Agenda of Special City Planning Committee Meeting

Item No. 2.1.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Special City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 7

2/12/2019

Memorandum: City Planning Committee

315 Elizabeth Street, North Hobart - Partial Demolition, Alterations Fencing and Partial Change of Use to Food Services - Deferral - PLN-19-103

Background

This memorandum relates to PLN-19-103 proposing partial demolition, alterations, fencing and partial change of use to Food Services at 315 Elizabeth Street, North Hobart (operated under the name Boodle Beasley).

The application received 840 representations during its public notification period, 833 in support of the proposal and seven objecting to the proposal. The application was considered at the City Planning Committee meeting of 25 November 2019, with an officer recommendation for refusal based on grounds broadly related to the use of the rear section of the property being inconsistent with the residential zoning of that part of the site, and the proposal then not being consistent with special planning provisions within the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 related to changes to existing non-conforming use. At that meeting, the Committee deferred determination of the application in the following terms:

That the matter be deferred to a special City Planning Committee meeting prior to Council on 2 December 2019 to enable officers time to liaise with the two representors that made deputations at the City Planning Committee meeting of 25 November 2019 and the applicant regarding the wording of potential conditions of approval that include the following:

· Limiting the life of a possible planning permit to one year

· Requiring the operators to submit a Management Plan that stipulates how the site, particularly the external areas of the site to the rear of the existing building, will be managed to minimise detrimental impacts to adjoining uses and the amenity of the locality, and that considers matters including but not limited to:

o Noise attenuation and possible boundary fence alterations with neighbouring properties

o Minimising light spill to neighbouring properties

o Hours of operation

o Rear access provisions

o Contact numbers of the business manager

In accordance with that deferral, potential conditions of approval have been formulated and are attached to this memorandum (Attachment A). Those potential conditions were forwarded for comment to the two representors that made deputations at the City Planning Committee meeting of 25 November 2019 and the applicant.

One of those representors indicated that their primary concern related to a fire management strategy, to cigarettes and to the large ‘fire pit’, which they described as being taller than a human, and being located near an adjacent shed used by that representor.

The other representor has indicated as follows:

Please find below my response to the Planning Committee’s potential approval of the application by Boodle Beasley to use all of the outdoor spaces that they have been using and continue using without approval.

What are the reasons for potential approval

I would like to know the Planning Committee reason/s why the proposal for Boodle Beasley to expand their business into the Inner Residential Zone is more important than allowing me to have my residential amenity and that of the nearby residents? Boodle Beasley set up their restaurant/ outdoor area with flagrant disregard to the neighbours.

I am very disappointed that the Planning Committee seeks to accommodate the expansion of a business into the Inner Residential Zone that will financially benefit the two owners of the business, to my personal detriment and that of all surrounding residents.

Approval of the proposal will significantly devalue my properties in the Inner Residential zone as the residential amenity will be lost. It will also impede any potential development of these Inner Residential Zones. Why should the owners of surrounding properties have to face a potential financial loss?

Restaurants have operated on the site for 26 years without causing any harm to residents.

Later opening hours seven days a week and the extension into outdoor areas has encouraged a ‘party’ atmosphere where the emphasis is on drinking not eating. To say it is “family friendly” is ridiculous! Families will not have children out in a bar till midnight.

Who will monitor the noise levels and nuisance caused by this potential permit? I’m sure that the planning committee members would not allow this if it was their family homes being affected.

Numerous restaurants and hotels offering outdoor drinking and dining

There are numerous restaurants and hotels across Hobart that offer outdoor drinking and dining and the owners of Boodle Beasley already run Preachers in Battery Point.

There are two within 100 metres of Boodle Beasley, those being Room For A Pony and The Republic Bar and Café that have outdoor drinking and dining, beer gardens.

In addition, approximately 400m from Boodle Beasley will be the refurbished Crescent Hotel which is expected to re-open early next year, also with a beer garden.

Potential Conditions

Allowing Boodle Beasley to extend into the Inner Residential Zone will unreasonably impact on my residential amenity regardless of any conditions imposed as the main problem is the noise.

The proposal does not meet the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 Regulations and the noise emitted from the outside areas of the venue is excessive. (Please read the noise emission report attached to the applicants proposal)

The Planning Committee does not appear to fully appreciate the significant intrusion of the continuous music and patron noise, at all times of the day and night. This will be for 16 hours a day!

The highest measurement of noise emitted was taken at my boundary fence where the deck has already been built and is still in use (without Council Planning approval).

The Tasmanian Environmental Protection Policy guidelines for Outdoor Living:

Noise of Serious annoyance is 55 db

Moderate annoyance is 50 db

The noise assessment at my boundary where the deck is situated, measured levels of 77db for 4 days running, that was only “customer voices” and did not include music.

Music is currently played on the deck and will no doubt continue.

If the noise measurement is higher than the Tasmanian EPP guidelines for Outdoor Living how can this be acceptable?

It is like living next door to a continuous party.

Building a 2.4 m high fence will not reduce the noise, no matter what materials are used. Also, the deck is elevated so any fence would have to be much higher than 2.4 to compensate for the difference in height.

My response to the potential conditions

The only way that the impact could be reduced would be to make opening hours changes as follows:

PLN 6

The use must not be open to the public outside of the following hours:

Venue:

8:00am to 12:00 midnight, Monday - Saturday

8:00am to 11:00pm, Sunday

Courtyard, deck and rear garden area:

8:00am to 6:00pm, Monday - Friday

Rear garden not used on Saturdays or Sundays

No speakers and no music to be played outside

The large wood burner is a safety issue, firstly for any children that would be in the area, there is no safety barrier, and to adjoining properties because of the risk of a fire.

Reason for these conditions:

To ensure that non-residential use does not unreasonably impact on residential amenity and property values.

The applicant has made two comments in relation to the potential conditions that were circulated.

The first comment relates to potential condition PLN s1, which as drafted, reads as follows:

PLN s1

The proposed use of the Rear Garden Area (ie. the area to the rear and the western side of the New Decking Area) is approved for one (1) year from the date of the issue of planning permit PLN19103. Following that date, use of the Rear Garden Area in association with the Food Services use of the site must cease unless prior, separate planning approval has been granted allowing that use to continue.

Reason for condition

To clarify the scope of the permit

The applicant has indicated that while, as drafted, the one year period would start from the date of the Council’s decision, the actual use of the Rear Garden Area would not be able to commence until after any appeal period, and then after all conditions on any permit issued had been satisfied, including getting Council approval for the Management Plan mooted under condition PLN s2. They indicate that the time associated with those matters may significantly shorten the length of any approval granted by the Council for use of that area. They therefore request that, if the proposal is approved, the one year period start from the commencement of that part of the use, rather than the Permit date. If the Council support the imposition of a condition to reflect that change, it is recommended that condition
PLN s1 be reworded so that the one year period commences from a known date - the date of approval by the Director City Planning of the Management Plan required by potential condition PLN s2 (which allows the use of the Rear Garden Area to commence). Such a condition could read as follows (proposed changes underlined):

PLN s1

The proposed use of the Rear Garden Area (ie. the area to the rear and the western side of the New Decking Area) is approved for one (1) year from the date of the approval by the City of Hobart’s Director City Planning of the Management Plan required by condition PLN s2 of this planning permit. Following that date, use of the Rear Garden Area in association with the Food Services use of the site must cease unless prior, separate planning approval has been granted allowing that use to continue.

Reason for condition

To clarify the scope of the permit

The second comment relates to potential condition PLN s1, which as drafted, reads as follows:

ENG 5

No car parking is approved onsite under this permit.

Reason for condition

To ensure the provision of parking for the use is safe and efficient.

The applicant has indicated that the operators currently use the rear area for deliveries, and have therefore asked whether that condition, if imposed, could be amended to read as follows (proposed changes underlined):

ENG 5

No car parking (other than for delivery purposes) is approved onsite under this permit.

Reason for condition

To ensure the provision of parking for the use is safe and efficient.

The City of Hobart’s Development Engineering Officer, however, indicates that the officer view is that condition ENG 5 should remain as drafted if imposed by Elected Members on an approval of the proposal – that is, to not allow any car parking on site, including for delivery purposes.

They indicate that there is a loading zone within 50 metres of the subject site on Elizabeth Street that meets the Acceptable Solution (A1) for Clause E6.7.13 – Facilities for Commercial Vehicles, and that that onsite commercial vehicle arrangements should not be accepted under performance criteria as they would compromise the safety and convenience of vehicular traffic, cyclists, pedestrians and other road users. In addition, the Development Engineering Officer indicates as follows:

The existing access within 315 Elizabeth Street (also Right of Way for 317 Elizabeth Street) appears to be less than 3.0m (2.74m) wide for the first ~21 metres and there is no Right of Way over 317 Elizabeth Street for No. 315 Elizabeth Street. Also, there are no sight triangles present either side of the access for pedestrian safety as prescribed in AS/NZ2890.1. A previously approved development application (930526) provided commentary regarding the access, referring to it as sub-minimum and having little scope of providing a further increase in parking to the four (4x) spaces being approved for the site in 1993. A cash-in-lieu contribution was taken at the time of that 1993 approval. Also at that time, there appeared no scope for alternative access to the rear of the applicant's property. The City Engineer at the time agreed that additional vehicles using the narrow right of way access to the rear of the property could not be condoned. They also indicated at the time that the minimum width for a commercial access (AS/NZ 2890.2 Table 3.1) was 3.6 metres, and that this could not be achieved.

It is worth noting that Council's current standards require a minimum driveway access width of 3 metres and the current pedestrian sight lines on-site would make it difficult to approve commercial access to this development under the current planning scheme.

It would consider it dangerous to approve commercial access to this development.

If Elected Members would prefer to grant approval for the application subject to conditions that reflect the applicant’s suggested changes, a full list of potential conditions including those changes forms Attachment C to this memorandum.

Conclusion

Following deferral by the City Planning Committee, potential conditions of approval have been formulated, and comments have been provided from the two representors that made deputations at the City Planning Committee meeting of 25 November 2019 and the applicant.

The report at Attachment B to this memorandum contains the officer assessment of the proposal against the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 and recommends refusal.

Following extensions of time being granted by the applicant, the application is due to expire on 2 December 2019.

Due to the number of objections received and the recommendation of refusal, delegation to determine the application rests with full Council.

REcommendation

That pursuant to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015, the Council refuse the application for partial demolition, alterations, fencing and partial change of use to food services at 315 Elizabeth Street, North Hobart TAS 7000 for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not meet clause 9.1.1(c) of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 regarding Changes to an Existing Non-conforming Use because the existing Food Services use does not apply to the whole site.

2. The proposal does not meet clause 9.1.1(c) of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 regarding Changes to an Existing Non-conforming Use because the proposed minor development to a non-conforming use will not result in:

(a) no detrimental impact on adjoining uses; or

(b) the amenity of the locality; and

(c) no substantial intensification of the use of any land, building or work.

3. The proposal does not meet clause 9.5 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 regarding Change of Use of a Heritage Place because there is not sufficient justification that the proposed prohibited use is required to facilitate the restoration, conservation and future maintenance of the historic cultural heritage significance of the place.

As signatory to this report, I certify that, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, I hold no interest, as referred to in Section 49 of the Local Government Act 1993, in matters contained in this report.

Rohan Probert

Manager Development Appraisal

Date: 29 November 2019

File Reference: F19/154039

Attachment a: PLN-19-103 - 315 Elizabeth Street - Possible Conditions of Approval ⇩

Attachment b: Officer Report for Planning Application PLN-19-103 dated 20 November 2019 with attachments ⇩

Attachment c: PLN-19-103 - 315 Elizabeth Street - Possible Conditions of Approval with suggested amendments from the applicant ⇩

People	We value people – our community, our customers and colleagues.
Teamwork	We collaborate both within the organisation and with external stakeholders drawing on skills and expertise for the benefit of our community.
Focus and Direction	We have clear goals and plans to achieve sustainable social, environmental and economic outcomes for the Hobart community.
Creativity and Innovation	We embrace new approaches and continuously improve to achieve better outcomes for our community.
Accountability	We work to high ethical and professional standards and are accountable for delivering outcomes for our community.