Council meeting agenda - 4 June 2012 - Clarence City Council
Council meeting agenda - 4 June 2012 - Clarence City Council Council meeting agenda - 4 June 2012 - Clarence City Council
CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL – PLANNING AUTHORITY MATTERS- 4 JUNE 2012 54 “(c) Public access to the coast is to be facilitated through applications where possible. (e) The use or development should be coastal dependant and appropriate to a coastal location”. The proposed additions to the Surf Life Saving Club facilitate access to and utilisation of the waterfront through the provision of a focal point for people wishing to recreate on and around the water. Further, the site has existing fencing around the established beach access points to ensure that there are no “informal” accesses created to the beach that may adversely impact on coastal flora and fauna. 4.5. External Referrals No external referrals were required or undertaken as part of this application. 5. REPRESENTATION ISSUES The proposal was advertised in accordance with statutory requirements and 1 representation was received. The following issues were raised by the representor. 5.1. Existing Pine Tree The representor was concerned that there is a large Pine tree within the lease area that is in close proximity to the public car park. They were concerned that it creates mess and a potential safety risk in the public car park and that it impacts upon views from surrounding residential properties. They have requested that the tree be removed. � Comment There are 3 large pine trees along the western boundary of the Surf Life Saving Club lease area, as well as a Sheoak and an Eucalypt tree. All of these trees appear to be in good condition. It would appear that the representor’s views are far more greatly impacted on by the existing vegetation on the adjacent lot than they are by these trees. As such, in the absence of a report indicating that the trees are dangerous or a more detailed description of which tree should be removed, this is not considered a necessary requirement for the development to proceed.
CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL – PLANNING AUTHORITY MATTERS- 4 JUNE 2012 55 5.2. Location of the Bins and Water Tanks It is suggested by the representor that the proposed location of the water tanks and rubbish bins will result in them being closer to the residential development than the current location. The representor was concerned that this will result in a “localised polluted atmosphere”. It was suggested by the representor that they should be located along the same boundary that they were previously (eastern lease boundary). � Comment Currently the water tanks are located on the eastern boundary of the Club’s lease area. It is proposed to extend the building to this boundary and as such the water tanks and bins need to be relocated. The rubbish bins are currently located approximately where they are proposed under the application. The proposed relocation will see the water tanks moved from being approximately 35m from the dwelling to the east and approximately 50m from the nearest dwelling to the north of the site to being approximately 45m from the nearest dwelling to the north and approximately 70m from the nearest dwelling to the east of the site. As such, the water tanks will in fact be further from residential dwellings than they currently are. In any event, the vegetation currently on-site would have a similar impact upon the existing views from surrounding properties. The proposed location of the water tanks and rubbish bins meets the Use and Development Standards for the Recreation zone and as such should be approved. 6. STATE POLICIES AND ACT OBJECTIVES 6.1. The proposal is consistent with the outcomes of the State Policies, including those of the State Coastal Policy. 6.2. The proposal is consistent with the Objectives of Schedule 1 of LUPAA.
- Page 3 and 4: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - 4 JUNE 2012
- Page 5 and 6: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - 4 JUNE 2012
- Page 7 and 8: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - 4 JUNE 2012
- Page 9 and 10: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - 4 JUNE 2012
- Page 11 and 12: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - 4 JUNE 2012
- Page 13 and 14: a. The National Curriculum b. The A
- Page 15 and 16: � Veolia MRF Gate Prices - The CE
- Page 17 and 18: David Sales CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
- Page 19 and 20: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - 4 JUNE 2012
- Page 21 and 22: MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE COUNCIL
- Page 23 and 24: AUDIT COMMITTEE - 16 May 2012 3 3.1
- Page 25 and 26: AUDIT COMMITTEE - 16 May 2012 5 Bri
- Page 27 and 28: AUDIT COMMITTEE - 16 May 2012 7 REC
- Page 29 and 30: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - 4 JUNE 2012
- Page 31 and 32: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 33 and 34: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 35 and 36: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 37 and 38: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 39 and 40: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 41 and 42: Subject Site Attachment 1 Location
- Page 43 and 44: Attachments: 93 Tanundal Street Pag
- Page 45 and 46: Attachments: 93 Tanundal Street Pag
- Page 47 and 48: 93 Tanundal Street, HOWRAH Attachme
- Page 49 and 50: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 51 and 52: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 53: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 57 and 58: Attachment 1 Location Plan D 2012/2
- Page 59 and 60: Attachments: 465 & 465a Clifton Bea
- Page 61 and 62: Attachments: 465 & 465a Clifton Bea
- Page 63 and 64: Attachments: 465 & 465a Clifton Bea
- Page 65 and 66: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 67 and 68: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 69 and 70: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 71 and 72: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 73 and 74: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 75 and 76: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 77 and 78: Subject Site Attachment 1 Location
- Page 79 and 80: Attachment 3 Note: A-B-C-D = propos
- Page 81 and 82: Image 3: View of the hind dune loca
- Page 83 and 84: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 85 and 86: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 87 and 88: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 89 and 90: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 91 and 92: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 93 and 94: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 95 and 96: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING AU
- Page 97 and 98: Attachment 2 Attachments: 64 Kings
- Page 99 and 100: 64 Kings Road, CAMBRIDGE Attachment
- Page 101 and 102: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - CUSTOMER SE
- Page 103 and 104: CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - FINANCIAL M
CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL – PLANNING AUTHORITY MATTERS- 4 JUNE <strong>2012</strong> 54<br />
“(c) Public access to the coast is to be facilitated through<br />
applications where possible.<br />
(e) The use or development should be coastal dependant and<br />
appropriate to a coastal location”.<br />
The proposed additions to the Surf Life Saving Club facilitate access to and<br />
utilisation of the waterfront through the provision of a focal point for people<br />
wishing to recreate on and around the water. Further, the site has existing<br />
fencing around the established beach access points to ensure that there are no<br />
“informal” accesses created to the beach that may adversely impact on coastal<br />
flora and fauna.<br />
4.5. External Referrals<br />
No external referrals were required or undertaken as part of this application.<br />
5. REPRESENTATION ISSUES<br />
The proposal was advertised in accordance with statutory requirements and 1<br />
representation was received. The following issues were raised by the representor.<br />
5.1. Existing Pine Tree<br />
The representor was concerned that there is a large Pine tree within the lease<br />
area that is in close proximity to the public car park. They were concerned<br />
that it creates mess and a potential safety risk in the public car park and that it<br />
impacts upon views from surrounding residential properties. They have<br />
requested that the tree be removed.<br />
� Comment<br />
There are 3 large pine trees along the western boundary of the Surf Life<br />
Saving Club lease area, as well as a Sheoak and an Eucalypt tree. All<br />
of these trees appear to be in good condition. It would appear that the<br />
representor’s views are far more greatly impacted on by the existing<br />
vegetation on the adjacent lot than they are by these trees. As such, in<br />
the absence of a report indicating that the trees are dangerous or a more<br />
detailed description of which tree should be removed, this is not<br />
considered a necessary requirement for the development to proceed.