City of Charles Sturt
DAP Report 21/12/16
TO:
Development Assessment Panel
FROM:
Manager Planning and Development
DATE:
21 December 2016
HENLEY WARD
ITEM 3.69 73 EAST TERRACE HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Applicant
Teistra Corporation Ltd
Development Application No
252/0917/16
Proposal
Telecommunication facility comprising 35 metre high
monopole.
Owner of land
Telstra Corporation Ltd
Zone
Residential Character Zone
Precinct 79 Henley Beach
Form of assessment
Merit
Public notification category
Category 3 Public Notice
Representations
48 representation received, 16 to be heard:
Representors to be Heard:
The Hon. Paul Caica MP 318 Seaview Road,
HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
-
Mrs Anita F White 58 Main Street, HENLEY
-
BEACH SA 5022
Ms Anne M Dohnt 2 Clarence Street, HENLEY
BEACH SA 5022 (Authorises Anita White to
speak on her behalf)BEACH SA 5022
-
Western Adelaide Coastal Residents C/- Mr Jim
Douglas P0 Box 72, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
-
Ms Angela M Vaughan 2 York Street, HENLEY
BEACH SA 5022 (Authorises Western
Adelaide Coastal Residents Association to
speak on her behalf)
-
Mr John C Steer 13 Main Street, HENLEY
BEACH SA 5022
-
Mrs Suzanne Bromley 71 East Terrace,
-
HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mrs Margaret Wilms 2/14 Durham Street,
HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 (Authorises Sue
Bromley to speak on her behalf)
-
City of Charles Sturt
DAP Report 21/12/16
Mr Kelvin S and Mrs Heather Brown 106 East
Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
-
Mrs Cathryn L Schumacher 14 York Street,
HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
-
Mr David M Eblen 120 North Street, HENLEY
-
BEACH SA 5022
Mr John and Mrs Heather Flanagan —69 East
Terrace, HENLEY BEACH 5022 (Authorise David
Eblem to speak of their behalf)
Mr Timothy A Cavanagh 77 East Terrace,
-
HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mrs Kayelene F Erskine 1 Durham Street,
HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
-
Mr James and Jennifer Hall 61 East Terrace,
-
HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Ms Jane MacArthur
-
18 Durham Street,
HENLEY BEACH, 5022
Mr Derek Murray 2 Raymond Street, HENLEY
BEACH SA 5022
-
Mr Patrick F Stewart 17 Malurus Avenue,
LOCKLEYS SA 5032
-
Mark Baade, will appear on behalf of the applicant.
Agency consultations
Nil
Author
John Tarasiuk
Attachments
-
Development Officer Senior Planner
Development Plan provisions table
Application documents
C.
Representations/Applica nts response
Heritage Advisors Comments
Notification map
Development Plan
5 November 2015
Recommendation
Approval with Conditions
City of Charles Sturt
3.
DAP Report 21/12/16
Report
Background
The proposed telecommunications tower seeks to replace an existing facility currently
located on the roof top of an apartment building at 358-362 Seaview Road, Henley Beach.
Due to the age of the facility and the poor condition of the facility (due to its coastal
location), the facility is in need of replacement. Furthermore, the recent construction of the
four storey apartment buildings to the south is blocking signal to various locations and
therefore, the current site is no longer acceptable for the facility.
Telstra have investigated several alternative locations prior to the current site being chosen
for the new facility. In August 2015, Telstra representatives approached Council exploring
the possibility of leasing a portion of land for the construction of a telecommunications
facility on two Council-owned properties. The sites included the Henley library at 378
Seaview Road and the Council depot at 216-218 Military Road, Henley Beach. The two sites
identified have been listed by Council as future development or sales sites and hence were
not offered to Telstra for the potential construction of a Telecommunications facility. Whilst
these sites were not available for Telstra's use, the Council depot site, which is located to
the western end of Durham Street, is also located within the Residential Character Zone.
Unlike the subject site at 73 East Terrace, the existing buildings on the depot site are located
to the rear of the allotment and therefor do not provide any visual screening to the tower
when viewed from the street. The Henley Library was investigated by Telstra, however, this
site is located within a Residential Zone. Whilst a tower structure could be positioned to the
rear of the building, the structure has similar impacts to that of the proposed tower location
at East Terrace. However, the library location does not offer the camouflage provided by the
established Norfolk Island Pines.
Whilst Council is not objecting in principle to the possibility of erecting telecommunications
on Council land, Councils 'Telecommunications and Electricity Infrastructure on Council Land
Policy' requires a public consultation process to be undertaken, to simply entertain the idea
of such a facility to be proposed on the site. The consultation area would extend to radius of
300 metres surrounding the subject site. Under the current policy should the community not
be supporting of a telecommunication facility on Council land, the proposal would not be
further considered by Council. As such Telstra did not wish to further explore these sites.
The carpark to the rear of the Ramsgate was investigated by Telstra as a possible location for
the telecommunications facility. The site was not considered for the following reasons:
•
•
•
The site is listed as being State Heritage item.
The tower facility would reduce existing number of parking spaces,
The owner of the site would not enter into an agreement to lease the site to Télstra.
The Uniting Church located at 214 Military Road, Henley Beach was also investigated by
Telstra as a possible location for the telecommunications facility. The site was not
considered for the following reasons:
•
•
The site is listed as being State Heritage,
Concerns raised by the church and likely community issues, made the site unavailable.
City of Charles Sturt
DAP Report 21/12/16
4.
After the category 3 public notification period, the applicant requested Council put the
application on hold whilst the Henley football oval was investigated as a possible alternative
site for the tower construction. Telstra explored the possibility of replacing an existing light
tower with the Telecommunications facility. Henley Oval was regarded as a more desirable
option as there would be a greater separation from the existing dwellings as well as allowing
for easier construction and maintenance for Telstra. After a lengthy investigation, Henley
Oval was rejected as a possible alternative site as it could not meet the technical objectives
required for a facility, primarily due to the extra distance from Henley Square and the
existing Telecommunications facility.
Whilst it is acknowledged by the applicant that the subject site at 73 East Terrace is not
Telstra's ideal choice for the towers location, the applicant has demonstrated the
investigation into all other possible locations, with the subject site being the most feasible
option available to provide a high quality service to Telstra customers, whilst minimising the
visual impact to residents in the locality.
The ERD and Supreme Courts have considered a number of matters similar to the subject
application. The Courts generally assess:
•
The difficulties and complexities of site selection
•
Whether the applicant had taken sufficient steps to secure a location that minimises
visual impact
•
If the development is acceptable in visual terms in the desired location. The
judgements have determined the question of need to be weighed against the effect
on visual amenity in the assessment of the application.
A similar proposal for a 35 metre high telecommunications tower located at Sellicks Beach in
the City of Onkaparinga, was refused by the DAP and appealed by Telstra to the ERD Court in
2013. The tower was proposed to the rear of a group of shops which are located in a
residential zon e.
MAN
7
,,;/;7
I
If
VE
.:ö1
gi
Anal View: Google Maps 2016
-
/
Monopole structure located to the north-east corner of the shops
DAP Report 21/12/16
5.
City of Charles Sturt
.-
!
Gig'"
..
Street View: Google Maps 2016 Monopole structure viewed from Butterworth Road
-
The ERD Court reversed Council's decision and granted Development Plan Consent. The
decision had regard to:
•
The demand and need for such a facility,
•
The visual impact to the character of the localised environment,
•
Whether alternative sites and locations explored,
•
Whether the proposed development sufficiently meets the Development Plan as a
whole.
The proposed telecommunications facility was not considered to be seriously at variance
with the Development Plan and was subsequently approved.
An application for a 33 metre high telecommunication tower located at 148-150 Grange
Road, Flinders Park (refer to Development Application 252/2679/11) was approved by The
City of Charles Sturt DAP in September 2012. Whilst the site is located within the Mixed Use
Zone, the 33 metre high monopole structure was proposed to be located 1.2 metres from
the Residential Zone boundary. The adjoining residents appealed Councils decision to the
ERD Court.
City of Charles Sturt
-
I
!
'
-.
DAP Report 21/12/16
6.
•'
lRJ
41
_
.
*
---
:
4__.
.-, '
SKI
,
.-
I
!jT&
Anal Photo: Approved tower location at the rear of 148-150 Grange Road Flinders Park
The ERD Court dismissed the residents appeal. The made the following conclusions in the
judgement:
I am satisfied that the proposed facility is required to meet the needs of the
community for telecommunications services. I am further satisfied that the Mixed
Use Zone is an appropriate zone for such a facility and that the location for the
proposed facility in this Zone is preferable to a location within the Residential
Zone. I acknowledge that the site selected is very close to the Residential Zone
boundary. but I accept the evidence, largely unchallenged by the Appellant, that
there is no available alternative site which is suitable from a radio engineering
perspective.
Given the required height of the proposed monopole and its associated
antennae, it will inevitably be visibly intrusive and is likely to impact adversely
on the amenity of the Appellant's properties and of the locality more generally.
However, I am satisfied that some visual impact is unavoidable and that, in the
design of the proposed facility, all that is possible has been done to minimise this
impact.
Overall, therefore, I am satisfied that the proposed development is
sufficiently in accord with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan to
merit consent. I intend, therefore, to dismiss the appeal and to affirm the decision
of the Council.
City of Charles Sturt
7.
DAP Report 21/12/16
The Courts have considered a number of matters similar to the subject application. The
issues that are generally considered by the Courts include:
•
•
•
•
Difficulties and complexities of site selection,
whether the applicant had taken sufficient steps to secure a location that minimises
visual impact,
Is the structure visually acceptable in the desired location,
Whether the facility is a required need to serve the community.
The assessment of the proposed telecommunications facility takes into consideration
previous ERD and Supreme judgement of similar facilities.
Proposal
The application seeks to propose a Telstra communications facility comprising a 35 metre
high freestanding monopole to be located at the Telstra Exchange site at 73 East Terrace,
Henley Beach.
The tower is proposed to replace an existing telecommunication facility located on the roof
of an existing apartment building located at 358-362 Seaview Road, Henley Beach.
The proposal will comprise of six panel antennas and remote radio units to be mounted on
the top of the monopole.
Base station equipment will be located in the existing exchange building.
Site/Locality
The subject site is a corner allotment located to the south-western side of East Terrace and
Durham Street. The land is relatively flat with an area of approximately 1777m2 and 51
metre frontage to Durham Street and 31 metre frontage to East Terrace. The site has rear
access to a laneway.
The land comprises of an existing Telstra exchange building located on Durham Street and
East Terrace road boundaries. The land to the rear of the building is used as a service yard
and for storage purposes.
The site is located within the Residential Character Zone, Precinct 79 Henley Beach and the
existing building is listed as a contributory item in the Development Plan.
The locality is predominantly residential, typically comprising of low density single storey
dwellings.
Non-residential land uses include the Henley Bowling Club to the eastern side of East
Terrace, a state heritage listed Uniting church to the south-eastern corner of Military Road
and Durham Street and a Council depot to the north-eastern corner of Military Road and
Durham Street. Henley Square is located approximately 300 metres to the south-west.
City of Charles Sturt
DAP Report 2 1/12 / 16
8.
.--j-
5r
____
Awr
- -
Site Photo:
__
-..
-',.
.
j.- .
.
.
JI
Site Photo: Norfolk Island Pines lining East Terrace looking south
I'
City of Charles Sturt
9.
Site Photo: Residential dwellings adjacent the subject site
Site Photo: Henley Bowling Club adjacent the subject site
DAP Report 2 1/12/16
City of Charles Sturt
10.
DAP Report 21/12/16
Site Photo: view southwest from adjacent the subject site
Is
a
Site Photo: Looking west on Durham Street
City of Charles Sturt
Site Photo: Looking east on Clarence Street
11.
DAP Report 21/12/16
DAP Report 21/12/16
12.
City of Charles Sturt
Site and Locality Plan
1.
u1
-
$! i I
•
•
'
1s1.
•
'L
..:
-
-
-._a•.
-
.•
- -' .
'I..
•
.
fb-
\
1
1:
O
:
W
•
.
•1
NC12S
4
I
AL
'41E
T
r
Also:122 Military Road, Henley Beach South and 31 Mitton Avenue, Henley Beach
O
Subject Site shown in blue, Locality in red and
Representors property indicated by a red
dot.
City of Charles Sturt
DAP Report 21/12/16
13.
Summary of Representations and Applicants Response
Representations
The proposal underwent the Category 3 Public Notification process from which the following
representations were received:
Representors to be heard:
The Hon. Paul Caica MP 318 Seaview Road, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
-
Mrs Anita F White 58 Main Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Ms Anne M Dohnt 2 Clarence Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 (Authorises Anita
White to speak on her behalf)
Western Adelaide Coastal Residents Cl- Mr Jim Douglas PC Box 72, HENLEY BEACH
SA 5022
Ms Angela M Vaughan 2 York Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 (Authorises Western
Adelaide Coastal Residents Association to speak on her behalf)
Mr John C Steer 13 Main Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mrs Suzanne Bromley 71 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mrs Margaret Wilms 2/14 Durham Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022 (Authorises Sue
Bromley to speak on her behalf)
Mr Kelvin S and Mrs Heather Brown 106 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mrs Cathryn L Schumacher 14 York Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mr David M Eblen 120 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mr John and Mrs Heather Flanagan 69 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH 5022 (Authorises
David Eblem to speak of their behalf)
Mr Timothy A Cavanagh 77 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mrs Kayelene F Erskine 1 Durham Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mr James and Jennifer Hall 61 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Ms Jane MacArthur 18 Durham Street, HENLEY BEACH, 5022
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mr Derek Murray 2 Raymond Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mr Patrick F Stewart 17 Malurus Avenue, LOCKLEYS SA 5032
-
-
Representors Not to be Heard
Mr Gregory S Smith 65 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Lara E Hollamby 132 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mr Henry Rzemieniuk 116 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Ms Anne L Travers 118 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mr Stephen S G Spencer 114 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mr Joseph Marafioti -91 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Ms Anna Mattiazzo 122 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mr Andrew Tols 122 Military Road, HENLEY BEACH SOUTH SA 5022
Mrs Helena A M Saunders 112 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mr Alexander Marton 108 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mrs Anne M Frey 110 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
George Spazzapan 80A East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Dr Kylie M Stanton 134 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
City of Charles Sturt
14.
DAP Report 21/12/16
Dr Catriona E Balfour 134 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Ms Debra F Hoey 5 York Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Ms Meredith Hemsley 102 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mrs Frances D Brooks 67 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Ms Effie Anargyros 73 White Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Ms Jane E Leonard 31 Mitton Avenue, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mr Simon R Holmes 130 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Ms Leanne N Gelly 84 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mrs Judy I Duff 10 Durham Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Ms Renae Weir 6 Chambers Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Ms Kathy D West 92 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mr Ian H Lovell 9 Durham Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mr Brenton W Byers 98 East Terrace, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mrs Natalie I Murray 2 Raymond Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mr Neil R Barratt 108 North Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Ms Kenzie J Van Den Nieuwelaar 3 York Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
Mr Mark Ridgway 8 Clarence Street, HENLEY BEACH SA 5022
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Category 3 public notification provides representors with a right of appeal to the
Environment Resources and Development Court should they be aggrieved by the decision of
Council.
Copies of the representations and the applicant's response are attached (Attachment Q.
The following is a summary of the representations and the applicant's response.
Representors issue
Applicant's response
Locating the tower in another location. e.g.
Henley Square, Henley Football Oval,
The subject site is not the preferred choice
(as outlined in the full response in
Attachment C). A lack of alternative
options available to Telstra that also meet
the technical requirements needed for the
tower has resulted in the proposed
location. The proposed tower is to replace
an existing facility located at 362 Seaview
Road, and is Telstra's strong preference to
have a facility closer to Henley Square
where most of the demand will be
required.
The tower will detrimentally affect the
amenity of the locality. Tower is
considerably higher than the existing
Norfolk Island Pines and existing dwellings
in the locality,
The locality compromises a number of nonresidential land uses. Tall pine trees
dominate the locality and will have a strong
impact on mitigating the visual impact of
the tower. To further reduce impact the
headframe to the top of the monopole has
been redesigned by reducing the size and
the amount of equipment present. It is
City of Charles Sturt
Representors issue
DAP Report 21/12/16
15.
Applicant's response
acknowledged that there will be some
visual impact, the Development Plan seeks
to minimise detrimental impact from such
facilities.
Not consistent with the Desired Character
of the Zone.
The desired character statement reinforces
the existing pattern of the residential
character of the locality. The elements as
specified in the desired character
statement will not be directly affected by
the proposed facility.
Electro Magnetic Energy (EME) Radiation
and associated health risks,
The EME levels emitted are very low and in
the case of the subject proposal, are
estimated to be, as a maximum, 0.88% of
the exposure limits mandated by the
Australian Communications & Media
Authority (ACMA). It is important to note
that in terms of the standard, the proximity
of the proposed facility is a completely
irrelevant consideration, as it is only the
level of exposure at a particular location
that is of interest which in this case is
easily below the standard by many
hundreds of times.
-
A copy of the EME prediction for the
proposal has been provided to Council as
part of the original lodgement
documentation.
Loss of property values to the dwellings in
the locality,
There are almost 20,000 mobile
telecommunications facilities installed
across Australia. Telstra and S K Planning
are not aware of any credible evidence that
the installation of these facilities has had
any adverse impact upon property values.
Incorrect classification of the development
by Council. Should be defined as a 'public
service depot' which is non-complying in
the Development Plan.
Application properly deemed to be
category 3 by Council.
16.
City of Charles Sturt
DAP Report 21/12/16
Representors issue
Applicant's response
Limited notification by Council. Should have
extended further to all areas of high
visibility and where Electro Magnetic
Energy (EME) is projected to be at
maximum levels approximately 160m from
the tower.
To my knowledge, Council has properly
discharged the requirements for category 3
public notification and there is nothing that
would make me suspect there has been any
deficiency in this process. in fact, given 48
representations were received this would
indicate the public, particularly those
around the Exchange land, were sufficiently
aware of the proposal.
In any event, this is a matter for Council
and any further issues or concerns arising
from the public notification process should
be directed to Council.
Officer's response
Whilst is acknowledged that the telecommunications facility will be a prominent visual
structure, it must be acknowledged that telecommunication facilities are a necessity to
provide the needs of the local community. The applicant has acknowledged that the
subject site is not the ideal choice and therefore investigated alternative sites to no avail.
Given that the tower will be located behind an existing building, the structure will be
partially screened when viewed from the street. The prominence of the existing Norfolk
Island Pines will aid in concealing the structure in the wider locality.
For these reasons the location of the proposed facility is not considered to be
unreasonable.
Internal Consultation
Department/Staff
Response
Pippa Buckberry
Flightpath Architects
Consulting Heritage
Advisors
The proposed development of a 35m mobile phone tower does
not easily respond to the objectives and principles for the
Historic Conservation Area and Residential Character Zone,
which are primarily concerned with the development comprising
new housing and associated structures.
-
However, there are two aspects which I believe are particularly
relevant in assessing the proposed development from a heritage
perspective, which is essentially concerned with maintaining the
character of the streetscapes within the zones identified.
1. Provisions which relate to advertising signage (being a type of
development most similar to the proposed mobile phone tower)
17.
City of Charles Sturt
Department/Staff
DAP Report 21/12/16
Response
Principle of Development Control: 2
Advertisements and/or advertising hoardings associated with
culturally significant places and areas should:
be of a size, colour, shape and materials that enhances the
character of the locality
not dominate or cause detraction from the prominence of
any place and/or area of historic significance.
2. The dominant characteristics of the locality, in particular "The
presence of mature Norfolk Island pines along most of East
Terrace contributes to the streetscape."
The Norfolk Island Pines are identified as one of the most
defining characteristics within the streetscape of East Terrace
and surrounds and given their quantity, locations, height and
shape, they actually help to conceal the proposed development
from many views within the streetscape.
While there is no doubt tKat the proposed structure will be an
obvious new addition, the photo montages provided
demonstrate that the structure will be no more dominating
visually than existing stobie poles, power lines and street lights.
In summary, an alternate location would most certainly be the
best outcome with respect to minimising impacts on the
streetscape character. However in the event that an alternative
location cannot be established, the presence of many other
elements of a similar height (including Norfolk Island Pines,
stobie poles and lighting) mean that the proposed mobile phone
tower is not considered to fundamentally detract from the
streetscape character of the precinct.
Development Assessment
The proposal is neither a complying nor non-complying form of development and must be
considered on its merits against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. The
Development Act 1993 provides that a Planning Authority is to have regard to the relevant
provisions of the Development Plan in assessing development proposals.
Attachment A contains a comprehensive list of all Development Plan provisions considered
relevant to the proposal. A comprehensive assessment against the relevant provisions of
the Development Plan has been undertaken within Attachment A. Where compliance with
a particular Development Plan provision requires further discussion, it has been outlined in
further detail below.
City of Charles Sturt
18.
DAP Report 21/12/16
Desired Character/Land Use
The Desired Character Statement for the Residential Character Zone seeks to embrace the
historic residential character with a high level of amenity that produces safe, convenient and
distinctive living environments for all residents, along with local community facilities that
complement the living environment.
The primary objective of the Residential Character Zone seeks to conserve the residential
character of the locality with the desired character statement being fairly silent on
telecommunication type facilities. Whilst the Zone does not envisage such facilities, the
tower is proposed to be located on an existing lelstra telephone exchange which has
occupied the site for a number of decades.
Residential Character Zone, Objective 1 seeks the preservation of the existing development
patterns and built form. Whilst the telecommunications facility is not listed as being
envisaged within the Zone, the proposed development does not seek to demolish any
existing contributory listed buildings. The structure is to be constructed to the rear of the
existing contributory listed building, and whilst it will be seen from the street and within the
locality, it will not significantly diminish the existing heritage character of the locality.
General Section, Telecommunications Facilities Objective 1 seeks telecommunications
facilities to be provided to meet the needs of the community. The applicant has stated that
due to the poor condition of the existing facility which is currently located on Seaview Road
and the construction of the new apartment buildings to the south of the site a new facility is
required to be constructed in a different location to serve the needs of the local area.
General Section, Telecommunication Facilities, Principle of Development Control 1 part (d)
requires telecommunications facilities to be primarily located in industrial and commercial
zones. Whilst the existing commercial site is located within a residential zone,
Telecommunications Facilities, Principle of Development 3 allows for telecommunications
facilities to be located within residential zones only if sited and designed to minimise visual
impact by using existing buildings and vegetation for screening and taking into account the
size, scale, context and characteristics of existing structures, landforms and vegetation so as
to complement the local environment. The tower is proposed to be located to the rear of
the existing solid brick Telstra exchange building, with the established character of the
Norfolk Island Pines to provide some screening, to minimise its visual impact from several
vantage points.
Residential Character Zone, Principle of Development Control 4 requires non-residential
development to be of a nature and scale that serves the needs of the local community, is
consistent with the desired character of the locality and does not detrimentally impact on
the amenity of nearby residents. Whilst it has been established by the applicant that the
tower is required to serve the needs of the local residents, this needs to be weighed against
the potential visual impacts to the nearby residents. This will be discussed in the Visual
Appearance/Built Form and Amenity sections of this report.
Given that the structure is to be located on an existing non-residential site behind a
contributory listed building, the land use can be considered acceptable should the structure
not detrimentally impact on the amenity of nearby residents. This will be discussed in the
section below.
19.
City of Charles Sturt
DAP Report 21/12/16
Visual Appearance/Built Form
The proposed 35 metres high tower is to be located at the rear of the existing Telstra
exchange building which is positioned to the corner of East Terrace and Durham Street. The
height of the monopole results in it forming a visible feature that would be seen from many
parts of the locality.
General Section, Infrastructure, Principle of Development Control 7 seeks service
infrastructure to be designed and located to minimise its visual and environmental impacts.
The proposed monopole is proposed to be located to the rear of the existing building which
will somewhat minimise the visual impact from the street. The height of the established
Norfolk Island Pines which line East Terrace will aid to camouflage the structure in the
locality, although it is acknowledged it will be visible in the locality.
General Section, Telecommunications Facilities, Objective 2 and Principle of Development
Control 1(g) requires telecommunications facilities to be designed and sited to minimise
visual impact on the amenity of the local environment. The applicant has provided
photomontages (See Appendix B Application Documents) of the monopole structure from
various vantage points. Whilst it is evident that the structure will be visually prominent
within the locality, the Norfolk Island Pines will help to screen the monopole within the
streetscape and various vantage points within the area. When viewed from a pedestrian
perspective the monopole will somewhat blend in with the existing stobie and light poles
within the locality.
-
1J
iL
Site Photo: Norfolk Island Pines to the south of the subject site
20.
City of Charles Sturt
-,
;:•'
DAP Report 21/12 /16
:4
.-
'
-
LI:
Ii''
•f
_-
__
Site Photo: Norfolk Island Pines north of the subject site
In response to the issues raised by representors, the equipment and antenna located to the
top of the monopole have been redesigned to be as compact as possible. The antenna have
been redesigned to fit as close as possible to the pole, in an effort to reduce its visual
impact.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the telecommunications tower will be a notable visual
element in the locality, the structure to be located behind the existing building will help
reduce the impact on the streetscape, whilst the height of the established Norfolk Island
Pines will aid in concealing the height of the structure from the wider locality. For these
reasons the location of the telecommunications facility is not considered to be
unreasonable.
Amenity
General Section, Interface between Land Uses, Principle of Development Control 1 requires
development to not detrimentally affect the amenity of the locality or cause unreasonable
interference through emissions, noise, vibration, electrical interference, light spill, and traffic
impacts. Representors have raised concerns regarding potential health risks associated with
Electromagnetic Radiation Emissions (EME) from the tower. All telecommunication facilities
are required by Federal legislation to provide an EME report in accordance with established
standards. The report provided by the applicant indicates that EME emissions are well
below the maximum levels permitted by the Australian Standards.
It is therefore considered that based on the EME report provided, the radiation emitted
from the tower would not create any health impacts to residents within the immediate or
wider locality.
City of Charles Sturt
21.
DAP Report 21/12/16
Heritage
General Section, Telecommunications Facilities, Principle of Development Control 4 requires
telecommunications facilities to not have a direct or significant effect on the amenity,
character and settings of Historic Conservation Areas.
The plans were referred to Council's consulting heritage advisor, Pippa Buckberry from
Flightpath Architects, to assess the impacts of the telecommunications facility on the
character of the Historic Conservation Area.
The advice outlines that whilst a 35 metre mobile phone tower does not easily respond to
the objectives and principles for the Historic Conservation Area and Residential Character
Zone; the Norfolk Island Pines are identified as one of the most defining characteristics
within the streetscape of East Terrace and surrounds and given their quantity, locations,
height and shape, they assist in concealing the proposed development from many views
within the streetscape.
Residential Character Zone, Principle of Development Control 9 requires new buildings and
structures, to be designed to maintain the prominence of existing historic buildings and
should not dominate the appearance of the front elevation of the building. Whilst the tower
will be a prominent structure in the locality, the location behind the existing contributory
listed building will maintain the prominence of the existing building and will not dominate
the appearance of the front elevation of the building.
The heritage advice states, that "while there is no doubt that the proposed structure will be
an obvious new addition, the photo montages provided demonstrate that the structure will
be no more dominating visually than existing stobie poles, power lines and street lights".
Whilst the heritage advisor has acknowledged that an alternative location would be
preferable, given that there are no reasonable alternative locations, the presence of Norfolk
Island Pines, stobie poles and lighting indicates that the proposed mobile phone tower is not
considered to fundamentally detract from the streetscape character of the precinct.
Based on the advice provided by Council's heritage advisor, it is considered that the
proposed telecommunications facility will not have a significant effect on the character and
settings of the Historic Conservation Area.
Significant Trees
A Norfolk Island Pine is located in front of the site, on East Terrace. The tree measures over
three metres in circumference and if therefore considered 'significant'. The proposed
telecommunications tower will be located approximately 25 metres from the base of the
tree. The distance is considered to be sufficient so to not have any impacts to the health or
structure of the tree. Furthermore, the tower structure is to be located on an existing
bitumised area and is therefore unlikely to have any roots anywhere near the proposed
structure.
22.
City of Charles Sturt
DAP Report 21/12/16
Conclusion
This application has been assessed against the Charles Sturt Development Plan dated 5
November 2015.
Whilst the proposed telecommunication facility will be a visibly prominent structure within
the immediate and wider locality, the location of the structure behind the existing Telstra
exchange building will help in reducing the impact on the streetscape whilst the height of
the established Norfolk Island Pines will aid in concealing the height of the structure in the
locality. Furthermore, the antenna located to the top of the monopole has been designed to
be as compact and as close to the monopole as possible to reduce the visual impact.
Based on the electromagnetic radiation emissions (EME) report provided, the radiation
emitted from the tower will be well below the Australian Standard requirements and will
not create any health impacts to residents within the immediate or wider locality.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed site is not the most ideal location for the
proposed structure, the applicant has demonstrated that alternative locations have been
investigated and, due to unavailability or the inability to meet the facility demand, have not
been suitable for the proposed development. As such, the subject site is able to achieve the
technical needs required whilst not having a detrimental impact to the locality. Therefore,
on balance, the proposal is considered to have sufficient merit to warrant support.
Recommendation
Reason for Decision
The Panel has read and considered the report prepared by the Development Officer
Senior Planner dated 21 December 2016 and agrees with the assessment outlined in
that report.
-
That pursuant to Section 35 (2) of the Development Act, 1993, the proposal is not
seriously at variance with the relevant provisions of the Charles Sturt (City)
Development Plan consolidated 5 November 2015.
That pursuant to Section 33 of the Development Act, 1993, Development Application
Number 252/0917/16 be GRANTED Development Plan Consent subject to the
following conditions:
1.
Develop in accordance with the approved plans
That the proposal shall be developed in accordance with the details and approved
plans stamped by Council except where varied by the conditions herein and shall be
completed prior to occupation of the proposed development.
Reason:
To ensure the development proceeds in an orderly manner.
23.
City of Charles Sturt
DAP Report 21/12/16
Notes
The approval for this development DOES NOT imply approval to alter, shift or remove
any existing public infrastructure, including street trees and/or landscaping or any
other street furniture or features. Approval to alter any of these must be obtained
from Council or the relevant government department or service authority. All costs
associated with such alteration are the sole responsibility of the applicant.
Development Approval must be received for this development within 12 months of
the date of this Development Plan Consent.
You will require a fresh Development Plan Consent and Development Approval before
commencing or continuing the development if you are unable to satisfy these
requirements.
To ensure your development can now proceed without unnecessary delays please ensure
the matters outlined below are properly managed.
The following information outlines your obligations in relation to appropriately managing
noise, dust and works effecting adjoining land (both private and public).
Driveway Crossovers
If you are relocating an existing driveway crossover you must remove and reinstate the
old crossover to match the existing kerb profile, footpath and verge. You will require a
permit to work on Council land to construct your new driveway crossover which must
be constructed to Council specification. Please contact Council on 8408 1111 or refer to
our website http://www.charlessturt.sa.gov.au/page.aspx?u=808&c=4118 for relevant
specifications.
Council Verges
.
Please take every precaution necessary to avoid damage to the landscaping and
infrastructure present on Council verges, as you will be required to make good
damage to Council property.
Common boundary
When removing fences that are on the common boundary with your neighbour you
must give your neighbour 28 days notice in writing that you intend to remove the
dividing fence. Where the neighbour has a pool, particular care must be taken to
ensure the pool is not left exposed, if temporary fencing is installed the temporary
fence must comply with AS 1926.1 Swimming pool safety. We recommend that you
consider the Fences and the Law booklet available on line and follow the processes
outlined in the booklet.
-
Where it is intended to erect external walls on the boundary the face of the external
wall must be on the boundary. Further, barge boards, capping tiles or other fixtures
on the boundary wall must not encroach upon the land of the adjoining owner.
Existing fence lines may not be the true legal boundary. To avoid violation of
neighbour's rights, the onus of proof of the boundary line rests with the owner of the
land where the work is undertaken. This will necessitate a survey being carried out by
City of Charles Sturt
24.
DAP Report 21/12/16
a licensed surveyor to identify the true location of the boundary and proposed footing
on the ground. You will need the neighbour's written approval to enter their land to
carry out any construction.
Neighbours
Construction within an established neighbourhood can be a stressful time for existing
•
residents. You are urged to take all necessary precautions to ensure adjoining
properties are not damaged or residents unreasonably impacted. In the interests of
good neighbourliness you may wish to consider providing your contact details to all
adjoining property owners inviting them to contact you should there be any concerns
during the construction process.
Dust
Airborne dust and sand emissions potentially generated on site must be managed and
•
this can be achieved by wetting down the soil and site during the demolition and
construction process. If you have any concerns or questions in relation to dust you
can contact the EPA on 8204 2004.
Asbestos
If there is asbestos material in or on the building or fencing to be demolished there
•
are specific requirements for the method of removal and disposal of asbestos. The
removal of asbestos over 10 square metres in area must be carried out by a licensed
asbestos removal contractor in accordance with Safe Work SA requirements. For
further information in relation to this please contact Safe Work SA on 1300 365 255.
Use of Public Space
•
Should any part of the development process require use of public land (ie, the
footpath, nature strip, road or other reserve), additional permits will be required.
•
Examples of such activities include storage of materials, delivery of materials from
public land, placing of temporary fences on public land, blocking of the road, footpath
or nature strip for any period of time.
•
Where works from public space impact vehicular or pedestrian traffic, you will be
requested to lodge a Traffic Management Plan that adheres to the requirements of
the relevant Australian Standards.
•
Additional fees and charges may apply, please contact the Council's Compliance Team
on 8408 1380 to discuss your projects needs.
Environment Protection Note
The Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003 requires any person who is
undertaking an activity, or is an occupier of land to take all reasonable and practicable
measures to avoid the discharge or deposit of waste from that activity or land into any
waters or onto land in a place from which it is likely to enter any waters (including the
stormwater system).
The policy also creates offences that can result in on-the-spot fines or legal proceedings. The
following information is provided to assist you to comply with this legislation:
City of Charles Sturt
25.
DAP Report 21/12/16
Building and construction should follow sediment control principles outlined in the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Code of Practice for the Building and Construction
Industry (EPA 1999). Specifically, the applicant should ensure:
-
•
During construction no sediment should leave the building and construction
site. Appropriate exclusion devices must be installed at entry points to
stormwater systems and waterways.
•
A stabilised entry/exit point should be constructed to minimise the tracking of
sand, soil and clay off site. However, should tracking occur, regular clean-ups
are advised.
Litter from construction sites is an environmental concern. All efforts should be made
to keep all litter on site. The applicant should ensure that bins with securely fitted lids,
capable of receiving all waste from building and construction activities, are placed on
site.
All building and construction wastewaters are listed pollutants under the Environment
Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003 and as such must be contained on site.
It is important that you familiarise yourself with the terms of the Policy and ensure that all
contractors engaged by you are aware of the obligations arising under it.
For further information please contact the Environment Protection Authority on telephone
(08) 8204 2004.