NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given that a Planning Authority Committee meeting of Devonport City Council will be held in the Council Chambers, on Thursday 2 April 2015, commencing at 11:00am. The meeting will be open to the public at 11:00am.
QUALIFIED PERSONS In accordance with Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993, I confirm that the reports in this agenda contain advice, information and recommendations given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendation.
Paul West GENERAL MANAGER 27 March 2015
AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING AUTHORITY COMMITTEE OF DEVONPORT CITY COUNCIL HELD ON THURSDAY 2 APRIL 2015 AT THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 11:00AM Item
Page No.
1.0
APOLOGIES
2.0
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3.0
DELEGATED APPROVALS ............................................................................. 6
4.0
DEVELOPMENT REPORTS .............................................................................. 8
4.1
PA2015.0020 Resource Development - assessment against performance criteria for requirement for discretionary non-residential use to locate on Rural Resource land and suitability of a site for use or development (26.3.1 & 26.4.1) - 103 John Street, East Devonport (D364329) ................................................................................................. 8
5.0
CLOSURE ............................................................................................... 84
PAGE 5 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
Agenda of a meeting of the Devonport City Councilâ€&#x;s Planning Authority Committee to be held at the Council Chambers, Fenton Way, Devonport on Thursday, 2 April 2015 commencing at 11.00am. PRESENT Present Chairman
Ald S L Martin (Mayor) Ald C D Emmerton Ald G F Goodwin Ald J F Matthews Ald L M Perry
IN ATTENDANCE
1.0 APOLOGIES The following apology was received for the meeting.
2.0 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Apology
PAGE 6 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
3.0 DELEGATED APPROVALS 3.1
PLANNING APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 15 DECEMBER 2014 TO 27 MARCH 2015
ITEM 3.1
PAGE 7 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
RECOMMENDATION That the list of delegated approvals be received.
ITEM 3.1
PAGE 8 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
4.0
DEVELOPMENT REPORTS
4.1
PA2015.0020 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT - ASSESSMENT AGAINST PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR REQUIREMENT FOR DISCRETIONARY NON-RESIDENTIAL USE TO LOCATE ON RURAL RESOURCE LAND AND SUITABILITY OF A SITE FOR USE OR DEVELOPMENT (26.3.1 & 26.4.1) - 103 JOHN STREET, EAST DEVONPORT File: 30363 D364329
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council‟s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 2.1.1
Ensure the City's Planning Scheme supports local community character and appropriate land use.
PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to enable Council‟s Planning Authority Committee to make a decision regarding planning application PA2015.0020.
BACKGROUND Planning Instrument: Applicant: Owner: Proposal:
Existing Use: Zoning: Decision Due:
Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013 Costa Exchange Pty Ltd W Y Bovill Pty Ltd Resource development - assessment against performance criteria for requirement for discretionary non-residential use to locate on Rural Resource land and suitability of a site for use or development (26.3.1 & 26.4.1) Resource development Rural Resource 21/04/2015
SITE DESCRIPTION The site is partially bound by Caroline Street to the west, Upper Drew Street to the north and John Street to the south with agricultural land to the east. The lot, which has an area of 53.72ha, contains undulating terrain which is cropped, grazed and under controlled environment agriculture. Several water tanks are located onsite, along with two dams and a number of sheds. Figure 1 shows an aerial view of the site as at January, 2013. Since the aerial photo was taken, 9.942ha of polytunnels have been erected, as shown in Figure 3. The site has a land classification ranging from 1 to 4, with classes 1-3 being known as prime agricultural land as per the Land Capability Handbook, Second Edition by CJ Grose. Figure 2 shows the land capability of the site.
APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is seeking approval to use the site for resource development in the form of controlled environment agriculture through the construction of 4.051ha of polytunnels to grow strawberries. The strawberries will be grown in imported growth medium on raised trays, housed within the polytunnels. Five water tanks, with a volume of 270m3 each, are
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 9 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
also proposed. Documentation detailing the proposal has been prepared by 6ty° on behalf of the applicant (see attachment). The total building area for the site, including existing and approved development, is in excess of 18ha. A total of 14.298ha of polytunnels has already been approved for the site.
Figure 1 - Aerial view of site - January 2013
Figure 2 – Map showing land capability of site
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 10 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
PLANNING ISSUES
The land is zoned Rural Resource under the Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013. The intent of the zone is to provide for the sustainable use or development of resources for agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, mining and other primary industries, including opportunities for resource processing and to provide for other use or development that does not constrain or conflict with resource development uses. Resource development generally does not require a planning permit, however a permitted use permit is required if the use is for aquaculture, controlled environment agriculture or intensive animal husbandry, and the use is not located on prime agricultural land. In instances where the use is to be located on prime agricultural land the use becomes discretionary. As mentioned previously the site contains prime agricultural land, and therefore the use is discretionary. In addition, any development must meet the acceptable solutions outlined in the planning scheme for the relevant zone or code, or otherwise satisfy the relevant performance criteria. If a proposal must rely on the performance criteria this too becomes a discretionary element. In this instance two elements of discretion have been identified, the use, being controlled environment agriculture on prime agricultural land, and the fact that the proposed building area covers more than 20% of the site.
Figure 3 – Site plan showing location of existing, approved and proposed polytunnels
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 11 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
The proposal complies with all other relevant sections of the planning scheme, as per the application detail prepared by 6ty째 (see attachment). The relevant sections of the planning scheme in terms of the identified discretions are reproduced below, along with comments.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 12 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
Section 26.3.1 P1 (a) requires the development to be consistent with the local area objectives. The local area objectives for the Rural Resource zone are as follows:
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 13 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
As stated, implementation is to have regard to the purpose of the zone in determining a permit for a discretionary use. The purpose of the zone is to provide for the sustainable use or development of resources for agriculture etc. The proposal complies with the intent of ITEM 4.1
PAGE 14 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
the zone as the development is for agricultural purposes and is sustainable in that the proposal will not deplete the natural resources of the site. The proposal is also consistent with the local area objectives as the land will be used for a primary industry use. Although the soil will not be used as a growth medium the land will not be permanently lost to such development. As stated in the application detail the development is designed to be completely removable from the site, thus allowing the site to be returned to its current state. The local area objectives recognise that primary industry is diverse, dynamic and innovative and may occur at different levels of intensity. The proposal is for a use that differs from the norm in regard to cropping, however seeks to extend the growing period for strawberries. Section 26.3.1 P1 (b) requires the use be consistent with any applicable desired future character statements.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 15 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
The proposal is consistent with the desired future character of the area as it creates a highly modified working landscape and is likely to create disturbance to the physical terrain, scenic attributes and the pleasant aspects of the countryside. As stated in the application the site has been selected by the applicant for operational efficiency due to its close proximity to its distribution centre, in Brooke Street, and as water from the Sassafras/Wesley Vale Irrigation Scheme can be accessed on the site. In addition the site is also close to the port and airport. The likelihood of permanent loss of land is minimised by the style of buildings to be constructed. The fact that a building permit is not required for the polytunnels highlights their temporary nature. This ensures the ease with which they can be removed, and land reverted to its current state, at the conclusion of operations. The second item of discretion, the total building area of the site, requires the proposal to satisfy the performance criteria for clause 26.4.1.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 16 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
The proposed building area is in excess of 20% of the area of the site however the property of is of sufficient area to allow for the erection of buildings, access to the site, the use or development of adjacent land, utilities and easements and rights of way to access other land. None of the above will be hindered by the proposed development.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT On 10/03/2015, Council received an application for the above development. Under Section 57(3) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, the Planning Authority must give notice of an application for a permit. As prescribed at Section 8(1) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Regulations 2004, the Planning Authority fulfilled this notification requirement by: (a)
Advertising the application in The Advocate newspaper on 11/03/2015;
(b)
Making a copy of the proposal available in Council Offices from the 11/03/2015;
(c)
Notifying adjoining property owners by mail on 10/03/2015; and
(d)
Erecting a Site Notice for display from the 10/03/2015.
The period for representations to be received by Council closed on 24/03/2015.
REPRESENTATIONS Five representations were received within the prescribed 14 day public scrutiny period required by the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 17 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
The representations, and the main points raised are listed below, along with comments. The representations can be found as attachments to this report. A representation, in the form of a petition, was made by Mr GE Deans of 13 Upper Drew Street. The representation did not constitute a petition under the Local Government Act, 1993, as it was not lodged with a councillor or the general manager and therefore is being treated as a representation only. The representation, signed by 35 residents, requests that the developer be required to provide screening, such as trees or shrubs, to act as a visual cover along both fence lines. Given the zone recognises that permissible uses are likely to create disturbance to the scenic attributes of the area it is difficult to warrant a screening requirement as part of a planning application. In this case however the Rural Resource zone adjoins the General Residential zone, as shown in Figure 4 below, and there is merit in minimising conflicts between zones wherever possible.
Figure 4 – Map showing Rural Resource zone in buff, General Residential zone in red, Recreation zone in bright green and Open Space zone in dark green
Mr P Gleeson, of Melbourne, also submitted a representation. Mr Gleeson‟s main concerns are listed below. A comment has been made in regard to each.
That insufficient information has been provided to enable him to make an informed decision Comment – sufficient information has been supplied for Council to make an informed decision on the relevant planning matters.
That the land does not have the appropriate zoning to allow for the development Comment - the land is zoned Rural Resource which allows for „resource development‟ which includes the use of controlled environment agriculture such as polytunnels. There is not an Intensive Agriculture zone as implied by Mr Gleeson.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 18 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
That the Hazard Management Code within the planning scheme should be considered Comment – the Hazard Management Code applies to land exposed to risk from coastal inundation, coastal erosion, flooding, landslide and potential contamination as a result of previous use for an activity listed in Table 1 to the Code. While Table 1 does list Horticulture and Intensive Agriculture as activities likely to cause contamination these are also the uses that are proposed. Essentially the uses will continue however the soil will not be disturbed to the same extent as it would were traditional cropping to continue. The proposal will lessen the risk rather than increase it.
That insufficient information has been provided in regard to the use of glyphosate Comment – Council is not the controlling body in regard to chemical sprays used in farming. The applicant has indicated that the bulk of this product will be stored offsite and only brought to the site when needed, to be used immediately. A specialist agricultural supply company has been contracted to assist with the use and management of sprays and fertilisers.
That coir is not an appropriate growth medium and composting it into the soil will cause issues Comment – Coir is widely used in the hydroponics industry as a growth medium. The plants generally remove any salts from the coir, whether naturally occurring or from the fertilisers used to aid growth and any remnant salts are removed by way of the coir being continually subject to irrigation. In addition, coir is utilised because it is a renewable resource (the outer husks of coconuts) that is sustainable and easily compostable. As the salts have been removed by the irrigation process composting coir merely introduces beneficial organic matter to the soil. If any detrimental salts were present in the coir it is unlikely that it would provide a suitable growth medium as the strawberry plants would not survive.
That the lease between the landowner and developer should have been provided as part of the application Comment – as Mr Gleeson was verbally informed, Council does not require access to the lease. It is a private business matter that does not impact on the development from a planning perspective. The lease is mentioned in the application in regard to the leased area (which is shown on the plans) and the fact that the lease contains specific conditions to ensure the site is returned to its natural state. Neither point requires further information in regard to Council‟s assessment of the application. It is recommended a condition be placed on the permit to ensure the land be reverted to its current state once the operation has ceased (in terms of the removal of the polytunnels) given that permanent alienation of prime agricultural land is to be avoided.
That the Woolworths Quality Assurance Standard and Global GAP are inappropriate risk mitigation standards Comment – the issues covered by the abovementioned standards are not regulated by Council. Council is not responsible for chemical storage and handling, or the chemical residue on produce. In any case, the standards set by Woolworths and Global GAP among others are seen as being of a very high standard.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 19 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
Insufficient information has been provided in regard to traffic movements Comment - the applicant has advised that the increase in truck movements will be approximately 10% on current truck movements. As the trucks are currently underutilised the number of trips will not greatly increase however the trucks will contain more product for each trip. The original application for the site identified the need for approximately 5 truck movements per day. This equates to one additional truck movement every 2 days. The number of cars used by employees accessing the site is limited. Employees are encouraged to car pool and at any given time the number of cars located onsite is minimal and not dissimilar to the number of cars seen at other locations where crops are harvested by hand. The amount of traffic generated by the proposal will be minimal in regard to the effect it will have on ongoing road repairs.
Are the available positions full time or part time and what is the benefit to the local economy if international backpackers are the main beneficiaries of employment Comment – whether the positions created are full time or part time is not critical in regard to the proposal from a planning perspective. If the operation does employ predominately international backpackers they contribute to the local economy through payment for accommodation, food etc.
That the scenic attributes and property values in the area will be negatively impacted Comment - the value of properties, or devaluation of properties, is not a planning consideration. As mentioned previously changes to the visual amenity of the area are seen to be a consequence of activities in the Rural Resource zone, however, in order to appease residents it may be appropriate to provide some screening. It is noted also that the dwellings in Upper Drew Street look to the north, rather than looking out over the farmland to the south.
The State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009 (PAL Policy) Comment – the abovementioned policy states that, ‘controlled environment agriculture on prime agricultural land may be allowed, having regard to criteria, including the following: (a)
minimising the amount of land alienated;
(b)
minimising negative impacts on the surrounding environment; and
(c)
ensuring the particular location is reasonably required for operational efficiency.
The amount of land to be alienated is minimal given the polytunnels can be easily removed from the site. There will be no negative impacts on the surrounding environment in regard to agricultural activities. The PAL Policy is concerned with the protection of agricultural land, not residential land and therefore impacts on neighbouring residential properties is not covered by the policy. As stated previously the particular location provides for operational efficiency due to its close proximity to the distribution centre, irrigation scheme and ports.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 20 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
Mr S McVilly, of 31 upper Drew Street, also submitted a representation. His main concerns and corresponding comments follow.
Prime agricultural land should not be used for building construction Comment – It is agreed that it is not ideal that prime agricultural land be used for buildings, however, the planning scheme allows for discretion for such use rather than prohibiting it. Were it deemed totally unreasonable such a proposal would be prohibited. Given the polytunnels can be removed it is reasonable that they be allowed to locate on prime agricultural land, especially given the operational efficiencies identified. The proposed water tanks are unlikely to be removed however they are located within the curtilage of an area already utilised for such infrastructure.
The unsuitability of roads in the area due to the lack of footpaths and other concerns Comment - The provision of footpaths is not relevant to the proposal in regard to planning and whether people observe the road rules is a matter for the Police.
Mrs R Swain‟s representation raises the following:
Unsightly polytunnels Comment – as mentioned previously visual amenity is not an issue in accordance with the planning scheme
Devaluation of properties Comment – this is not a planning consideration
Hazards created by increased traffic where there are no footpaths Comment – in most instances the nature strips are of sufficient width to walk. In any case the increase in traffic movements created by the proposal will be negligible.
The impact of the contamination of fruit from China Comment – whether external factors have a positive or negative impact on the operation is not of concern to Council.
The impact of chemical sprays on future farming activities Comment - The chemical sprays uses in the operation will be the same or similar to those used for past and future farming activities and are not of concern to Council.
Noise pollution created by the plastic vibrating in the wind Comment – no noise complaints have been received by Council in regard to the existing polytunnels. Should any complaints be received Council will be required to investigate in accordance with the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.
The final representation was received from Mr W and Mrs E Gleeson, of 3 Upper Drew Street. Their issues in relation to the proposal and comments are listed below.
The proposal contravenes the PAL Policy Comment – as mentioned previously the proposal is able to comply with the PAL Policy in regard to controlled environment agriculture on prime agricultural land.
Lack of information detailed in the application especially in regard to chemical use Comment – the chemicals likely to be used will have no greater impact than those used for poppies and other crops for which the site has been used in the past. In ITEM 4.1
PAGE 21 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
addition Council is not responsible for the regulation of such activities which are managed by State and Federal Governments.
Council has a duty of care to residents in regard to the proposed use of chemicals Comment – as mentioned above Council is not the regulating body in regard to chemicals.
Impact on scenic attributes of the site Comment - the Rural Resource zone allows for changes to the visual amenity of the area.
How can residents be assured that all conditions will be complied with Comment – should the developer breach any conditions in the permit residents and/or Council can take action under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act, 1993.
Devonport risks becoming the polytunnel capital of Australia instead of an attractive tourist destination Comment – this is not a consideration for the Planning Authority.
DISCUSSION The majority of issues raised by representors are not relevant to the planning application and are not administered by Council. Of the relevant issues raised it has been shown that the proposal is able to comply with the requirements of the planning scheme. In regard to the visual impact created by the proposal, while this is not a planning matter for the Rural Resource zone it is recognised that conflicts between zones should be minimised. In order to achieve this it is recommended that a screen be planted along the boundary of the Caroline and Upper Drew Street frontages. The proposal has been assessed by Council‟s Development and Assessment Review Team. It is noted that Council‟s Compliance and Biodiversity Officer has identified potential Engaeus Granulatus (Central North Burrowing Crayfish) habitat to the south of the subject site however their presence would not affect this application. It is recommended that the existing Melaleuca Ericifolia be retained. Council‟s Environmental Health Officers have stated that the proposal is to dispose of asbestos in accordance with relevant Worksafe Tasmania guidelines. Council‟s Engineering Development Officer did not have any comments in relation to the proposal.
CONCLUSION Essentially the proposed use is resource development in the form of the cropping of strawberries. The proposal is discretionary because of the polytunnels used to house the plants, however, were the crop to be planted directly into the soil the use would be permitted. Given the temporary nature of the polytunnels, and their ability to be easily removed from the site, it is deemed that the use will create no greater impact than conventional cropping other than to impact the visual amenity of the area which, it has been demonstrated, is in keeping with the desired future characteristics of the Rural Resource zone. It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved, with conditions.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 22 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Application detail
2.
Representation - Petition from 35 signatories - GE Deans 13 Upper Drew Street
3.
Representation by Patrick Gleeson
4.
Representation by Steve McVilly
5.
Representation by Rosemary Swain
6.
Representation by William & Elizabeth Gleeson
RECOMMENDATION That Council, pursuant to the provisions of the Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013 and Section 57 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, approve application PA2015.0020 and grant a Permit to use and develop land identified as 103 John Street, East Devonport for the following purposes:
Resource development - assessment against performance criteria for requirement for discretionary non-residential use to locate on Rural Resource land and suitability of a site for use or development (26.3.1 & 26.4.1)
Subject to the following conditions: 1.
The Use and Development is to proceed generally in accordance with the submitted documentation prepared by 6ty° referenced as Controlled Environment Agriculture, Expansion of Strawberry Farm copies of which are attached and endorsed as documents forming part of this Planning Permit.
2.
Upon cessation of the operation all polytunnels and associated infrastructure are to be removed to enable the soil to be used as a growth medium.
3.
The westernmost gate accessing Upper Drew Street is not to be used as part of the strawberry growing operation.
4.
Prior to, or at the time of commencement of construction, a screen of trees or shrubs must be provided by the developer along both Caroline Street and Upper Drew Street. The trees or shrubs used are to be from a list provided by Council and as directed by Council in regard to placement.
5.
A permit to work within the road reserve must be obtained prior to the tree planting taking place.
6.
The developer is to dispose of any asbestos found during demolition of the sheds in accordance with the Workplace Tasmania “Guidelines for Safe Disposal of Asbestos”.
Note: The following is provided for information purposes. THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. During the construction or use of these facilities all measures are be taken to prevent nuisance. Air, noise and water pollution matters are subject to provisions of the Building Regulations or the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 23 Report to Planning Authority Committee meeting on 2 April 2015
You need to provide a copy of this planning permit to a registered Tasmanian Building Surveyor. WORK CANNOT COMMENCE UNTIL BUILDING AND PLUMBING PERMITS ARE ISSUED. In regard to conditions 4 & 5 the applicant should contact Council‟s Development Manager – Ph 6424 0511. Enquiries regarding other conditions can be directed to Council‟s Development & Health Services Department – Ph 6424 0511.
Author: Position:
Carolyn Milnes Senior Town Planner
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 4.1
Brian May Manager Development Services
&
Health
PAGE 24 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 25 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 26 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 27 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 28 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 29 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 30 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 31 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 32 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 33 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 34 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 35 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 36 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 37 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 38 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 39 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 40 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 41 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 42 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 43 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 44 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 45 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 46 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 47 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 48 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 49 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 50 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 51 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 52 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 53 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 54 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 55 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 56 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 57 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 58 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 59 Application detail
ATTACHMENT [1]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 60 Representation - Petition from 35 signatories - GE Deans 13 Upper Drew Street
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 61 Representation - Petition from 35 signatories - GE Deans 13 Upper Drew Street
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 62 Representation - Petition from 35 signatories - GE Deans 13 Upper Drew Street
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 63 Representation - Petition from 35 signatories - GE Deans 13 Upper Drew Street
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 64 Representation - Petition from 35 signatories - GE Deans 13 Upper Drew Street
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 65 Representation - Petition from 35 signatories - GE Deans 13 Upper Drew Street
ITEM 4.1
ATTACHMENT [2]
PAGE 66 Representation by Patrick Gleeson
ATTACHMENT [3]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 67 Representation by Patrick Gleeson
ATTACHMENT [3]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 68 Representation by Patrick Gleeson
ATTACHMENT [3]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 69 Representation by Patrick Gleeson
ATTACHMENT [3]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 70 Representation by Patrick Gleeson
ATTACHMENT [3]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 71 Representation by Patrick Gleeson
ATTACHMENT [3]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 72 Representation by Patrick Gleeson
ATTACHMENT [3]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 73 Representation by Steve McVilly
ATTACHMENT [4]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 74 Representation by Steve McVilly
ATTACHMENT [4]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 75 Representation by Steve McVilly
ATTACHMENT [4]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 76 Representation by Steve McVilly
ATTACHMENT [4]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 77 Representation by Steve McVilly
ATTACHMENT [4]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 78 Representation by Steve McVilly
ATTACHMENT [4]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 79 Representation by Steve McVilly
ATTACHMENT [4]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 80 Representation by Rosemary Swain
ATTACHMENT [5]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 81 Representation by William & Elizabeth Gleeson
ATTACHMENT [6]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 82 Representation by William & Elizabeth Gleeson
ATTACHMENT [6]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 83 Representation by William & Elizabeth Gleeson
ATTACHMENT [6]
ITEM 4.1
PAGE 84
5.0
CLOSURE There being no further business the Chairman declared the meeting closed at
ITEM 5.0
pm.