Woodcroft College Inc v City of Onkaparinga No ERD-02-706 [2003] SAERDC 19 (6 May 2003)

Last Updated: 11 May 2003

Court

ENVIRONMENT RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COURT

Judgment of Commissioner Hodgson

Hearing

13/01/2003 to 14/01/2003, 21/01/2003.

Representation

Appellant: WOODCROFT COLLEGE INC
Counsel: MR S HENRY - Solicitors: HUNT & HUNT

Respondent: CITY OF ONKAPARKINGA
Counsel: MS A NICHOLLS - Solicitors: NORMAN WATERHOUSE

ERD-02-706

Judgment No. [2003] SAERDC 19

6 May 2003

WOODCROFT COLLEGE INC

v

CITY OF ONKAPARINGA

(ERDC No 706 of 2002)

[2003] SAERDC 19

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:

1. By development application dated 25 October 2001, Aspex Building Designers, on behalf of Woodcroft College Inc ("the Appellant") applied to the City of Onkaparinga ("the Council") for Provisional Development Plan Consent for the development of a sports complex and associated carparking at Lots 100, 123 and 124 Farnsworth Drive/Bains Road, Morphett Vale. That application was refused by the Council on 14 November 2002. The Appellant appealed from that decision to this Court.

The Land and Locality

2. The land presently occupied by Woodcroft College has an area of 8.344 hectares, and a frontage to Bains Road, a Distributor Road carrying some 12,000 vehicles/day. The site for the proposed complex is at the rear of the school site, and would occupy some 7,000m2 of that site and the whole of Lot 123, also owned by the school and having an area of 2,998m2, producing a total site area of around 10,000m2. The only road frontage for the site of the proposed complex is to Farnsworth Drive, designated as a Minor Collector Road north of its junction with Woodcroft Drive, a short distance north of the subject land. Farnsworth Drive, north of that junction, has a traffic volume between 1,100 and 1,500 vehicles/day. Woodcroft Drive is also classified as a Minor Collector Road, and has a daily traffic volume of around 1,300 vehicles/day. The site's frontage to Farnsworth Drive is 19.5m. That portion within the present school site contains facilities used by the College for agricultural studies, including a transportable classroom building and a vineyard. Part of the site is used informally for carparking. Lot 123 is undeveloped, being covered with a mown grass surface.

3. The Woodcroft Shopping Centre, which forms part of a Neighbourhood Centre Zone also accommodating Woodcroft College, is to the east of the school site. The primary access to the shopping centre and its associated parking areas is from Bains Road (via a right of way to the immediate east of the school site) and from Panalatinga Road, a secondary arterial road to the east of the centre. Rear access to the centre, and a small associated parking area, is obtained via the eastern leg of the roundabout at the junction of Farnsworth Drive and Woodcroft Drive.

4. Farnsworth Drive, south of Woodcroft Drive, provides access to five dwellings fronting that section of road, and rear access into the school site via a gate at the junction of the latter and the end of Farnsworth Drive. The daily traffic volume in this part of Farnsworth Drive was estimated by Ms M Mellen and Mr A Short, qualified traffic engineers who gave expert evidence in this matter, to be between 200 and 300 vehicles/day. This section of Farnsworth Drive, on the evidence of both experts, is not classified as a Minor Collector Road.

5. The Woodcroft Neighbourhood Centre contains some 5,000m2 of retail floorspace, including a supermarket, a community centre incorporating a branch library, a bus interchange, tavern and bottleshop, service station, offices and consulting rooms. The primary carparking area is situated to the southeast of the main shopping complex building. A smaller area, accessed from Farnsworth Drive, provides parking for those accessing the centre from the suburbs to the north-west, and also appears to be used for employee carparking.

6. Woodcroft College is a private school providing education from Reception - Year 13. It has a total enrolment of some 1,400 students.

The Proposal

7. The proposed development, which is intended to proceed in four stages, would entail the erection of a sporting complex on the subject land with the following components:

• four basketball courts;

• gymnasium;

• swimming pool;

• change rooms and toilets;

• kiosk;

• shop retailing sporting goods and uniforms;

• administration area;

• crèche

• boardroom; and

• clubrooms

8. The complex would be constructed with tilt-up concrete panels, with a zincalume roof hidden behind parapet walls, and with laminated glass windows framed with natural anodised aluminium. Approximately 1.0m of cut and fill would need to occur at the southern and northern ends respectively of the proposed site.

9. Directly to the north and northwest of the complex, a carparking area is to be formed, accessed from Farnsworth Drive. This would provide 146 spaces, including two spaces for persons with a disability. The carpark would be bitumen-paved and line marked in accordance with the relevant Australian standards.

10. On completion of all four stages, the complex would have a total floor area of 4,062m2.

11. The evidence of Mr M Linscott, Woodcroft College's Director of Development, was that the complex would be used primarily by students of the college, but would also be available to members of the public, primarily during weekday evenings and on weekends. School use of the complex, on his evidence, would entail:

• indoor curriculum-based sporting activities;

• whole or part school assemblies;

• drama activities;

• speech nights;

• adverse weather retreat area; and

• learn to swim.

12. Community use of the facility was expected to include:

• a health centre operated by Zest, offering health care, gymnastics, aerobics and aqua therapy;

• facilities for the Noarlunga Tigers, a basketball and netball club, which facilities would include office, storage, and clubrooms;

• netball and basketball facilities for other community clubs;

• swimming lessons;

• conference and meeting facilities for community groups;

• kindergym;

• gymnastics;

• activities for seniors, eg. carpet bowls;

• crèche; and

• state and national basketball and netball competitions.

13. Depending on the school's own requirements, access to some facilities, in particular the health centre, would be available during school hours.

Assessment

14. Mr Noack, in evidence, expressed reservations about a number of aspects of the proposal, including its architecture, the adequacy of the carparking, the absence of access, parking and manoeuvring areas for service, delivery and emergency vehicles, and a lack of detail concerning landscaping and waste management arrangements. His principal concern, however, was that the proposal, in his view, was of an inappropriate scale for a Neighbourhood Centre Zone, and would result in an unacceptable increase in traffic on that part of Farnsworth Drive south of its junction with Woodcroft Drive. Mr Noack's concerns regarding carparking and traffic were reinforced by Mr Short.

Traffic Volumes

15. The evidence of Mr Short was that the proposal would result in an increase in the traffic volume on the southern portion of Farnsworth Drive from approximately 300 to between 872 and 1,055 vehicles/day, an increase of between 191% and 252%. The impact of this increase would, in Mr Short's view, be exacerbated by the likelihood that much of the increase would occur outside normal residential peak periods, ie after 7.00pm. Mr Short was of the view that access to the complex should be obtained from Bains Road rather than Farnsworth Drive, consistent with the Structure Plan for the Woodcroft Neighbourhood Centre Zone (Fig NCe(W)/1 in the Development Plan for the City of Noarlunga dated 8 February 2001), which plan shows the primary entry to the Centre being obtained from Bains Road.

16. Ms Mellen, in evidence, observed that the Structure Plan to which Mr Short had referred showed access to parking for the Neighbourhood Centre, including the shopping centre and the college, from the junction of Woodcroft Drive and Farnsworth Drive. She estimated the traffic volumes on the southernmost section of Farnsworth Drive would increase to some 710 vehicles/ day, an increase of 255% over her estimate of present traffic volumes (200 vehicles/day). She further estimated that the evening peak hour traffic volume would be around 157 vehicles/hour. North of the junction of Farnsworth and Woodcroft Drives, she estimated the increase in traffic volumes to be 255 vehicles/day in Farnsworth (17%) and in Woodcroft, 255 vehicles/day (19%).

17. Ms Mellen was of the view that the increases in traffic volumes on the Minor Collector Roads could be readily accommodated without any significant impact on amenity or safety, the generally accepted amenity level for such roads being, on her evidence, 3,000 vehicles per day. She acknowledged that there would be a significant increase in traffic volume in the southernmost portion of Farnsworth Drive, but was of the view that that volume could also be safely accommodated in that section of Farnsworth Drive, and would be well below the generally accepted amenity level of 1,500 vehicles per day for a residential street. Accordingly, the proposal would, in her view, satisfy those provisions of the Development Plan relevant to the impact of traffic on residential amenity, in particular Council Wide Principle 46(c), which is in the following terms:

"46. Development within centre type zones should be located having regard to:

.... (c) Development should not generate significant increases in traffic in adjacent residential areas which would have a significant detrimental affect on residential amenity or public safety."

18. There is little doubt that the occupants of dwellings on the southernmost section of Farnsworth Drive will experience a substantial increase in traffic volumes should the proposal proceed. However, the same could be said for the first occupants of dwellings on a road in any new subdivision. Initially, traffic volumes will be low, but as the area develops, volumes will increase. An increase which is within the amenity and safety parameters for such a road cannot be used as a basis for rejecting further development within the locality on the basis that it represents considerably more traffic than that to which the occupants of those dwellings were accustomed.

19. The configuration of the southern end of Farnsworth Drive is unusual in the sense that it terminates on the northern edge of the college grounds, rather than joining a Distributor or Secondary Arterial Road as would normally be the case within the Metropolitan road hierarchy. In terms of its dimensions and construction, however, it is identical to that part of Farnsworth Drive north of its junction with Woodcroft Drive.

20. The Structure Plan for the Woodcroft Neighbourhood Centre Zone is a generalised representation of the desired relationship between uses within the centre. As such, it has to be read in conjunction with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and having regard to the way in which the centre has actually developed. The Structure Plan, for example, shows only one carparking area, which is to be accessed from Farnsworth Drive, notwithstanding the fact that it shows the primary entry to the centre being from Bains Road. In fact, the primary carparking area has been developed in association with the main retail/commercial area, in the south-eastern corner of the site, with the carpark accessed from Farnsworth Drive serving primarily residents of the suburbs to the north-west of the centre.

21. A number of zone provisions appear to support the provision of recreation facilities serving both the local community and the school. Objective 1 seeks "... a comprehensive range of shopping, community, office, commercial entertainment, recreational and service facilities in an integrated development." Objective 3 envisages "A centre in which after hours use is actively promoted to further enhance it as a major community focus."

22. Zone Principle 3(i), referring to community and education activities within the centre, suggests that "Facilities should be developed so that buildings can be shared for both education and community use, as far as practicable."

23. Other zone provisions refer to vehicular access to the centre being "located in accordance with the Woodcroft Centre and Environs Structure Plan" (Principle 3(m)) and suggest that "centre uses should be linked to adjacent residential areas" (Principle 3(n)).

24. It is clear, from my reading of the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, that Farnsworth Drive is envisaged as providing a secondary access to the Woodcroft Neighbourhood Centre. The termination of that road at the rear of the Woodcroft College site, which lies within the Woodcroft Neighbourhood Centre Zone, is consistent with that expectation, and the fact that an existing carparking area serving the centre is already accessed from Farnsworth Drive does not, in my view, preclude the establishment of a second parking area serving the proposed sports complex, also accessed from that road, provided the resultant increase in traffic volumes does not exceed the generally-accepted amenity level for that type of road. The generally accepted level for residential streets is, as Ms Mellen observed in evidence, 1,500 vehicles per day, a level well above that predicted for the southernmost portion of Farnsworth Drive by both Mr Short and Ms Mellen. I acknowledge that the occupants of the dwellings fronting the southernmost portion of Farnsworth Drive will experience a dramatic increase in traffic volumes by comparison with those presently experienced north of the junction of Farnsworth and Woodcroft Drives, but it has to be recognised that that is an inevitable concomitant of the progressive development of suburban areas, and does not of itself constitute a basis to reject the subject proposal, especially given that traffic volumes, in absolute terms, would remain well below generally accepted amenity levels. Similarly, the increase in traffic volumes on Woodcroft Drive and on Farnsworth Drive, north of its junction with Woodcroft Drive, would remain well below the generally accepted amenity level for Minor Collector Roads (3000 vehicles day). I am satisfied that the proposal complies with Council Wide Principle 46(c).

Carparking

25. It was common ground between Mr Short and Ms Mellen that the total number of carparking spaces to serve the proposed development (146) was adequate to accommodate the predicted parking demand. Both, however, had some reservations about the proposed layout. Ms Mellen prepared two alternative layouts for carparking which, if adopted, would overcome her concerns. One providing 147 spaces, the other 145. These alternatives were tendered in evidence as Exhibits A6 and A7 respectively. Of these, Mr Short indicated a preference for A6, although that layout did result in cars exiting the carpark in the direction of several of the dwellings on Farnsworth Drive, creating the potential for headlight glare problems at night, and provided little opportunity for screening landscaping by comparison with A7. In cross examination Ms Mellen acknowledged there was potential for further modification to A7 to address a residual safety problem and to increase the area available for landscaping.

26. Having regard to all the evidence, I am satisfied that there will be sufficient carparking to meet the demand generated by the proposal, but consider it desirable, should the proposal proceed, that the carparking layout be in the form generally reflected by Exhibit A7, inasmuch as that layout minimises the problem of headlight glare, but subject to further modification to address the minor movement conflict referred to by Ms Mellen on Page 31 of the transcript, and to increase the area available for screening landscaping.

Land Use

27. Mr Noack, in evidence, was of the view that the scale of the subject proposal was such that it was more appropriately located in a Regional or District Centre. In particular, the proposal would create tensions within the existing centre fabric, leading to the conclusion that it was overly intensive for a Neighbourhood Centre. These tensions were primarily in the nature of traffic and parking issues (which I have already addressed) but also included:

• reliance on an unauthorised right of way as a secondary access to the proposed centre;

• an inadequate relationship with existing centre uses in terms of building orientation, public spaces, pedestrian links and joint use of carparking;

• inadequate identification of the facility to other centre users;

• insufficient landscaping to screen the building and carpark; and

• no provision for service vehicle access and turning on site.

28. The evidence of Mr Bailey was that the proposal, by providing a recreational facility capable of being shared between Woodcroft College and the wider community, was consistent with the objectives for the Neighbourhood Centre Zone (Woodcroft). The Woodcroft Neighbourhood Centre did not fit the profile of a typical neighbourhood centre. Metropolitan Objective 16, which incorporates a list of facilities indicative of those appropriate to a fully-developed Neighbourhood Centre, does not include a secondary school, general offices, consulting rooms, or taverns, all of which are listed as appropriate in both Regional and District Centres. Further reinforcement of the view that the Woodcroft Centre was intended to be substantially larger than a typical Neighbourhood Centre is found in Zone Principle 3(e), which establishes a maximum gross leasable retail floor area for the centre of 5000m2, whereas that for other Neighbourhood Centre Zones within the area of the Council ranges from 1200m2 to 3000m2. Inasmuch as the Woodcroft Centre incorporated uses and was of a size which positioned it somewhere between a Neighbourhood Centre and a District Centre in the centres hierarchy, the proposal was, in Mr Bailey's view, an acceptable use and of an appropriate scale.

29. I agree with Mr Bailey's view that the Woodcroft Neighbourhood Centre is, in terms of its range of facilities and scale, located higher in the retail hierarchy than the Neighbourhood Centres envisaged by the Metropolitan Wide provisions of the Development Plan. Within the area of the Council, there is a Regional Centre (the Noarlunga Regional Centre) and three District Centres, two of which, Sherriffs Road and Seaford, lie on the western side of Main South Road, while the only District Centre east of Main South Road is the Aberfoyle Hub, at the northern end of the Council area. The facilities anticipated for the Woodcroft Centre, which include a substantially larger area of retail floorspace than other Neighbourhood Centres, a secondary school, library, and further education facility, all suggest that the centre was intended to accommodate at least some District Centre-type uses. An indoor recreation centre is listed as an appropriate District Centre facility. Inasmuch as the proposed facility is intended to serve primarily the needs of another District Centre-type facility, namely a secondary school, it seems to me to be sensible, in land use terms, to locate it where it is capable of serving both the school and the wider Morphett Vale community. On the evidence, the site proposed by Woodcroft College is the only possibility remaining within the Woodcroft Neighbourhood Centre to achieve this. I have concluded that, in land use terms, the proposal is an appropriate activity within the centre, and in the location proposed.

Scale and Appearance

30. Is the proposal, nonetheless, unacceptable as a consequence of its scale and appearance? The scale of the proposal has a number of planning consequences or externalities which must be taken into consideration in deciding its acceptability against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. The most significant of these are:

• traffic

• parking demand

• noise

• appearance

31. I have already concluded that traffic generated by the proposal will not take the levels experienced on nearby roads beyond the amenity thresholds generally accepted for those classes of road, and that, subject to minor redesign of the parking area proposed, carparking provision will be sufficient to accommodate predicted demand.

32. No evidence was put before me which would support the contention that the proposal will generate unacceptable levels of noise, albeit that Mr Noack asserted that the potential existed for such noise. The noise provisions of the Environment Protection Act 1993 are available to be invoked should noise become an issue, but in the absence of any expert evidence on noise associated with the proposal, I can only conclude that noise is not expected to be a major concern.

33. Mr Noack was critical of the relatively bland appearance and imposing mass of the proposed complex, and its failure to relate to other buildings within the zone. In my observation, the building is typical of other indoor sports centres, and, being primarily a school facility, is properly oriented into the school grounds, perhaps taking its cue from the major shopping centre building, which turns its back on the school, being oriented in a generally east to south-east direction. While I accept that it may be possible to design a more attractive building, the test I have to apply is whether it is acceptable as proposed. Having regard to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and to the existing built form context, I am satisfied that it is.

Other Issues

34. With evening use of the complex, there is likely to be some form of lighting in the carpark, and it will be necessary to ensure that this is positioned in such a manner as to prevent light spill onto nearby residential properties. The complex itself is to be sited some 150m from the nearest residence, and accordingly, there is little likelihood of lighting on or about the building being a source of light spill.

35. Mr Noack also drew my attention to the absence of detail concerning parking and turnaround areas for buses, service and emergency vehicles, bicycle parking, waste storage and removal, required pedestrian links to other parts of the zone, and landscaping. These matters could be addressed either by conditions or by amendments to the proposal plans.

Conclusion

36. Having regard to all the above, I have concluded that, subject to satisfactory resolution of the issues of detail referred to above, and to the parking layout, the proposed development is sufficiently in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan to warrant Provisional Development Plan Consent.

37. By memorandum dated 20 February 2003 I advised the parties of my conclusion above, and invited the appellant to amend the proposal plan accordingly, and the parties to confer on conditions of consent.

38. On the resumption of proceedings a revised carparking layout and landscaping plan were tendered by the appellant, and these were designated Exhibit A9 and A10 respectively.

39. While the parties were able to agree some conditions, others remained in dispute, and each made submissions to the Court as to the appropriate form the disputed conditions should take. I have taken those submissions into account in framing the conditions attaching to the consent issued by the Court.

40. The order of the Court is that the decision of the Council on Development Application 145/3488/2001/2B is set aside and Provisional Development Plan Consent granted, subject to the following conditions:

1. All development shall be completed in accordance with the plans and documents comprising Exhibits A2, A3, A9 & A10 in these proceedings, except where varied by the following conditions.

2. A detailed landscaping and lighting plan for the subject land shall be prepared to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council prior to final Development Approval. The plan shall include details of species and location of planting on the entire development site, paying particular attention to providing adequate screening along the western and northern boundaries of the proposed carpark to minimise headlight overspill onto adjoining residential properties. The plan shall also include details of the proposed location and type of all lighting fixtures, which shall be designed so as to provide adequate illumination on site to the perimeters of the site for security purposes, while limiting overspill of light onto adjacent roads and residential areas. The plan shall address the requirements of the Crime Prevention Strategy for the City of Onkaparinga and lighting shall comply with AS 1158.1 Public Lighting Code.

3. All landscaping provided in accordance with Condition 2 shall be established within 3 months of the occupation of the premises.

4. A minimum of 15 of the trees which are to form a screen between the carpark and dwellings fronting Farnsworth Drive, shall be at least 1.5 metres in height at the time of planting.

5. All plants provided in accordance with Condition 2 shall be maintained in good conditions at all times. Any diseased or dying plants shall be removed and replaced immediately upon removal.

6. Effective measures shall be implemented during the construction of the development and on-going use of the land in accordance with this consent to:

• prevent silt run-off from the land to adjoining properties, roads and drains;

• control dust arising from the construction and other activities, so as not to be a nuisance to residents or occupiers of adjacent land;

• ensure that soil or mud is not transferred onto the adjacent roadways by vehicles leaving the site;

• ensure that all litter and building waste is contained on the subject site in a suitable bin or enclosure; and

• ensure that no sound is emitted from any device, plant or equipment or from any source or activity to become an unreasonable nuisance to the occupiers of adjacent land.

7. With the exception of the gymnasium, the sports complex and associated facilities shall be used only between the hours of 8.00am and 11.00am Monday to Saturday and 1.00pm to 7.00pm Sunday and Public Holidays. The gymnasium shall be used only between the hours 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Saturday and 11.00am to 5.00pm Sunday. The carparking area shall not be open for vehicular access outside these times and shall be closed within 30 minutes of the designated closing time for the sports complex so as to prevent vehicular access and egress.

8. The individual carparking spaces in the area on the site plan designated as "new carpark" shall have a depth of 5400mm unless a clear overhang at the front end of the space of 600mm which does not intrude onto a footpath or planted area is provided, in which case the depth may be 4800mm. The carparking spaces adjacent to the existing footpath along the northern boundary of the subject land shall have a depth of 5400mm.

9. Not less than 145 individually accessible carparking spaces shall be provided in the carpark on the site.

10. The driveway and carparking areas shall be paved or surfaced, drained and marked to accepted engineering standards prior to the occupation of the development and shall be maintained in good condition at all times.

11. The area set aside for the parking of vehicles shall be made available for such use and shall not be used for any other purpose.

12. Not less than two (2) carparking spaces shall be designated for use by persons with a disability and such spaces shall be located conveniently to the main access doors the building.

13. A boom gate, or similar, shall be provided at the entrance/exit to the carpark at Farnsworth Drive and such gate shall be and remain closed and locked in accordance with the times specified in Condition 7.

14. Appropriate priority control shall be provided at intersections within the carpark.

15. The loading and unloading of all commercial, waste disposal and general delivery vehicles associated with the development shall, at all times, be restricted to the land occupied by Woodcroft College.

16. Vehicles specified in Condition 15 shall only enter and exit the subject land and service the development between the hours of 7.30am and 7.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive.

17. Carparks and any traffic control devices shall be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890 - Part 1 - 1993 Off-Street Carparking, AS 1742 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the Notice to Council (Part 1 and 2) under the Road Traffic Act 1961 from the Minister for Transport.

18. Prior to Development Approval a detailed design plan shall be provided showing the linking of footpaths on the site plan with existing paths on adjoining land including the shopping centre, Farnsworth Drive and to the Woodcroft College carpark which fronts onto Bains Road.

19. An oil, silt and trash trap shall be installed on the internal stormwater pipe drainage from the roads and carpark areas prior to the entering of the Council stormwater drainage system. This trap shall be regularly cleaned and maintained in good working order by the property owner for the life of the development.

20. Any development on the site shall ensure that it is protected from inundation from a 100 year average recurrence interval storm.

21. Each sealed stormwater drainage system shall be designed to accommodate a 10 year average recurrence interval storm as a minimum.

22. All stormwater drainage shall discharge so that it does not flow or discharge onto land of adjoining owners or in the opinion of Council detrimentally affect structures on this site or any adjoining land.

23. In order to achieve the requirements of Condition 6, a Soil Erosion and Drainage Management Plan (SEDMP) prepared in accordance with the "Stormwater Pollution Prevention Code of Practice for the Building and Construction Industry", issued by the EPA shall be prepared and put in place prior to the commencement of any site works and shall include but not be restricted to a temporary construction exit and silt fences. The measures are to prevent silt from being washed from the site to the road and mud from being transported onto the road on the wheels of vehicles. These silt control measures shall be maintained in good working order during construction.

24. All goods, refuse and packaging materials generated by the development and/or use of the College site shall be stored in suitable receptacles within the premises or suitable secure receptacles located within areas set aside exclusively for outdoor storage on the subject site.

25. Any waste storage areas and/or receptacles external to the building shall be screened to ensure that the area and/or receptacles are not visible.

26. The eastern and northern external walls of the building shall be treated with suitable anti-graffiti coating to facilitate easy removal of graffiti.

27. Graffiti shall be removed from any structure on the site at the cost of the applicant or owner within 2 business days of the graffiti being placed on the structure.

28. No transformers, air conditioning plant, mechanical plant or similar shall be installed external to or attached externally to the building without a further Development Approval.

29. No alcoholic beverages shall be sold on the premises without further Development Approval.

NOTES:

1. The sounds attributable to the proposed activities should not result in a noise level in excess of 5 dB(A) below the relevant maximum levels prescribed in the Environment Protection (Industrial Noise) Policy, when measured in accordance with that policy.

2. Traffic control devices to be installed in the carpark for the purpose of controlling the speed of vehicles should meet the Code of Technical Requirements for the legal use of Traffic Control Devices (1999) and will require the approval of Transport SA.

3. In addition to the provisions of the Building Code of Australia relating to access for people with disabilities, you must comply with the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act, 1992. Compliance with the Act is the responsibility of the property owner.

4. To legally install traffic control devices, including carparks and signs, a Traffic Control Plan and a Traffic Impact Statement must be prepared by a recognised Traffic Engineering Practitioner for approval by Council. Any traffic control devices listed in Clause A7 for the Minister's Notice 2001 which have been approved must be certified by a Chartered Professional Engineer after installation. This certification must be forwarded to Council in writing.

5. You are further advised that Provisional Buildings Rules Consent is required for the application pursuant to the Development Act 1993.

6. The provisions of the Food Act, and Food Hygiene Regulations 1990 apply. You are advised that plans and specifications of the food preparation and associated areas/facilities should be submitted to Council's Food Safety Section for comment prior to commencement of construction.

7. No encroachment into any Council land shall be permitted without prior written approval from Council. Separate approval is required from Council under the Local Government Act 1999 for any works on any adjacent road reserve or reserve and includes relocation of a street light, construction of a vehicle crossover and installation of stormwater drains.

8. Any site works commenced prior to the formal approval of all engineering details by Council shall be at the applicant's own risk. However, no works shall commence prior to silt control measures being placed.

9. The applicant is advised that no legal or formal access exists to the subject land from adjoining land in SP 13063 being adjacent to the eastern boundary of the school site. Any intended on-going access, including access for construction vehicles, must be formalised via appropriate legal arrangements with the owner of that land and with holders of easements and rights of way over the land.

10. Any advertising or directional signs not included in this authorization will require separate approval from Council.

11. The approval of the owner of adjoining land will be required in order to install a stormwater pipe across that land.