sizes do not contravene any regulation or design standard that call for a minimum opposed to a maximum site size.

47 Ms Dunsford is of the opinion that the lot size and layout and density is more in keeping with the residentially zoned land and that this results in a much larger development footprint.

48 The contention that the proposal is inconsistent with the need for community support facilities in close proximity Mr Coady is of the opinion that this is not a reason for refusal because there is a hierarchy of statutory instruments and none impose the specific location criteria on caravan park developments in terms of SEPP 21 and the regulations. Furthermore, he considers that the design guideline for permanent occupancy of caravan parks by the council is a secondary matter to the more important statutory instruments. Nonetheless, he considers that the issue is in part resolved by the provision of the convenience store within the park development and the need for access to a doctor’s surgery, chemist shop is available in the larger surrounding towns and the doctors clinic in the community hall of Manyana.

49 Mr Coady further notes that it can be reasonably anticipated that with population growth community support facilities will establish at Manyana and the site is conveniently located in respect of lands zoned to accommodate these facilities.

50 In Ms Dunsford’s opinion the design guidelines of council are consistent with SEPP 21 and this issue is best addressed by the social planners. However, in councils long term strategic plans there are not further community facilities proposed at Manyana based partly upon the limited expected population growth.

51 On the issue of ‘public interest’ Mr Coady considers that the proposal is a permissible use with council consent and it cannot be said that the subject site cannot form part of the rural village of Manyana. He notes that the land on the opposite eastern side of Inyadda Drive is zoned 2(b2) under the LEP and it can be reasonably anticipated the site will be developed for residential use in the future. In these circumstances it cannot be argued that a different form of residential development that is a long term caravan park located on the opposite site of Inyadda Drive is not within the urban area of the Manyana rural village.

52 In Ms Dunsfords opinion the 1(d) general rural zone is not a specific zone and it has a relatively wide range of permissible land uses and caravan parks are an innominate use. Furthermore, she considers the village of Manyana is defined by the urban zoned land and that the development of unplanned de facto residential land outside the urban zone is inconsistent with the South Coast Strategy and therefore contradicts the public interest.

53 Mr Coady on the other hand considers that a more sophisticated consideration is required in considering the subject site as part of the village of Manyana and matters for consideration inform, whether the caravan park as a form of residential development should be allowed on the site. That is the relationship of the site to the village; the proximity of the site to the existing planned and future town and community facilities; access to the site and the ability of the site to be serviced by existing infrastructure water, sewage and electricity etc. In his opinion consideration of these matters leads to a conclusion the site if developed as a long term caravan park will indeed form part of the Manyana village.

54 On the question of cumulative impacts of the development including environmental impacts, social impacts, infrastructure and design; and public interest not being well served Mr Coady is of the view that a balanced assessment under 79C leads to a conclusion the proposal is not contrary to the public interest. He refers to Mr Porter’s evidence and Mr Fanning’s evidence that there will be no unacceptable social and economic impacts or impacts on the natural environment. Furthermore, the site is not flood prone and has access to reticulated water and sewage services, and electricity and the site is contiguous with the established village of Manyana and future residents will have the same access to retail and community facilities as other residents of Manyana and also enjoy more direct access to convenience supplies through the kiosk that is part of the proposal.

55 In Ms Dunsford’s opinion on a balanced assessment she considers the proposal contrary to the public interest because “the fact the caravan park is permissible does not override the environmental impacts and that the proposed lot layout, size and density is akin to a residential zone and the proposal amounts to a unplanned de facto rezoning of the rural land contrary to the South Coast Strategy.” She also refers to Dr Stubbs position that there are substantive social impacts for permanent residents in an isolated location, particularly for older residents. She also states that the relatively slow uptake of residential land in the village where there is ample supply of approved vacant residential land will satisfy demand for housing in the foreseeable future. That the unplanned splitting of development demands from the urban zone to the rural zone has the potential to undermine the aims and objectives of the LEP and Strategy.

56 The social planning consultants Dr Stubbs and Mr Porter prepared a joint report and also gave concurrent evidence to the proceedings. Dr Stubbs is of the opinion that the proposal will attract working-class retirees and that the proposal will be a poor man's retirement village with no security of tenure and problems of access and distance to goods and services. Dr Stubbs raises no objection if the proposal was for short term stay apart from the fact that they may become long term by stealth.

57 Mr Porter on the other hand is of the opinion that people choose where they live and many people consider it a benefit to be in a relatively isolated place and that the proposed development offers housing choice. He said that the majority of older people are not frail and sick and that people may choose to holiday and then retire, as for other coastal locations. He is of the opinion that the proposal would have a low entry cost and add to the diversity of housing choice. With respect to being isolated Mr Porter said that a mini-bus and convenience store is part of the proposal and the site would provide good access to recreational facilities and the convenience stores in the locality. He agreed that one would have to travel to access urban facilities however that this is no different to many locations.

58 Mr Porter considers that the residents of Manyana have access to the necessary social infrastructure although he agrees access to some higher-level facilities requires travel to the nearest large town. However someone choosing to move to Manyana in his opinion would be expected to see this as an acceptable aspect of a lifestyle in a small village.

59 Dr Stubbs is concerned about the lack of adequate services and poor access to the larger centres whereas Mr Porter considers that a trip to Milton is only some half an hour and residents will have the option to travel by minibus or public bus if they do not wish to, or are unable, to drive. On the other hand Mr Porter considers that the proposal will be attractive to people who want to live in a quiet area not seeking a range of urban services such as shopping malls, cinemas, and hospitals on their doorstep.

60 It was agreed that the future residents of the proposal would on average be older than the population average and that most would have below average incomes.

61 Dr Stubbs agrees that the nature of the proposal is likely to be similar to a range of other caravan parks in rural Shoalhaven as well as manufactured home estates (MHE) on the Central Coast. She also agrees that increasingly caravan parks are being redeveloped to incorporate primarily if not exclusively manufactured homes and that newer caravan parks frequently contain no caravans for permanent residence as such this proposal is not regarded as unique.

62 Dr Stubbs said that there are generally two broad markets for caravan parks of this nature. The first is retirees whose main income comes from an aged pension and who have a relatively limited capital base and for whom the park is effectively a ‘de facto’ retirement village. The second is a lower income working or unemployed families who often borrow to purchase a manufactured home and purchasing into a caravan park or MHE provides entry or re-entry into the housing market. Mr Porter disagrees and is not aware of any published data that provides a meaningful reflection of the likely demographic characteristics. Mr Porter would expect the demographics to fall somewhere between those of Manyana township and those of households whose dwelling location is a caravan park.

63 Dr Stubbs considers the proposal does not promote positive ageing in place as people may move into the park as fit and active retirees and able to drive and the site is not walkable to even the limited facilities in Manyana. She is of the opinion that the real cost is likely to prevent people from relocating when their needs require same and they will have a significantly rundown capital base with a depreciated manufactured home. Mr Porter disagrees he considers that older people over 55 should have the opportunity to live where they choose and that the vast majority do not require purpose-built housing with support services. He accepts that some older people may wish to or need to live close to various urban-based facilities however that should not preclude options being offered to others of living in a quiet rural location in the housing of their choice. Indeed many older people already choose to retire to such locations and most of them age in place successfully. He accepts that there will be a number of older people living in the proposal but does not consider it to be a de facto retirement village. In addition he states that residential parks are known to provide a highly supportive environment and a strong community in which neighbours help and support each other. And that this is a central component of ageing in place.

64 Dr Stubbs considers that the land is isolated and lacks facilities she says that the Manyana community centre is 1.2 km from the site and not walkable due to distance and topography and the closest general store is Cunjerong Point 2.8 km and Bendalong 2.2 km. She says that the public bus is not run on weekends or in school holidays and while it goes past Bendalong and Cunjerong general stores the services are infrequent therefore residents will be largely reliant upon private transport. Mr Porter is of the view that the site on the edge of Manyana does not make it isolated and indeed new development is likely to adjoin in the foreseeable future and that land for a village centre is zoned and residents are likely to walk mainly for recreational purposes.

65 Dr Stubbs considers that the majority of services required are located in Milton or further away and this poses significant accessibility issues. Mr Porter disagrees and says that the day to day needs are met on site and in the locality and that is the nature of higher order needs. Furthermore, such trips are likely to be necessary infrequently, although in practice many residents would choose to make the trip weekly as an outing in order to obtain lower prices and wider choice at large supermarkets.

66 Dr Stubbs considers that the likely demographic of the proposed caravan park makes residents more vulnerable to adverse social and economic impacts whereas Mr Porter agrees that while the labour force participation rates will be below average as a function of the proportion of retired people he does not see this as a negative issue and given that incoming residents will need to purchase a home he does not anticipate that there will be any very low income households although it is likely that most households will have below average incomes.

67 Dr Stubbs considers that the proposal will not add to low-cost housing in the locality and that there is sufficient supply of low-cost and affordable housing in the wider local government area and does not consider that the application is likely to provide low-cost housing in any case. This is due to typical purchase costs, site rental, depreciation, financing and other hidden costs of the proposal. She therefore concludes that the real cost of living in the caravan park is likely to have significant social and economic impacts regarding access to appropriate future housing or aged care options for park residents related to security and New South Wales legislation.

68 Mr Porter points out that the impact on low-cost housing supply is simply a consideration under SEPP 21 and there is no requirement to provide low-cost housing. He says that the central benefit would be to increase housing choice and diversity and that the proponents were not seeking to provide low-cost housing.

69 Dr Stubbs states that the application is inconsistent with the provision of community support facilities within 800 m s required by council design guidelines for permanent occupancy caravan parks. Mr Porter is of the view that three of the four services of a shop/store, space for a doctors surgery, bus stop and the fourth is likely to be available in the foreseeable future that is a chemist in the future commercial area.

70 Dr Stubbs considers that the ‘public interest’ is not served by the proposal and that the social and economic impacts are contrary to key objects of the Act. Mr Porter disagrees and that residents will not experience negative social impacts. Rather he says the provision of housing choice will serve the public interest.

Findings

71 In my assessment of this development application for a long-term caravan park I have had regard to the suite of controls and guidelines of the statutory planning framework of the Shoalhaven LEP 1985 and the SEPP 21 –Caravan Parks, as well as the South Coast Regional Strategy; the draft LEP 2009; and council’s guidelines for permanent occupation of caravan parks. Clearly in the raft of instruments and guidelines to be considered one must bring a commonsense understanding of the interrelationship of the various documents and statutory provisions.

72 The development application must be assessed under the relevant statutory provisions and guidelines as cited above and on a comprehensive assessment I am satisfied should be approved.

73 The respondent referred me to the case in this Court of Wygiren v KiamaMunicipal Council [2008] NSWLEC 1233 where an appeal was dismissed for a caravan park with 1040 sites on class 3 prime crop and pasture land with a viable dairy farm. The subject site was well removed from any towns or settlements and subject to flooding and without town sewerage facilities. The circumstances of this case are vastly different to the facts in the above case.

Strategic Planning, Location and Suitability of Site

74 I have carefully considered the experts evidence on whether the proposed development is appropriately located in terms of access to goods and services. This is a requirement of not only the SEPP 21 but councils guidelines for permanent occupation of caravan parks. I agree with the applicant’s submission that the test is not, what is necessary under the seniors living SEPP and in this regard I am persuaded by Mr Porter's evidence that while there may be a larger proportion of persons over 55 it will not be exclusively, and it is not a de facto retirement village. I accept that amongst the future residents that people may wish to holiday at the facility, and like in other coastal locations may retire to the site. I also agree that the proposal provides for housing choice, which is an express aim of SEPP 21 and other policy documents.

75 Dr Stubbs expressed concern that the proposal would attract a demographic of older persons, and those in a lower socio-economic group. She is also concerned that caravan parks, and the purchase of movable dwellings does not provide for a sound investment. In many respects, the concerns she expresses are general fundamental issues she holds about permanent caravan parks and not specific to this development application. Furthermore I would err if I assessed the proposal against provisions of other instruments, such as the seniors living SEPP. The legislation clearly provides for different forms and a variety of residential accommodation to fulfil the housing needs and choice of the State and it is inappropriate to substitute different criteria in my assessment of the development under SEPP 21 and the other relevant guidelines.

76 In my assessment of the application I must have regard to the statutory controls that clearly contemplate permanent caravan parks and the assessment is whether this site is suitable assessed against the statutory provisions and guidelines of council. This is a form of residential accommodation, and as contemplated provides for housing choice. Dr Stubbs concerns go to the fundamental issues that are more appropriately raised in the context of drafting legislation and instruments. Based on the evidence to the Court I am satisfied that the subject site is an appropriate location, and that it provides for choice for those seeking a quiet village atmosphere within close proximity to the coast.

77 I accept the evidence of Mr Porter that the availability of low-cost housing in the area is a relevant matter to consider and the experts agree that this is available. The applicant does not put the proposal forward as low cost housing and I accept the submission made on behalf of the applicant that the proposal provides for housing choice.

78 Information was provided on the main caravan parks in the area and the ‘Rustic caravan park’ has 32 short term, no long term, and 2 camping sites; Bendalong Road caravan park has 228 site –1 long term, 164 short term and 64 camping sites and Allawah Beach Bendalong has 47 short term sites.

79 The 182 lot subdivision approved under part 3A of the Act, known as lot No 172, is located to the south of the subject site on the western side of the village south of Berringer Road and is approximately 20 ha. The site is zoned 2(a1).

80 Council has received preliminary advice from the RFS that the proposal is satisfactory, subject to certain conditions regarding bushfire mitigation measures.

81 In my assessment, the site is suitable with the provision of a convenience store and mini-bus, which are operational conditions of the consent. The residents of the caravan park will have greater access to facilities and goods and services than other residents within the area. In this regard I am persuaded by the evidence of the experts for the applicant.

82 I accept that the South Coast Regional Strategy can inform the development assessment process, but at the same time its primary role as required by the section 117 Direction 5.1 relates to the implementation of strategies and states that the direction applies when councils prepare draft LEP’s , that are to be consistent with the regional strategy. In this regard the draft 2009 LEP not only confirms this site to permit caravan parks, but specifically nominates caravan parks as a permissible use with consent.

83 The Strategy states that it will guide future development applications, local environmental plans and strategic land-use plans for coast sensitive urban land and it states that for the land supply for the existing village of Manyana indicates there is a sufficient supply of zoned undeveloped urban land to supply the market for the foreseeable future, especially in respect of land on Inyadda drive for which there is a proposal to rezone it from rural small-holdings to conventional residential, notwithstanding the fact that the area is provided with a reticulated sewage system.

84 In my assessment the proposal is not contrary to the Strategy as it provides for a form of residential not permitted with the residential zoned area of the village that compliments and provides an alternative form for housing choice.

85 Furthermore, s117 Direction 3.2 relates to Caravan Parks and manufactured home estates (MHE) with the objectives: to provide for a variety of housing types and to provide opportunities for caravan parks and MHE. In preparing LEP’s a council must retain provisions that permit development for the purposes of a caravan park.

86 The council's draft Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2009 is awaiting the issue of a section 65 certificate from the Dept of Planning to enable public exhibition. As such while it is not a matter under s79C(1)(a)(ii) it is a relevant consideration under public interest in my assessment consistent with the authority in Terrace Towers. This draft plan shows the subject site in the zone of RU2. Uses permissible in the zone with consent include: agriculture, caravan parks, dwelling houses; educational establishments, tourist and visitor accommodation. The objectives of the zone are:

87 Other rural zones in the template draft Shoalhaven LEP are: Zone RU1 -- Primary Production zone; RU3 –forestry; RU5 –village.

88 Ms Dunsford states that as there is no future direction for further residential land release in Manyana the RU2 zone is considered the most appropriate zone based on the LEP template. She further comments that a review found that there is “sufficient zoned land in the locality that will meet the demands of growth in this area for the foreseeable future”.

89 In the preparation of the council's draft LEP 2009, it would appear the council has been required to consider and take a balanced position on complying with the various directions. And the subject site is zoned to specifically allow for caravan parks in the draft LEP, whereas this use is prohibited in the village residential and other rural zones.

90 On the question of the caravan park being contrary to strategic planning for Manyana because of its isolation and lack of services the council submits that the character of the development is permanent residential accommodation and that the subject site being a rural zoned site means that the application has the effect of a de facto re-zoning for residential purposes.

91 Council further contends that the long term caravan park is an innominate use and therefore not a specific use permissible in the zone and therefore less weight should be given to the zoning.

92 I accept that the Strategy may guide development however its primary purpose in terms of section 117 Directions issued by the Minister in 2007 is for council’s local environmental plans to be consistent with the Strategy. Furthermore, from a strategic planning point of view the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 21 has a number of aims as identified above and clause 10 provides the matters to be taken into consideration in assessing a development application for a caravan park.

93 Furthermore, the section 117 direction 3.2 contains objectives to provide for a variety of housing types and provide opportunities for caravan parks and manufactured home estates. I am satisfied the proposed caravan park is located contiguous with the village/residential zone of Manyana and of available rural sites it is one that is more conveniently located and is an appropriate site for a caravan park having regard to the statutory planning framework and polices and directions that guide same.

94 Council has prepared Guidelines for the permanent occupation of caravan parks to assist in the assessment of development applications under SEPP 21. In this regard the proposed development is also one that is appropriate and well located.

95 The Guidelines for permanent occupancy of caravan parks includes to ensure that such parks have regard to the location and character of an area and not to adversely effect the provision and supply of tourist accommodation in a locality. In this regard, the location of the proposal is suitable for a permanent caravan park, and indeed this is consistent with council’s locational requirements, as there will be no displacement of tourist accommodation. The proposal is also consistent in my assessment with the council’s requirements that permanent sites that are designed to create a sense of identity and provide a sense of community for residents. This includes the design of roads and centrally located community facilities.

96 The State Environmental Planning Policy, No. 21, also contains similar provisions to the above as well as a number of aims and objectives that must be considered in the determination of the application and the matters listed in clause 10 as cited above. I am satisfied that the subject site is particularly suitable for use as a caravan park for long-term residents, and that existing or potential tourist accommodation will not be displaced. I am also satisfied on the basis of the evidence to the Court that there is availability of low-cost housing in the locality, and it is not necessary for this proposal to provide same. As discussed below, necessary community facilities and services also satisfy the SEPP in my assessment.

97 On the basis of the evidence to the Court I accept the submission that the subject site is one of the most conveniently located and suitable parcels of land for the proposed caravan park. Figure 4 shows the context of the subject site. The Kylor land to the east is zoned for residential purposes, and the National Park to the north of the subject site provides a clear boundary for the settlement of Manyana. I agree with Mr Coady, “the subject site is conveniently located and contiguous with the village”. Furthermore, given that caravan parks are not permissible on the future residential zoned lands, it is more appropriate that they be contiguous with existing and future planned settlements.

98 The proposal is not only contemplated within the statutory framework and in my assessment there are no outstanding issues to warrant refusal of the application. In my merits assessment under section 79C of the Act, the site is suitable for the development and I am satisfied there are no significant impacts on the environment or social or economic impacts . Furthermore, I am satisfied the proposal meets the object of the Act for orderly and economic development on a site that is contiguous to the village and proximate to recently approved large residential developments that could potentially also provide the necessary synergy and threshold for the establishment of goods and services for the township as a whole.

Native Vegetation Act

99 The applicant opposes the deferred commencement condition that requires the consent not to operate until an approval under the Native Vegetation Act has been issued. On behalf of the applicant it is submitted that the site has previously been used for grazing, and now contains regrowth vegetation in many areas and states that the proposal will require clearing of approximately 8.8 ha of vegetation and the management of an additional 10.9 ha for bushfire purposes. The applicant further submits that the separate requirement for clearing under the NV Act is not an

100 The evidence of Mr Fiedler, a property vegetation planning officer with the CMA advises that if there has been regrowth since 1990, then properties are exempt from requiring consent. He stated the NV Act requires separate approval. The CMA file on the subject site was tended to the Court and a file note dated 12 October 2007 states:

… I received some further advice … regarding the regrowth issue and fire history on the property. My initial assessment counted the burnt areas in the previously clear areas as remnant vegetation, however since the new advice the burnt areas can now be assessed as regrowth which makes a considerable difference to the proposal.

Please refer to the attached image of the property. I have roughly traced out the regrowth areas using the 1991 air photo.

… 1 ha is the area I discussed … that is exempt from the assessment that is exotic groundcover and regrowth understorey which is approximately 2.3 ha in size. The rest of the site 1lb,2,3,4 and 5 has a considerable amount of regrowth and works out at about 9.45 ha. The regrowth identified is only in the midstorey and there still appears to be native groundcover and some larger trees from the 1991 air photo. This ground cover would need to be assessed unless you have evidence that this groundcover was exotic before the fires.

I haven't done a new assessment with the tools in the PVP developer but it should be around the same ratio as my first assessment. Now that the regrowth area is much larger the offset area is smaller. So your client could clear approximately 0.85 ha of native groundcover with a 23.6 ha offset

101 Ms Donna Hazell, the catchment coordinator (native vegetation) for the Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority provided a statement filed in October 2009 and in her opinion clearing vegetation for the caravan park will require consent under the NV Act. She advises that “there are instances involving the clearing of native vegetation that may require consent under the NV Act as well as separate consent … under the EPA Act. This is referred to as dual consent. The proposed caravan park on the above mentioned lots is a dual consent case.” Ms Hazell also sets out circumstances where clearing is exempt. She states that the exact location, nature and clearing has not been provided and therefore a full NV Act assessment has not been undertaken. She also refers to threatened species as a major consideration in the assessment of clearing under the NV Act although she advises there are also other considerations that can influence the outcome.

102 Mr Michael Smith, the councils threatened species officer also provided a statement to the Court in October 2009, and he advises that, while a number of threatened species and one endangered ecological community were identified on the subject lots and notes the assessment of significance, or 7 part test, concludes the proposal was unlikely to have a significant impact, because areas containing key habitat and resources are to be retained, in areas outside the development footprint or hollow bearing trees.

103 Mr Smith further comments on the “edge effects” that the proposed development footprint abuts the sensitive coastal location in the Northeast portion of Lot 108. He comments that “mitigation measures to reduce or negate the impacts of edge effects include the provision of naturally vegetated buffers to sensitive or significant areas and or implementing management actions usually documented in an approved environmental management plan. A minimum buffer of 50 m should be provided to

104 Mr Coady notes that the proposal now has a 100 metre buffer strip on the northern part of the site to minimise the potential conflict associated with the proposed caravan park to affect adjoining land to the north which forms part of Conjola National Park. On the issue of the proposal precluding the future use of the land for rural purposes Mr Coady states that the land is not prime crop or pasture land

105 The council officer’s report on the s82A review states that a separate approval under the Native Vegetation Act is not a consideration for council under section 79C of the EPA Act.

106 The respondent proposes a deferred commencement condition that “this consent does not operate until an approval under the NV Act has issued…”. However, on the basis of the evidence before the Court I am not persuaded that the above condition referring to the NV Act is appropriate given the necessity for certainty in the process when imposing a deferred commencement under the EPA Act. The parties are not in agreement as to whether consent under the NV Act is required and the imposition of such a condition as worded above means that I would make a pre-judgment not open to me that consent under the NV Act is necessary.

107 The facts in the matter before me are that if consent is required under the NV Act it is agreed by all the experts that this is a separate assessment and determination process. The appeal before the Court is only in respect of the development application for a caravan park under the EPA Act. It is not a matter for me to determine or fetter the discretion of a separate approval body even if consent under the NV Act is required.

108 The council contends that it is against the public interest to approve the subject development when approval under the NV Act will not be granted. On the basis of the evidence before the Court and the fact that a formal assessment has not been carried out by the Catchment Management Authority and on the basis of the CMA file notes pertaining to the land the council’s contention that development consent will not be granted would appear to be premature. The advice to the applicant makes it clear that

109 Based on the evidence to the Court separate approval may be required under the NV Act however, I am not persuaded that this warrants refusal of the application or the imposition of a deferred commencement condition. I have assessed the proposal as satisfactory under s79C of the EPA Act and if consent is required under the NV Act the applicant must obtain that consent.

110 The last part of Council’s conditions contains ‘General Advice to the Applicant” and this directs the applicant’s attention to the requirements of the NV Act as follows:

not

111 I consider the above advice is appropriate and places the applicant on notice if approval for the proposal on the subject site is required under the NV Act. As such the deferred commencement condition and operational condition submitted by the respondent are deleted from the conditions.

112 The other conditions in Annexure ‘A’ are as agreed to between the parties.

Public interest

113 The question of public interest is raised by the Respondent having regard to the lack of services as well as the Native Vegetation Act. There are many public interests and in my assessment the question of services and facilities is satisfactorily addressed and I accept the applicant’s evidence in this regard. Furthermore, in the light of the statutory controls and legislation I am satisfied that the proposal is not contrary to the public interest having regard to competing needs and demands. The proposal on the subject site also provides a suitable interface with adjoining land uses and zones.

114 I am satisfied that the issues raised by the objectors have been addressed by the experts in their reports including conditions required for rural fire services and asset protection areas as well as the provision of a 100 m buffer for Conjola National Park to the north. I am satisfied the proposal is compatible and will not be out of character with the area.

115 In my overall assessment of the long-term caravan park for the subject site I have concluded that there are no outstanding reasons to warrant its refusal based on the evidence to the Court and having regard to the planning regime and policies. Figures 1, 3 and 4 assist in demonstrating that the site is also suitable for the proposed development in strategic planning terms showing that the site is contiguous to the village of Manyana.

116 Accordingly based on my assessment above the following orders of the Court are made:

1. The appeal in respect of the land known as Lot 108, and a portion of Lot 6 for asset protection zone, Inyadda Drive Manyana is upheld;

2. The development application submitted to Shoalhaven Council, and as amended, is determined by the granting of a deferred commencement consent and subject to the other conditions in Annexure A; and

Annexure ‘A’

Berringer Road Pty Ltd v Shoalhaven City Council

Conditions of Consent

Development: Caravan Park for 75 long term occupancy sites
Subject Land: Lot 108 Inyadda Drive, Manyana

PART A

Deferred Commencement Consent

Pursuant to section 80(3) of the Act, this development application has been determined by the granting of ‘Deferred Commencement’ Consent, subject to the following matters being resolved:

a) The main access shall be redesigned as for a public road intersection in accordance with current RTA Road Design Guidelines including BAL & AUR treatments and shall be relocated to the north to achieve the “desirable” minimum Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) to suit the current speed limit [80km/h] in both directions in accordance with Austroads Part 5.

A revised park layout plan demonstrating this access redesign shall be provided, including a redesign of the stormwater detention area. The revised park layout shall not encroach into the 100m sensitive coastal zone located along the northern portion of the development site.

Note: A minimum of 35m clear storage needs to be maintained between the boom gates and the Inyadda Drive boundary so that queued vehicles do not impact on Inyadda Drive or block access to any ancillary areas (ie visitor car park, loading dock) ;

The above deferred commencement condition must be satisfied within 2 years from the date of this consent.

The operational consent in Part B will not operate until the applicant has satisfied Council with respect to the above matters. Evidence demonstrating satisfaction must be submitted to Council for approval by the Development and Environmental Services Manager.

32. Trees must be retained, including hollow-bearing trees, within the Asset Protection Zone where they comply with the Planning for Bushfire Protection guidelines and be shown on all construction plans clearly identified as trees to be retained.

33. All clearing works are to be supervised by a suitably qualified environmental consultant.

34. A suitably qualified and NSW National Parks &Wildlife Service licensed wildlife handler must be on site prior to, and during the removal of any trees or areas of potential habitat on the property, to rescue fauna.

Pre Clearing of Vegetation

35. Prior to the commencement of any clearing works, the building locations and access to the building locations and hollow bearing trees must be accurately surveyed and clearly marked on the ground to aid in the selection of trees to be retained.

36. Prior to the commencement of any clearing works for the creation of the asset protection zone, the extent of the inner protection zone must be accurately surveyed and marked on the ground with temporary barrier fencing.

37. Prior to the commencement of any clearing works in the asset protection zone a suitably qualified environmental consultant must identify trees to be retained within the asset protection zone as shown on the construction plans.

38. Prior to the commencement of any clearing works the drip-line (outer edge of the leaf canopy) surrounding trees to be retained within the Asset Protection Zone must be clearly identified and protected with temporary barrier fencing to prevent mechanical damage of the tree trunk, mechanical disturbance to roots, or soil build-up around the base of the tree during and after clearing works.

Clearing Works – Vegetation

39. All clearing works are to be supervised by a suitably qualified environmental consultant. All clearing works and the associated machinery and refuse must be contained within the inner asset protection zone.

40. The parking of machinery and vehicles or the storing of building or landscaping materials, soil, spoil, or rubbish, within the fenced area around trees to be retained is prohibited.

41. Sediment erosion controls must be in place immediately following clearing and on the same day as clearing works commence.

42. Trees must be felled into the asset protection zone carefully so as not to damage or harm trees to be retained within or beyond the asset protection zone.

43. Tree trimming or pruning must be carried out in accordance with AS 4373-1996 "Pruning of Amenity Trees".

44. All vegetation, trees, stumps etc. are to be either removed from the site or mulched on site, Council will not permit such material to be burnt on site.

Hollow-bearing Trees

45. All Hollow-bearing trees on the site shall be retained in accordance with Whelan Insites reports D799EV_NGH Response_v2.1_040908 and D799EV_NGH Response_v1_281008

46. There shall be a maximum of three hollow-bearing trees removed as part of the development and there shall be no further removal of hollow-bearing trees on the property without the prior written approval of the Shoalhaven City Council Director of Development & Environmental Services and the submission of reports detailing the outcome of targeted surveys for hollow-dependant fauna by a suitably qualified environmental consultant and the condition of the tree by a qualified arborist.

Threatened Species

47. To protect native fauna in the locality, cats must be kept completely within the dwelling or in a cattery within the dwelling curtilage at all times (day and night) for the life of the development.

48. To protect native fauna, the keeping of dogs on the property for the life of the development shall be subject to the following conditions:

a) A maximum of 2 dogs shall be permitted on each dwelling site at any time.

b) Dogs shall be restrained within the dwelling curtilage during the hours between sunset and sunrise each day by fencing/caging enclosures, leashing or physical restraint.
c) Dogs shall not be permitted to enter areas of indigenous vegetation on the property unless restrained.

49. Any boundary and internal fences to be erected on the property, shall comply with the following conditions:

a) To protect native gliding and flying fauna the use of barbed-wire for fences is prohibited.

b) Except for fencing to contain domestic pets within the approved asset protection zones for dwellings, boundary and internal fences must not impede the movement of native fauna.
c) The removal of vegetation for fence construction shall be undertaken with hand tools only (eg brushcutters, lawn mowers), and shall be limited to a maximum width of 1 m.

50. Canopy trees shall not be removed for fence construction.

Landscaping

51. Landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan must be maintained for the life of the development.

52. The planting of plant species listed on the Weeds Australia NSW weeds list ( is prohibited for the life of the development.

53. No exotic perennial grasses listed on the Final Determination of the NSW Scientific Committee for the key threatening process Invasion of native plant communities by exotic perennial grasses, shall be sown within the outer protection area of the asset protection zone for the life of the development. Native grasses must be sown in these areas, as this is the interface between disturbed areas and the remaining native vegetation.

Impact Amelioration and Environmental Management Measures

54. All identified impact amelioration and environmental management measures identified in Part 8 of the Whelans Insites Flora and Fauna Assessment Report February 2008 as amended are to be implemented as part of the development.

Bushfire Mitigation - Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006

55. New construction shall comply with Australian Standard AS 3959-1999 ‘Construction of buildings in bush fire prone areas’ Level 1.

RFS - Asset Protection Zones

56. At the commencement of building works and in perpetuity the property around the buildings shall be managed as follows as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’ and the NSW Rural Fire Service’s document ‘Standards for asset protection zones’:

a) North for a distance of 60 metres as an inner protection area and 10 metres as an outer protection area
b) East for a distance of 60 metres as an inner protection area and 10 metres as an outer protection area

c) South for a distance of 50 metres as an inner protection area and 10 metres as an outer protection area; and
d) West for a distance of 60 metres as an inner protection area and 10 metres as an outer protection area

57. Water, electricity & gas are to comply with sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.7 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’.

58. Public Road access shall comply with section 4.1.3 (1) Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006. In this regard the following design standards for public roads are to be incorporated into the development:

a) Road(s) shall be two wheel drive, all weather roads
b) Public roads between 6.5 metres and 8 meters wide are ‘No parking’ on one side with services (hydrants) located on this die to ensure accessibility to reticulated water for fire suppression

59. Fire trails shall comply with section 4.1.3 (3) ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’.

60. Arrangements for emergency and evacuation are to comply with section 4.2.7 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’.

RFS - Landscaping

61. Landscaping to the site is to comply with the principles of Appendix 5 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’. In this regard the following landscaping principles are to be incorporated into the development:

a) Suitable impervious areas being provided immediately surrounding the building such as courtyards, paths and driveways
b) Grassed areas/mowed lawns/or ground cover plantings being provided in close proximity to the building
c) Restrict planting in the immediate vicinity of the building which may over time and if not properly maintained come in contact with the building

Urban – Kerb and gutter, shoulder seal, road works

62. The following works in the footpath and road reserve area for Inyadda Drive shall be undertaken as detailed below to match alignment and grades with adjoining infrastructure. The works are:

Concrete kerb and gutter and 25mm asphaltic concrete surfaced shoulder seal and associated drainage shall be constructed for the full frontage of the development. The kerb and gutter shall have a standard profile. The longitudinal design shall extend a minimum of 30 metres each side of the development and further if necessary to ensure the proposed works will be compatible with the existing longitudinal pavement grade. The road shoulder pavement shall be designed for a traffic load of 1 x 10⁶ ESA’s;

Where required, existing power poles are to be relocated within the road reserve to allow sufficient width for road widening and construction. Works shall be to the requirements of the respective service authority and at the developer’s expense.

Adjustment of service pit lids of any services in the footpath adjacent to the development to be flush with the finished footpath surface levels or match road reserve grades. Works shall be to the requirements of the respective service authorities and at the developer’s expense.

Trim, fill, topsoil and turf the footpath following construction works.

Urban – Piped drainage for kerb and gutter

63. The kerb and gutter shall be drained to gully pits and piped and incorporated into the proposed stormwater system discharging to the ephemeral watercourse.

Gutter layback and footpath crossing

64. A heavy duty concrete vehicular gutter layback and crossing shall be constructed at the driveway entrance in accordance with Council’s Plan Nos. G202603 and G202605. The width of the footpath crossings at the property boundary shall accommodate entry and exit widths of 6 metres and 4 metres respectively, separated by a minimum 1.5m wide concrete median within the boundary. The driveway crossings shall be splayed at the kerb line to cater for a Heavy Rigid Vehicle (HRV) to turn on a 12.5m into and out of the site. The levels and formwork shall be inspected and approved by Council’s Subdivision Manager or their nominee prior to pouring. The entry and exit shall be signposted.

Internal Road Network and Car Park

65. The internal road network and car park shall be asphaltic concrete (AC) flexible pavement designed and constructed for a minimum traffic loading of 1 x 10⁵ ESA’s and 1 x 10⁶where traversed by Service Vehicles. Minimum road widths of 6.0 m shall be provided to allow for efficient and unobstructed two-way traffic movement. The internal driveway and car park shall be bordered by concrete roll kerb and gutter.

66. The internal access road network shall include appropriate traffic calming facilities to ensure vehicle speeds are kept to a minimum on site, so that road lengths do not exceed 80m between speed control facilities. This shall include but not be limited to:

Ramped-thresholds incorporating pedestrian crossings are to be provided at three locations where the pathway crosses the internal roads through the dwelling sites as indicated on the plans (ie immediately north of sites numbered [6, 24 and 52].

Additional traffic calming facilities (ie watts-profile speed humps) are to be provided at suitable locations with a maximum spacing between traffic calming facilities of 80m. All LATM facilities are to comply with Australian Standards (Austroads) and/or relevant RTA Technical Directions.

67. A minimum of 35m clear storage shall be provided between the boom gates and the Inyadda Drive boundary so that queued vehicles do not impact on Inyadda Drive or block access to any ancillary areas (ie visitor car park, loading dock).

68. The boom gates shall be designed and a procedure shall be developed so that all emergency vehicles are provided with rapid access to the site through the boom gates at all times.

Car park Standards

69. The car parks shall be designed, constructed, line marked and signposted in accordance with Council’s Car Parking Code (Development Control Plan No 18) and comply with the relevant provisions of Development Control Plan No. 100 and Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005.

Car park - Number of spaces constructed

70. One (1) constructed car space shall be provided within each Long term dwelling site. An additional 9 spaces shall also be provided as visitor parking. Visitor spaces shall be located to provide a balanced distribution throughout the development.

71. The caravan park must contain at least one visitor parking space for people with disabilities. Such parking is to be provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 Parking facilities—Off street parking. Visitor parking spaces for people with disabilities must be clearly identified as such.

72. The caravan park must contain at least one [1] car parking space per employee.

Siteworks – General

Site Filling Details

73. Any filling on site shall be graded to have an absolute minimum grade of 1.0%. All filling shall be compacted to at least 95% Standard Proctor. The developer shall obtain an Engineers Certificate confirming the satisfactory compaction of the filling and the suitability of the lot/site for the intended purpose prior to the commencement of building works. Filling is:

a) To have a maximum batter of 25% (1V:4H) at any location;
b) Not to encroach onto adjoining land;
c) Not to cause the diversion or concentration of natural overland stormwater runoff onto adjoining property;
d) To be protected against erosion, with measures incorporated in the erosion and sediment control plan;
e) To include adjustment of services (manholes, inter-allotment drainage, etc.) in the scope of works.

Road reserve to be kept clear of debris

74. The road, kerb and gutter and footpath area adjacent to and nearby the site shall be kept clear of soil and debris.

Engineering Plans, Designs and Approvals

Design and Construction to DCP100

75. All design and construction shall be in accordance with DCP 100 – Subdivision Code.

Engineering Design by NPER-III Engineer - All Works

76. All detailed engineering plans and specifications for all civil works referred to in this consent shall be certified by an NPER-III registered practising engineer.

Engineering Approval – Standard (Works in Road Reserve)

77. Engineering design plans for all works within the road reserve shall be submitted to Council for approval this shall include:

78. All work must be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

Approval for work within the Road Reserve – Section 138 Roads Act

79. Prior to undertaking any works within the road reserve, the contractor must obtain the approval of Council under Section 138 of the Roads Act, 1993. The following details must be submitted to Council for in order to obtain the s.138 approval:

a) Pavement design.

b) Traffic Control Plan (TCP) to provide protection for those within and adjacent to the work site, including the travelling and pedestrian public. The TCP must comply with the RTA’s manual – " Traffic Control at Work Sites” . Warning and protective devices shall comply with the provisions of AS 1742.3 – 2002 Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads. The plan must be prepared and certified by a person holding the appropriate RTA accreditation, a copy of which is to be submitted with the plan.
c) Insurance details.

80. Should the Traffic Management Plan require a reduction of the speed limit, a Direction to Restrict shall be obtained from the relevant road authority (Council or the RTA - Traffic Operations Unit).

Certification of civil works for compliance with construction specifications

81. Certification shall be submitted to verify that the following works (where applicable), have been completed in accordance with the approved construction specifications:

a) Pipelines including inter-allotment
b) Design of footpath along Inyadda Drive to Manyana
c) Drainage pits, culverts, headwalls and bridges
d) Detention basins, swales and open channels
e) Permanent stormwater quality improvement devices

Pavement tests for ALL pavements including on-site

82. The design of road, driveway and car park pavements, both on site and on public land, shall be supported by test results for the in-situ subgrade material and approved by Council. These tests shall be carried out by a NATA approved laboratory.

Existing services

83. The developer or his agent must check that the proposed works are not affected by any Council, Integral Energy, telecommunications, gas service or other services. Any required alterations to services will be at the developer’s expense.

Site Drainage

Runoff from uphill not to be obstructed

84. Runoff currently entering the site from uphill properties shall not be obstructed from entering the site nor redirected, other than by building works or in accordance with an approved stormwater plan, so as to increase the quantity or concentration of surface runoff entering adjoining properties.

Car park levels designed to prevent runoff from entering building

85. The levels of road, car park and landscaped areas must be designed so as to prevent the 1 in 100 year stormwater runoff from overland flows or pipe blockages from entering any buildings.

Discharge of Stormwater

86. Stormwater Run-off - The design of the development shall ensure that there are no adverse effects on adjoining properties or upon the land as a result of flood or stormwater run-off. Attention must be paid to ensure adequate protection of adjoining buildings and properties against the ingress of stormwater run-off.

87. Runoff from all roof and hardstand areas shall be drained to gully pits and discharged by pipework to the proposed stormwater detention basin(s) in accordance with design plans and associated Stormwater Management Assessment Report dated February 2008 prepared by Martens Consulting Engineers.

On-Site Detention – Maintenance Access and Safety

88. The on-site detention structure must be designed to incorporate lockable access for maintenance and a safety.

PART E

Section 68 Local Government Act

89. An application for an approval to Operate a Long Term Occupancy Caravan Park under Section 68 of the Local Government Act, 1993, must be submitted and approved by Council prior to the operation of the Caravan Park and the installation of any movable dwellings on the development.

On-Site Detention – Certification of Construction

90. The developer must provide certification from a qualified civil and/or structural engineer with NPER-III registration that the on-site detention and treatment structures have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

Community Facilities

91. In accordance with undertakings given in the application the following community facilities be provided as part of the development for residents of the development and maintained for the life of the development:

a) A 12-seater mini-bus that operates to a published timetable to assist park residents in accessing higher order services in Milton/Ulladulla and Nowra without the need for their own motor vehicles. In addition, this service will also allow residents of surrounding towns and villages to utilise the proposed bus service for a reasonable fee, improving the level of service to the existing residents. This bus service to also act as a pick-up service for groceries and pharmaceuticals in regional centres;

b) A footpath/cycleway to be provided along Inyadda Drive from the park entry to the Curvers Drive/Berringer Rd intersection to provide an improved pedestrian connection to Manyana.
c) A bus stop to be constructed on both sides of Inyadda Drive near the front of the Caravan Park to facilitate easy access to the existing public transport options and to assist in improving the patronage of the existing services.
d) Provide a dedicated room in the community facilities that is suitable for a doctor to utilise and endeavour to obtain additional visits from local doctor services.
e) Reticulated phone/internet services to be made available to all dwelling sites.
f) Provide an existing services register for residents outlining the available services and community groups locally and regionally.
g) The site manager to provide assistance in obtaining services for residents.

92. Prior to the occupation of the Caravan Park, by any residents of dwelling sites, all community facilities including community bus, doctors facilities and residents shop are to be operational.

PART F

CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

Consolidation of Allotments/Subdivision

93. Prior to issue of an occupation certificate and any approval to operate a Caravan Park under Section 68 of the Local Government Act, 1993, the applicant is to provide Council with evidence of the successful consolidation of the allotments with the NSW Land & Property Information Service.

94. Should the investigation reveal contamination, a validation report is to be prepared by a suitably qualified environment consultant in accordance with the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s Contaminated Sites - Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites and Contaminated Sites - Sampling Design Guidelines validating that the proposed development has been remediated and is suitable for it’s intended use and submitted to Council prior to the issue of an occupation certificate or any approval to operate the Caravan Park under Section 68 of Local Government Act, 1993.

PART G

REASONS FOR CONDITIONS

Conditions of consent have been imposed to:

1. Ensure the proposed development:

b) complies with the provisions of all relevant environmental planning instruments;

c) is consistent with the aims and objectives of Council’s Development Control Plans, Codes and Policies.

2. Ensure that the relevant public authorities and the water supply authority have been consulted and their requirements met or arrangements made for the provision of services to the satisfaction of those authorities.

3. Meet the increased demand for public amenities and services attributable to the development in accordance with Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

4. Ensure the protection of the amenity and character of land adjoining and in the locality of the proposed development.

5. Minimise any potential adverse environmental, social or economic impacts of the proposed development.

6. Ensure that all traffic, carparking and access requirements arising from the development are addressed.

7. Ensure the development does not conflict with the public interest.

PART H

ADVICE ABOUT WHEN THIS CONSENT LAPSES

This consent is valid for five years from the date hereon.

In accordance with Section 95 of the Act, development consent of the erection of a building does not lapse if building, engineering or construction work relating to the building or work is physically commenced on the land to which the consent applies before the lapse date.
_

PART I

GENERAL ADVICE TO APPLICANT

NSW Native Vegetation Act 2003

The Native Vegetation Act 2003 requires consent for the clearing of remnant native vegetation or protected regrowth from the Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority. In the Shoalhaven City Council area, this requirement generally applies to land that is zone Rural (Zone 1), Special Use (Zone 5), Open Space (Zone 6), Environment Protection (Zone 7) and Natural Hazards (Zone 9). If your development consent relates to land in such a zone then you may need to get a further separate approval from the Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority for the clearing of remnant native vegetation or “protected” regrowth.

This development application has been assessed in accordance with the New South Wales Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. The determination of this development application has not involved any assessment of the proposed development in regard to the NSW Native Vegetation Act 2003.

It is the proponent’s responsibility to consult the Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority to determine the need or otherwise for their approval and you should not construe the granting of this development consent as notification to you that the NSW Native Vegetation Act does not apply. The NSW Native Vegetation Act 2003 may have direct application to your proposal and you should obtain advice about this matter directly from the Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority. You can contact them on 4429 4446 or by email [email protected].

There are severe penalties for non-compliance with the Native Vegetation Act 2003.

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 provides that a person must not take an action which has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on:

a) A matter of national environmental significance (NES) matter; or
b) Commonwealth land

without an approval from the Commonwealth Environment Minister.

This application has been assessed in accordance with the New South Wales Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. The determination of this assessment has not involved any assessment of the application of the Commonwealth legislation.

It is the proponent’s responsibility to consult Environment Australia to determine the need or otherwise for Commonwealth approval and you should not construe this grant of consent as notification to you that the Commonwealth Act does not have application.

The Commonwealth Act may have application and you should obtain advice about this matter.

There are severe penalties for non-compliance with the Commonwealth legislation.

Disability Discrimination Act 1992

This application has been assessed in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. No guarantee is given that the proposal complies with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

The applicant/owner is responsible to ensure compliance with this and other anti-discrimination legislation.

The Disability Discrimination Act covers disabilities not catered for in the minimum standards called up in the Building Code of Australia which references AS1428.1 - “Design for Access and Mobility”. AS1428 Parts 2, 3 & 4 provides the most comprehensive technical guidance under the Disability Discrimination Act currently available in Australia.

Disclaimer – s88B restrictions on the use of land
The applicant should note that there could be covenants in favour of persons other than Council restricting what may be built or done upon the subject land. The applicant is advised to check the position before commencing any work.

Under clause 37 of Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 1985 agreements, covenants or instruments that restrict the carrying out of the proposed development do not apply to the extent necessary to enable the carrying out of that development, other than where the interests of a public authority is involved.

Occupation Certificate

An occupation certificate must be issued by the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) before the building is used or occupied.

If Council is the appointed PCA for this project, a minimum of twenty four (24) hours’ notice must be given to Council to make an inspection of the work.

Inspections

If Council is the appointed PCA for this project, a minimum twenty-four (24) hours notice must be given to Council to make an inspection of the work.

_____________________
J S Murrell

Commissioner of the Court

ljr

05/07/2010 - Amendment to judgment paragraphs in 'Findings' have been re-ordered. - Paragraph(s) Findings onwards.

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Berringer Road Pty Limited v Shoalhaven City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1140

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

4

Statutory Material Cited

10

Wygiren v Kiama Municipal Council [2008] NSWLEC 1233

Murrumbidgee Ground-Water Preservation Association v Minister for Natural Resources [2004] NSWLEC 122

Terrace Tower Holdings Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2003] NSWCA 289

CITATION:	Berringer Road Pty Limited v Shoalhaven City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1140 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Berringer Road Pty Limited RESPONDENT Shoalhaven City Council
FILE NUMBER(S):	10463 of 2009
CORAM:	Murrell C
KEY ISSUES:	DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION :- Caravan Park for 75 long term sites; contrary to strategic planning; public interest and Native Vegetation Act; site is isolated and social impact.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Local Government Act 1993 Native Vegetation Act 2003 Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 1985 Shoalhaven Draft Local Environmental Plan 2009 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 21 South Coast Regional Strategy Department of Planning Residential Parks Act 1998 Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds, and Movable Dwellings) regulation of 2005 Design Guidelines for Permanent Occupancy of Caravan Parks - Shoalhaven City Council
CASES CITED:	BGP Properties v Lake Macquarie City Council (2004) NSWLEC 399 Terrace Tower Holdings Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2003] NSWCA 289 Wygiren v Kiama Municipal Council and Anor [2008] NSWLEC 1233 Emilly II Investments v Rockdale City Council and Anor [2009] NSWLEC 1229
DATES OF HEARING:	26 and 27 November 2009 12 December 2010 -Submissions
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 June 2010
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Mr G Green (solicitor) SOLICITOR Pikes Lawyers RESPONDENT Mr P Clay (barrister) SOLICITOR Morton & Harris RMB Lawyers

Performance Criteria		Acceptable Solutions
P1	The attraction of the Shoalhaven as a seaside destination for families is not compromised by the provision of long term occupancy within caravan parks. Any caravan park within close proximity to a waterway does not remove the opportunity for, or availability of, tourist accommodation.	A1	Where a caravan park directly adjoins, or is within 400 metres (direct line) of a beach, river or lake, long-term sites do not exceed 50% of approved sites. The remaining 50% of sites are available for tourist accommodation.
P2	Tourist accommodation has adequate access to beaches, rivers and lakes.	A2	Public road access to nearby beaches, lakes and rivers is available.
P3	Development is not located in areas which are affected by flooding, bush fire or any other environmental hazard.	A3	Environmental hazards and data source are identified. Applications are supported by details of measures designed to mitigate the risk. Where sites are located on flood-prone land, compliance with Council’s interim policy for Caravan Parks on Flood-prone Land is demonstrated.
P4	Adequate services are available for the development.	A4	Each long term site is connected to- Town water (or an alternative water supply to Council’s satisfaction); Sewer (or an alternative sewage disposal system to Council’s satisfaction); and Reticulated electricity.

Performance Criteria		Acceptable Solutions
P1	Permanent occupation of caravan parks does not lead to the displacement of existing tourist accommodation, particularly in seaside and coastal locations.	A1	A proposal within a coastal locality or village is supported by details which confirm that the total number of tourist accommodation sites in the locality or village is not reduced to less than 50% of the total number of sites available; and
A2	New long term sites are confined to either new caravan parks or located within extensions to existing caravan parks.

Performance Criteria		Acceptable Solutions
P1	Proposals identify any existing, or potential, shortage of low coast housing within the locality.	A1	The development application is supported by details of- Cost comparisons between the proposed long term (permanent) sites and the rental housing market in the locality or village. The current availability of existing long term (permanent) sites within all caravan parks in the locality or villages. The current availability of alternative rental accommodation in the locality or village. Appropriate documentation from local real estate agents or other suitably qualified person must be provided.

Performance Criteria		Acceptable Solutions
P1	Caravan Parks are designed to are: protect the environment. provide suitable opportunities for landscaping. provide opportunities for solar access. protect the privacy and amenity of residents minimise conflicts between permanent residents and tourists located within the same park. Reduce the intrusive nature of noise Comply with the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Local Government (Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 1995.	A1	Creative alternatives to the grid system utilised for the layout of caravan parks.
P2	Measures are incorporated in the design and layout of new caravan parks, or extensions to existing caravan parks, to minimise traffic speeds and provide a safe environment for children.	A2	A centrally located active recreation area, separated from moveable dwellings by a park access road, is provided.
A3	Areas of open space are dispersed equitably throughout the park.
A4	Residents are permitted to construct privacy screens to enhance the amenity of their homes.
A5	Long-term sites are located in an area separated from short term/tourist sites.
A6	Where permanent residents are to reside within caravan parks consideration is given to the provision of noise abatement devices such as fences, earth mounds and plantings.
A7.	Child proof fencing is provided around play area(s) for pre-school children.
A8	Private open space areas adjacent to movable dwellings are provided which can be suitably fenced to create a safe, supervised play area for toddlers, e.g. fenced patio, verandah with childproof balustrade and gate.
A9	For new caravan parks, or extensions to existing caravan parks, traffic calming devices, such as speed humps, are incorporated in the design of all internal roads.

Performance Criteria		Acceptable Solutions
P1	Recreational facilities are provided in a manner which suits the needs of residents.	A1	Open space areas within the Caravan Park are located, designed and equipped for the enjoyment of all residents. A well designed and fenced play area with equipment suitable for pre-school age children is located in close proximity to laundry and drying facilities. Provision is also made for older children, including both grass and hard surfaces, with scope for appropriate activities.
P2	Social and community facilities are provided for residents to meet their expected needs.	A2	Provision is made for a community room or hall for passive and active recreational activities.
P3	Suitable services and amenities, particularly toilet and bathroom facilities, are provided for permanent residents.	A3	All new caravan parks, or extensions to existing parks, provide – a) for the connection of moveable dwellings on long term sites to reticulated sewage; or b) individual bathroom/laundry units at the real of each site.
P5	Community support facilities are available within close proximity of the caravan park.