POINTS OF OBJECTION TO GUESTHOUSE PROPOSAL

FOR LOC 1351 WYADUP ROAD - INJIDUP (INJIDUP BAY)


  1. Proposal compliance:

    The staff recommendation applies the argument that 'the proposal is better' than the original proposal of a long, low single building, and this is the appeasing factor for Council to now issue approval.
    1. This has never been, and should not be a reason, for Council to approve a development application.

    2. The development application should be assessed on its merits and its compliance with the relevant planning policies, which apply to that area (see below).

  1. Visual amenity for visitors to Injidup Bay:

    The staff recommendation mentions the fact that the development will be partially visible from some key viewpoints but does not elaborate as to which or how these viewpoints will be affected.

    1. Impact on visual amenity needs full, detailed explanation to allow shire councillors to determine whether it is acceptable or not.

     

  1. Fire Management Plan:

    A fire management plan for the specific development (the guesthouse building) has not been submitted.
    1. The fire management plan for this specific 'building' is a requirement before development can be approved.

    2. In addition the fire management plan for the sub-division of the strata lots (which includes the lot where the guesthouse is proposed) has not yet been approved.
      • The submitted fire management plan for the wider strata subdivision (the guest house lot and surrounding housing lots) seeks to further adjust the minimum requirements of fuel free zones to fit the specific 'guesthouse' building design for the guesthouse lot. Rather than the building design fitting the requirements.

      • Thus the overall fire management plan, as submitted, does not fully comply with requirements and should not be used as an accepted fire management plan for the specific guesthouse building proposal.

    3. It would be a normal condition that the Fire Management Plan be submitted and approved before final development approval can be given for this 'building'.

    4. The fire management plan for the specific building is not mentioned as a condition of approval in the staff recommendation.

  1. Guesthouse building or potential chalets?:

    1. The new proposal does not conform to historically held perceptions of a 'guesthouse' in the Shire in regard to its size and capacity.

      In actual fact, it is ten two-bedroom, two-bathroom separate chalet-style buildings, with twice the occupancy capacity of the previous proposal or a standard 10-suite guesthouse
In addition, the manager’s residence, gymnasium and dining room* further increase its size.

(*The dining room is a requirement for a guesthouse, as each individual 'suite' is not to be independent of central kitchen and eating facilities).
    • 'Suite' description:

      A “suite” was defined during the Caves House Hotel redevelopment process as a bedroom sleeping two persons with bathroom and sitting room etc. Not two bedrooms and two bathrooms.
  • The argument that this is one building connected by a walkway is tenuous.
  • Both the previous and the current proposal were obviously designed to give each “suite” a view of the ocean.
      1. This criterion has resulted in both proposals being stretched along the coast facing west. If these criteria were removed from the design brief, a more compact building could then be designed.

Relevant Planning Policies:

Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge Statement of Planning Policy:

The LNRSPP states that:
 
PS 2.6 “Proposals for development adjacent to natural bushland will be required to include an effective bush fire protection plan that is consistent with conservation values”- this has not been done

PS 5.4 “Low impact tourism development will be considered in rural locations where the development:

·        Will not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area

·        Comprises only buildings or structures which are small in scale and unobtrusive” – the staff recommendation acknowledges this policy cannot be fully satisfied with this current development proposal.

Principal Ridge Protection Area

LUS 3.1 “In Principal Ridge Protection Areas, protection of conservation and landscape values will be paramount. Only land uses compatible with these values will be permitted.”

LUS 3.4 “ As an incentive for landowners in Principal Ridge Protection Areas electing to retain the land in private ownership, arrangements for maintaining the conservation and landscape values of the land in perpetuity are as follows:

·        Low impact tourism development;
 
subject to:

·        no detrimental impacts on existing remnant vegetation other than for the approved development envelope and services

·        conforming with other policies under this LNRSPP, particularly those relating to fire management;

·        the owner entering into an agreement for
continued management of the land to guarantee the maintenance of conservation and landscape values in perpetuity; and

- an absolute caveat on the title of the lot to secure performance of the agreement in perpetuity”

The staff recommendation gives no details of any agreement entered in to with the landowner or of any caveat to be put on the title, which would satisfy those policy statements.

SUMMARY 

  • The council is under no obligation to approve this proposal just because the opinion of the staff recommendation it is better than the original proposal.

  • The land is zoned Conservation and in the SPP it is “Principal Ridge Protection” which affords this land the highest level of protection in the Shire.

  • Visual amenity is of “paramount importance”.
    • A more detailed explanation of the potential loss of visual amenity within Injidup Bay needs to be included and exactly which viewpoints will be affected.
    • It needs to be clarified by accurate modelling exactly what the proposal will look like and then allow the council to make that decision.

  • It is not the responsibility of council to facilitate an ocean view for each proposed suite at the expense of the visual amenity of the area. The building must fit planning policy and not vice-versa.
  • The recommendations from CALM should be included as standard conditions for any revised proposal.

  • No Fire Management Plan for the specific building development has been submitted although this is a condition of approval.
    • The fire management plan for the wider strata subdivision has not been approved and does not comply with regulations.

  • No management agreement with the landowner for ongoing maintenance issues has been entered into and;

  • No details of a caveat on the title have been supplied as is required under the planning law, LNRSPP: LUS 3.4.

  • A question for future consideration: In terms of other (pod)chalet-style developments in the Shire, would it be possible for the developer to modify, strata title and sell off these individual pods at a later date?       
Close this browser window