Summary of General Submissions - SLEP - NSW Government

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS: 

General submission summaries 

Introduction 

‘General’ submissions are considered to be those submissions that are not from a group such as a community 

group, are not a rezoning request, are not from a Government Agency and are not a form letter or petition. 

These other types are submissions are summarised in separate tables. 

Where a person has made multiple submissions, theses submissions have been grouped together and only 

one number assigned per person. These numbers correspond to folders containing copies of all the 

submissions which will be made available to all Councillors prior to the series of Council meetings being held 

to consider the outcomes of the exhibition. 

Please note submissions have been summarised as best as possible given the number of submissions and 

the resources available. Please keep enquiries on these summaries to a minimum to allow staff to continue to 

prepare the reports to be considered at the Council meetings. 

Summaries 

Number Summary 

1 Supports the draft LEP in respect to the uses of industrial land and in particular, the retention of 

bulky goods retail and ancillary retail. 

Believes that any change to cut out any form of retailing in industrial zones will have a serious 

negative effect on their industrial business. 

2 Object to Pointer road being R5 zone - increased traffic, narrow dangerous, threat to rural 

lifestyle leave Pointer Rd as agricultural land. 

3 requesting zoning of Yerriyong (main rd 92 adjacent Albatross Naval Base) allow for wide scope 

including food and beverage, accommodation, driving training, motorsport, 

4 Supports the LEP, important step forward for the area. Supports the rezoning of Jaspers Brush 

airfield to allow it to be developed. 

5 Likes: effort by SCC to consult with community via meetings and drop in sessions. 

Concerns: 

1. HOB should not exceed 8.5 metres throughout the Shoalhaven. 

2. All Shoalhaven rate payers should be notified of their new zonings. 

6 Requests that all of Berringer Lake be zoned W1 – the land is bounded by national park and 

environmentally protected land with minimal development. Any further development could create 

adverse pressure. 

1. Caravan parks have been included as a permissible use on rural land zoned RU2. The State 

template does NOT include caravan parks and other nearby government areas such as Kiama, 

Eurobodalla and Bega do not allow caravan parks. I would urge that caravan parks be deleted 

as a permissible use from RU2 land. 

2. Maintaining the existing 2 storey building height restriction for the whole district is of major 

concern. Council has included an 11 metre (4 storeys) building height into the Draft SLEP. A 

guarantee that height plans for every village are protected and secured at the current 2 storey 

height is sought. As I understand the Department of Planning considers an R1 zoning (general 

1

DRAFT SLEP 2009 – SUMMARIES OF GENERAL SUBMISSIONS 


residential) should apply to North Bendalong, I would support the current Council’s Draft 

recommendation to zone North Bendalong R2 in line with its neighbouring villages. 

3. The Crown land on the eastern side of Inyadda Drive and the southern side of Bendalong 

Road is zoned Rural Landscape RU2 which permits many uses including caravan parks. The 

area has already been mapped as having high biodiversity and scenic values as well as serving 

as a major east-west habitat corridor from the coast to Conjola National Park. I would urge that 

this area be protected and further development limited with an E2 zoning – Environmental 

Conservation. 

4. The planned shops at Manyana have been zoned B2 (Local Centre). This provides for a 

range of uses that would service a much wider catchment than a B1 – Neighbourhood Centre. 

B1 zoning is more appropriate. 

Disapprove of Manyana Shop development, all facilities from retail, medical, small business and 

entertainment are only a short distance away at Milton and Ulladulla. 

7 Supports 'air transport facilities' at Jaspers Brush, there are not many of these facilities and they 

bring visitors and revenue. 

8 Administrative transfer has limited public input to the preparation of the draft LEP. 

Concerned that 1(c) land has been zoned R5 because of loss of protection from further 

subdivision - recommends Council adopt zones RU4 and E4 and zone 1(c) land either RU4 or E4 

depending on their current land use, minimum lot sizes and proximity to land of high conservation 

value. 

Concerned with development of flood prone land in RU1 and RU2 zones - recommends Council 

add a new subclause 7.8(5) "for the avoidance of doubt the following land uses are prohibited in 

flood prone land: tourist and visitor accommodation, caravan parks, air transport facilities, cellar 

doors, crematoria, mining, offensive industries and veterinary hospitals". 

Concerned with caravan parks and mobile homes in RU2 zoning - recommends Council remove 

caravan park as a use permissible in RU2 zone. 

Concerned with lot sizes in Huntingdale Park (DCP 70). Lot 6 DP 1115338 is designated min lot 

size 2000 m² in DCP 70 however it mapped 500 m² lot sizes in draft LEP. 

RU4 to be used in rural areas to avoid the alienation of small rural holdings suitable for 

agriculture and generating employment opportunities. 

Recommend R1 objective "To identify land suitable for future urban expansion" be deleted - as 

this could pre-empt consideration of the rezoning process when land is to be released. 

Recommend B4 objectives that restrict competition should be removed. 

Special Use zones - any reclassification of SP zones should be re-exhibited. 

E4 zones should be used where dwelling are permitted in environmentally sensitive areas. 

The compression of zones has resulted in additional land uses being permitted or appear to be 

inappropriate with the objectives of the specific zone - Recommends a number of changes to 

permitted uses in zones.R1 General Residential - 

The following should be deleted- 

• Boat repair facilities (noisy business activity, not compatible) 

• Helipads (noisy activity, not compatible) 

• Home industries (light industry not compatible) 

• Registered clubs (not compatible due to noise and traffic, use R3) 

• Tourist and visitor accommodation (not compatible due to noise and traffic, use SP3 or R3) 

• Veterinary hospital (not compatible due to noise, use R3 or B zones). 

R2 Low Density Residential – 

The following should be deleted- 

• Dual occupancy (prohibited in zones 2(a2) and 2(a3) in LEP1985 (not compatible with R2 ”Low 

Density” residential) 

• Emergency service facilities (not compatible due to noise and traffic). 

2


Number 

Summary 

B1 to B7 Business – 

The following should be deleted. Any developments not specified in 2 or 4 and list all permitted 

uses (for clarity). 

Concerned that E1, E2 and E3 zones do not comply with requirements of the South Coast 

Regional Conservation Plan prepared by DECC as they do not identify possible indicative or 

verified regional corridors. 

Concerned that environmental corridors that cross open paddocks are not mapped as they are 

usually zoned Rural. 

Permitted rural land uses have the potential to block flora and fauna corridors. 

Recommends Council insert in Section 1.2 the aim "protect and enhance environmental and 

riparian corridors" and map on the NRB layer, environmental corridors across open and forested 

land. 

Recommends Council insert a Biodiversity Clause to reject DAs affected by any NRB overlay. 

Biodiversity clauses are extremely pro development with an unacceptable level of environmental 

protection. 

DP&I amended Biodiversity clauses in recent SI are even more pro development. 

Recommends Council view different clauses that have been adapted from SI and provide 

stronger protection. 

Concerned that Clause 7.5.4 assumes consent would be granted, should read "before granting 

or refusing consent." 

Biodiversity clause is restrictive and does not provide qualitative indicators for judgement on an 

applications capacity to maintain biodiversity - there is no requirement for consideration of 

alternatives and amelioration. 

Recommends the deletion of a number of uses in the E2 zone - significant threats to 

conservation values. 

Recommends that 3(h) and 4(e) not mapped into E3. Because 3(h) and 4(e) are included in the 

E3 it consequently permits too many land uses. 

Height of Buildings Recommendations: 

- Clause 4.3 - delete clause 4.3 (2) and insert new clause "the height of any building on any land 

is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map" 

- Map all land in the Shoalhaven on the HOB maps and set heights in accordance with current 

DCPs and if no DCPs apply, map the height in accordance with the current practice. 

HOB from LEP 1985 to draft LEP has increased - clause 33 in LEP 1985. Concerned that height 

in draft LEP will mean 3 or 4 storeys and does not reflect administrative changeover. 

Heights set in DCP are more difficult to control heights set in the LEP. 

9 Objects to proposed LEP changes which would allow increased use of the airstrip at Jaspers 

Brush. 

3



Believes that it would be a negative for tourism. 

10 Congratulates Council on past and present realistic and practical zoning for industrial areas. 

Trusts that Council will not be persuaded to stop any form of retailing in existing industrial areas 

11 Issues 1. Clause 4.3 of the Draft SLEP2009 … increased max building increased to 11m. 

Recommendations 1. 

- Remove the “optional” statement from Clause 4.3 … 11 metres except where. 

- Map all zones (HOB and FSR) in Huskisson and the Shoalhaven to reflect existing maximum 

heights and FSR whether they are set by site specific DCP or generic DCP or convention / 

precedence for Huskisson or other of the coastal and rural villages. 

- There should be no heights mapped above 8.5 meters, except for those already mapped for 

Huskisson, Ulladulla and the Civic Precinct of Nowra, until Council has explicitly defined its 

“strategic centres” and engaged the community to include their aspirations and concerns in any 

final decision. 

Objects that Council have increased the maximum height of buildings across the Shoalhaven 

through the inclusion of "11m except where" into Clause 4.3 of the draft SLEP 2009. 

Under SLEP1985, Council does have the right to give consent for construction up to 11 m, this 

currently requires a decision at a full meeting of Council. A DA requiring building height greater 

than 2 Stories will need to be submitted, initially to the Development Committee at which time the 

community have the opportunity to scrutinise and make submissions. 

Recommends the removal of "and desired future character of a" from the objectives for both 

Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) and Clause 4.4 (Floor Space Ratio). 

Believes that Clause 4.3 (a) can only be interpreted as a warning that there is an unstated plan 

for dramatic changes in certain parts of the Shoalhaven. Once the Draft SLEP 2009 has been 

approved such statements if they persist will provide Council a legal right to make changes 

irrespective of community outcry. 

It is clear that the previous Council over stepped the “ground rules” that were the basis for an 

Administrative Change Over. My hope is that the current elected Councillors will not persist with 

the cynical ploy to isolate the community while making indelible changes to the future of the 

Shoalhaven without due process and substantive Community Engagement. 

Recommendation: 

- That Council persist with its “intention” to Map R2 and RU5 zones and also height limits in site 

specific DCP’s 

- That Council amend this motion, in conjunction with the removal of the “optional” statement 

from Clause 4.3 … 11 metres except where … and map all zones (HOB and FSR) in Huskisson 

and the Shoalhaven to reflect existing maximum heights and FSR whether they are set by site 

specific DCP or generic DCP or convention / precedence for Huskisson or other of the coastal 

and rural villages. 

- There should be no heights mapped above 8.5 meters, except for those already mapped for 

4


Number 


Huskisson, Ulladulla and the Civic Precinct of Nowra, until Council has explicitly defined its 

“strategic centres” and engaged the community to include their aspirations and concerns in any 

final decision. 

Concerned that Council's intention to map R2 and RU5 zones as well as site specific DCPs will 

mean that this leaves many areas unmapped including R1 General Residential which includes 

single dwellings and medium density, R3 Medium Density Residential, R5 large lot residential, all 

Business zones, Rural zones, Public Recreation areas and Environmental zones, all of which 

can have developments to 11metres. 

Believes this limited mapping will result in ad hoc changes to the character of many streets and 

areas of the Shoalhaven and lead to uncertainty for landowners and developers. 

The DP&I has suggested the three dimensional diagrams can be used in DCPs to control height. 

However, neither Council nor DP&I have been able to demonstrate how this can be done. The 

DP&I also suggest the use of storeys to control height, but this would also require specifying 

ceiling heights etc. and would severely restrict architectural design. 

Shoalhaven’s DCPs are “performance based” and allow for “acceptable solutions”. On many 

occasions Council staff has indicated that DCPs should only be treated as a guide to allow for 

flexibility. Whilst this may be satisfactory for minor design matters, height is so crucial to fabric 

and character of an area that it cannot be left to chance. 

Believes that 1(g) zoned land at the end of Currambene St should be E2 instead of B4 as per 

equivalent flood prone land 200 metres to the north as approved by Crown Lands. 

- The general area zoned B4 along Berry Street adjacent to the Murdoch Street – DCP99 

development area is not suitable for development due to the incidence of endangered flora and 

fauna and the potential of flooding and high risk of bush fires. It is unreasonable and deceptive 

that this Crown land be proposed as suitable for mixed development. 

Objection to 1(g) land - Flood prone land located at the 'extension' to Currambene St has been 

put into B4 mixed development rather than E2 Environmental Conservation. 

Consequence of this: 

- Inclusion of flood prone land in B4 (mixed development) zone is very misleading to a developer 

as the land will impose extreme cost penalties. 

- Similar land 200 metres to the north has been zoned E2 as part of a Crown lands assessment, 

this land at the southern end of Currambene street should also be zoned E2. 

The lots, zoned 6(c) along Berry Street are a buffer separating the 2(a1) = R2 low density 

residential zone from high risk bush fire prone land. 

Objection to the 6(c) recreational land: 

There is correspondence with the Council Senior Planner responsible for the Draft SLEP2009 

acknowledging that the zoning of the two lots into the B4 zone was incorrect – Berry Street 

Zone Change Template clearly and succinctly states that the equivalent for the existing 6(c) zone 

is RE1 (public recreation). Please have the error corrected. It is totally unreasonable to remove 

public recreation land in favour of high rise developments . Currently the land, zoned 6(c), is 

Crown land. 

Concerned with inappropriate increase in land use in the R2 low density residential zone. 

5


Number 


Land use for most zones has been broadened to the point of totally obscuring the DP&I 

Objectives for the zone. 

This can only be interpreted as a desperate means to gain maximum flexibility to react to any 

opportunistic development proposal due to the total lack of vision for the future of the Shoalhaven 

or a vision that would be totally contrary to the community’s aspirations. The solution is simple 

and relies on Community Engagement as a means of planning for the future. 

It is essential for the future development of the Shoalhaven and retention of this natural asset is 

not lost through desperate decisions to develop at any cost. 

It is not reasonable to use the premise that a previous “spot zoning” somewhere in the 

Shoalhaven has approved a specific land use … as a justification for the same land use to be 

included in the new zone and applied to the whole Shoalhaven. 


1. Recognising that the new zones are a compilation of a number of existing zones, that in all 

new zones, the land uses inserted by Shoalhaven City Council be removed from the particular 

zone if they were: 

- previously prohibited, or 

- not previously stated as a permitted land use in one of the existing zones. 

2. That Council be instructed to carry out Community Engagement to collaborate with the 

community in determining the most appropriate land uses for each zone. 

Believes the following land use categories in the 2(a1) + 2(a4) zones are contrary to the 

objectives set by DP&I: 

iv. Exhibition homes and Exhibition Villages (not previously a permitted use) 

v. Home industry and Home industries (not previously a permitted use) 

vi. Boat repair facilities, boat launching ramps, boat sheds, jetties (not previously a permitted 

use) 

vii. SEWERAGE SYSTEMS (not previously a permitted use) 

viii. Emergency service facilities (not previously a permitted use) 

ix. Building identification signs, Business identification signs (not previously a permitted use). 

In general the number of permissible land uses has increased quite significantly, those listed 

above are inappropriate in an Administrative Changeover on the basis that they were (not 

previously a stated permitted use). As well they will significantly reduce the residential amenity 

sought by families. 

Concerned with inappropriate increase in land use in the R3 medium density residential zone. 

Recommendation; 

6


Number 



new zones, the land uses inserted by Shoalhaven City Council be removed from the particular 

zone if they were: 



2. Remove all land uses that are not subservient to a family life style in a medium density 

residential area located in a small rural or coastal environment. 

It is not reasonable to use the premise that a previous “spot zoning” somewhere in the 

Shoalhaven has approved a specific land use as a justification for the same land use to be 


There is little land zoned R3 in the Shoalhaven. 

The combined impact of any change in land use plus an increase of max height from 8.5m to 

11m in this zone will have the greatest detrimental impact on small rural and coastal villages 

adversely impacting tourism through over-development. This is especially the situation for 

Huskisson. 

The following Land Use categories in the R3 zone have been added to existing permitted uses 

and are contrary to the Objectives as set by DP&I: 

- Dual Occupancies (not previously a permitted use) 

- Hostels & Residential Flat buildings (not previously a permitted use) 

- Shop Top Housing … (not previously a permitted use) …. Neighbourhood Shops are a 

mandated use, however Shop Top housing creates a gross impost on the surrounding area 

- TOURIST & Visitor Accommodation. (previously a prohibited land use) 

- Home industry and Home industries (not previously a permitted use) 

- SEWERAGE SYSTEMS (not previously a permitted use) 

- Registered Clubs (not previously a permitted use) a source of noise inappropriate to a 

residential area 

- Veterinary hospitals (not previously a permitted use), a source of noise inappropriate to a 

residential area 

- Water Supply Systems (not previously a permitted use) 

- Boat Repair facilities, boat launching ramps, boat sheds, jetties (not previously a permitted use) 

- Building & Business Identification signs (not previously a permitted use) 

The imposition of Hostels, Residential Flat buildings, Shop Top Housing, Tourist & Visitor 

7


Number 


Accommodation, Sewerage systems, Registered Clubs, Veterinary Hospitals, Water Supply 

systems, Boat Repair facilities, boat launching ramps, boat sheds, jetties are totally anathema to 

a medium density residential zone in a small rural or coastal community 

Concerned with loss of neighbourhood shops at Vincentia. 


- The Vincentia Village shops are a vital community resource and no rezoning to B4 should be 

considered until a detailed Town Plan has been prepared for Vincentia and discussed with all 

landowners and the community. 

- It follows that on a “best fit” basis, the existing 3(c) neighbourhood zone should be translated 

into B1 Neighbourhood Centre 

- It seems incongruous that in a time of encouraged “energy efficiency” that the populations of 

Woollamia, Huskisson, Hyams Beach, Erowal Bay and Vincentia will be forced to drive up to 

12km simply to reach a retail centre that previously was available in Vincentia … and for whose 

benefit, not for any of these communities. 

Concerned that “best fit” is not the case with existing Vincentia (Burton Street) shops and the 

surrounding land which has all been rezoned B4 Business Mixed Use. 

If it had been a best fit, The 3(c) Business, Neighbourhood would have been rezoned B1 

Neighbourhood Centre not B4 Business Mixed 

Use and the 2(c) Residential Living Area rezoned to R1 General Residential not B4 Business 

Mixed Use. 

Apparently the request for this rezoning came from the largest business landowner on the block. 

There are 3 other owners of land zoned 3(c) and there are 23 blocks of land zoned 2(c). We are 

not aware that any of the other landowners were consulted and certainly the community were not 

consulted about this rezoning. 

The shopping centre in Vincentia should have been zoned B1, Neighbourhood Shops, instead 

the area has been zoned B4 significantly benefiting the major landowner. 

- This is but one of a number of re-zonings that the previous Council has included in the Draft 

SLEP2009. In including a number of one-off re-zonings, Councillors have precluded community 

scrutiny and “given direction” to provide significant benefit to individuals. 

Height of Buildings in the B1 and B2 zones should be restricted to 8.5 meters until SCC has 

submitted any proposed change for Community Engagement to ascertain the real impact of their 

proposal 

It is also unreasonable to penalise the shop keepers, effectively forcing them out of business 

through the inclusion of the Objective “To ensure that retail uses do not compete with the 

commercial core” as required under B4, especially as the beneficiary has chosen to sell the rezoned 

shopping centre land. 

2(c) residential area adjacent to the Vincentia Neighbourhood Shops should be translated into 

R2 low density residential in line with the development that has already taken place. 

Concerned with inappropriate increase in land use in the RU2 rural zone. 

Recommendation; 

8


Number 


1. Recognising that the new zones, RU2 is a direct replacement for the existing 1(d) zone, that 

the land uses inserted by Shoalhaven City Council be removed from the particular zone if they 

were: 



That Council be instructed to carry out Community Engagement to collaborate with the 


It is not reasonable to use the premise … that a previous “spot zoning” somewhere in the 


included in the new zone and applied to the whole Shoalhaven 

Remove Caravan Parks as a land use in the RU2 zone. 

- This is unacceptable in many rural landscape areas and should be withdrawn until the 

completion of the review of SEP21 (State Environmental Planning Policy-Caravan Parks) and 

SEP36 (State Environmental Planning Policy-Manufactured Homes Estates) is completed by the 

NSW Government. Kiama has not included Caravan Parks in RU2 in their LEP. 

Remove AIR TRANSPORT FACILITIES, especially as they will adversely affect residential 

amenity and the small coastal village character of Huskisson and other coastal and rural villages. 

Believes the following Land Use categories have been added to existing permitted uses and are 

inconsistent with the Objectives as set by DP&I: 

i. previously a prohibited land use 

i. Group Homes 

ii. Offensive Industries 

iii. Hazardous Industries … 1(d) prohibits Industries 

iv. Extractive Industries 

c. not previously a stated permitted use 

i. Hazardous Industries 

ii. Boat Repair facilities, boat launching ramps, boat sheds, jetties, marinas, moorings 

iii. AIR TRANSPORT FACILITIES 

iv. Tourist & Visitor Accommodation … including caravan parks 

v. Entertainment facilities, Markets, 

vi. Food and Drink Premises 

One consequence of the compression of allowable zonings and expansion of permitted land 

uses in specific zones is that Caravan parks (and mobile homes) are allowed in areas zoned 

as RU2 Rural Landscape. This land use is unacceptable in many rural landscape areas and 

9



should be withdrawn until the completion of the review of SEP21 (State Environmental Planning 

Policy-Caravan Parks) and SEP36 (State Environmental Planning Policy-Manufactured Homes 

Estates) is completed by the NSW Government. Kiama has not included Caravan Parks in RU2 

in their LEP. 

12 61 Crams Road North 

Likes that cleared land is zoned for residential 

Concerned with rezoning lf land around Crams Rd North Nowra, has E2 land which has tighter 

controls and can do less. Concerned about impact of traffic on Crams Rd. 

Would like to be able to subdivide some 600m2 blocks from the font of property 

13 Likes E2 zoning over part of the Lake Wollumboola catchment. 

Concerned with the political nature of some of the decisions surrounding environmental issues. 

Need to extend the E2 zone on all of Lake Wollumboola Catchment. 

14 Concerned that not all the recommendations in the South Coast Regional Strategy have been 

implemented, particularly for Culburra Beach area. 

Environment Zone Recommendations 

E2 Environment Conversation “Environment Protection Works” and “Environment Facilities” be 

the only uses which should be permitted. Other proposed uses, e.g. “dwelling houses” are not 

consistent with the objective of obtaining national park-equivalent values and not consistent with 

SCRS and ESD principals. Existing dwelling houses are permitted. E2 zones in Bega, 

Eurobodalla and Kiama LEPs do not permit new dwellings. We should follow suit. 

“E 2 zoning should apply to the south east part of the Lake Wollumboola catchment and the 

Kinghorn Point area.” 

“The northern shore of Lake Wollumboola should be zoned E 2 zoning including SEPP 14 

Wetland No 365 as well as the foreshore reserve and Lot 1 East Crescent, to protect the Lake 

shore, the Endangered Ecological Communities and Threatened species habitat.” 

“High Conservation value parts of the lower Crookhaven River catchment should be protected 

through E 2 Environment Conservation zoning, with “limited” residential zoning, such as an E 4 

Environmental Living zone located in cleared and disturbed areas only.” 

“Private land in the Lake catchment outside the existing developed area of Culburra Beach- 

Orient Point should be zoned “E 2 Environment Conservation” including the Long Bow Point area 

south of Culburra Rd, areas north of Culburra Rd as well as areas west and south east of the 

Lake. 

North Bendalong and Bendalong Crown Land to west should be rezoned E1 because of 

contiguous relationship with Conjola National Park. 

One Tree Bay, St George Basin should have E2 zoning. 

Heritage Estates should be rezoned to E2 consistent with verified values and Australian 

Government Environment Minister’s decision not to allow rezoning for residential development. 

RU2 zoning is not ecologically sustainable. 

Kinghorn Point-Warrain Beach-Lake Wollumboola catchment should be zoned E2. This HCV 

area is identified under the Department of Planning Coastal Lands Protection Scheme as 

“protection essential”. 

E2 zoning for Lake Wollumboola catchment outside existing developed areas of Culburra Beach 

and Jervis Bay National Park, SCRS zoning is E1, but as there is no agreement to acquire this 

land, an E2 zoning should be made. 

10


Number 


All Crown Lands should have E 1 and 2 zoning on sites identified in the South Coast Regional 

Conservation Plan Map 17. 

“Limited” R 2 zoning as well as E zoning, subject to further studies, not R 1 residential for much 

of the lower Crookhaven River Catchment. 

Coastal Zone Protection (5.5) and Jervis Bay Regional Environment Plan (7.15) clauses must be 

retained. 

Tree Preservation Clause. Clause 5.9 

The existing SCC Tree Preservation Order Clause 5.9 should apply to all zones in the SLEP. The 

Native Vegetation Act applies to rural zoned land. The clause (5.9) should apply to all zones in 

the SLEP, existing SCC Tree preservation Order. Native Vegetation Act applies to rural zoned 

land. 

Biodiversity (7.5) and Water (7.6). These clauses apply to development applications in areas 

mapped as Natural Resource Sensitivity Biodiversity Areas. They assume developments would 

be approved, merely requiring a consent authority to “consider” potential impacts, rather than 

establishing that values would be maintained. Cleared land in habitat corridors should be 

covered by Biodiversity mapping to foster corridor regeneration and connectivity. Riparian Zone 

widths of 50 metres each side of water courses, be inserted in to all zones of the SLEP. 

Habitat corridors and Riparian zones. 

There should be expansion of Habitat Corridors shown on the Biodiversity Map. Community land 

gazetted as “Natural Areas, Bushland” in accordance with the Local Government Act, be zoned 

E2. e.g. foreshore reserves. 

E 4 Environmental Living. This zone should be included in the SLEP to allow for low impact 

residential development. Some rural areas should be reconsidered for E 4 zoning. Jerberra 

Estates are proposed for part- E 4 zoning outside SLEP process 

E3 Environmental Management. “Dwelling Houses”, “Environmental Protection Works”, 

“Environmental Facilities” and “Home Industries” be the required permitted uses. SCC has added 

lists of uses likely to adversely impact on HCV areas. Such uses are not consistent with the 

SCRS and ESD principles. Therefore limit additional uses to “Visitor information centre,” “Homebased 

child care,” “roads,” “Home based business.” Other “Tourist and Visitor accommodation” 

definition uses are not consistent with the zone objective, and should be removed. 

15 Concerned that Clause 13(d) Subdivision of dwelling houses – multiple occupancy from the 

current LEP has not been included in the draft LEP. 

Has multiple occupancy and have not subdivided and may wish to. 

16 The proposed change to height of buildings to 11 metres in residential and rural areas is too high 

and should remain at 8.5 metres; this would conform with the 'Administrative Changeover' which 

was adopted by council. The maximum height of 8.5m should be confirmed on a Height of 

Buildings map and conform with existing DCP's. 

Concerned with the height map for Huskisson - shows heights that are 3 metres higher. 

Clause 4.3.1 (a) the words "desired future character of a" should be removed from this 

statement so that it reads "to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk, and scale 

of the existing locality". These words have no place in this sentence as it is unclear who decides 

the desired future character. 

Public Recreation land zoned 6(c) along Berry Street Huskisson is Crown land and should NOT 

be seconded for private development and is also a buffer separating the 2(a1) = R2 low density 

residential zone from high risk bush fire prone land. This land should be zoned RE1 not B4. 

11


Number 


· Flood prone land 1(g) located at the ‘extension’ to Currambene Street Huskisson should be 

zoned E2 Environmental Conservation not B4 Mixed Development. This land is similar to land 

200m to the north behind Waddell Street which has been zoned E2 as part of a Crown lands 

assessment. 

Land previously zoned 3(g) along Berry Street and Murdoch Street Huskisson has been zoned 

B4 when it should be E2 or RE1 as it contains protected species and is a very high fire risk. 

The 'Heritage Estate' located between Naval College Road, Erowal Bay Road and The Wool 

Road has been zoned RU2 Rural landscape instead of E2 Environmental Conservation. This 

land is a habitat corridor and should be protected as such. 

Changed land uses in a number of zones are not in accord with existing uses (considering 

council adopted an Administrative Changeover process) or with the objectives for the zone. 

RU2 Rural Landscape 

The following Land Use categories have been added to existing permitted uses and are 

inconsistent with the Objectives as set by DP&I: 

1. previously a prohibited land use 

- Group Homes 

- Offensive Industries 

- Hazardous Industries 

- Extractive Industries 

2. not previously a permitted use 

- Hazardous Industries 

- Boat repair facilities, boat launching ramps, boat sheds, jetties, marinas, moorings 

- AIR TRANSPORT FACILITIES 

- Tourist & Visitor Accommodation including caravan parks 

- Entertainment facilities, Markets, 

- Food and Drink Premises 

As council is aware there has been recent inappropriate excavation of an old and informal 

landing strip just to the west of Huskisson. If Airport Facilities are permitted to be developed on 

this site it would be to detrimental to the peace and quiet of the coastal village community. 

All land uses as listed above that were previously stated as prohibited or NOT stated as 

permissible and all land uses that are not subservient to rural activities and primary production 

where there is potential for food production and rural employment should be removed. 

R2 Low Density Residential 

The following Land Use categories have been added to existing permitted uses and are contrary 

to the Objectives as set by DP&I: 

12


Number 


- Exhibition homes and Exhibition Villages 

- Home businesses and Home industries 

- Boat repair facilities, boat launching ramps, boat sheds, jetties 

- SEWERAGE SYSTEMS 

- Emergency service facilities 

- Building identification signs, Business identification signs 

These land uses are not subservient to a family life style in a low density residential area and are 

inappropriate in an Administrative Changeover on the basis that they were not previously a 

permitted use and should therefore be removed. 

R3 Medium Density Residential 

The following Land Use categories have been added to existing permitted uses and are contrary 

to the Objectives as set by DP&I: 

- Dual Occupancies 

- Hostels & Residential Flat buildings 

- Shop Top Housing 

- TOURIST & Visitor Accommodation 

- Home industry and Home industries 

- SEWERAGE SYSTEMS 

- Registered Clubs (a source of noise inappropriate to a residential area) 

- Veterinary hospitals (a source of noise inappropriate to a residential area) 

- Water Supply Systems 

- Boat Repair facilities, boat launching ramps, boat sheds, jetties 

- Building & Business Identification signs 

These land uses are not subservient to a family life style in a medium density residential area 

located in a small rural or coastal environment and are inappropriate in an Administrative 

Changeover on the basis that they were not previously a permitted use and should therefore be 

removed. 

RE1 Public Recreation 

An objective of this zone is "to enable land to be used for public open space or recreational 

13


Number 


purposes" but the following Land Use categories have been added to existing permitted uses and 

are contrary to this objective: 

- Caravan parks 

- Entertainment facilities 

- Function centres 

- Restaurants 

- Child care centres 

This land should be used for public recreation not commercial ventures and therefore these land 

uses should be removed from this zone. 

E2 Environmental Conservation 

The following Land Use categories have been added to existing permitted uses and are not 

compatible with the Objectives as set by DP&I: 

- Aquaculture 

- Bed and Breakfast Accommodation 

- Dwelling houses 

- Home business 

- Home industries 

These land uses are inappropriate in conserving the environment and should be removed. 

17 Objects to air transport facilities in RU1 

18 Is a landowner within an area affected by the removal of lot averaging and advises that he is not 

inclined towards future subdivision of his land. 

19 Concerned with the rezoning of his property at Greenwell Point from industrial to residential. 

20 Submission - regarding Lot 412 DP 1144627, Lot 4 DP 834440 and Lot 22 DP 717323, Scott 

St/Discovery Pl Shoalhaven Heads. 

Thanks Council for fixing anomalies in the zoning of this area and incorporating changes into the 

draft LEP documentation. 

Generally supportive of proposed changes. 

Further anomalies identified on the properties include: 

Lot 412 DP 1144627: 

- believes draft SLEP provides a satisfactory area for construction of dwellings on lots 549, 550, 

551, 552 and 556b. 

14


Number 


- concerned that draft SLEP proposes a small amount of R2 zoned land on proposed Lot 557, 

however this is part of the site that is flood affected and the flood free part of the site is zoned 

RU2. Approved and constructed flood free building envelope on Lot 557 is still located in the 

proposed RU2 zoning making approval of a dwelling both problematic and risky for future 

purchasers. 

- concerned that the R2 zone land is extremely close to the existing sewerage pumping station, is 

low lying and would therefore need to be filled to accommodate a future dwelling. Under the 

current proposed zoning - the existing fill mound would not be able to be utilised meaning the 

completed work to the site under SF5021 is wasted. 

- Recommends Council modify the boundary between the R2 and RU2 zones to capture the 

location of the existing earthen flood free mound on proposed Lot 557 (see fig. 1 in submission 

for map). 

- Concerned with min lot size map over Lot 412 DP 1144627 - recommends Council modify the 

boundary between the 40HA and the 500m2 minimum lot sizes areas to replicate the final zoning 

boundary when gazetted as outlined above (Mapping error added to 'matters for consideration' 

database). 

- Recommends Council remove significant portions of the area shown as being sensitive on the 

biodiversity map back to the proposed zoning line as there is no biodiversity value in those areas. 

- Believes the flood free mound as required by Council under SF5021 on the area of proposed 

Lot 557 should not be hatched as being flood prone. 

Lot 4 DP 834440: 


location of the existing elevated area on the eastern portion of this lot - loss of small triangular 

piece of land that is currently zoned 2(a1) will be "down-zoned" to RU2 land under the draft LEP. 

Loss of residential land is acknowledged and accepted as long as the proposed zoning on the 

area near Scott St is converted to R2 zoning as recommended. 

- Believes site can be elevated to between RL 2.70m and RL2.9m AHD which is close to the 100 

year flood level, allowing a dwelling to be constructed on this lot. 


location of the existing elevated area on the eastern portion of this lot. 

- Recommends Council modify the boundary between the 40HA and 500m2 min lot size area to 

replicate the final zoning boundary as previously requested. 

Lot 22 DP 717323 Wells Place - R1 zoning and min 500m2 lot size is supported 

21 Submission -regarding Lot 17 DP 814920, 1170 Illaroo Rd, Tapitallee. 

Supports R5 zoning. 

Supports minimum lot size of 1HA. 

15


Number 


Supports removal of maximum lot yield provisions as it will provide a far more flexible subdivision 

arrangement for land in this area. 

Believes this property is suitable to be subdivided into 2 lots both being in excess 1HA without 

significant environmental impact (see fig. 3 for proposed 2 lot subdivision layout). 

22 Submission Lot 582 DP 1048099 Supports R5 zone. 

Supports minimum lot area of 1ha. 

Supports removal of 1(g) flood liable as this was clearly incorrect. 

Believes land can be subdivided into two lots. 

23 Concerned that minimum lot sizes for the Huntingdale Park development in Berry in the draft 

LEP are not consistent with those set through DCP 70. 

24 Concerned that serviced apartments are prohibited in the R1 zone. This doesn't encourage 

growth to the area to sustain roads, amenities and tourism. 

25 Supports the draft LEP, particularly the inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. The 

region lacks an airfield that can be used for training and recreational flying, would greatly 

enhance the region. 

Concerned with action groups distorting the facts and believes the complaints to be unjustified. 

26 Is a professional in the aerospace industry, believes recreational aviation is very important in 

growing future talent for the industry. 

Jaspers Brush is a low cost entry for pilots and engineers and fosters interest. 

In Shoalhaven's interest to continue to expand recreation aviation for tourism and for the future of 

the industry. 

27 1. Mapping issue - 

a) Part of Lot 270 DP 1001660 has RU5 zoning but lot size minimum of 40ha. Requested that 

the anomaly be rectified. 

Sheet NRB_046 shows thin strips of land at rear of 5 and 6 Beach Glade Pl, along the sides of 

35 and 39 Malibu Dr and side of 25 North Haven Ave and rear of 4 & 5 Sunbird Place which 

share boundaries with Lot 270 and depict Significant vegetation and habitat corridors. Objection 

to this on the basis that there is no evidence that the land has these qualities represented on the 

map. 

Questioning appropriateness of E2 Zone. Requested that the E2 zoning on subject land be 

treated as a deferred matter, to enable a proper researched approach to the issues affecting the 

land, possibly a rezoning. study completed by Dominic Fanning 

numerous concerns with the land regarding stormwater / flooding etc. This has been referred to 

appropriate department. 

28 Killarney (east of Evans and prior St Lake Conjola Lot 372 DP1125806) is RU5 which would be 

overdevelopment should be E3 

29 In relation to the E2 Environmental Conservation zone: 

I support the inclusion of home businesses and home industries as developments permitted with 

consent. However, it is surprising that home occupations are prohibited in E2 zone whereas in 

other zones, innocuous home occupations are permitted without consent. That should also be 

the case for the E2 - permit home occupations without consent. 

In relation to the B2 Local Centre zone: 

Shop top housing - with the change to the standard instrument removing the previous wording ‘or 

otherwise attached to’ there needs to be new residential accommodation land uses added to the 

table for this zone. Otherwise we have the ridiculous situation where it is OK for someone to live 

above a shop but not in a room out the back of a shop. Because of this silly definition change by 

16


Number 


the state government it’s now not obvious which type of residential accommodation should be 

included but there has to be a way to allow this kind of development on the ground floor. 

It seems contradictory that signage is prohibited but building identification signs and business 

identification signs, which are included in the definition of signage in the dictionary, can be 

permitted with consent. I suggest removing signage from the list of prohibited developments in 

B2 zone. 

The only food and drink premises mentioned for this zone is restaurants (permitted with 

consent). Where does that leave pubs, take away, cafes, milk bars I think they should all be 

permissible in this zone so I suggest replacing restaurants with the higher level food and drink 

premises in developments permitted with consent. But then why include this category at all given 

that they are retail premises (to be replaced by commercial premises) Which is already 

included in the draft zoning table as permissible with consent 

I suggest light industry (or general industry) would also be an appropriate use in the zone. For 

example, there is currently at least one business in Berry that (with appropriate approvals) 

processes food products on site that are not for immediate consumption and operate a retail 

outlet for their product. If they decided to change location in the same zone they probably don’t 

meet the definition of food and drink premises because it’s not for immediate consumption. But it 

is an appropriate land use. Other cases like this would no doubt exist. The development 

application process would sort out inappropriate light industrial uses in the zone. 

In relation to the RU1 Primary Production Zone: 

It is extremely inappropriate that air transport facilities are included in permissible developments 

in this zone. This is a very significant change in land use zoning for very large areas of land 

where air transport facilities are prohibited under the current LEP. It does not relate in any 

positive way to the objectives for the zone. It is hard to imagine how development of an airport 

could be consistent with the objectives for the zone. I suggest removing air transport facilities 

from the zone. 

I think it would be appropriate to include airstrips since they are used by primary producers for 

carrying on their livelihood 

30 Concerned with the rezoning of an area on Pointer Road to R5 with minimum lot size of 1ha. 

Area is bushfire prone, roads not adequate, lifestyle will be detrimentally affected. 

31 Concerned that there is no infrastructure zoning of a future educational establishment in 

Worrigee. 

Concerned that there is not park like setting in Worrigee. 

32 RE1 in Golden Hill Avenue Shoalhaven Heads should be rezoned to residential land to enable a 

more suitable use for the town. 

33 Support rezone of Mathews St Shoalhaven head for the purpose of selling the land. 

34 Lot 73 DP257068 Cnr McIntosh and Staple Street -The prohibition of residential dwelling houses 

on this land will allow for beachside and river holiday tourist character of the town. Change SP3 - 

Tourist zone allocation to RE1 and include a sunset clause for the existing dwellings/owners or 

whether to remove 'dwelling houses' from the list of building permitted with consent. 

35 Objects to the inclusion of 'offensive industries' as a permitted land use for any land within 

Shoalhaven Heads. 

Requests that a local clause be included in the LEP and DCP that development consent must not 

be granted for 'offensive industries'. 

36 Concerned with R1 zoning inappropriate for Currarong, destruction of the natural qualities. 

37 Request height of buildings foreshore area in Vincentia be 6 to 7.5 for other areas 8.5metres 

17


Number 


The B4 zoning Burton Street shops, be changed to B1. 

Before any land use changes a comprehensive town plan be prepared for Vincentia. 

38 Supports heritage classification of Berry village. 

No airport at Jaspers brush 

Concerned with allowance of building heights in villages should be 2 storeys. 

39 Would like St Peter's Anglican Church at Scott St, Shoalhaven Heads removed from the heritage 

schedule. Church was originally the library/hay shed of the Coolangatta Estate. 

It has been removed from original location and much of the building has been altered. 

40 Taylors Lane Cambewarra - going from Rural 1(a) to R1. 

Concerned with lack of rural lifestyle blocks, buffer of larger blocks between residential and rural 

blocks. 

Concerned about restrictions of chooks and farm animals and rate increases due to rezoning. 

Concerned the draft goes beyond stated aims and existing rights reassurances. 

41 Concerned with mixed use zone of the Burton St shopping centre - it will allow for the destruction 

of current shopping centre to be turned into flats or other high rise structures. 

Concerned that Council is obviously pandering to large business deals without regard for the 

local community - the centre of Vincentia is being pushed out to Lot 177 DP 1123782 to become 

a blight on the scenic beauty of the entire Jervis Bay region. 

42 Objects to any proposed change of zoning at Culburra Beach that would prevent the 

development of the proposed golf course, high school and residential development. 

43 Objects to the rezoning of Jaspers Brush area for 'air transport facilities. 

44 Bannisters, 191 Mitchell Parade, Mollymook 

It is noted that the development at 191 Mitchell Pde, Mollymook is proposed to be zoned B4 

Mixed Use, replacing the current zoning of Business 3(g). The alternative zone option would be 

SP3 Tourist. 

The ‘General Intent’ of the SP3 Tourist Zone is stated to be “where a variety of tourist-orientated 

Land uses are to be permitted, and included uses such as tourist and visitor accommodation and 

function centres.” This would be an accurate description of the current use of this site. 

The broader definition of a B4 Mixed Use zone ‘where a range of land uses are encouraged, 

including retail, employment, residential, community and other uses’ would appear to provide the 

option of further development for this facility. 

45 We are concerned about the possible rezoning of land west of Bangalee Rd Tapitallee. Our main 

concern lies in the fact that high density housing could be constructed in the area which is now 

semi-rural, peaceful and full of wildlife. 

Reasoning : vehicle numbers impacting on Illaroo Road, effect on the traffic crossing the bridge 

in the morning, threat to wildlife and bushfire danger. High density housing would also affect the 

value of properties already in this area, and possibly an increase in crime. 

46 Objects to zoning of Bomaderry Creek Bushland - operates the Bamarang Bush Retreat and 

many visitors visit the Creek bushland , with the zoning of SP2 and R1 would like E1 

47 Concerned with the rezoning of Rural 1(c) land. 

R5 zone allows twice as many activities. 

18


Number 


Requests that 1(c) be moved to RU4 Primary Production Small Lots or E4 Environmental Living. 

Believes a loss of agricultural land will result. 

Requests that the reference to 11m in clause 4.3(2) be removed and that height of building maps 

be inserted to cover all areas and these maps should reflect the DCPs that apply and if no DCP 

applies, the existing form and scale of buildings in the area. 

48 I think it is most important that the proposed 8.5 metre height limit for residential areas be 

adopted. 

I also support the proposed 8 metre height limit for the Ulladulla South Harbour precinct, and the 

8-10 metre height limit in the Ulladulla South Business Precinct which was listed in your table 

outlining the areas that are proposed to be mapped on the height of buildings map. 

49 I would like our area (Bimbimbie Ave, Bangalee) to be subdivided into min 1000sqm lots. 

50 Objects to the change of land at 391 Yalwal Road, Mundamia from rural to residential (part of 

Cabbage Tree Lane URA). 

The creek floods and is concerned that increased rates will force her off her land. 

51 Objects to Air transport Facilities in LEP zones 

52 I am writing to express my very strong OBJECTION to the transfer of Rural Zone 1(c) to 

Residential Zone R5 as shown in the LEP2009 Draft 

My property in Kangaroo Valley is currently classified as 1(c)(Rural Lifestyle) zone and has been 

a small rural lot for almost 120 years. It is surrounded by agricultural land in both (current LEP 

1985) 1a and 1c zones. 

Reasoning – 

· Objective a) of the 1(c) zone – “to provide for a range of rural lifestyles suited to each area as 

an alternative to urban and village development forms, and servicing levels” – this is why people 

like myself bought property in these areas! 

· The revised objectives all allow future subdivision under R5 Large Lot Residential 

· Despite the Ground Rules established by Council that it would “not revisit rural residential 

rezoning other than deferred zones, this is a position of the Department of Planning and is 

reinforced in the Draft Regional Strategy -” the proposal is in direct conflict with this position 

· Under the LEP Ground Rules established by Council “There will be no major addition of 

residential/ commercial/business zoned land unless it is already identified in Structure Plans (eg 

Nowra Bomaderry) or similar. (My emphasis) 

· Land in 1(c) zone provides a buffer against village expansion – see DCP 66 

· Land in 1(c) zone provides a buffer between environmental zones and agriculture 

· Land in 1(c) zone provides a buffer between the Village and major agriculture 

· The proposed zone R5 does not “foster” agriculture whereas 1(c) had as its objective “To foster 

agricultural use of prime crop and pasture land and provide for other small scale uses compatible 

with sustaining a rural lifestyle and an adequate level of amenity in the zone” (Small scale uses 

19


Number 


currently in operation –or available as options for the future – include B&B, home activities) (My 

emphasis) 

· The proposed zone R5 eliminates agriculture as an acceptable use – there is currently beef 

production; a plant nursery; small scale poultry raising uses in the Kangaroo Valley 1(c) area. 

· The proposed R5 zone would in the future (with residential subdivision being the likely 

outcome) create “strip” development along Moss Vale Road – in contravention of DCP66 

· Objective c) of the 1(c) Zone refers to its importance in sustaining “a high level of landscape 

quality” – should lot averaging or future subdivision be allowed this would destroy the “landscape 

quality” of the area and in particular the approach to the Village – also contrary to DCP66 

· The proposed R5 zone will not be in compliance with the South Coast Regional Strategy which 

states that “Local Environment Plans will include appropriate provisions to protect coastal towns 

and villages such as Kangaroo Valley, Berry etc….” and “The aim will be to protect conservation 

values, Aboriginal cultural values and visual character, and reinforce their economic value for 

tourism”. Tourism is Kangaroo Valley’s lifeblood and MUST be protected. 

There is no way on earth that this proposal represents “best fit” or an “Administrative 

changeover”. 

Changing a rural lifestyle zone to a residential zone is utterly unacceptable, and will set this area 

up for future neighbourhood disputes as existing property owners with established “rights” are 

confronted by new comers who object to those rights. (For example -my partner and I have a 

wooden toy manufacturing home activity which creates noise with power tools – with no 

neighbours within hearing this does not represent any problem currently.) 

I have had conversations with Council staff about this proposed residential zone and the answers 

represent a “decide and defend” viewpoint – answers that ignore the current LEP1985 objectives. 

Surely before any zone changes as major as this there should have been community 

consultation to hear residents’ views Consultation is NOT talking to the community AFTER the 

Draft document is out!!!!!! And what guarantees do we have that Council will talk to us AFTER 

the exhibition period 

In meetings with staff I asked why 1(c) did not become RU4, (in its original form in the Template). 

I have also discussed this with the Environmental Defenders Office and they were appalled that 

Council was not using this zone since it is designed to separate major agriculture from villages 

and towns and prevent disputes over noise, smell etc. 

Consideration should be given to looking at the RU6 Transition zone 

Its objectives- 

“To protect and maintain land that provides a transition between rural and other land uses of 

varying intensities or environmental sensitivities” and 

‘To minimise conflict between land uses within the zone and land uses within adjoining zones”. 

Unfortunately Council has to date chosen not to use this zone. With appropriate land use tables 

this zone would solve the 1(c) problem as it exists in Kangaroo Valley and elsewhere in 

Shoalhaven. 

53 Objections: 

20



1. failure to comply with Administrative Change over 

2. Does not support 11m limit, and all HOB should be mapped across the Shoalhaven. 

3. The changeover has greatly increased permissible land uses in most zones. 

54 Bomaderry Creek Bushland 

R1 zoning fronting Illaroo Rd and front West Cambewarra Rd. These are important areas of 

biodiversity threatened flora and fauna. 

SP2 zoning for preferred route north Nowra link road 

Both areas should be rezoned E2 to protect valuable environmental qualities of bushland 

55 The SLEP maps that Hyams Beach is mainly zoned R2 Low Density Residential, apart from a 

subdivision near the southern perimeter. At present, Hyams Beach houses are one or two 

storeys in height and allowing building heights of 11 metres will result in 3 storey houses which 

will completely change the character and amenity of the village. 

We support the Height of Building Map be changed to include a maximum building height of 8.5 

metres in the proposed R2 Low Density Residential and RU5 Village zones across the City and 

ask that Council favourably consider this amendment. 

56 Would like 107 Bollarang Road, Wandandian to be zoned RU4 to allow continued use for 

grazing. 

57 Requests removal of 'air transport facilities' from the RU1 zone. 

Concerned about potential impacts from acid sulphate soils should Jaspers Brush airfield extend 

the present use. 

58 Objects to the proposed changes to the industrial zones. 

Questions the need to change the existing procedures. 

59 Objects to Clause 7.3 - Short Term Accommodation 

Request the clause end the exemption from development application and require residences to 

comply with a new urban tourism DCP as a condition of operations. 

Alternatively tourism facilities approved to operate before the 2006 LEP amendment, to be 

permitted to receive reciprocal development advantages such as offering permanent 

accommodation. 

The 25% allowance in Clause 7.4 for those in SP3 and B4 zones is an inadequate percentage. 

Request that all tourism facilities approved prior to 2006 should be included in Local Clauses 

Map and the clause itself amended by renaming subclause (3) as (4) and inserting a new 

subclause (3) (see submission for wording). 

If further limitation is needed then it could be made to apply only to those facilities which exercise 

their right to community title subdivision under 4.2A(2) 

60 Objects to IN4 zoning of property for oyster farm, the zone allows other industries that may 

compromise their operation and compliance with NSW Food Authority also IN4 does not permit 

agriculture therefore prefer E2 where aquaculture is permissible. 

61 Only the areas previously designated as sensitive coastal in SEPP 77 should be zoned 7(a) 

62 Likes the introduction of lot averaging - is flexible and provides opportunities to subdivide to suit 

the local area and environmental characteristics 

21


Number 


Environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land can be protected alongside land used for 

residential portions 

R5 caters for all potential land users/owners to live in a small rural setting without the tight 

restrictions of the current 1(c) zoning 

Concerned with: 

Council to confirm the following:- 

The R5 there is an allowance for the keeping of a few horses cattle and chickens as household 

animals 

The R5 will allow opportunities for the removal of trees as required for the erection of dwellings 

sheds etc. 

63 Email regarding the subdivision of Berry United Church - the draft proposes SP2 zone, it is likely 

it will be included in R2 Low Density Residential zone given the development approved on the 

site. 

64 Does not want this LEP to adopted at all. 

It will deny the development of an 18 hole golf course at Culburra Beach. 

There are already enough areas of environmental protection. 

Further limits the development of community assets. 

65 Supports this draft LEP 

66 What I like 

the simplification of zonings greater flexibility 

what I am concerned with 

Need to allow appropriate zoning for proposed Callala Bay Marina 

67 Lot 1752 DP 28785 1310 Naval College Rd Vincentia 

Likes the proposed zoning RU2 

Concerned with the allowable services within the RU2 zone 

The requirements for sewer connection could be restrictive across other allowable uses. 

68 Berry - Zonings, Lot Sizes and Land Uses in Huntingdale Park (DCP 70)In particular part of Lot 6 

DP1115338 was designated with some lots of a minimum lot size of 2000 square metres and 

some open space around water course we request that council change zonings and lot sizes in 

the Huntingdale Park development to match those in DCP 70. 

69 Concern with the change of a parcel of Crown land at Albatross Road, South Nowra from 6(a) to 

IN1 

70 Strongly objects to change from 1(c) to R5 residential with a new HOB of 11m. 

Why does Council implement such changes without local consultation with it's ratepayers 

22



71 Development in Flood Prone Land in RU1 and RU2 Zones 

Land zoned as 1(g) Flood Liable in LEP 1985 has been moved into RU1 and RU2 zones. This 

will allow development with consent of a number of land uses which were not listed in the old 

1(g) zone and which are considered incompatible with sustainable flood prone land use. These 

include tourist and visitor accommodation, caravan parks (RU2 only), air transport facilities, cellar 

door, crematorium, mining, offensive industries and veterinary hospitals. All these land uses are 

not appropriate on flood prone land due to their potential to cause pollution and environmental 

degradation. 

It seems that the airfield at Jaspers Brush is a development that has been allowed to carry on for 

many years without consent, but with the knowledge, of Council. 

Add a new point (5) in Clause 7.8 “for the avoidance of doubt the following land uses are 

prohibited in flood prone land: tourist and visitor accommodation, caravan parks, air transport 

facilities, cellar door, crematoria, mining, offensive industries and veterinary hospitals.” 

Stronger protection than provided in Clause 7.8 (4) is needed. 

72 Huskisson information session was enlightening and positive experience. 

Concerned with the proposed zoning for Vincentia Shopping Centre. 

Believes that B4 is not an appropriate zone as this could lead to changes and the demise of the 

shopping centre, would like to see a more appropriate zone. 

Objects to Height limits and business zoning covering Burton Street in Vincentia. 

Understood the zoning of the Vincentia shopping area and surrounds included that Council's 

draft followed comments from one of the land holders. Council has now advised that this is 

incorrect and that it was comments from a previous owner. Therefore as this person or company 

has no vested interest in the shopping area, their comments should be excluded and Council 

should only consider comments from people who have an interest, including residents. 

73 Requests that 'air transport facilities' be removed from RU1 & RU2 and be replaced with 

'airstrips' with restrictions on use, which is consistent with an agricultural use of the land. 

74 Likes the high standard of the draft LEP. 

75 Lot 5 DP 830709 Lake Conjola Entrance Rd 

Strongly supports the inclusion of lot averaging in the Draft SLEP. Have a subdivision proposal 

that is on hold due to the draft and require the lot averaging or an alternative to proceed, they 

have undertaken all the studies and have mapped the sensitive areas. 

76 Objects to air transport facilities in the LEP, because of pollution ruining this rare peaceful 

paradise forever, very detrimental disastrous change to the area. 

77 Happy that their properties (Douglas Street & Wilson Ave) are proposed to be rezoned R3. 

Suggest their property at 66 Kalandar Street, Nowra also be rezoned to medium density. 

78 Is in full support of the LEP 

79 Does not believe Crams Rd should be changed to residential or environment sensitive - it cannot 

be both and should remain rural. 

Building heights should remain at 8.5m the State standard. 

Lot sizes should not be reduced. 

80 Objects to the inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. 

81 Objects to URA Bangalee West - New Living Area. 

Tapitallee and Bangalee should be maintained as larger blocks. 

82 Objects to changes affecting Kangaroo Valley area 

Changes from 1(c) to R5. 

23


Number 


Reasoning: increase land tax base, people move to KV to live in a rural community. 

Cannot include KV in the 'wide structure' and include this area in the same zone for the whole of 

the Shoalhaven area. 

Proposed changes should be discussed at Public meetings and not be decided by the Council, 

imparting their personal interests behind closed doors, with no minutes or attendance records 

being kept, and not available to the general public. This is more like the systems used in the 

Communists states and not Australia, who knows what pressures are brought to bare or 

inducements paid by interested parties. 

At present Lot size is 2 Hectare, unless previously established as smaller, we believe that with 

this change from Rural to Residential it will make it easy for the Council to reduce the lot size in 

the future. This is not acceptable. 

Concerned with following affecting Kangaroo Valley 

Height of Buildings 

Strongly object to this new height of 11 metres 3-4 storey high for all zones in Shoalhaven 

especially Kangaroo Valley. 

This is in direct conflict with the previous LEP 1985. 

An owner or developer would be able to build a 3-4 storey building without full council approval, 

this is madness. 

A rural area such as Kangaroo Valley does not want 3-4 storey buildings, what stops an owner, 

developer converting to apartments 

We do not want another Shellharbour in our beautiful Valley. 

Any proposed changes as important as these should be discussed at a Public Meeting. 

83 Would like to have junction court retained and concerned that the general public who use this 

space will be denied it. 

84 Likes that the area surrounding Berringer Lake is proposed to be zoned E2. 

Likes the E2 zoning on the east side of Berringer Lake and the headland at North Bendalong 

being zoned E3. 

Concerned Berringer Village being RU5 not R2 because the Berringer Lake and the 16 

landowners need to be protected from the facilities and services outlined in RU5. 

Concerned Berringer lake being partly zoned W2 when it should have been all zoned W1. The 

sand bar at the entrance to Lake Conjola means that the lake is not fully tidal and even small 

boats have difficulty in crossing this bar. The W2 zoning could destroy this pristine lake. 

Should be no caravan parks in rural land zoned RU2. 

The height level should be 8.5 metres and not 11 metres in Bendalong, Manyana, Cunjurong 

Point and Berringer areas. 

Green Island should be zoned E2 giving it a stronger protection than E3. 

The Goodsell graves and homestead site on Kylor land should be heritage listed as is plays an 

important part in the local history. 

During the fires of 2001/2002 Berringer residents were evacuated twice and having fought the 

fires with RFS, I believe the crown land, Lots 1 to 8 at Berringer Village should be listed APZ. 

To make the findings transparent the submissions should be listed. 

85 Concerned with the lack of future residential land at Culburra Beach and Callala Bay area. 

24


Number 


There is an urgent need for future residential to provide for permanent residential (as opposed to 

holiday/investment) to support businesses in the area. 

Supports the rezoning of Lot 1033 DP 11893, The Marina, Culburra Beach, from 2(a1) to RE1. 

Planning Reasons: 

- Protect the natural vegetation on the sand dune. 

- Protect the land and stop development on this land. 

- Allow the community to enjoy the lot for years to come. 

86 Concerned with the proposed change of 28 Osborne Street and surrounding properties from 

Commercial 3(b) to R3 Medium Density Residential. 

Will decrease the value of the property and other affected properties. 

Have substantially altered the building to make it suitable for business purposes as per the DA 

for the current use making it unsuitable for residential use. 

Properties in this location provide valuable professional suites outside of CBD where parking is 

an issue. 

87 1(c) zones to be zoned as RU4 Small Rural Holdings. 

The rezoning of 1c zones to R5 zone is inappropriate for the following reasons: 

In response to a public hearing in November 2001 by the then Commissioner Kevin Cleland, 

Council issued Draft Local Environment Plan (LP321) dealing with lot densities and minimum 

size lots in nominated areas zoned Rural 1(c). This was a very comprehensive document which 

was formulated after extensive discussions with members of the community, State and Local 

Governments. 

On 8th January, 2002, Council resolved to adopt the draft plan as exhibited and seek its gazettal. 

SLEP 1985 Amendment No 185 included Clause 9 referring to Milton – Little Forest Road. 

Clause 9, specifically stated the following objectives: 

Bushfire 

To recognise the potential for periodical bushfire in the locality particularly the western part of the 

area adjoining State Forest and to insure that adequate protection measures are provided. 

Lifestyle and Rural Character 

To provide opportunities for a non-agricultural lifestyle at low density north of Little Forest Road 

and high densities south of Little Forest Road. 

To retain the wooded character of the area. 

To prevent ribbon development along Little Forest Road. 

Catchment Management 

· To retain as much vegetation cover as possible and avoid development on steep slopes so as 

25


Number 


to minimise erosion potential. 

Performance Criteria 

To ensure that no lot created is less than one hectare in acre and the overall density of lots 

created from each holding is no greater than 1 lot per 10 hectares of land or part of 10 hectares 

of land north of Little Forest Road, and 3 lots per 10 hectares of land or part of 10 hectares of 

land south of Little Forest Road. 

Development does not occur on land with slope in excess of 20% (1:5) 

Rates will increase with new valuations. 

The buffer between residential zones and major farming operations will be lost. This was an 

important function of the 1(c) zones and was one of the four objectives of the zone in the 1985 

LEP. 

If the land is rezoned as R5 this will make future subdivisions of that land easy compared with 

requiring State Government approval for having rural zones changed. 

There does already exists a dangerous traffic intersection at the corner of Little Forest Road and 

Princes Highway. This danger will increase with smaller subdivisions and more traffic 

entering/leaving the Highway. 

My submission therefore calls for: 

1(c) zones to be zoned as RU4 Small Rural Holdings. 

The specific objectives and lot sizes as set out in LEP 1985 should be included in the LEP 2009 

for the areas of Little Forest which is currently zoned 1(c). 

Any future development applications take into account the Strategic Planning considerations as 

described in the LEP 1985 regarding water runoff to creeks leading to sensitive water bodies 

such as Yackingarrah and Croobyah Creeks and ultimately Narrawallee Inlet. It is also important 

to consider natural vegetation and riparian corridors. 

88 Objects to proposed rezoning of 191 Mitchell Parade, Mollymook from 3(g) to B4. It is on pristine 

headland within a low density residential area with an existing tourist facility. Should be zoned 

SP3 

Object to the 11 metre height of building, R2 should be 8.2m 

89 1(c) land at Tapitallee/Bugong changing to R5 - the soil classification map boundaries is 

completely unworkable. 

Feels there is a lack of local consultation in LEP and DCP. 

Disappointed with subdivision potential and inability for concessional allotments. 

SLEP does not address bush fire prevention. 

Need to establish DCP as soon as possible. 

90 Objects to Jasper Brush airstrip and the inclusion of Air Transport Facilities. 

91 Kangaroo Valley building height limits removed. 

SLEP 2009 undoes the building height protection provided by DCP66 by introducing a general 

default maximum height limit of 11 metres. 

DCP66 height limits should be acknowledged and maintained in the new SLEP 2009. 

Supports the submission by the Kangaroo Valley Community Association. 

26


Number 


Objects - Kangaroo Valley. Changes from rural zones to residential zone. 

This general change goes well beyond the claimed “best fit solution.” Major zone changes 

should be argued on their particular merits at the time the changes are proposed, and community 

consultation should be a part of the decision-making process. 

The unused zonse RU4 and also E4 should be utilised to better accommodate land currently 

zoned as 1(c). 

Supports the submission by the Kangaroo Valley Community Association. 

Concerned with the process of drafting SLEP2009. 

It was stated in the report to Council of 22nd July 2008 that directions given to Council staff by 

Councillors meant that the intended “best fit” approach could not be implemented when preparing 

new land use tables. Understand that the influencing Councillors subsequently declared a conflict 

of interest but the directions given remain reflected in the new documents. 

Why is Council continuing to argue that SLEP2009 is a “best fit”, administrative changeover 

This situation is very worrying and suggests that the process of drafting the new LEP was 

fundamentally flawed. 

Council chose to delete a number of zones that were available in the DP&I template. This could 

only contribute towards making the intended “best fit” solution harder to achieve. Were these 

deletions made to facilitate deliberate departures from a “best fit” solution 

Supports the submission by the Kangaroo Valley Community Association 

92 Concerned with height limits - Foreshore properties should remain at 6m so that they don't block 

views. 

93 1) There should be no allowance for helipads in small rural village 

2) The height of generally 11 m for buildings should be reversed back to generally 2 storeys or 

the equivalent in metres. 

Private zone changes for rural land to become residential should come before the public 

94 Objects to the change in environmental zone categories from 10 to 3 

Consequently 11 metre height limits, offensive industries, air transport facilities, recreational 

facilities, entertainment facilities and development with fencing which can block environmental 

corridors are permissible in areas which they previously were not. 

Objects to 1(c) land being zoned R5 - very short sighted to change prime rural land to residential 

land. 

Council’s process is flawed and not best fit. 

Objects to 11 metre height limit in residential areas should be 2 storeys. 

95 Supports the R2 zoning for North Bendalong. 

Supports the E3 zoning for the headland at North Bendalong (Allawah Cabins). 

Crown Land on the eastern side of Inyadda Drive and the southern side of Bendalong Road 

should not be zoned to include caravan parks. 

96 Strongly opposed to the altering of the zoning to take 'air transport facilities' out of the RU1 zone. 

Requests that aircraft noise is limited to protect ecology and peaceful amenity of Berry. 

97 Requests that 'air transport facilities' be removed as permitted with consent from the RU1 zone. 

27


Number 


Requests that Council limits all future aircraft noise and protects our creeks and rivers from acid 

sulphate soils. 

98 Likes the clarity of zonings, restrictions and environmental issues brought together into one 

document. 

Will the LEP show all permissible uses not just prohibited. 

Would like moderate height limits that are clearly set for all zones and these should not be 

subject to deals or exceptions. 

There is a need for balanced future expansion of Callala Bay Village to the west. 

99 Warrah Road, Bangalee 

Likes that they are close to the urban area and to infrastructure, power, water, sewerage and 

public transport. 

100 Concerned with clause 7.3 short Term Accommodation. 

All short term accommodation should be assessed as a business and require development 

consent. 

Having some regulation of available accommodation would ensure that good quality 

accommodation is provided and tourists will come back to the area. 

101 Would like the RU4 zone added to the draft LEP and applied to 72 Bollerang Road, Wandandian. 

Strongly objects to the removal of Rural 1(c) and its replacement with the R5 Large Lot 

Residential zone which is not suited to the Wandandian area. 

102 Objects to increase in building height of building in Vincentia foreshore and existing shopping 

centre 

Objects to existing Vincentia shopping centre being able to compete with the new development. 

103 Can see nothing to like in the proposed LEP giving rural landowners the zoning for a commercial 

airport. Concerned with pollution - carbon, acid sulphate soils and noise. Extra noise not good 

for tourism as it despoils the quiet of the countryside. 

Requests that Council adopt zones and E4 in LEP 2009 and move land previously zoned as 1(c) 

Rural Lifestyle in LEP1985 into these zones depending on their current land use, minimum lot 

sizes and proximity to land of high conservation value. 

Much of this land is suitable for small scale agricultural use, and this creates much-needed jobs 

in the Berry area. One of the reasons why tourists and visitors come to Berry is to enjoy these 

rural vistas, as well as buy the wine or other products. 

Without the E4 zone, there are far too many land uses are “permitted with consent” in both E3 

and E2. 

This has been exacerbated by State planning requiring Council to condense 8 existing E zones 

into 3. The land uses in any of the new E zones must be at least as stringent as the most 

stringent current LEP zone mapped to that new zone. 

104 Supports rezoning of existing 2(a1) residential land to R2 Low Density Residential at North 

Bendalong. 

Recommends that existing 2(a1) land at Berringer Lake be zoned R2 in line with other villages in 

the area and not the RU5 zone proposed. 

Recommends that caravan parks be removed as a permissible future use on RU2 land in line 

with the original State Template and in line with surrounding shires such as Kiama, Eurobodalla 

28


Number 


and Bega. 

Recommends that a Height restriction of 8.5 metres (two storey) to all future development 

throughout the City. 

Recommends that all of Berringer Lake be zoned W1, to provide for greater environmental 

protection for the lake. 

Recommends that Lot 129 DP 205240 – 71 Sunset Strip Manyana – be rezoned RE1 in line with 

existing zoning. This appears to be an oversight by Council. 

Recommends that Crown Lands, Lot 488 DP 1091918 – Lot 429 DP 955923 – Lot 7051 DP 

1101639, proposed to be rezoned RU2 should be zoned E2, to protect these high biodiversity 

sites from future possible incompatible development. 

Recommends that the commercial site at the corner of Curvers and Inyadda Drives( Kylor land) 

should be zoned B1 instead of the B2 zone proposed, so that it is compatible with the 

surrounding residential areas. 

Recommends that existing building lines in relation to the Kylor land be included in the relative 

DCP currently under review and that the LEP be note accordingly. 

Supports the zoning of the remaining Kylor land (other than the above commercial lot) as 

proposed, with any rezoning other than as shown to be treated as a separate LEP process, 

which would then include the effect on Sewerage/Infrastructure/Social Issues/Environment etc. 

Recommends Council re-exhibit the final draft document showing Council approved changes and 

Standard Instrument changes. 

105 Requests removal of 'air transport facilities' from the RU1 zone to prevent a commercial airport 

on rural land. 

Would like Council to act to limit future aircraft noise and protect our creeks and rivers from acid 

sulphate soils. 

106 Height of Buildings - objects to 11 metres as out of character for Shoalhaven - put a default 8.5 

metres and map areas for greater heights (Nowra/Bomaderry, Ulladulla & Huskisson). 

It is appropriate for areas zoned R2 to be mapped. Existing height and floor space ratios and 

minimum lot sizes contained in the relevant DCP should form part of the LEP. 

RU1 & RU2 

Too many permitted with consent - need to delete 

Air transport facilities, boat repair facilities, business identification signs, crematoria, caravan 

parks, depots, dual occupancies, entertainment facility, food and drink premises, funeral homes, 

hazardous industries, home industries, marinas, offensive industries, recreational facilities 

(major), vet hospitals and water recreation structures. 

With all these uses farm land would be affected by roads, access signs, pollution. 

RU2 be changed to E2 to protect rural areas. 

RE1 

The additional permitted uses (other than kiosks, recreation areas and roads) would derogate 

from the purpose of a reserve. 

Crown Land western side of Currarong should be zoned E2. 

1) Its environment values are appropriately reflected 

2) A vegetative buffer is retained screening the village of Currarong. 

29


Number 


3) Dwellings are not placed in a high bushfire risk area. 

4) Urban interface pressure on nearby E1 land is not increased. 

5) Peel Street does not become a traffic thoroughfare. 

Currarong Shops - maximum height should be 8.5m, to be in keeping with village feel, the 

surrounding streetscape is 2 storeys etc 

E3 zoning of areas being Currarong fire station and club - E3 zoning should be changed to E2 to 

be more appropriate for land of such high conservation value. 

107 Currarong village should be zoned R2. It is inappropriate to allow a default height of buildings to 

a maximum of 11 metres. The situation should remain as per Clause 33 of the 1985 LEP, which 

in Currarong has resulted in buildings built to a height of no more than 8.5 metres (maximum of 

two storeys). 

Supports the Progress Association submission. 

Areas zoned R1 in the draft SLEP at the south end of Peel Street, and between the southern lots 

of Kinghorn Street and Nowra Road, Currarong form an important environmental corridor - 

rezone to E2. 

RU2 zone adjoining National Park and Defence land should be E2 and 8.5m height limit. 

108 Concerned with the possible restriction of retail sales in industrial zones. 

Bulky goods and ancillary retailing are currently allowed in industrial areas. 

Current business requires large truck movements on a regular basis, requires 

Requests as a minimum the retention of the present zonings proposed. 

Should be allowing more enterprise type development in industrial areas. 

109 Objects to replacement of 1(c) with R5. Would prefer the inclusion of RU4 in SLEP 2009 to 

replace the 1(c) zone. 





112 Supports the inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. 

113 Objects to zoning of river banks on the Shoalhaven River as Public Recreation (RE1). 

Concerned this will not provide adequate environmental protection of these areas and requests 

river banks be rezoned to E3 Environmental Management. 

114 Owns property in Quinns Lane, South Nowra. 

Concerned with the possible restriction of retail sales in industrial zones. 

115 Rural land should not be re-zoned for development. 

The community needs more schools, not housing. 

Average lot size should not be reduced. 

Building heights should remain at 8.5m. 

30


Number 


Opposed to the rezoning of the Crams Road area from rural to residential and environmental 

conservation. 

Believes Crams Road is a special place requiring recognition and protection and that is should 

be zoned rural. 

116 Supports the rezoning of part of 49 Hockeys Lane, Cambewarra to R1 and RU1 for future 

development. 

117 Objects to the fact that the changeover from the 1985 LEP to SLEP 2009 is not a “best-fit 

transfer” as was the intention. 

Concerned about the process with which SLEP 2009 was drawn up and strongly believes the 

LEP should be re-written to include community input. 

Objects to 10 environmental zones going into three as it will allow previously prohibited 

development. 

Particularly objects to no E4 zone. 

Strongly objects to increase of HOB from 8.5 to 11m. 

118 Concerned about the zoning of Lot14 DP 1045217 and subdivision on North side of Edendale St, 

Woollamia and the capacity that this has for a large development to impact on the environment in 

that region. 

Requests that all of Lot 14 DP 1045217 be zoned as “Sensitive Area-Habitat Corridor” and 

“Sensitive Area-Significant Vegetation”. 

119 The lot averaging is flexible and provides opportunities to sub-divide into lot sizes less than 2 

hectares. 

Environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land can be protected alongside land used for 

residential. 

R5 caters for all potential land users/owners to live in a small rural setting without the restrictions 

of the 1(c) zoning. 

Would like the Council to confirm the following; 

Within R5 is it possible to keep Horses, Cattle, poultry and domestic pets 

The R5 will permit the removal of vegetation required for the erection of dwellings on individual 

lots as required. 

120 Didn't receive a letter from Council on the LEP and none of her neighbours or friends did either. 

Objects to the rezoning of the Vincentia shops as it will spoil the low key accessible lifestyle that 

appeals to visitors and residents. 

Requests that a town plan for Vincentia be drawn up in consultation with the community. 

Requests that height limits remain the same. 

Would like a timeframe imposed for completion of building works 

Requests that the land adjacent to Moona Moona Creek be preserved and purchased by 

National Parks. 

121 Kangaroo Valley covered by SEPP (drinking water) 

Zone 1(g) - all additional uses permitted in the Ru1 zone should be disallowed. 

Zone 1(b) protects village from ribbon development along Moss Vale Rd - all additional uses 

permitted in the RU1 zone should be disallowed. 

31


Number 


DCP 66 specifies a building height of 5 metres (one storey) on the river side of Moss Vale Road, 

Kangaroo Valley and 8 metres (2 storeys) on the other side of the road. Buildings of 11 metres 

would destroy the heritage streetscape. 

The National Trust has designated Kangaroo Valley as a rural landscape of high heritage 

value. Wish to conserve it, not wreck it with all the additional uses permitted in zone RU1 in draft 

LEP 2009. Some areas of the City of Shoalhaven may be ripe for more intensive development: 

KV is not one of them. 

Zone 7(e) protects escarpments as potential rock-wallaby habitat from nearly all development, 

which new zones E2 and E3 do not. Zone 7(e) should be extended to include a 100-metre buffer 

both above and below the escarpments to reinforce important wildlife corridors and 

biodiversity. All additional land uses in E2 and E3 should be disallowed. Why not use E4, 

permitted by the DP&I template, with rigorously applied limits to development 

Zones 7(d1) and 7(d2) are valuable restraints to development in Kangaroo Valley for scenic 

protection. Additional development uses should be disallowed there too. 

The South Coast Regional Strategy is a good guide to scenic protection. 

Supports Kangaroo Valley Community Association submission. 

122 Heritage Estates - Concerned with ecological link of areas being maintained through the zoning. 

W1 for Worrowing Waterway, associated Crown land reserve and EEC Council owned proportion 

appears appropriate, however if the anticipated inclusion of adjacent lands in the JB National 

Park eventuates then zoning status will need to be reconsidered. 

The RE1 is inappropriate and should be changed to E2. 

EEC portion - RE1 inappropriate and needs to be changed to E2 

Heritage Estate RU2 - zoning does not reflect the tenure, history, character and status of this 

site. Appropriate zoning would be E2 integrating with the recommended zonings for the crown 

land reserve and EEC block. 

Erowal Bay foreshore areas - requires an E2 zone – critical ecology environments. 

R2 - wording for objectives should be changed to read: 

Objectives of zone 

• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment. 

• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day-to-day needs of 

residents. And 

* To enable other land uses that provide vegetated land throughout low-density residential areas 

that support existing habitat corridors and give continuing support for the many native (flora and 

fauna) species still coexisting within the above zone (R2) and to meet the peace of mind/needs 

of residents living in and appreciating the special values of the Shoalhaven. 

Permitted Uses (with consent) in R2 – 

Should not be permitted: 

Exhibition homes and villages – 

32


Number 


Home Business – 

Boat repair facilities – 

Boat launching ramps – 

Boat shed – jetties – 

Emergency Service facilities – 

Buildings and Business signs – 

Height of Buildings Clause 4.3 

Supports the height limit of 8.5 metres in R2 and RU5 zones. 

Supports the height limit of 8 metres in St Georges Basin Development Control Plan (DCP17). 

Supports the height limit of 7.5 metres on foreshore residential lots. 

8.5 metre height of buildings should be on all Residential zones. 

Do NOT support 11 metres for HOB in most areas. 

RE1 – Public Recreation: The following reserves require E2 zoning, and placement on 

biodiversity overlay: 

- Blue Wrens Retreat, Island Point road, St Georges Basin 

- Tasman Rd Reserve, Tasman Road, St Georges Basin 

- Garden and Sepulchre Islands at St Georges Basin 

- Pelican Point at St Georges Basin 

- Tallyan Point, Basin View 

The following public reserves require E2 zoning: 

- Firetail Creek, Loralyn Ave/Cammeray Drive, St Georges Basin 

- Redhead Point Reserve, Greville Ave, Sanctuary Point 

- Boobook Reserve, Sanctuary Point Rd 

- Unnamed reserve Edmund St, Sanctuary Point 

- Gurumbi Creek Nature Reserve, Wrights Beach 

- Wrights Beach Bushland Reserve, Wrights Beach 

Natural Resource Sensitivity – Water maps 

Supports the inclusion of this map. 

33


Number 


Worrowing Waterway and the associated Crown Land Reserve: reserve system bordering 

Worrowing Waterway be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation 

The land bordering Worrowing Waterway is zoned RE1. The importance of this waterway is not 

reflected in the zoning of the adjacent reserve area. The reserve running down Worrowing 

Waterway is shown to from part of a “Habitat Corridor’ and one area identified as “Sensitive Area 

– Significant Vegetation’ on the biodiversity mapping. 

RU1 Rural Zone: Land fronted by The Old Wool Rd & St Georges Basin bypass is to be zoned 

RU1 but is not included in the biodiversity overlay map. This is inconsistent with the RU1 land 

adjacent and opposite the by-pass road. The Biodiversity overlay map should be altered to show 

the conservation value of this land that assist in forming part of a corridor and supplies 

connectivity to bushland in surrounding areas. 

Part of the Heritage listed Old Wool Rd passes through this RU1 land – a buffer is required that 

would further ensure greater protection. 

Preservation of trees or vegetation (Clause 5.9): Land presently covered by the Native 

Vegetation Act in the SLEP 2009 will not be covered by Council’s current Tree Preservation 

Order (TPO). 

Council’s existing Tree Preservation Order (TPO) must have citywide coverage; and shown in 

the SLEP 2009. The Native Vegetation Act allows substantial clearing not appropriate for high 

conservation value areas so additional measures must be taken. 

One Tree Bay: requires E2 zoning to truly reflect its high conservation values and is given the 

protection required. 

SP3 Tourist – Island Point Rd, St Georges Basin: Should be changed to R2 low density 

residential to reflect the adjoining property zonings and to reflect the character of this area. 

B4 Mixed Use – Island Point Rd, St Georges Basin: The height of buildings on the northern 

parcel should not be above 8.5 consistent with other zones in this vicinity. This area should be 

zone R2 low density and the HOB on the most southern parcel should not be above 7.5 as 

recommended for Foreshore properties. 

RU5 Village - Bream Beach: Should be zoned R2 and have height limit of 8.5 metres. 

Wrights Beach - E3 zoning remove from its ’Uses Permitted with consent’. 

Zone W (Waterways): 

This sensitive and unique waterway of St Georges Basin should be rezoned as W1 to reflect its 

high ecological and environmental values. 

Aquaculture: Natural water-based aquaculture zoning should be removed from W1, W2 and W3. 

Support Bomaderry Creek Bushland E1 zoning 

R1 and SP2 zonings should be changed to E2 -significant bushland biodiversity. 

R2 - wording should read: 

Objectives of the zone 

- to provide for housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment. 

- To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of 

residents and 

- to enable other land uses that provide vegetate land throughout low density residential areas 


34


Number 


fauna) species still coexisting within the above zone (R2) and to meet the peace of mind/needs 


Permitted uses (with consent) in R2 

not previously permitted and should not be permitted. 

Exhibition homes and villages - not appropriate in low density 

Home business - not appropriate 

boat repair facilities not appropriate should be industrial zone 

boat launching ramps - not appropriate (foreshore R1) 

boat shed jetties not appropriate (foreshore R1) 

Emergency service facilities these have already been defined around villages. 

buildings and business signs - local forum and community members have been lobbying for 

many years for signage to be decreased. 

While admitting some signs are necessary it would not be appropriate for Building and Business 

signs to be permitted in R2 to spoil scenic view. 

Height of buildings Clause 4.3. 

Supports 8.5 for R2 and RU5. 

Supports 8 metres St Georges Basin (DCP17). 

Supports 7.5 for foreshore lots. 

Believes 8.5 metres height of building in all residential zones. 

Does not support 11 metres in most areas. 

RE1 the following reserves require E2 zoning and placement on biodiversity overlay map: 

- Blue wrens Retreat, Island Point Rd, St Georges Basin 

- Tasman Rd Reserve, Tasman Rd, St Georges Basin 

- Garden and Sepulchre Islands, St Georges Basin 

- Pelican Point, St Georges Basin 

- Tallyan Point, Basin View. 

The following requires E2 zoning 

35


Number 


-Firetail Creek, Loralyn Ave/Cammeray Drive, St Georges Basin 

- Redhead Point Reserve, Greville Ave, Sancturay Point. 

- Boobook Reserve, Sanctuary Point Rd, Sanctuary Point 

- Unnamed reserve Edmund St, Sanctuary Points 

- Gurumbi Creek Nature Reserve, Wrights Beach 

- Wrights beach bushland reserve, Wrights Beach 

Natural Resource Sensitivity - Water maps 

Supports inclusion of these NRS areas given their high conservation value for supporting 

wonderful wetland areas 

Worrowing Waterway and association Crown land reserve should be zoned E2 to reflect 

environmental status and value. 

RU1 land fronted by Old Wool Rd and St Georges Basin by pass zoned RU1 but not included in 

biodiversity overlay map. This is inconsistent with the RU1 land adjacent and opposite the 

bypass road. The biodiversity overlay map should be altered to show the conservation value of 

this land that assist in forming part of a corridor and supplies connectivity to bushland in 

surrounding area. Part of the heritage listed Old Wool Rd passes through this RU1 land - a 

buffer is required that would further ensure greater protection. 

Preservation of trees or vegetation (Clause 5.9) 

Land presently covered by the Native Veg Act will be covered by Council’s current tree 

preservation order and this needs to be reflected in the LEP. 

One tree Bay needs E2 zoning to protect. 

SP3 tourist - Island Point Rd, St Georges Basin be changed to R2 to reflect adjoining property 

zoning 

B4 mixed use - Island Point Rd, St Georges Basin 

Should be R2 and height of building on most southern parcel not above 7.5m. Northern parcel 

should not be above 8.5m 

Wrights Beach should be zoned E3. 

E3 zoning remove from its 'uses permitted with consent'. 

St Georges Basin waterway should be W1 to reflect its high ecological and environmental values. 

Aquaculture should be removed from W1 and W2 and W3 zones. 

36



123 Zoning of Heritage Estates 

Supports the W1 Natural Waterway zoning of the estuarine section of Worrowing Waterway 

associated with Erowal Bay. 

The RE1 zoning of the Crown land frontage of the Worrowing Waterway and the Council owned 

EEC portion (Lot 1 DP 625153) is inappropriate and should be changed to E2. 

The zoning of remainder of Heritage Estates should be reconsidered - the RU2 Rural landscape 

zone is not appropriate given the status of the land. 

The floodplain foreshore of Erowal Bay should be changed from RE1 Public Recreation to E2 as 

they are environmentally constrained and have limited use for public recreation. 

The floodplain forest adjacent to Cockrow Creek should be changed from RU2 to E2 as it is a 

valuable remnant of floodplain forest. 

124 Query regarding keeping of livestock in the R5 zone at Wandandian. 

Concerned about the change of zone at Wandandian to R5 and the removal of agriculture as this 

is likely to lead to increased development and loss of the current rural feel. 

Infrastructure not available to support increased densities. 

Baffled by level of community consultation. 

125 Likes the rezoning of the Moss Vale Rd South URA. 


1. The difference in width of the E3 zoning along Moss Vale Rd either side of the proposed 

Western Bypass of Nowra. 

2. Narrow strip of proposed RU1 land wedged between Taylor / Evison and Bernie Regan 

Sports Fields land is unsatisfactory especially in relation to access after the Western Bypass is 

constructed. 

126 Lot 162 DP 751273 Bugong Road, Bugong - is proposed for educational purposes. Currently 

1(d), the proposed RU2 will not permit, suggests RU1 zone. 

127 Requests that Council remove 'air transport facilities' from the RU1 zone and replace it with 

'private airstrip - strictly limited usage'. 

Concerned that changes to building heights may allow dwellings to be more than two storeys. 

128 Approves of the draft LEP in all areas especially the zones for Culburra Beach. Council needs to 

congratulated on this document. Culburra Beach needs to have more development, housing, and 

this LEP will allow this to happen. 

129 Accepts the SP2 zoning of 77 Princess Street, Berry provided that it is identified on the Land 

Reservation Acquisition map to be acquired by Council and that Clause 5.1 is amended to 

provide of acquisition of land zoned SP2 by Council. 

130 Requests that the Crams Road URA be released in the earlier stages of land release due to its 

reduce size and relatively minor impact and that work proceed on the relevant DCP documents. 

131 Concerned with the omission of bulky goods retailing from the IN1 zone and request that it be 

included. 

As an investor in industrial land, long term planning was based on bulky goods retailing being an 

option. 

37



132 Objects to the draft SLEP 2009. 

Strongly objects to any change to SLEP 1985. 

Concerned with the B4 zoning and 13m maximum height for the bushland bounded by 

Currambene St, Berry St and Moona St, Huskisson. 

Requests that it be zoned E2 Environmental Conservation or RE1 Public Recreation as it 

contains wetlands, is flood prone and bush fire prone. 

Concerned with the proposed R3 zoning of the area bound by Currambene, Keppel and Berry 

Streets and the Moona Moona Creek bushland, Huskisson. 

The height should be mapped at 8.5m for this site. 

Recommends the following permitted uses be deleted from R3 zone: 

Hotels and motels, hostels and residential flats, shop top housing, registered clubs, veterinary 

hospitals, boat repair facilities and boat sheds and home based childcare. 

There is insufficient criteria currently available on which to assess the 'conflict with the residential 

environment' - concerned that track record of Council, the suspicion is that such judgement 

primarily will rest in the hands of future development applications. 

Concerned with who decides whether, and the extent to which there is 'conflict with the 

residential environment'. 

Concerned that uses such as hotels and motels, hostels and residential flats, shop top housing, 

registered clubs, veterinary hospitals, boat repair facilities, boat launching ramps, boat sheds, 

and home based childcare will conflict with the 'residential environment'. 

The broadened range of uses not permitted does not conform to Council's notional concept of 

'administrative' transfer from SLEP 1985. 

Concerned that the broadened range of draft permitted uses and the max height of 11m would in 

effect turn R3 zone into higher density tourism and visitor facilities, but with some light industrial 

elements, i.e. boat sheds and boat repair. 

Concerned that an administrative transfer has not occurred - it is a re-zoning to more intensive, 

higher impact uses which comes at the expense of the residential amenity and community 

cohesion for existing property owners in draft R3 zones. 

133 Supports inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. 

It will provide Shoalhaven with more opportunities for recreational aviation and flight training as 

well as bringing tourists to the area. 

Supports inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. 

It will provide Shoalhaven with more opportunities for recreational aviation and flight training as 

well as bringing tourists to the area. 

134 Landowner supports the intended minimum allotment size of 1 ha on 1260B Navel College Road, 

Worrowing Heights. 

Enables a dwelling to be constructed on the site and relocation of the existing landscaping 

38



business to a more suitable site. 

135 Subject property: "Hell Hole" Blackbutt Range Rd, Tomerong (Portions 45, 58, 66, 102, 108 and 

159). 

Objects to location of watercourse category one within the property - correct location detailed in 

submission. 

Requests Council modify its mapping to reflect the true location of this watercourse so does not 

restrict or impede future development of this existing extractive operation. 

Requests Council modify NRB layer to reflect the location of the existing and proposed extractive 

operations so that these provisions do not unnecessarily restrict or impede future development of 

this extractive operation and its associated resource. 

Subject property: 18 Jellicoe Street, Lot 28 DP 19407, South Nowra. 

Requests Council modify its mapping to remove this identified watercourse from the "sensitive 

area-water" mapping as it applies to the subject site. 

Subject property: "Green Orchid Subdivision" Lot 121 DP 1119449, Old Southern Rd, South 

Nowra. 

Approved subdivision will result in clearing of vegetation across the site. Future residential 

development would be frustrated by the biodiversity objectives. 

Requests Council remove the "Sensitive area - significant vegetation" mapping from the site. 

136 Fix anomaly at 15 Field Street, Huskisson to allow B2 over the whole site, to enable part of the 

site to be used as a proposed Terminal facility associated with tourist charter enterprise or utilise 

the provisions of Clause 2.5 to enable the subject land to be used for additional purposes - 

terminal facility, tourist serviced apartments and associated off street parking. 

137 Requests for 13m building height limit Lots 1 and 6 DP1082382 Island Point Road, St Georges 

Basin. 

138 Lot 2 DP 827370 23 Rock Hill Road (Shoalhaven Riverside Sanctuary) 

Requests extension to the permissible uses in E3 to include recreation facility (outdoor) they are 

currently in negotiation to operate a tree top adventure walk. 

139 Concerned with the impact of the IN4 zone will have on the proposed Ulladulla Harbour 

redevelopment as a number of the proposed uses will become prohibited under IN4. 

Requests that the IN4 zone include the same objectives as the B2 zone - to provide a range of 

retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, 

work in, and visit the local area. 

In particular permit retail premises with consent. Current zoning allows a mix of uses but the 

proposed does not. 

140 Natural Resource Sensitivity - Biodiversity 

Lot 14 DP 1045217, Edendale St, Woollamia needs to have Sensitive Area - Habitat corridor and 

Sensitive Area - significant vegetation overlay. 

All adjoining lots have overlay, there are several vulnerable listed native animals 7 vulnerable 

fauna species. 

39


Number 


Aboriginal heritage 

Lot 7309 DP 1153643 Lot 1 DP 510429 eastern end Edendale St East have heritage zoning due 

to Aboriginal Middens. 

Natural resource Sensitivity Water 

Requests the tidal estuary that flows under Edendale St and Woollamia Rd be identified on the 

Natural Resources Sensitivity - Water map. 

This tidal estuary is vital in releasing water from the Woollamia Wetlands into Currambene 

Creek. 

- It is a natural water way that is full of marine life including mangroves, crabs, prawn and 

fish hatchlings and birdlife including the Azure Kingfisher, 

- this land is identified as Floodway. 

- the removal of large areas of vegetation on a floodway is known to exacerbate flooding which 

will have a detrimental effect on the existing residents. 

- Increased water diversion into the tidal tributary will intensify the risk to current residents. 

Edendale St Woollamia 

Requests rezoning of Lot 14 DP 1045217, also known as the northern side of Edendale St 

Woollamia. Requests rezoning to RU2 Rural Landscape in alignment with the block it was 

originally subdivided off and the surrounding environment. 

Being zoned village there is provision for an increase in the number of houses allowed resulting 

in doubling the village population. This would completely change the amenity and living 

environment for the residents of Woollamia. 

The block is a floodway and is therefore inappropriate to build on. 

The block should be identified as Sensitive Area- Habitat Corridor’ and ‘Sensitive Area- 

Significant Vegetation’ due to its environmental diversity and habitat to species listed as 

vulnerable. 

The block is significant old growth mature coastal forest, possibly Endangered Ecological 

Community. 

141 Objects to area used for oyster farming in Greenwell Point being rezoned from 7(a)(Ecology) to 

IN4 Working Water front. Requests it is zoned to E2 Environmental Conservation. 

Zone excludes oyster farming activities from the site as agriculture is one of the land uses 

prohibited in the IN4 Working Waterfront. 

A change to the zoning of this site to IN4 contradicts SLEP 2009 draft Part 1 Preliminary 1.2 

Aims of Plan. 

Surrounding land and adjoining mangrove and river frontages are zoned E2. Also partially within 

SEPP 14 areas. 

40


Number 


The depuration canal is an excavation not a waterfront. Only waterfrontage is at northern edge 

the Crookhaven River. None of the 20 oyster depot blocks at the site have direct access to the 

river along this northern boundary only via the depuration canal. 

SEPP 62 "Sustainable Aquaculture" requires that suitable areas be provided for aquaculture 

activities including land sites. 

142 Supports the SLEP Review Group’s submission, the Kangaroo Valley Tourist Association and KV 

Community Groups submissions. 

143 Any DA submitted under the old LEP should be assessed under the old LEP not the new LEP. 

144 Requests that 'air transport facilities' be removed as permitted with consent from the RU1 zone. 

145 Crown land at Kinghorn Rd, Currarong Rd, Peel Street and Nowra Road, Currarong should be 

rezoned from R1 to E2, to protect flora and fauna, due to flooding etc. 

146 Concerned that DCP 70 principles in Huntingdale Park, Berry have not been reflected in the draft 

LEP. 

Concerned that Lot 6 DP 1115338 has designated minimum lot size of 2000m2 and has not been 

reflected in draft LEP. 

Change is not consistent with the principle of "best fit" administrative changeover adopted for the 

draft LEP. 

Requests Council change zonings and lot sizes in Huntingdale Park Development to match those 

in DCP 70. 

Objects to R1 and SP2 zoning for Bomaderry Creek Bushland should be E2. 

Objects to 1(c) land going to R5 

A NSW Government Commission of Enquiry in 2001 into 1(c) Rural Lifestyle Zonings gave these 

lots protection from further subdivision beyond the minimum lot size specified in LEP 1985 and a 

limit on the number of lots in for each geographical area. 

1(c) land at Beach Rd and Agars Lane suitable for agricultural use should be RU4. 

1(c) Bundewallah Rd should be E4 to protect its conservation value 

Requests that Council move land currently zoned as Rural Lifestyle 1(c) in LEP 1985 into RU4 

Primary Production Small Lots or E4 Environmental Living. 

147 Objects to the inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. 

148 Opposed to the proposed RU1 zoning which would give land owners the potential to utilise their 

land as a commercial airport. 

Lives at the Grange Retirement Village, believes an airport would destroy the peace and quiet 

and have the potential to destroy the ecology of the area. 

149 Likes: 

- that Council is going to let each lot owner nominate rural or R5 zoning. 

- supports R5 zone on property, however neighbours have agriculture so shouldn't be R5 zoning. 

Concerned that: 

41



- Council staff and Councillors are unaware of the implications of the new LEP and Council staff 

do not fully understand draft LEP. 

150 Wishes to register interest in portion 468 at North Bendalong in the parish of Conjola west of the 

subdivision at North Bendalong. Opposes the rezoning of this land as it opposes the NSW 

governments sensitive urban review panel recommendations for this piece of land. Believes it’s 

in all parties’ best interest to consider the recommendations of this panels work. 

151 Concerned with the zoning of 89 Windley Road, Wandandian, would like it to be zoned RU2 

instead of R5 as R5 doesn't allow extensive agriculture. If the property can't be RU2 would like 

RU4. 

152 Is a suitable area for residential use as it is close to existing urban areas, it has availability to 

services and infrastructure, and it has no apparent environmental constraints to development. 

Warrah Rd Bangalee (part of Crams Road URA) is suitable for residential use, it’s close to 

existing urban areas, it has availability of services and infrastructure. 

Requests that the Crams Road URA be released in the earlier stages of land release due to its 

reduced size and relatively minor impact and that work proceed on the relevant DCP documents. 

153 Attachment is in a file format not supported by Council so we cannot read submission - file called 

Huntingdale Park. emailed submitter to resubmit the submission with no response. 

154 Kylor Land - Corner of Inyadda Dr and Curvers Dr, Manyana - 30m building line must be included 

in the Citywide DCP and the intention to include the building should be noted in the draft LEP. 

E3 Zoned Land - Lot 204 DP 755923 (Por 204) Lot 106 DP 755923 (Por 106) and part of Lot 

1070 DP 836591) - objection to additional permitted uses that would not have been allowed 

under RE2. 

Recommends that Schedule 3. 7. (3) be included to prohibit the following land uses: Animal 

Boarding Facilities, Aquaculture, Dual Occupancy Attached, Dwelling Houses, Group Homes, 

Home Based Childcare, Home Business, Home Industry, Home Occupation, Cellar Door 

Premises, Roadside Stalls, Research Stations, Forestry. 

Recommends Council adhere to its 2008 resolution not to consider any rezoning of the Kylor 

land as part of the LEP process and that any request to rezone their land would be considered as 

a separate process. 

Any further requests from Kylor to rezone land must consider Native Vegetation Act, sewerage, 

infrastructure, environment and social issues. 

Objects to B2 zoning of Lot 1 DP 1161638 - additional number of uses would not be compatible 

with the character of the surrounding residential environment. Recommends B1 zoning be 

applied to this land. 

Recommends Council removes 'pubs' as a permitted use on E3 Kylor land from Schedule 1. 7. 

(2). 

155 Requests for additional permitted uses on behalf of landowner, 66 Plunkett Street Nowra. 

Schedule 1 for commercial offices or professional consulting rooms, this is aligned with adjoining 

land uses in the B4 zone 

156 Believes draft proposal (R5 zone) is utterly ridiculous and not consistent with the Australian way 

of life. 

Would like RU4 from the Standard LEP instrument put into the Shoalhaven draft LEP. 

Concerned with removal of 1(c) zone to be replaced with R5 zone. 

Enjoy lifestyle and established property and will do everything possible to retain it in its present 

situation. 

157 Supports inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. Shoalhaven marketed as a tourism 

42



hotspot but is lacking in recreational facilities. The inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 

zone will provide more opportunities for recreational aviation and flight training and more tourist 

dollars. 

158 Concerns - that buildings do not go above 8m in height. 

159 Currarong 

In order to protect the village from future unwanted intrusions we would strongly request the 

council to make the following amendments to the DLEP;- 

Building heights for the village of Currarong should be mapped. 

Existing heights and floor space ratios on current development control plans should form part of 

the DLEP 

Remove the optional height from 4.3(2) 

Reinsert the previous 1985 clause which referred to 2 storeys. 

Insert 8.5 metres in lieu of 11 metres in Clause 4.3(2) 

The area behind Kinghorn St, Currarong currently 2(c) be zoned E2 in line with crown land 

assessment. Clause ‘2D’ in the ‘Aims of Plan’ states that the plan aims – “To protect scenic and 

Landscape qualities, places, cultural and heritage value and amenities and character of 

settlements and coastal and rural areas”,we request the proposed areas behind Kinghorn Street 

currently zoned 2(C) be re-zoned to E2. According to the Crown Land Assessment of Currarong 

1999, page 24; the land contains High Conservation Value (HCV) areas, “significant vegetation” 

and “habitat corridors” as well as low flood zones , bush fire protection zone (10 metres from 

Kinghorn Rd roadway to woodland), possible acid sulphate soils and joins a site to the south 

which is “poorly drained and under 2.5 metre flood level which makes the site moderately 

susceptible to flooding during periods of high rainfall” 

160 R2 Low Density Residential 

Change objectives to reflect the unique nature of Shoalhaven 

Add 

Enabling other land uses that provide vegetated land throughout low density residential areas 


fauna) species still coexisting within the above zone (R2) and to meet the peace of mind-needs 

of residents/visitors living in/visiting and appreciating the special values of the Shoalhaven. 

Height of buildings Clause 4.3 

The lack of definite height is unacceptable, cannot rely on DCP, there should not be 11metres 

Support the following: 

8.5 in R2 and RU5 all residential zones 

8 metres in St Georges Basin (DCP17) 

7.5 foreshore residential lots. 

43


Number 


RE1 - Public Recreation 

Concerned with the permitted with consent as they do not follow the objectives of the zone 

All reserves across the city 'natural bushland' foreshore, escarpment watercourse wetland should 

be E2 and included on the biodiversity mapping overlay 

Blue Wrens Retreat Island Point Rd St Georges Basin requires E2 and biodiversity mapping. 

Natural Resource Sensitivity - Water Maps 

Supports the inclusion of these sensitivity areas. 

Tasman Rd Reserve St Georges Basin, Firetail Creek Loryalyn Avenue St Georges Basin, 

Redhead Point Reserve, Boobook Reserve (Sanctuary Point) Unnamed reserve Edmund St 

Sanctuary Point , Gurumbi Creek Nature Reserve (Wrights Beach), Wrights Beach Bushland 

Reserve, Garden and Sepulchre Islands St Georges Basin, Pelican Point St Georges Basin, 

Tallyan Point Basin View, requires E2 zoning and biodiversity mapping. 

Worrowing Waterway and associated Crown land reserve should be zoned E2 to truly reflect 

environmental status and value. 

RU1 zone 

The Old Wool Rd and SGB By pass to be zoned RU1 but is not included in biodiversity overlay 

map this is inconsistent with RU1 land adjacent. The biodiversity overlay map needs altering. 

Preservation of trees or vegetation (clause 5.9) 

Amendment to Clause to ensure that Tree Preservation Order is applied to all zones. 

Heritage 

The Old Wool Road is shown on heritage mapping at St Georges Basin but not included in the 

draft this needs amendment. 

Lot 10 DP 25769 - 41 Tasman Rd 

Recommends that the well situated in Tasman Rd Reserve be placed on heritage list and 

mapped accordingly. 

There is a significant stand of old growth trees on the reserve so the whole reserve should be 

heritage listed and mapped accordingly. 

Heritage Estates 

The RU2 zoning is inappropriate with the history of the site should be E2 zoning. 

Could be a special case provision within SLEP. 

Huskisson Anglican Church 

Concerned the church is not heritage listed - should include as heritage listing and mapped as a 

local and regionally significant heritage area. 

One Tree Bay 

Recommends that one Tree Bay site is zoned E2 to reflect its high conservation values. 

SP3 Tourist zoning - Island Point Rd St Georges Basin 

44


Number 


Concerned with uses permitted with consent therefore the land lots zoned SP3 should be 

changed to R2 to reflect adjoining property zonings and the character of St Georges Basin. 

Bream Beach 

Is a small village surrounded by E1 I would recommend be zoned R2 and HOB 8.5 metres 

St Georges Basin - zoned W2 recreational Waterway 

This has high conservation values and must be protected, should be zoned W1 to reflect this 

E2 and E3 zones should not allow aquaculture 

Natural water based aquaculture should be removed from W1 W2 and W3 zoning it is not 

appropriate. 

Bomaderry Creek Bushland (Princes Highway, Illaroo Rd, West Cambewarra Rd, objects to the 

R1 and SP2 zones. 

Supports the West Cambewarra Rd option for link road 

Vincentia Neighbourhood Shopping Centre 

Should be B1 and HOB for B1 and B2 should be restricted to 8.5 metres. 

161 Concerned that there are no height limits in place for Currarong, believes that the current 8.5 

metre height limit has been omitted. 

162 Very concerned as she has heard that the zoning changes at Wandandian would mean that they 

wouldn't be able to keep their horses and chooks. 

Would like none of these changes to occur with any rezoning of the area. 

163 The RU1 zone should not permit air transport facilities, community facilities, depots, 

entertainment facilities, food and drink premises, offensive industries, recreation facilities (indoor, 

major and outdoor) tourist and visitor accommodation. 

Caravan parks (mobile homes) should be removed from RU2. 

In the E2 and E3 zone the uses are too broad. 

Requests that the SLEP 2009 be re-exhibited after alterations are made. 

Air Transport Facilities - unacceptable in RU1 Zoning– a commercially run airport at Jaspers 

Brush will take advantage of this – such an airport is not required or desirable in this location. 

There are 2 industrial-strength airports within 20 minutes of Jaspers Brush. Airports used for 

commercial use should have their own zoning. 

Community Facilities, Depots, Entertainment Facilities, Food and Drink Premises – these 

categories are all too broad for the RU1 zoning. 

Offensive Industries – unacceptable in RU1 zoning - these are industries which pollute, including 

noise pollution. Surely not desirable to have polluters adjacent to our food producers. 

Recreation Facilities – these categories are too broad for the RU1 zoning - these include motor 

racing tracks, paintball, go-cart tracks, rifle ranges or any other outdoor recreation e.g. another 

Jamberoo These sorts of activities should have special zoning. 

Tourist and Visitor Accommodation – again too broad for RU1 zoning – of course one cabin per 

so many hectares or farm stays would be acceptable but not large tourist developments such as 

guesthouses etc. 

Flora and Fauna Corridors – “Aims of the Plan” in section 1.2 should be changed to stress more 

protection of environmental and riparian corridors on all land. Corridors should be identified on 

the SLEP Biodiversity Overlay. A clause should be added to reject DAs that would block a 

corridor shown on the overlay. 

Weak Biodiversity clauses – Clause 7.5.4 assumes consent always would be granted. “Before 

granting consent” should be inserted here. And there are no measures to help assess impacts – 

45



this whole area should be strengthened. 

164 Specifically I object to proposed zonings in relation to: 

1. Parts of the lower Crookhaven catchment: R 1 residential zoning as proposed to most of the 

Crookhaven River catchment west of Culburra Beach would have detrimental effects upon the 

shore and wetlands. It is also not consistent with the SCRS which specified that this area would 

be suitable for only "limited" residential development. This is a sensitive environment, of high 

conservation value. As such, these parts of the Crookhaven River catchment should be better 

protected through E 2 Environment Conservation zoning, with "limited" residential zoning, such 

as an E 4 Environmental Living zoning in already cleared and disturbed areas only. 

2. The Crookhaven headland: The RE1 proposed zoning is inappropriate. It does not take into 

account (a) the nature of the natural landscape there which includes an Endangered Ecological 

Community (b) the dictates of the Local Government Act in terms of its status as a "Natural Area" 

under that Act and (c) the management objectives of Council's own Generic Community Land 

Plan of Management: Natural Areas (SCC July, 2001). RE1 would allow for incompatible uses - 

indeed abuses of the land. Clearly a zoning of RE2 is what should apply to this "landmark" area. 

3. Zoning that has been proposed for parts of the catchment of Lake Wollumboola. This 

catchment is a magnificent natural asset, and maintaining the natural condition of this catchment 

is critical for ensuring that the water quality of the Lake is not compromised, nor consequently 

this as habitat for the wildlife that utilise it. In relation to this catchment, specifically, the following 

should apply - and not as proposed in the SLEP 

(i) - E2 zoning should apply to the south east part of the Lake Wollumboola catchment and the 

Kinghorn Point area. This is mainly private land, with public land at Kinghorn Point, and it adjoins 

Jervis Bay National Park. 

(ii) E 2 zoning should apply to the northern shoreline of Lake Wollumboola, encompassing 

Sheepwash Creek, SEPP 14 Wetland 365, the foreshore reserve and Lot 1 East Crescent. This 

is necessary to protect the shoreline of the Lake, and the Threatened species and Endangered 

Ecological Communities that occur there. The only area to which R E 1 Public Recreation should 

apply is the actual Lakeside Park Picnic area. 

(iii) E 2 zoning should apply to all private land in the Lake Wollumboola catchment outside the 

existing developed area of Culburra Beach-Orient Point. It should be noted that this includes the 

Long Bow Point area south of Culburra Rd., areas north of Culburra Rd., as well as areas west 

and south east of Lake Wollumboola. It is time that protection certainty into the future is provided 

for the catchment of Lake Wollumboola. The proposal for a Golf Course is completely at odds 

with the environmental sustainability of the area, and the zoning category that would allow such a 

thing is clearly inappropriate. 

4. Proposed revised height limits in the SLEP (of 11m and 8.5 m) as they would apply to the 

Culburra Beach-Orient Point urban areas. This would be extremely detrimental to the character 

of these urban areas. Height limits for the Culburra Beach-Orient Point urban areas should 

remain (at the maximum) at the existing levels of 2 storeys, and a lesser height of 6-7.5 m along 

the dunes at Culburra Beach, and these levels should be part of the SLEP as a statutory 

requirement, not as part of any individual DCP, which can be challenged in the courts. 

5. Additional 'uses' added to the Standard uses in the Environmental zonings categories. The 

extent to which these additional 'uses' have been added is of concern as this effectively serves to 

undermine the environmental protection objectives contained in the E2 and E3 zones. This is 

particularly concerning as it would apply to the catchment of Lake Wollumboola, as it would 

undermine the very protection of biodiversity values being sought, by allowing clearing for 

development. 

165 Supports the introduction of RU4 Primary Production in the draft SLEP 2009. 

46



Concerned with change of 1(c) rural zone to R5 residential zone. 

166 Objects to land (551B Sussex Inlet Rd, Sussex Inlet) being zoned RU4 - not able to use the 

property for the purpose it was purchased. 

167 Likes that the draft LEP will retain the areas character. 

Concerned that CCB groups did not ask for opinion on issues that would affect property at 

Berringer Lake. 

168 Hyams Beach 

Need special maps for Hyams Beach to fit with local village requirements. 

Zone R2 , third dot point - remove the word primarily. Delete dual occupancies from permitted 

with consent 

4.1(1)(a) delete words 'or historic' to ensure the 500sqm is adhered to. 

Heights 4.3 need height of building map for Hyams at 6 - 7.5m foreshore and 8.5m for rest 

remove from 4.3(1)(a) 'and desired future character’. 

Floor space ratio 

Hyams Beach should have FSR map so no increase in the ratio which currently applies. 

169 Concerns with the following: 

- proposed prohibition of bulky goods retail in IN2 zoning 

- premises was purchased on the basis of bulky goods zoning this will end up in court 

- future livelihood as a manufacturer is threatened if submitter can't sell goods made on the 

premises 

- as an employer of local people, will not be looking to expand his business. 

170 Concerned with the R1 zoned land at Currarong as it allows 3 storeys which is not in keeping 

with remainder zoned R2 with 8.5m height. 

R1 zoned area at Currarong is environmentally sensitive and swampy. 

171 Concerned with rezoning of 1(c) zones to R5 zones. 

Concerned that Council had only amended the LEP1985 on 21 April 2002 with the specific 

objectives and lot sizes but not some of the key elements as described in Commissioner 

Cleland's Report. 

Requests that 1(c) zones be zoned RU4 Rural Small Holdings. 

Requests that specific objectives and lot sizes set out in draft LP321 be included in the SLEP 

2009 for all areas currently zoned 1(c). 

Requests that any future DAs take into account the strategic planning considerations described 

in the draft LP321, especially regarding riparian corridors, natural vegetation and water quality 

run off into creeks leading to sensitive water bodies downstream. 

172 1. This document cannot be regarded as a best fit changeover. The process employed could 

best be described as flawed. The LEP should be revisited and this time the contents should be 

fully negotiated with the community. 

2. The new maximum height level of 11 m which is applicable over the whole of the Shoalhaven 

is totally unacceptable. Building heights should be determined by the existing DCPs. A maximum 

47



height level of 11 m would destroy the existing aesthetic of Kangaroo Valley. DCP 66 provides 

excellent guidelines for development within the village. These should be enshrined in the new 

LEP. 

3. The proposed change of the 1(c) zone to the new R5 will mean that there is no longer a 

buffer between the agricultural zoned land and the residential zoned land. It would appear that 

once the buffer zone is eliminated that it will be possible for residential subdivision to take place. 

4. All zones have greatly enlarged Land Use Tables. Many of these new uses would appear to 

be inappropriate and should certainly have been discussed with the community prior to their 

inclusion. This will mean that areas now zoned RU1, instead of being agricultural lands, may be 

used for a range of totally inappropriate works and industries. 

5. For the Council to simply prepare such a document shows an arrogance and total disregard 

for community feeling. Years of effort went into producing DCP 66 for Kangaroo Valley. This 

document was almost universally approved. I'm simply stunned that council did not take into 

account adequately the major findings enshrined in that document. 

Council should now abandon the new LEP and immediately commence negotiations with various 

community groups to produce a new and improved LEP which will protect the heritage and 

potential of the whole of the Shoalhaven. 

173 Requests that all zones in Currarong have a maximum height limit of 8.5m. 

Requests that no zonings in Currarong allow medium density and that there be no dual 

occupancy on land less than 500m2. 

174 Recognises that there are valuable environmental protection dimensions to this draft and the 

mapping of significant vegetation and habitat corridors is a critical part of this. 

However concerned that the draft SLEP 2009 fails to adequately maintain, much less enhance 

protections, in the ‘changeover’. Further, I believe the draft LEP does not give sufficient regard to 

the statutory requirements established by the Environment Planning and Assessment Act (1979) 

and the need to be consistent with the South Coast Regional Strategy (SCRS). This also 

includes a lack of regard for important guidelines and criteria provided by the Local Government 

Act (1993) and its principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD), and the South 

Coast Regional Conservation Plan (SCRCP). 

Concerned with impacts of climate change such as sea level rise, changing intensity of weather 

patterns and sea surges. 

Believes the E zone objectives themselves are good - however collapsing the E zones is a 

significant loss of flexibility and capacity to protect environmental and heritage values. So many 

additional developments may be permitted in E2 and E3 that are so clearly incompatible with the 

conservation values inherent in the objectives. 

Recommends: 

-The number of future developments that may be permitted in E2 and E3 zones, needs to be 

reduced in order to be consistent with the objectives of the zone and the intention of the South 

Coast Sensitive Urban Lands Review and the South Coast Regional Strategy. 

The E4 ‘Environmental Living’ zone should be reinstated. 

-Permitted developments in W2 'Recreational Waterways' should be reduced to only 

‘Environmental Facilities’, ‘Environmental Protection Works’, ‘Recreational Areas’ and ‘Boat 

Launching Ramps’. 

Concerned that biodiversity objective is relatively weak - looked at other LEP Biodiversity clauses 

including Bega, Kiama, Temora and Albury and believes that Shoalhaven could do so much 

48


Number 


better. 

Recommends: 

- The objective needs to include the words; “The objective of this clause is to protect, maintain 

and improve...” The objective should ensure that significant constructs captured in the terms, 

"threatened species", "habitat corridor" and endangered ecological communities" are included in 

the sub clauses of the objective 

- The consent authority should be fully satisfied that there is no significant adverse impact on 

biodiversity on the land where development is proposed 

- The role of connectivity of the vegetation as significant habitat corridor both locally and 

regionally, should be addressed in the clause 

- Proposed developments need to fully identify measures to minimise or mitigate any possible 

adverse impacts on biodiversity. 

Concerned with draft SLEP 2009 zoning of Swan Lake as W2. 

Recommends: 

- The current SLEP draft W1 zoning for approximately two thirds of Swan Lake should remain. 

- The estuarine channel from the bridge on Springs Rd Cudmirrah south east to the Swan Lake 

entrance (currently W2) should be rezoned W1’Natural Waterways’ (See Map LZN_037). 

- The current RE1 ‘Public Recreation’ zoning to the east of Swan Lake between Springs Road 

and Cudmirrah Beach that extends north of the Swan Lake estuarine channel should be zoned 

E2 ‘Environmental Conservation’ (See Map LZN_037). 

- The current E3 ‘Environmental Management’ zoning of land immediately to the north of the 

Swanhaven village (Map LZN-037) should be zoned E2. 

- These recommendations need to be read in conjunction with the recommendations (above) on 

permitted uses for E2 and E3 zones. 

Recommends that the E2 recommendation of the Sensitive Urban Lands Panel re Badgee 

Lagoon should be adopted in the SLEP (2009), as currently endorsed by the draft SLEP 2009. 

175 Objects to additional uses such as hazardous and offensive industries permitted in the RU1 

zone. 

Concerned that there is no protection against an industrial estate being set up in the RU1 zone. 

Requests better protection for the rural landscape can be retained. 

Objects to the inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 & RU2 zone - Council should find an 

alternative method within the airstrip category. 

Objects to the objectives added by Council in the RU1 and RU2 zone - contradicts SI Template 

objectives. 

There is no difference between RU1 and RU2 permissible uses - why did Council not discard 

zone RU2 

Concerned that the 1(e) zone has been incorporated into RU1 zone. 

The 1(e) zone was previously small in area - transfer to RU1 zone means that uses permitted in 

49


Number 


1(e) change permitted uses in all rural land. 

1(e) should be dealt with the same as 1(g) by mapping the old 1(e) land. 

Request the additional 30 non primary activities permitted in rural zones be restricted to protect 

the landscape character of the rural land. 

Objection to HOB change from 2 storeys to 11m - change is not best fit. 

Recommends Council map existing DCPs height limits in HOB map and the remaining land be 

mapped as 8m height limit. 

Concerned with the increase in allowable development types - particularly RU1 and RU2. 

Kiama Council has fewer development types permitted in rural zones to retain the rural 

character. 

176 The one size fits all development consents would likely ruin the physical and social amenities of 

all communities. 

Objects to the 11metre building height. 

Strongly urges a rewrite with community input. 

10 environmental zones into 3 leads to unsuitable developments, 

177 Made comment regard community usage of land in Bugdong locality 

Land divided by public roads should be able to utilise the roads as land holdings. 

178 Objects to the flood levels on the Bunnerong Investments property at Sanctuary Point - believes 

they are excessive and based upon a false interpretation of the Ministers Direction - this land has 

been filled to and above the 100 year ARI flood level. 

Lot 2864-2871 DP 238913 are not below the 100 Year ARI flood level of 2.4m AHD - requests 

planning impediments for these lands be removed. 

Lot 113 DP 1123551 is generally not below the 100 year ARI flood level of 2.4m AHD - requests 

planning impediments for this land be removed. 

Believes the flood planning area is not in accordance with the Ministers Direction 15 issued as an 

advice under s117. 

Believes the LEP 1985 map warning about the level data should be added to the 2009 LEP map. 

Objects to the zoning for Flinders Estate and South Nowra - concerned that vested interests are 

influencing the zoning of these areas to the continuing detriment of the Nowra CBD. 

Objects to the zones as they stand and believes the permitted uses of land at Flinders and South 

Nowra need to thoroughly re-examined. 

Concerned with the including of retailing in industrial zones IN1 and IN2 at Flinders Estate and 

South Nowra. 

Council have allowed significant levels of retailing in industrial areas at South Nowra, contrary to 

principal objectives of the zone. 

Concerned with the use of "any development not specified in Item 2 and 4" - this is 

unsatisfactory and requires the use of matrix which is also unsatisfactory and does not form part 

50


Number 


of the LEP. 

Removal of schedules as contained in the 1985 LEP has created uncertainty. 

Concerned that Bulky goods are not permitted with consent in IN2 zone, however are permitted 

in matrix. 

Advice of Department of Planning 31/1/11 remains a valid criticism of Council (that is wishing to 

permit bulky goods and business premises in IN1 zones - Council should desist from this aim. 

Recommends that Flinders Estate and surrounding area should be zoned with any retailing 

prohibited (except the listed small scale convenience stores/facilities and outlets for goods 

manufactured on site (as defined in the draft SLEP 2009). 

Concerned with Business Parks and General Industrial areas -permitted uses hazardous and 

heavy industries are incompatible with retail uses. 

Noted that the Department requires the LEP to be changed from the Nowra CBD being called 

"commercial core" to "local retail centre" - believes no qualification applies in the zone (IN1) 

general industry where "bulky goods are permitted and a number of retail outlets have been 

allowed which stretch the term "bulky goods" - it is alleged that a clothing retailer outlet has 

moved from the CBD to the industrial area in the past year for example. 

Concerned that B5 sweeps aside any pretence about retail activity and would most likely allow 

large retail. 

Believes the objective of the B5 zone "do not compete with the local retail centre" would most 

likely be challengeable under Federal legislation for competition policy. 

Believes this zone may suit some vested interest but it is not in the interest of the long term 

viability of the Nowra CBD - It is not in Council's or the community's interest to do anything that 

detracts from the CBD. The Department have made that clear by dint of the provisions they have 

demanded. 

Concerned that Council's flood mapping is above the requirement set by the NSW State 

Government policy for a Flood Planning Level as contained the s117 PS07-003 which states 

1:100 year ARI is to be the Flood Planning Level for residential development. Direction 15 also 

states "(4) A draft LEP must no impose flood related development controls above the residential 

flood planning level for residential development on land". 

Concerned that Sanctuary Point flood plan obviously sets a much higher standard than 1%. 

Concerned that the lower Shoalhaven flood planning levels are incorrect. 

Bunnerong Investments property at Sanctuary Point 

Believes Council failed to include private land in the land reservation acquisition map. 

Believe Council originally offered to acquire the land 10 years ago, the Council say they no 

longer wish to acquire it. 

Section 94 contributions plan 1993 - 2005 Section 149 Certificate - Project 03 AREC 0001 Land 

51


Number 


identified for all/part acquisition to provide active recreational facilities in this area. 

31.15ha in Lot 1151 DP 1159783 ought to be acquired by Council as proposed and notified . 

Believes Council has used an approach which is an abuse of the planning processes by not 

zoning the land identified by the 1993 Section 94 Contributions Plan as 6(d) Open Space for 

future acquisition. 

Believes the land is eminently suitable for playing/sports grounds and in addition Council have a 

responsibility to deal with the water pollution flowing into Bunnerong's land. 

Concerned with the water flows unimpeded and untreated into St Georges Basin. 

Objects to Riverview Estate (including 40 Riverview Rd - Lot 32 DP 209295) being mapped as 

Natural Resource Sensitivity Map. 

Believes this is illogical giving consideration to the LEP clause 7.9. Believes that the land is not 

affected by soil resources, diversity or stability. 

Requests Council remove the Natural Resource Sensitivity Map. 

Concerned that Council have failed to make provisions for Bunnerong Investments land at 

Sanctuary Point currently and for a long time being used for public recreation. 

Requests that immediate steps be taken to amend the Land Reservation Acquisition Map to 

represent and recognise the true status of land regardless of any other matter. 

The land owned by Bunnerong Investments along the foreshore - between the boat ramp to Palm 

Beach is fully utilised by the public for access to and for public recreation purposes. 

Nowra CBD and other business zones lack clear recognition of the importance of the CBD and 

clear support for shop top housing. In summary, the Clause 3 allowances should be consistent. 

The definition of shop top housing should include residential flat buildings. I am also concerned 

that the prohibition on ‘dwellings’ and ‘residential flat buildings’ is some business zones might be 

interpreted in a way that inhibits residential development 

Objects to Acid sulphate soils at Sanctuary point - the maps ASS-61 shows likelihood of acid 

sulphate soils - in fact there is evidence to the contrary (attach mapping by Webb McKeown). 

Remove acid sulphate soils from DP 1159783 

Objects to Acid Sulphate Soils at Riverview Rd Estate requests land be removed from mapping 

179 Objects to 'air transport facilities' being permissible in the RU1 zone. 

Council must protect our rural areas. 

180 Concerned about the possible restriction on retails sales in industrial zones (retail, bulky goods 

and ancillary retail). Need to free up land uses for industrial areas. 

181 Supports the rezoning of her property at 40 Mt Scanzi Road, Kangaroo Valley from Rural 1(a) to 

R5 Large Lot Residential for the level areas and E2 Environmental Conservation for the steep 

creek areas. 

This is consistent with the zoning of neighbouring properties and will greatly assist with property, 

creek and environmental management. 

182 Likes the zoning for Lot 135 McMahons Road North Nowra - concerned with clearing of bush on 

escarpment in relation to rezoning (Not LEP issue). 

52


Number 


Likes planning for the bypass of Nowra 

Concerned with the service corridor has already been encroached on near Golden Cane Ave, 

Karana Drive, Moondara Drive. 

Strongly objects to rezoning of Crams Rd Urban release area. 

Specific concerns with 30, 66 and 122 Crams Rd. 

Particularly extent of biodiversity studies. 

Without the E4 zone then too many land uses are 'permitted with consent' in both E3 and E2. 

This is exacerbated by standard instrument having limited number of environmental zones. 

Recommends the following: 

Section 1.2 Aims - Insert new Aim in section 1.2. as follows:- “to ensure that development is 

ecologically sustainable, consistent with the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development 

and taking into account the impacts of climate change and sea level rise.” 

E4 zone (Environmental Living) - to maintain consistency across the south coast, zone E4 must 

be utilised within the Shoalhaven LEP. We submit that zone 7(d1) be reassigned to 

E4. Additionally other areas of environmental significance currently NOT zoned Environmental 

protection should be included in E4, for example certain areas zones R5. It would NOT be 

appropriate to reduce the zoning of E2 and E3 zones in the current draft LEP. We would further 

submit that we believe Caravan Parks would NOT be an appropriate land use for E4 zone. 

E2 zone is for very high conservation, that is, including old growth forests, significant wildlife, 

wetland or riparian corridors, coastal foreshores, escarpment, etc. 

E3 Zone recommendation:- 

Reassign zone 7(d1) to E4. 

“E” Zones general background:- 

The purpose: South Coast Regional Conservation Plan 8.4.2 p49 states that these zones should 

be generally consistent across the 3 local government areas on the south coast. 

The legislative background:- Section 117(2) Ministerial Directive 2.1 Environmental Protection 

Zones (4) states:- “A planning proposal that applies to land within an environment protection 

zone or land otherwise identified for environment protection purposes in a LEP must not reduce 

the environmental protection standards that apply to the land (including by modifying 

development standards that apply to the land).” 

E2 Land in Crams Road (currently rural 1 (d)) on the Draft LEP for instance should be rezoned 

E4 Environmental Living or RU2 Rural Landscape – people already live here and run their 

business from home and it doesn’t affect the environment – what are we supposed to do if you 

rezone our land and won’t let us earn our living….. You are not taking into account the human 

cost of what the LEP will mean to an average family just trying to get by! 

Concerned with the environmental impacts of the Crams Road URA. 

183 Demands that Council remove 'air transport facilities' from the LEP. 

53



Concerned that Berry could have an airport at Jaspers Brush which would reduce quality of life 

due to noise pollution. 

184 83 Little Valley Way Milton - concerned about smaller acreages complaining about noise smell of 

cattle etc. Traffic issues, impact of building on wildlife 

185 On behalf of Kylor Pty Ltd 

Believe no greater development controls should be applied to our client’s land without the 

opportunity to review a prior environmental study. In this case (E3 zone), no justification has 

been provided for the greater restrictions proposed. 

Requests removal of the prohibition of hotels in the E3 zone; 

Requests removal of any references to land being ‘sensitive’ due to ‘biodiversity’ vegetation’ or 

‘habitats’. 

Requests no changes to the current land use tables for the Residential 2(a2) and 2(c) zones in 

the proposed Residential zones. 

186 Strongly objected to the planned re-zoning in the draft plan set out by council. 

General residential zoning (R1) has been applied to two parts of the Bush land at North Nowra , 

one fronting Illaroo Road and the other fronting West Cambewarra Road. These are significant 

parts of the Bush land biodiversity and contain a number of threatened plant and animal species. 

Their development will also have significant impacts on the amenity of nearby residents and will 

generate a significant increase in road traffic. 

All future plans for this area should include an increased buffer zone to protect what we have, as 

our increased desire to penetrate pollute and destroy our valuable environment seems to be our 

mind set. 




dollars. 

188 Objects to medium density zoning of area bordered by Lyrebird Drive and Hawthorn Avenue, 

Nowra. The area from Hawthorn Avenue in front of Graham lodge and extending to the Graham 

Burial ground be left as open space to provide line of sight from the lodge, they are significant 

part of history. 

189 Height of the Building Clause 4.3 Objective 1 (a). 

Objects to the Draft SLEP 2009 11 metres height maximum for Hyams Beach (and any 

community that does not have a Height of Building Map). 

Hyams Beach currently has one and two storey houses and changing the height limit to 11 

metres will completely change the character of the village. It should remain as 8.5 metres (7.5 

metres foreshore) in compliance with the South Coast Regional Strategy (Section 10, Cultural 

Heritage, page 33). 

In addition Hyams Beach should have an individual Height of Building Map to ensure that height 

and floor space ratios apply now and in the future. 

Inappropriate Land Uses in the proposed R1 zone at Hyams Beach. 

Objects to the R1 zoning for Hyams Beach. It is not appropriate as it would allow over 

54


Number 


development in an area which is environmentally sensitive with insufficient street access and 

parking availability. 

RU2 Zoning Illowra Lane 

A rural zoning is not appropriate for this area as it is a small parcel of land which contains a road 

and residential properties. 

Dual Occupancy 

Objects to Dual Occupancy for Hyams Beach which is not currently permitted. 

The proposed allowance for detached dual occupancy with R2 zoning is not appropriate for 

Hyams Beach. This zoning appears not to be an administrative change and is thus contrary to 

the rules for developing a Draft LEP. A ‘one size fits all’ should not be applied to Hyams Beach 

and other coastal communities. 

R3 Zoning Lister Court Area. 

This allows potential intensification of development in this area and would be out of character for 

Hyams Beach. 

Heritage Estates Naval College Road 

The proposed RU2 zoning is wrong. The area is the subject of a Federal Government 

Environmental Act decision. 

The Shoalhaven Draft LEP 2009 does not comply with the South Coast Regional Strategy. 

Shoalhaven is a major tourist attraction and any changes which adversely affect Its unique 

environment whether coastal, rural or urban should not even be contemplated. 

Hyams Beach is one of the unique coastal communities in the Shoalhaven. It is a small area 

surrounded by sea and bush with a unique character not compatible with inappropriate 

development. Other small communities are equally at risk with the ‘one size fits all’ approach. 

Shoalhaven is a large and diverse area with some 40 residential locations from cities to towns, 

villages and hamlets. It has a rich variety of urban and rural settlements. A ‘one size fits all’ 

planning approach is an ineffective way to maintain and improve the unique Australian identity of 

the Shoalhaven area. 

190 Need to change clause 4.2(5) – make Rural Workers dwellings permissible in RU1 

Impact: primary producers will be less able to employ quality workers, experience increased 

levels of theft and vandalism and are likely to loss more stock during calving. These contribute to 

a decrease in income and viability of farms. 

Need to allow detached dual occupancies on RU1 and E3 

Impact families are less likely to be able to support each other or raise additional income to 

enable them to remain on rural properties. 

Proposed resolution: where dual occupancy(attached) is permitted, this be change to include 

dual occupancy (detached) 

55


Number 


Believes that the number of uses currently permitted under Rural 1(a) are being reduced under 

the draft LEP. 

Requests that all areas currently zoned Rural 1(a) be zoned as RU1 and the land uses available 

in 1(a) be retained. 

Permit landowners to request an RU2 or E3 if they wish. 

191 Concerned that 4 storey buildings will be allowed throughout Shoalhaven. 

Wants Council to stipulate the areas where Shoalhaven will be advantaged by 11m, possibly in 

commercial areas but not anywhere that anyone wants to. 

Believes that Council are hoping to reduce the average land size down to 500m2 per block in the 

whole of Shoalhaven like what has occurred at Bayswood. 

The average block size should stay at 700m2. 

Concerned with Council allowing new subdivisions in North Nowra without considering the impact 

of additional traffic in North Nowra and on the Highway or addressing the need for improved 

infrastructure in Nowra. 

Concerned with the Crams Road URA and the impacts of putting residential development next to 

environmental conservation areas. 

Concerned with the inequity of a small number of landowners being able to subdivide while the 

surrounding landowners are unable to. 

Has heard that land near Farrar Drive / Halcot Ave, North Nowra which used to be a rubbish tip is 

being zoned for residential, concerned that people will be housed on toxic land. 

Comment regarding maintenance of council reserves/parks - not LEP related. 

Concerned that rural land in Kangaroo Valley will be rezoned as residential. 

Concerned that rural land at Berry will be rezoned to residential. 

Relates to reduced numbers of new homes being built - not LEP related 

Concerned that there was a letter from NSW government telling Council to start the exhibition 

ASAP but it was only release in June for comment with 15 weeks for the community to have their 

say. 

Believes that no one has any idea about it. 

Concerned with Crams Road URA. 

Threatened Biodiversity document has pages missing. 

Wants to know why all local landowners didn't get notified of the exhibition of the draft LEP 

(submitter does not own land in Shoalhaven). 

Objects to Crams Road URA. 

Concerned with the environmental impacts of Crams Road URA, particularly as endangered 

species where identified in the area through the Threatened Biodiversity Assessment. 


conservation. 



Concerned with Council giving in principle support to a landowner request to amend the 

proposed zonings for part of the Crams Road URA before the plan has even been released to 

the public 

56


Number 


urban zoning should not be permitted in Crams Road due to south coast regional conservation 

plan stating limiting development due to constraints 

Concerned with proposed clearing for subdivisions in North Nowra (Coconut Drive, Flacon Cres, 

Halcot Ave, Sutherland Drive, Pitt Street), Tapitalee and Cabbage Tree Land, believes these 

should be environmental conservation if parts of Crams Road are. 

Concerned that a lot of rural land in the Nowra area is being environmental conservation that 

should stay as rural. 

Are the proposed subdivisions in the Shoalhaven going to be in line with the NSW Housing 

Code It states most councils have building heights capped at 8.5 metres. Why does 

Shoalhaven want to have this capped at 11 metres 

Concerned that schools, hospitals, churches and the public sites are zoned for residential - 

changes mean that Department of Education could slice off a school's playing field and sell it to a 

development without having to go through the public process of rezoning the land. 

Council's "exception to best fit document" in regards to 'proposed roads' states that proposed 

roads cannot be shown on the Draft LEP. 

However, notes North Nowra link road shown. 

Concerned with endangered species along this route and feels should be rezoned for 

environmental conservation. 

Has a Floodplain Risk Management Plan been done for the Nth Nowra Link Rd 

This area should be zoned as a flood zone as in the 1970's the water was up around the cliff 

tops. 

Concerned - Land owner of Crams Road, North Nowra had to undertake Bushfire and Flora & 

Fauna studies as part of a DA. Not an LEP issue. 

Crams Road being zoned as environment conservation - E 2 Environment Conservation. 

“Environment Protection works” and “Environmental Facilities” are the only uses which should 

be permitted. Other proposed uses eg “dwellings houses,” are not consistent with the objective of 

maintaining national park-equivalent values and not consistent with South Coast Regional 

Strategy (SCRS) and Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD). 

Objects to the first two draft “Aims,” which place development before environment protection and 

conservation. 

This approach is inconsistent with the SCRS and Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) 

principles ie biodiversity conservation, intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle. 

Recommends words for Aims 1 and 2 such as, “to protect and conserve the natural features and 

biodiversity of the environment” and “to ensure that development is ecologically sustainable, 

taking the impacts of global warming into account.” 

Environment Zone recommendations. 

E3 Environmental Management. “Dwelling Houses,” “Environmental Protection Works,” 

“Environmental Facilities” and “Home industries” are the required permitted uses. Council has 

added lists of uses likely to adversely impact on HCV areas. Such uses are not consistent with 

the South Coast Regional Strategy (SCRS) and Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) 

principles. Therefore limit additional uses to “Visitor information centre,” “Home-based child 

care,” “roads,” “Home based business.” Other “Tourist and Visitor accommodation” definition 

57


Number 


uses are not consistent with the zone objective. 

Environment Zone recommendations. 

E 4 Environmental Living. This zone should be included in the SLEP to allow for low impact 

residential development. Some rural areas should be reconsidered for E 4 zoning. 

W Zones. Water zones W1 and 2 also appear to include multiple uses inconsistent with 

conserve and maintain objectives. Object to “Sewerage Systems.” Other uses with adverse 

environmental impacts should be reviewed. 

Habitat corridors and Riparian zones. 

Community land that is gazetted as “Natural Areas. Bushland” in accordance with the Local 

Government Act, should be zoned E 2 e.g. some foreshore reserves. 

Objects to Biodiversity (7.5) and Water clauses (7.6). These clauses apply to development 

applications in areas mapped as Natural Resource Sensitivity Biodiversity Areas. They assume 

developments would be approved, merely requiring a consent authority to “consider” potential 

impacts, rather than establishing that values would be maintained. 

Cleared land in habitat corridors should be covered by Biodiversity mapping to foster corridor 

regeneration and connectivity. 

Supports Riparian Zone widths of 50 metres each side of water courses. 

Wants Clause 5.9 Tree Preservation Clause to apply to all land in SLEP. 

Supports inclusion of clauses: 

Coastal zone protection (5.5) 

Jervis Bay Regional Environment Plan (7.15) 

Supports E1 and E2 zonings on sites identified in the South coast Regional Conservation Plan 

Map 17. 

Supports E2 zoning Lake Wollumboola (on Office of Environment and Heritage advice), SCRS 

zoning is E1 but there is no agreement to acquire. 

Does not support R1 Residential for lower Crookhaven river catchment support limited R2 and E 

zoning. 

Supports E2 zoning Kinghorn Point - Warrain Beach-Lake Wollumboola not E3. 

Rezone Heritage Estates E2. 

One Tree Bay, St Georges Basin support E2 zoning 

North Bendalong and Bendalong Crown land to west -rezone E1. 

Enquiring about native veg removal and prosecution - not relevant to LEP. 

The urban subdivision proposed for Crams Road, North Nowra and Cabbage Tree Lane, Nowra 

and large Nowra bypass road would not comply with the South Coast Regional Conservation 

Plan. 

Land should be allowed to be zoned as rural throughout the Shoalhaven, instead of zoning it as 

Environment Conservation. In particular, Crams Road, North Nowra & Cabbage Tree Lane, 

Nowra. The native Veg Act currently protects this land. 

In the South Coast Regional Conservation Plan the Conservation objectives for the South Coast 

Region have not been met with the proposed Urban zoning of Crams Road, North Nowra and 

Cabbage Tree Lane, Nowra as the areas are not being improved or maintained by knocking 

down trees and threatening the homes of endangered wildlife. 

Cabbage Tree Lane, Nowra & Crams Road, North Nowra should not be made into residential 

housing, they should remain rural to protect the endangered fauna. 

Crams Road, North Nowra is not listed in the "Endangered ecological communities within or 

overlapping the South Coast Region" in the South Coast Regional Conservation Plan. And 

58


Number 


should therefore not be listed as "Environment Conservation". 

Concerned that without the use of E4 zone, there are far too many land uses "permitted with 

consent" in both E3 and E2. 

Request 7(d1) zone be reassigned to E4. 

If habitat is already living on land that has a house, then it should be zoned as E4 Environmental 

Living. E.g. Crams Road, North Nowra. They shouldn't be zoned as if they are almost a National 

Park. 

Concerned that biodiversity clause 7.5.4 assumes that consent would be granted. 

Clause 7.5.4 a)-c) does not provide any qualitative or quantitative indicators to assess as the 

basis for making judgements regarding the capacity of an application to "maintain biodiversity". 

Other South Coast Councils have adapted the clauses and improved them. 

Recommends Council insert two new aims in part 1.2 as follows: 

“to conserve, maintain and improve biodiversity and ecosystem functions including habitat, 

environmental and riparian corridors,” and “to ensure that development is ecologically 

sustainable, consistent with the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development and taking 

into account the impacts of climate change and sea level rise.” 

Recommends Council Identify environmental/habitat corridors to be defined by Southern Rivers 

Catchment Management Authority end to end both across open land and vegetated/rehabilitated 

land on the Biodiversity Overlay, so that Council Planners can take their presence into account. 

Recommends Council Amend the Biodiversity clause section 7.5 to reject DA's that would block 

wildlife movement through the habitat corridors as shown on the Overlay. 

Concerned that corridors are not mapped across open paddocks which are usually zoned rural 

and a number of rural land uses have the potential to block the corridor to the passage of Flora 

and Fauna. For Example, Air Transport Facilities, Offensive Industries, Crematoria and Water 

Supply Systems. Without Council mapping the corridors end to end on an overlay there is no 

access for those planners vetting DA's to ensure that the corridors are not blocked. 

Believes the alignment of habitat corridors should be consistent with that outlined in the Illawarra 

Biodiversity Strategy so that they match the Shoalhaven/Kiama boundary. 

Supports Council using Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority mapping in the draft 

SLEP Biodiversity overlay. 

Recommends that identified significant vegetation within 200m of identified corridors should be 

considered part of the corridor to ensure connectivity between those important remnants are 

maintained. 

Concerned with 1(c) land changing to R5 and also the E2 and E3 zones in SLEP 2009. 

The procedural integrity issue is that there is a significant difference between how the new LEP 

treats land that was previously zoned as Rural 1(c) compared to how it is treated in the current 

LEP. The new LEP has been drafted on the basis of a “best fit” administrative transfer but this 

has not been followed in the case of Rural 1(c) land. Land currently protected by a rural zoning 

59


Number 


should remain in a rural zoning in the new LEP. 

Concerned that grouping Rural (1c) with 2(a2) and 2(a3) into R5 Large Lot Residential and R1 

and R2 Residential there is significant potential to see ad hoc residential development Rural 1(c) 

land. 

Concerned that rezoning Rural 1(c) land to E2 and E3 will result in the alienation of agricultural 

land in this way - this is not in the interest of the community and will impact on the amenity of our 

lifestyle in the Shoalhaven. 

Concerned that the limitation on the number of lots in Schedule 13 of LEP 1985 has been lost in 

draft SLEP 2009 - particularly Beach Rd, Agars Lane, Crams Road and Cabbage Tree Lane. 

Believes Bundewallah Rd is used for small scale agriculture and needs the protection of an 

agriculture zoning such as RU4. 

Land currently zoned as Rural Lifestyle 1(c), such as that in the upper sections of Bundewallah 

Road Berry, Crams Road North Nowra, Cabbage Tree Lane Nowra Hill, George Evans Road 

West Nowra are adjacent to land that is to be Zoned E2 and E3 and are of high conservation 

value. This land needs the protection of an Environmental Protection zone (E4). All of these lots 

of land should be zoned as E4 if there is an existing dwelling. 

Concerned that Lot Size Averaging as currently practiced in the Shoalhaven will result in further 

subdivision and loss of amenity in these valuable areas. 

Recommends that Council moves land currently zoned as Rural Lifestyle 1(c) in LEP 1985 into 

RU4 Primary Production Small Lots or E4 Environmental Living as Outlined DP&I Practice Note 

PN11-002. 

Concerned with height of buildings in draft SLEP. 

Concerned that administrative transfer has not been followed in the case of Height of Buildings. 

Concerned that the change of building heights in the new LEP will allow ad hoc development 

which is not consistent with a strategic framework or consistent with the form and scale of 

existing buildings in the area. 

Recommends that the reference to 11 metres in clause 4.3(2) be removed and that height of 

building maps be inserted to cover all areas and these maps should reflect the DCPs that apply 

and if no DCP applies the map should reflect the existing form and scale of buildings in the area. 

Concerned that minimum lot sizes for the Huntingdale Park development in Berry in the draft 


Believes that Council has reduced average lot size to 500m2 and this is not suitable for the 

Shoalhaven and is not 'best fit'. 

Lot sizes should gradually increase as you get further from town and there should be mixed 

development including some medium density, some large lot residential, some open space and 

some rural land. 

Concerned that Rural 1(g) land has been moved into RU1 & RU2 as this will allow additional 

development which is incompatible with sustainable flood prone land use. 

60


Number 


Requests that Council add a new point (5) in Clause 7.8 “For the avoidance of doubt the 

following land uses are prohibited in flood prone land: tourist and visitor accommodation, caravan 

parks, air transport facilities, cellar door, crematoria, mining, offensive industries and veterinary 

hospitals.” 

Concerned with the inclusion of 'caravan parks' in the RU2 zoning. This should be removed until 

the completion of the review of SEP21 (State Environmental Planning Policy-Caravan Parks) and 

SEP36 (State Environmental Planning Policy-Manufactured Homes Estates) is completed by the 

NSW Government. Kiama has not included Caravan Parks in RU2 in their LEP 

Concerned with the proposed range of allowable uses for areas zoned as urban - residential. 

Clubs, hotels, motels, hostels, hospitals, vet clinics, serviced apartments, etc should not be 

allowed in residential zones. These are residential environments (not zoned for business) and 

should be treated as such. 

Objects to the proposed R1 & SP2 zonings on the Draft LEP in the Bomaderry Creek bushland 

and also the location on Pitt Street, Crams Road, McMahons Road, River Ridge. 

Two thirds of those making submissions opposed the Pitt Street-Narang Road option when it was 

on display in February 2012. The West Cambewarra Road option was the preferred by majority 

of submissions. 

Residential - R1 delete objective “To identify land suitable for future urban expansion” as this 

could pre-empt consideration of the rezoning process when land is to be released. 

Business - B4 contains an objective restricting competition, this should be removed. 

Special Use Zones - Fact Sheet 11 comments that zones presently shown as SP are likely to be 

reclassified before SLEP2009 is finalise. SLEP2009 should be re-exhibited after such changes 

have been made. 

Environmental – E4 to be used for housing in environmentally sensitive areas where dwellings 

are to be permitted. 

R1 General Residential - 

Delete- 

• Boat repair facilities (noisy business activity, not compatible) 

• Helipads (noisy activity, not compatible) 

• Home industries (light industry not compatible) 

• Registered clubs (not compatible due to noise and traffic, use R3) 

• Tourist and visitor accommodation (not compatible due to noise and traffic, use SP3 or R3) 

• Veterinary hospital (not compatible due to noise, use B zones) 

R2 Low Density Residential – 

Delete- 

• Dual occupancy (prohibited in zones 2(a2) and 2(a3) in LEP1985 and not compatible with R2 

”Low Density” residential). 

• Emergency service facilities (not compatible due to noise and traffic). 

B1 to B7 Business – 

Delete - Any developments not specified in 2 or 4 and list all permitted uses (for clarity). 

B2 Local Centre - 

Delete – Residential care facilities (should be adjacent not part of shopping centre) 

B3, 4, 5 and 7 – 

Delete - Crematorium (inappropriate) and add - Mortuaries (appropriate) 

61


Number 


RE1 Public Recreation – 

Delete – 

• Agriculture (incompatible with passive recreation) 

• Caravan parks (incompatible with passive recreation) 

• Child care centres (cannot meet objectives) 

• Entertainment facility (potentially large buildings and noise, incompatible with passive 

recreation, use B zones) 

• Function centres (potentially large buildings and noise, incompatible with passive recreation, 

use SP3 or B zones) Recreation facilities (indoor) (potentially large buildings incompatible with 

passive recreation, use B zones) 

• Restaurants (too intensive and incompatible with passive recreation, but kiosks are allowed) 

Requests that Council creates Height of Buildings maps for all land in Shoalhaven and set 

heights in accordance with current site specific DCPs or for other areas in accordance with whole 

of Shoalhaven DCPs or if no DCPs apply to the lot or building thereon, in accordance with 

current practise. 

Concerned with Crams Rd North Nowra rezoning. 

Concerned that 4 unnamed creeks and vegetation in proposed rezoning area. 

Council have ignored that particular land owners have cleared their lots ready for residential 

housing - land owners should be fined, not rewarded by making them millionaires. 

Council is punishing law abiding land owners by zoning their rural land E2 and E3. 

Recommends all land in Crams Rd zoned 1(d) should be zoned RU2. 

Based on Council's report identifying Crams Rd area as part of Shoalhaven River catchment and 

bushland with high conservation value and the area adjoin an important wildlife corridor along the 

Shoalhaven River - why would this area of rural land be proposed for residential subdivision and 

also proposed Nowra bypass road. 

Concerned that Council ignored it's own research of threatened species and proposes to rezone 

it residential. 

Believes every new residential block must have a flora and fauna report and bushfire report. 

Believes all of Crams Rd, North Nowra land should not be zoned residential and should be zoned 

RU2. 

Concerned that a lot of land throughout the Shoalhaven is being rezoned - this land should be 

zoned as a "best fit" to RU2 Rural Landscape. 

Concern with the draft SLEP complying with the NSW's State government goals and plans as 

outlined in the NSW 2021 website. 

Some of the points to look into would be - 

- Protect our natural environment 

- Increase opportunities for people to look after their own neighbourhoods and environments 

- Make it easier for people to be involved in their communities 

62


Number 


- Ensure NSW is ready to deal with major emergencies and natural disasters - Bushfires 

Does not see much in the State government document about being so pro-housing development 

as Shoalhaven City Council appears to be in the Draft LEP. 

Knocking down dense bushland throughout the Shoalhaven to make way for residential housing 

is not meeting the aim to "Protect our natural environment" or "Increase opportunities for people 

to look after their own neighbourhoods and environments". 

The way that council have zoned land right next door to 

each other as E2 Environment Conservation and General Residential is sure to create animosity 

in neighbourhoods. There will be no community spirit - Council do not seem to care about 

knocking down trees or the environment on this rural land 

While one home is made to go broke because they can’t run their business or have a few cows 

on E2 land, the other will be raking in the dollars as they are able to subdivide their land to 

hundreds of residential R1 & R2 lots. Neighbours will not want to talk to each other, it will cause 

feuds and possibly increased crime rates. The Draft LEP will not "Make it easier for people to be 

involved in their communities" 

Council hasn't even identified that rural land they are hoping to zone as residential in the Draft 

LEP is very prone to bushfires - this is very irresponsible. This is not "Ensuring NSW is ready to 

deal with major emergencies and natural disasters" 

192 Considers the regional services corridor (western bypass of Nowra) to be inappropriately located. 

Requests changes to the minimum lot size map and zone boundary. 

193 Objects to Ulladulla CBD HoB map overlay. Considers the maximum HoB too high as it will 

obstruct views, create wind tunnels, and remove the charm of coastal village. 

194 Objects to changes to proposed Nowra western bypass. Further community consultation on this 

matter is required. 

195 States that the objectives of LEP 2009 include “to protect the scenic landscape qualities places 

of cultural and heritage value and amenity and character.... Council must be careful to ensure 

these values are fully considered. 

HoB - Allowing 11 metre buildings as the default building height would erode the 

abovementioned values over time. A more appropriate approach would be to map any 

commercial centres where higher buildings may be justified (as with Nowra /Bomaderry, Ulladulla 

and Huskisson CBDs) and apply a default building height limit of 8.5 metres to remaining areas. 

R2 zoning - It is appropriate for areas zoned R2 to be mapped. Existing height and floor space 

ratios and minimum lot sizes contained in the relevant DCPs should form part of the LEP to 

ensure future developments comply with appropriate restrictions, for the reasons outlines above. 

RU1 Primary Production and RU2 Rural Landscape zoning - The uses proposed in these two 

rural zones (with consent) have been very substantially expanded. The following new uses are 

not appropriate for RU1 or for RU2 rural landscape land should be deleted: Air transport facilities, 

Boat repair facilities, Business identification signs, crematoria, caravan parks, depots, dual 

occupancies, entertainment facilities, food and drink premises, funeral homes, hazardous 

industries, home industries, marinas, Offensive industries, recreation facilities (major), v et 

hospitals and water recreation structures. 

To protect existing rural areas from development and prevent further reduction of native wildlife 

habitat that would be inevitable with any of the proposed new uses for RU2 land, submits the 

RU2 zones should be changed to E2. 

63


Number 


RE1 Public Recreation zones - The new zone RE1 Public Recreation also allows a much 

broader range of uses for open space zones. Currently only kiosks, recreation areas and roads 

are permitted. The new RE1 allows: 

Building identification signs, car parks, caravan parks, tourism boating facilities, child care 

centres, community facilities, entertainment facilities, function centres, helipads, recreation 

facilities (indoor),recreation facilities (major), restaurants, sewerage systems, water recreation 

structures and water supply systems. These uses are inappropriate for areas designated as 

reserves and would derogate from the purpose of a reserve. To allow private interests to develop 

and profit from such areas contradicts the nature of a public reserve. Developments such as 

entertainment facilities and restaurants create problems of noise, rubbish and vermin, ugly 

signage, waste disposal, toilet facilities, removal of vegetation for buildings and hard 

landscaping, removal of habitat, carbon and other pollution from emissions, heating and air 

conditioning and a raft of other issues. 

R1 general residential zoning behind Kinghorn St and Peel St, Currarong - These areas should 

be zoned E2 because of their high conservation values. R1 residential zoning, with its wide 

range of uses, is inappropriate considering the characteristics of the area. 

Currarong Shops - B1 Neighbourhood Centre - The maximum height of buildings for the 

Currarong shops should be 8.5m. This could be noted in the Height of Buildings map. This area 

is currently zoned residential although it has been used for shops for some time. It would be 

inappropriate to allow development over 8.5m given: 

 

 

 

 

the surrounding streetscape is limited to two storeys in all directions and three storey 

buildings would change the amenity of the town; 

the unique village-like feel of Currarong would change; 

the area that the shops currently occupy is very small; and 

the area is adjacent to a public park and picnic area of special beauty with extensive sea 

vistas across the foreshore reserve. 

E3 zoning of areas behind Currarong fire station and club - An E3 zoning for the land behind 

Currarong fire station and the club could allow inappropriate use of land that has high 

conservation value. A more suitable zoning for this land is E2 Environmental Conservation. 

196 Objects to the inclusion of ‘air transport facilities’ in the RU1 zone, for following reasons: 

No strategic basis for airports in most of the rural areas. 

This supports an airfield that has developed illegally. 

Many areas in Shoalhaven are flood liable and acid sulphate soils not suitable for air 

transport facilities. 

Supports an airfield on a site that is not suitable. 

Jaspers Bush impacts on the amenity of the area. 

Provides no limit to the scale of potential air transport facilities. 

197 Strongly objects to the removal of the 2(c) zoning from part of the subject land. This part of the 

land currently zoned 2(c) should have a residential, not RU2, zoning. 

198 Concerned with the 11m height limit and the increase in heights in Huskisson from DCP54. 

Concerned with the B4 zoning of the land owned by Huskisson RSL - full development of this site 

will significantly reduce the visual appeal of Huskisson. 

Appears that large sections of residential land in Huskisson are zoned R1, R3 & B4 with 11m 

height limits. 

Requests that: 

64


Number 


1. Remove the following words in the Objectives for both Clause 4.3 and Clause 4.4 

• ‘and desired future character of a’ 

2. Remove the “optional” statement from Clause 4.3 

• ‘11 metres except where’ 

3. Building heights for all zones in the Shoalhaven to be clearly and ONLY stated on Maps 

a) Map all zones (HOB and FSR) in the Shoalhaven to reflect existing maximum heights 

and FSR whether they are set by site specific DCP or generic DCP or convention / 

precedence for the specific zone or village. 

4. HOB in Owen Street Huskisson; 

a. Reduce the Max Height in HOB Map for Huskisson CBD, to levels in DCP54. Bonus 

height for Lot Consolidation to be applied as a Storey in the City Wide DCP, NOT in the 

LEP. 

I. Reduce the max building height on the north side of Owen Street to 10 meters 

ii. Reduce the max building height on the south side of Owen Street to 13 meters 

b. Reference to the landholdings of the RSL, specifically, lot DP 571682, the block 

currently known as the “RSL Car Park”. The HOB Map states a maximum height of 13 

meters whereas DCP54 limits construction height to 10 meters. DCP54 also sets 

conditions of setbacks to preserve the view of Currambene Creek from the corner o9f 

Owen & Currambene Streets, the iconic signature of Huskisson 

c. Use the City Wide DCP as a means to award an additional Storey for lot 

consolidation. 

5. Remove the land uses inserted by Shoalhaven City Council, that were previously 

prohibited or not previously stated as a permitted land use in one of the existing zones 

6. That Council be instructed to carry out Community Engagement to collaborate with the 

community in determining the most appropriate land uses for each zone 

7. Remove all land uses in the R3 zone that were previously stated as prohibited or NOT 

stated as permissible 

8. Remove all land uses that are not subservient to a family life style in a medium density 

residential area located in a small rural or coastal environment 

9. It is not reasonable to use the premise … that a previous “spot zoning” somewhere in 

the Shoalhaven has approved a specific land use … as a justification for the same land 

use to be included in the new zone and applied to the whole Shoalhaven 

65


Number 


10. Change the 6(c) zoned land off Berry St from B4 to RE1. 

11. 1(g) flood prone land at the end of Currambene St should be E2 .. NOT B4 .. as per 

equivalent flood prone land 200 meters to the north as approved by Crown Lands 

12. Concerned with the removal of the Huskisson bypass. 

13. Concerned that every piece of residential land bordering the eastern side of the town, 

i.e. the foreshore, with the exception of the land which is directly behind the Shoalhaven 

holiday Parks, has also been zoned B4. 

199 Objects to the RU1 zoning of land around Jaspers Brush. No positives for people who live 

around this area. 

200 Objects to replacement of 1(c) Rural Lifestyle zone with R5 Large Lot Residential. Would prefer 

the inclusion of RU4 Primary Production zone in SLEP 2009 to replace 1(c) zone. 

201 Objects to building height exceeding 8.5 metres as this is not in character. Ulladulla must retain 

its character, with no shaded pathways due to high rise building. Objects to agricultural land 

being subdivided into 5 and 10 acre lots. 

202 Objects to Vincentia shops being zoned B4 restricting future retail uses and prohibiting dwellings. 

Recommend a comprehensive town plan be prepared for Vincentia in consultation with 

community. 

203 Supports possibility of subdividing acreage and lot averaging being included in the draft LEP 

204 Request that Wason St, Milton precinct becomes a Heritage Conservation Area as it contains 

several houses of heritage significance. 

205 Objects to the HoB. 

Supports the Kangaroo Valley Community Association submission regarding height of building, 

changes from rural to residential, not best fit 

DCP66 has for 10 years been effective in maintain the rural character of the village. 

Changing Rural 1(c) to R5 not considered best fit, would be better to RU4 and E4. 

Entire plan not considered best fit therefore should delete a number of zones from the template 

as the process is flawed. 

206 Concerned that a lot of areas are being sterilised as park and environmental protection. 

Requests that Council does not rob future generations of areas for residential. 

207 Objection to zone change from 7(a) to IN4 for following reasons: 

 

 

 

 

This is an extremely environmentally sensitive wetland that is currently cared for. 

Introducing industry to this sensitive area would be to the demise of the current oyster 

industry located at this site. 

The channel is very shallow (less than 1m at low tide) and unsuitable for larger craft. 

Retaining an environmental protection zone is the only way that the Greenwell Point 

Oyster Industry can continue to exist and grow thus contributing to the economy of 

Greenwell Point and the Shoalhaven as a whole. 

208 Concerned proposed zoning will not allow grazing now and in the future . 

209 Supports the following in relation to subject land: 

66



1. Zoning - R2 (Low Density residential) 

2. Maximum building height – 11.0 metres 

3. Maximum floor space ratio – N/A 

4. Dual Occupancy – permitted (either attached or detached) 

210 Support proposed zoning of subject land. 

211 Support - R2 zoning for Cunjurong Point, Manyana and Bendalong 

Change - Berringer Village to zone R2 and not RU5 

Support - Nth Bendalong Village being zoned R2 

Delete - Caravan Parks as a use form the rural land zoned RU2 

Retain - 2 storey building heights throughout the District, especially Kylor land 

Alter - All Berringer Lake to zone W1 and part W2 

Support - Nth Bendalong headland being zoned E3 

Change - Crown Land zoning at corner of Inyadda Drive and Bendalong Rd to E2 

Change - Crown Land zoning for Green Island to E2 

Include - Goodsell grave site (Kylor land) on heritage listing and heritage overlay map for 

Manyana 

Change - Manyana shops form B2 to B1 zoning. 

212 Objects to the inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. Will destroy amenity, real 

estate values, local jobs and ecology. Supports an air transport facility at Albatross. 

213 Objects to the blanket height of 11m. 11m heights will significantly change the character of 

Huskisson and Shoalhaven. 

Objects to exhibition homes and exhibition villages, home industry and home industries, boat 

repair facilities, boat launching ramps, boat sheds, jetties, sewerage systems, emergency service 

facilities, building identification signs, business identification signs as permissible uses in the R2 

zone, believes that these were not previously permitted uses and are not appropriate for a low 

density residential area. 

Objects to the insertion of an objective into Cl.4.3 using the words “and desired future character 

of a…" 

Believes that such a statement is a corollary with the increased maximum height and arbitrary 

dismissal of height controls in existing DCP’s; 

Objects to changed land uses in R3 medium density residential zones that are not in accord with 

existing uses and not in accord with the objectives for the zone set by the Department of 

Planning and Infrastructure. 

Requests that hostels, residential flat buildings, shop top housing, tourist & visitor 

accommodation, sewerage systems, registered clubs, veterinary hospitals, water supply 

67


Number 


systems, boat repair facilities, boat launching ramps, boat sheds, jetties be removed from the R3 

zone. 

Objects to Council's intention to only map the R2 & RU5 zones and requests that Council maps 

all zones in Shoalhaven at heights and FSRs that conform to existing DCPs. 

Objects to the loss of public recreation land along Berry Street, Huskisson, which is currently 

zoned 6(c). 

Object to increased land uses in RU2 rural landscape zone to allow airport facilities. 

Requests removal of all land uses that were previously stated as prohibited or not stated as 

permissible and remove all land uses that are not appropriate for rural activities and primary 

production where the potential for food production and rural employment a reality. 

214 Concerned that there is a possibility of more caravan parks in the area. The State template does 

not include caravan parks and nor does Kiama to the north and Eurobodalla Councils to the 

south. Requests that Shoalhaven Council does the same and that caravan parks be deleted as a 

permissible use from RU2 land. 

215 Concerned with the removal of the 10ha minimum lot size for Rural 1(c) land for land that is 

prime crop and pasture land, requests that current prime crop and pasture land zoned 1(c) be 

zoned RU2 with a minimum lot size of 10ha. 

216 Expresses support to include 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. Shoalhaven marketed as a 

tourism hotspot but is lacking in recreational facilities. The inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in 

the RU1 zone will provide more opportunities for recreational aviation and flight training. 

217 Concerned that land zoned Rural 1(c) has been moved into R5 Large Lot Residential as this 

could risk the alienation of valuable agricultural land and turn substantial areas of rural land into 

Shellharbour style residential developments. 

Believes that Council should be using the RU4 and E4 zones. 

Concerned that Rural 1(g) has been moved into RU1 & RU2 zones which will allow a number of 

additional land uses. 

Requests that 'caravan parks' and 'air transport facilities' be removed from the rural zones. 

Believes that the Council's approach for developing the draft LEP with limited public input has 

resulted in the compression of land uses into too few zones and the inclusion of inappropriate 

uses in these zones. 

Requests that the draft LEP be re-exhibited after changes have been made to allow adequate 

community consultation. 

218 Believes that reference to a 40Ha block of rural land as a viable entity and thus should have 

restrictions placed thereon is out of date. Even if convict labour was available one still needed to 

house them. Some 1acre/40 Ha blocks could not produce enough to feed the goannas let alone 

a family. 

Objects to the proposed height of 11 metres of buildings in Kangaroo Valley in particular. The 

Shoalhaven is not an homogeneous mass. 

219 Supports the proposal to map maximum height of buildings in R2 and RU5 to 8.5m 

68



Supports the restriction of building to a minimum in and around the Harbour 

220 Completely supports the inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. The flying club at 

Jaspers Brush is a wonderful activity for local and a unique tourist attraction. Concerned with 

misleading statements made by the Berry Airport Action Group, particularly the implications that 

commercial airport on the scale of Wollongong or Bankstown will result from the LEP. 

221 Likes being able to make a submission online. 

Objects to land behind 18 Kinghorn Road, Currarong being zoned R1. Believes that the land is 

not suitable for housing given its swampy nature and should be zoned E2 or E3. 

Is concerned that the biodiversity layer conditions are not strong enough for future development. 

222 Supports Kangaroo Valley Progress Association recommendations 

Objects to 11metre height as this is not in character. 

Concerned with RU zones - permitting development in flood prone lands and additional land uses 

permissible inappropriate (48 uses). Buffer zones between existing rural and residential areas 

need to be maintained. The land uses and zonings will erode DCP66 

223 Support - R2 zoning for Cunjurong Point, Manyana and Bendalong and 8.5m height limit for R2 





Alter - All Beringer Lake to zone W1 and part W2 





Manyana 


224 Re-zoning 1(c) to R5 will cause more friction than already exists between rural land holders and 

those doing subdivisions. There should be a buffer between rural zones and high density R5 

zones. If 1(c) has to be changed it should be to RU4 zoning (small rural holding). 

SLEP 2009 shows no consideration for the years of discussion, effort and consultation between 

community and council or the findings of Commissioner Cleland making the whole process of 

asking for the public’s input to be a farce. 

225 Recently purchased property within Vincentia. 

Objects to B4 zoning of Vincentia neighbourhood shops - existing zone should be retained and 

69


Number 


proposed zone will increase rents and push out existing small operators. 

Bayswood Shopping Centre should be supplementary to existing shops. 

226 Height of building for Huskisson current height limits are adequate as stated by 68% of 

respondents to DCP54 

In particular no bonus floor for consolidation of lots 

height limits of 13m and 16m north and south side Owen street from current 10-13m 

Height limits for R3 should remain 8.5 

Land to south west of Huskisson CBD 1g land should be E2 or RE1 

land south of bowling club should asset protection zone E2 

land adjacent Moona Street should be E2 or RE1 as it has protected species and fire risk 

227 Objection to Bangalee Road West URA lot sizes. 

Recommends lot sizes over 4000m2. 

500m2 lot sizes are not in keeping with the area and there are effluent disposal issues. 

Council has not provided advice on what exactly is proposed. 

Asks Council to hold a public meeting of Tapitallee residents before 14/10/11 or delay 

submission period until public meeting held. 

228 Biodiversity 7.5 (4) and Water 7.6 (5) are very weak and need strengthening. Provides no 

protection to biodiversity and water resources need to be rewritten to enable refusal. 

229 Objects to Standard Instrument for following reasons: 

One size fits all 

Councils approach and lack of vision 

Community consultation process 

Lack of consistency with councils strategies 

Zoning of CBD Nowra and Ulladulla in particular impacts from shop top housing in 

residential zones and bulky retailing 

SLEP impacts on Historic Residential Environment of Nowra 

SLEP impacts on Villages and towns 

230 Objects to any change at Berringer Lake. Supports the Red Head Villages Association 

recommendation for this area to be rezoned E2. 

231 Opposed to rezoning of property zoning from 1(c) to R5 and the accompanying restrictions as to 

the use of property. 

Restrictions are at odds with the use of property. 

Concerned that proposed changes would significantly impact a large number of families in the 

Shoalhaven in terms of lifestyle, recreation and employment opportunities. 

Believes that RU4 zoning is far more appropriate for the area - it is paramount that the rural 

70



lifestyle be maintained. 

232 Proposed zoning will detrimentally affect business, wants current zoning maintained. 

233 Concerned that the Dept of Planning are endeavouring to convince Council to remove bulky 

goods retailing as a permissible use in some of the industrial zones. 

Investments have been made and development occurred based on bulky goods retailing being 

permissible 

Should bulky goods retailing be removed from the industrial zones, Council should change some 

of the zoning of Flinders Estate to the B5 zone that applies along the Highway in South Nowra. 

In support of large lot residential allotments not rural residential (Native Veg Act) 

234 Concerned with the zones IN1 and IN2 and the possible advantages retailers in these zones 

would have over retailers in the CBD due to discounted rents. 

Has already happen in this area with some businesses in the bulky goods zone being more like 

general retail. 

Believe that the new LEP should be used as a tool to reinvigorate the Nowra CBD. 

235 Objects to R1 and SP2 proposed zonings in Bomaderry Creek bushland should be E2 to protect 

environmental values of the bushland, supports the West Cambewarra Rd option link road 

236 Should protect habitat corridors Mollymook, Narrawallee, Milton Burrill Lake and Kings Point. 

Requests reconsideration of Narrawallee plans that increase density and Council should retain 

green zones, waterways and agricultural land. 

237 Supports the RU1 zoning of Jaspers Brush Airfield. 

238 Recommendation - E2 Environment Conservation: “Environment Protection works” and 

“Environmental Facilities” are the only uses which should be permitted. 

Recommendation - E3 Environmental Management: “Dwelling Houses,” “Environmental 

Protection Works,” “Environmental Facilities” and “Home industries” should be the only permitted 

uses. 

Recommendation - E4 Environmental Living : This zone should be included in the SLEP to allow 

for low impact residential development. 

Recommendation - Rural Zone RU2: Delete ‘caravan parks’ as a permissible use. Determine 

impact of revised SEPP 21 and 36 to determine where best to locate this potential use. 

Recommendation - Water Zone W1: Delete ‘sewerage treatment plants’. 

2.1 Height of Buildings (HOB – Clause 4.3) & Floor Space ratio (FSR – Clause 4.4) 

Recommendation - all zones (HOB and FSR) in the Shoalhaven LGA to reflect existing 

maximum heights whether they are set by Development Control Plan (DCP) or by 

convention/precedence. Remove the “optional” height from Clause 4.3. 

Recommendation - The current draft SLEP biodiversity clause (7.5) should be removed and 

replaced with the following text: 

7.5 Biodiversity (local) 

71


Number 


1. The objective of this clause is to maintain terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity, including: 

protecting biodiversity of native flora and fauna, and 

protecting the ecological processes necessary for their continued existence, and 

encouraging the recovery of native flora and fauna and their habitats. 

Preserving open passage for wildlife along habitat and riparian corridors. 

2. This clause applies to development on land: 

identified as a Sensitive Area Significant Vegetation or Vegetated Habitat Corridor on the 

Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan 2009 Natural Resources Sensitivity-Biodiversity Map, and 

identified as a Sensitive Area on the Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan 2009 Natural 

Resources Sensitivity- Water Map, and 

situated within 50 m of the bank (measured horizontally from the top of the bank of a natural 

water body on land identified above in 2(b). 

3. Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause 

applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that no significant adverse impact on 

maintenance of biodiversity values on the land has been demonstrated, including: 

any potential adverse impact on any of the following: 

native ecological communities, especially Endangered Ecological Communities, their condition, 

local significance and whether they should be substantially retained, and 

locally significant species of native flora and fauna, especially Threatened Species, and 

any potential to fragment, disturb or diminish the biodiversity values, and 

the condition, role and connectivity of the vegetation as part of a locally and regionally significant 

habitat corridor. 

that feasible alternatives have been considered. 

that the development must be designed, sited and managed to avoid any potential adverse 

environmental impact, or 

if a potential adverse impact cannot be avoided and feasible alternatives have been taken into 

account the development must: 

minimise disturbance to the existing structure and species composition of native vegetation 

communities and 

allow native fauna and flora to feed, breed, disperse, colonise or migrate without impediment 

from fencing or other structures whether seasonally or nomadically. 

72


Number 


minimise and mitigate any residual adverse impact by maximising the regeneration and 

revegetation of degraded lands including use of local species. 

4. Any application to develop land that is subject to these clauses must demonstrate how these 

requirements are to be achieved by submitting evidence to show that the objectives at 7.5.1 a-d 

would be achieved. 

5. If these conditions are not met the application should be refused. 

2.3 Amend the Tree Preservation Clause (5.9) 

Recommendation - That the same coverage to land use zones as the existing Shoalhaven City 

Council Tree Preservation Order is maintained in the SLEP, including consideration of the 

following options; 

adoption of the existing Tree Preservation Order, or 

adoption of amendments to optional Clause 5.9 “Preservation of trees or vegetation” to ensure 

that it applies to all zones covered by the Tree Preservation Order, or 

adoption of the optional Clause 5.9 “Preservation of trees or vegetation” with the addition of 

clause 5.9.9 included in the Standard Instrument version of 5.9 issued on 13th July 2011, 

together with inclusion of the RU2 Rural Landscape zone. 

Part 3 - Site-Specific Recommendations 

3.1 One Tree Bay, St Georges Basin 

Recommended zoning : E2 

Draft SLEP zoning : E2 on St Georges Basin shore, RU2 for remainder of the site. 

3.2 Badgee Lagoon 


Draft SLEP zoning : E2/RU2 

3.3 Cudmirrah Berrara 

Recommended zoning : E2 for land parcel and W1 zoning for all Swan Lake waters 

Draft SLEP zoning : E2 for land parcel and W1 and W2 for Swan Lake. This site is part of the 

catchment of Swan Lake, identified in the South Coast Regional Strategy as a Significant and 

Vulnerable coastal lake 

3.4 Swanhaven 


73


Number 


Draft SLEP zoning : E3 

Rationale 

The E3 zoning on the Crown Land parcel immediately north of the present Swanhaven Village 

boundary shown on map LZN-037 should be amended to E2 in order to reflect its importance as 

a buffer between the village and Conjola National Park, 

3.5 Cudmirrah Dunes 

Recommended zoning : E1 or E2 

Draft SLEP zoning : RE1 ‘Public Recreation’ 

Rationale 

Land to the east of Swan Lake between its shoreline and Cudmirrah Beach, including important 

sand-dunes featuring the highest dunes on the south coast, is currently proposed to be zoned 

RE1 ‘Public Recreation’ (See Map LZN_037) 

239 HoB: 

 

 

Clause 4.3 - delete clause 4.3 (2) and insert new clause "the height of any building on 

any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of 

Buildings Map" 

Map all land in the Shoalhaven on the HOB maps and set heights in accordance with 

current DCPs and if no DCPs apply, map the height in accordance with the current 

practice. 

HOB from LEP 1985 to draft LEP has increased - clause 33 in LEP 1985. Concerned that height 

in draft LEP will mean 3 or 4 storeys and does not reflect administrative changeover. 

All of the Shoalhaven should be mapped with HOB in addition to the proposed HOB changed 

resolved by Council. 

Heights set in DCP are more difficult to control heights set in the LEP. 

Albury, Eurobodalla, Kiama, Shellharbour, Wingecarribee, Wollongong, Wagga Wagga Councils 

are mapped with no overall height limit set by a clause. 

240 Concerned with 4 storey buildings being built in Nowra and the reduction in suburb property land 

size. 

Concerned with rezoning rural land to suburban and potential lose of country lifestyle. 

241 Objects to 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. Real estate values would drop, environment 

would suffer. 

242 Supports the rezoning of subject land to light industrial. 

243 Object to R5 zoning for all sixteen 1c zones - these should be zoned RU4. in line with public 

hearing Commissioner Cleland - Lot Density and Minimum Lot size in these areas and to Draft a 

Local Environment plan (LP321) 

244 Huntingdale Park - lot sizes - want to retain existing lot size 1000m2 - proposed 500m2 is too 

small for outskirts of berry they fought hard to get the 1000m2 

Rural lifestyle land - 1c land to go to E4 or RU4 

74



HoB - not be 11metres mapped as per DCPs if no DCO to respect the existing form and scale of 

buildings 

245 Concerned with the zoning of land to the rear of property which is actually underwater. Would 

like the new LEP to recognise that the strip of land is underwater and has been for a long time. 

6(c) or RE1 is not appropriate. 

246 Concerned with the 1(c) Tapitallee being replaced with R5 which will significantly increase 

development potential. In SLEP85 it stated "To foster agricultural use of prime crop and pasture 

land fragment to 10ha (or greater)" this should be included in the SLEP09. I would support the 

suggestion made by NSW planning to move the whole (or selected areas) of the 1(c) zones into 

an E4 zone with the density (or average lot size) and minimum lot sizes together with 

environmental protection as stated in the draft LEP. 

I support the mapping of a biodiversity layer and believe this has been comprehensive. The 

biodiversity layer should be extended to cover all RE1 land where it is gazetted under the Local 

Government Act as ‘Natural Bushland’. Cleared land in habitat corridors should be covered by 

Biodiversity mapping to foster corridor regeneration and connectivity 

The definition of “bank” in (2c) should be clarified to ensure that clause is consistent with the 

“natural water body” definition, which covers lake, lagoon and estuary. At 7. (5) “bank” is defined 

as “the limit of the bed of a river.” (2c) states that “land situated within 50 m of a bank of a natural 

water body,” is defined as bank of a river. Accordingly the clause may not apply to the bank of an 

estuary or coastal lake. Conversely as the definition of “natural water body” in the definitions 

section of the draft SLEP includes “lake, lagoon and estuary,” it is suggested that this clause be 

consistent with the definition and be consistent with the distance from the bank. 

Scenic Protection 7.7 

I support the inclusion of 7.7. The scenic beauty of the Shoalhaven is fundamental to resident 

amenity and our tourist industry. I would like to see this clause strengthened by: 

3c) Ensure the number, type and location of existing trees and shrubs retained will maintain 

scenic amenity of the site and that landscaping will be required to enhance the scenic amenity. 

a) Ensure the siting of the proposed buildings will maintain scenic amenity of the site 

b) Landscaping maybe required to enhance the scenic amenity of the site. 

c) Scenic protection should include areas within the Cambewarra and other 

escarpments 

I understand that it is the intent of Council to include maps in the final SLEP. These maps are 

essential for the SLEP to be acceptable. I support 8.5m height limits in R2 and RU5 zones. I 

support 7.5m limit on foreshore residential lots and the 8m limit in DCP 17. Without height maps 

being included in the final document the community cannot be certain that these limits will be 

enforced. Council must include height maps for this document to be supported and embraced by 

the community 

• Heritage Estate 

75


Number 


The area of reference here is well known and recognized within Federal, state and local 

government circles. The provisions of the Commonwealth Environment Protection 

Biodiversity & Conservation Act were invoked in March 2009 to effectively prevent any 

development of a residential-urban nature. The bulk of the Heritage Estate lands have developed 

a status, especially in terms of the Commonwealth EPBC Act, which is not truly reflected in the 

RU2-Rural Landscape Zoning. The provisions of the RU2 zone are inappropriate and at odds 

with the contemporary nature and status of the Heritage Estate environment. It is not an 

administrative change over based on recent resolutions. I suggest that Heritage Estates area is 

zoned as E2 to reflect the recent decision made about the future management of this land. 

• Bomaderry Creek 

Objects to the urban zoning (R1) and request that it be changed to E2 and to object to the link 

road zoning (SP2) through the middle of the Bushland. 

247 Is concerned about the conversion of the 4B Light Industrial zoning to the new IN2 zone. 

Believes that Shoalhaven light industrial communities are struggling due to limited market size 

and the current economic climate. As a result, many light industrial small businesses rely on a 

retail component to supplement income. 

Their business is primarily repairing power tools but relies on additional sales of retailing of 

related products. Is concerned that their business will no longer be a permissible use in the IN2 

zone. 

The removal of bulky goods is of concern as the larger blocks of the proposed IN2 zone lend 

themselves to the retailing of bulky goods. 

Propose that IN2 zoning, provides the following: 

 

 

 

A provision for retailing of bulky goods (and perhaps electrical goods) 

A provision for “other uses” that are ancillary to the primary industry purpose 

Objective (bullet point 4) be changed to include meeting the day to day needs of light 

industrial businesses. 

Is also concerned that State Government who is far removed from the local area is making 

decisions that impact on the local community. 

248 Concerned that there is no change to building entitlements on farms, why not 25 or 40 acres 

rather than 100 acres. 

Believes that concessional allotments should be brought back to enable Sydney people to buy 

weekenders on smaller rural parcels instead of forcing them to buy 100acres and then not farm 

it. Small concessional lots would help farmers stay on their land. 

249 Object to air transport facilities in RU1 - there no limit to scale of development, air transport 

affects a wide selection of community. 

250 Strongly support intention to maintain the general village amenity with an R2 zoning for 

Manyana, Bendalong and Cunjurong Point. 

Concerned / objects to Berringer land provisionally zoned RU5 due to the mix of permissible 

uses and the coastal and environmental sensitivity of the area and strongly requests zoning be 

changed to R2. 

76


Number 


Suggests following could be permitted with consent only at Berringer and not in any of the 

neighbouring villages. boat repair facilities, car parks, caravan parks, cemeteries, depots , 

entertainment facilities, function centres, helipads, hostels, landscape and gardening supplies, 

office premises, recreational facilities (indoor major and outdoor), registered clubs, service 

stations, timber and building supplies, vehicle body repairs, veterinary hospital, water recreation 

structures. 

251 Council is being too green. More housing is required, there is a real lack of rental housing. 

E2 & E1 stop progress. 

Especially in the Culburra Beach area. 

252 Likes to be able to retain the potential for a subdivision of our land, if we so desire which is 

currently zoned 1(c). 

253 Further to my submission requesting the deletion of “Air Transport Facilities” as a permitted use 

with approval on RU1 and RU2 zoned land in draft SLEP2009, l suggest use of "Airstrip" 

definition. I would request that this alternative be given due consideration. 

254 Viewed copy of draft Plan at Bay and Basin Leisure Centre but could not see what future plans 

are very clearly and left a lot to be desired. 

Did not appear to be any future planning for residential, industrial, tourism, sport, transport 

(particularly road works), water and sewerage and drainage - believes these need to be 

addressed together with planning the environment to take the Shoalhaven forward for at least the 

next 50 years so that all ghastly mistakes made previously are not repeated. 

255 Concerned with zoning changes and 11m Height limit for Vincentia Burton Street shops. 

Residents deserve to be properly consulted. 

256 Are not in favour of high density multi storey units being able to be built in low density areas and 

think the maximum height of buildings should be 8.5m. 

257 Supports the zoning of Manyana/Cunjurong Point/Bendalong, North Bendalong and North 

Bendalong Headland. 

Difficult to comment on the draft LEP as presented due to the changes proposed after exhibition. 

Recommends the following changes to the draft LEP document: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council follow DP&I Direction 5 (Standard Instrument 13/6/2011) that “ only the following 

types of development may be included in the Land Use Tables “ etc. 

Council amend land use tables to read "Any other development as listed in the land use 

table on page not specified in item 2 or 3". 

List of group terms should be included in the draft LEP. 

When a development in a group term is permissible and other developments within the 

term are prohibited these individual development types should be listed separately as 

prohibited - and same should apply where a development is prohibited. 

Remove pub developments from group term food and drink premises - should be stand 

alone development. 

Document should include an example on how to use lot details to access the overlay 

maps, then being referred to land use tables covering the required zone etc. 

Concerned with business zones and permissible use being "any development not specified in 

77


Number 


item 2 or 4" - submission recommends a number of ways to resolve. 

HOB should be restricted to 8.5m citywide other than growth areas identified in South Coast 

Regional Strategy - where 8.5m could apply to residential/business zone land and 11m (or a 

height applicable to the DCP) could apply to tourist developments. 

Recommends 'caravan parks' as a permissible use on RU2 zone - Planning Reason: to 

overcome possibility of unwanted "quasi" residential development such as recent Land and 

Environment Court approved development along Inyadda Dr, Manyana. 

Recommends Council place a moratorium on the approval on any Caravan Park Development in 

the City until the Department of Planning & Infrastructure complete a reform of the regulation for 

development and operations of caravan parks, camping grounds and Manufactured Home 

Estates including the possibility of introducing a requirement for "site compatibility certificates". 

Concerned with zone change from R2 to RU5 zone at Berringer Lake - sensitive area adjacent to 

lake and any future development should be of a low density nature to protect the lake. Requests 

land be zoned R2 in line with all other villages in the area in line with the LEP template. 

Crown Land southern side of Bendalong Rd - Recommends Crown land be zoned E2 so that the 

lots are protected from future incompatible uses. 

Goodsell graves on Kylor Land (portion 107). Requests land is included on the draft LEP heritage 

list and included on the heritage map to recognise Mr Barrett's grandparent’s graves on the 

property. 

Recommends Berringer Lake be zoned W1. 

Recommends Council re exhibit the draft LEP following consideration of submissions received 

before submitting draft LEP to Department of Planning and Infrastructure. 

258 Objects to subject land being zoned RU4. 

Purchased the land wanting agriculture and aquaculture and without this ability this will impacts 

on sale of property 

259 Request rezoning of properties north on the highway between Church St and Gordon St 

commercial because: 

 

 

 

 

There will in the next decade be a shortage of commercial properties in Milton 

With the influx of retirees into the area there will be demand for health and related 

services that should be close to the hospital. 

There are only 7 residential properties in this 150 metre stretch of highway. Two of these 

properties have commercial usage due to heritage incentives. Several of the remaining 

properties have home activities. In this precinct there is already a bakery, Milton Hospital 

and the Cancer Care centre. 

The properties on the Southern side of the highway in the same precinct are all zoned 

commercial. 

260 Concerned with Clause 7.3 re. holiday accommodation. Should be some form of registration of 

rental accommodation and whether they comply with councils regulations. 

261 Wanted advice on the application of Clause 5.9 Preservation of trees and vegetation. 

78


Number 


Concerned over the location of some of some of the habitat corridors. 

Concerned with the condensing of the environmental protection clauses. Would like E2 to be 

more restrictive and the use of E4. 

Concerned that the removal of weed species that are not declared noxious weeds is prohibited 

under the draft LEP. 

Concerned that minimum lot sizes for the Huntingdale Park development in Berry in the draft 



be inserted to cover all areas and that these maps reflect the DCPs that apply or if none apply, 

maps should reflect the existing form and scale of buildings in the area. 

1. E4 zone (Environmental Living) - to be utilised within Shoalhaven LEP. 

2. Request that zone 7(d1) be reassigned to E4. 

3. Other areas of environmental significance currently NOT zoned Environmental protection 

should be included in E4, for example certain areas zones R5. 

4. It would NOT be appropriate to reduce the zoning of E2 and E3 zones in the current draft 

LEP. 

5. Caravan Parks would NOT be an appropriate land use for E4 zone. 

6. Recommend the following land uses be deleted from E2 

'Home Businesses' 

Reasoning - Clause 5.4(3) only specifies urban, R5, RU1, RU2 and RU5 zones, 

it is clear that State Planning does not intend Home Businesses in high 

conservation Environmental zones. Since there is inadequate definition of 'home 

activities' in zone 7(c) and 7(e), then a like for like upgrade is inappropriate. 

'Home Industries' 

Reasoning - LEP practise Note PN09-002 states Industries to be prohibited, this 

should include Home Industries. 

'Recreation Areas' 

Reasoning - this definition is too broad to be allowed on an E2 zone – eg a 

paintball skirmish field/football field/children’s playground – delete as 

inappropriate or replace with "recreational areas that are passive, or assist in the 

promoting and interpreting the areas ecological values” per previous E (7a) 

 

uses. 

'Research stations' 

Reasoning - too broad for E2 zone but could be permitted in E3 such a research 

station could involve too many multiple buildings for education, training, 

administration and accommodation – delete and handle if necessary with a spot 

rezoning. 

'Sewerage system' - 

Reasoning - includes a full on STP so must not be allowed in E2 if required then 

a spot rezoning would be most appropriate – delete 

 

'Water Recreation Structures' 

Reasoning - prohibited on all corresponding zones in current LEP. 

The list of additional land uses above those mandated by NSW State Planning Authority, are 

79


Number 


significant threats to E2 conservation values. Council could delete all additional land uses 

referring to Section 117(2) Directive 1.2 referred to below, or could hold to arguments based on 

principle, evidence and existing policy (i.e. South Coast Regional Strategy directive above not to 

reduce or modify standards) and delete only the land uses listed above. 

Delete the following from E3:- 

'Animal Boarding' or 'Training establishments' 

reasoning - inappropriate and prohibited on all corresponding zones in current 

LEP mapped to E3 

'Boat repair facilities' 

Reasoning - inappropriate and prohibited on all corresponding zones in current 

LEP mapped to E3, and cannot meet objective of protecting water quality and 

ecological values 

'Charter and Tourism boating facilities' 

Reasoning - potential to pollute cannot meet objective of protecting water quality 

'Forestry' 

Reasoning - this does not set limits on the species being grown, so could 

include invasive species such as Radiata Pine which would negate the objective 

to preserve ecological values It is noted, however, forestry was permitted in 7 

(f3) “Foreshores protection”, but the reason is unclear. 

'Group Homes' 

Reasoning - inappropriate and prohibited on all corresponding zones in current 

LEP mapped to E3 

'Markets' 

Reasoning - cannot meet objective of protecting and restoring E3 areas 

'Recreation Areas' 

Reasoning - this definition is too broad to be allowed on and E3 zone – eg a 

football field/children’s playground – inappropriate in protecting ecological 

values or replace with “recreational areas that are passive, or assist in the 

promoting and interpreting the areas ecological values” per previous E uses. 

'Research Stations' – 

Reasoning - Very significant infrastructure requirement, hence does not meet 

objectives, amend to “Environmental Research Stations” - effectively a new 

definition. If not possible, then delete, and deal with as a spot rezoning 

‘Secondary dwellings’ 

Reasoning - only where previously erected 4.3 does not make this clear. 

'Sewerage systems' 

Reasoning - includes a full sewerage treatment plant which cannot meet 

objective of protecting and restoring E3 areas so must not be allowed. Resolve 

the need if necessary through spot rezoning. 

One Tree Bay, St Georges Basin - request to be rezoned E2, to be consistent with Conjola 

National Park west of the site. RU2 is not consistent with the site values. 

Recommendation 1. Community Land gazetted as “Natural 

Areas” under the Local Government Act should be zoned E2. 

Recommendation 2. The Water Clause 7.6 provided by the Department of Planning and 

Infrastructure should be revised to ensure that the development application procedures applying 

to areas covered by the clause are rigorous and would maintain biodiversity values and 

80


Number 


ecosystem functions. The Clause should incorporate assessment criteria as follows, and the 

Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000 consistent with 

COAG decisions. 

The Assessment criteria should include: 

 

 

Any substantial and measurable adverse change in the hydrological regime eg volume, 

timing, duration and frequency of ground and surface water flows. 

- maintenance of the habitat and lifecycle of species dependent on the water body, 

including aquatic vegetation, and fauna such as birds, invertebrate fauna and fish 

species. 

Substantial and measurable changes in the water quality ie level of salinity, pollutants, or 

nutrients or water temperature that may adversely impact on water body biodiversity, 

ecological integrity, social amenity or human health and the potential for invasive 

species. 

Recommendation 3. That the appropriateness of the proposed Water zones and associated uses 

as they have been applied to particular coastal lakes be reviewed. 

Recommendation 4. That the proposed Coastal Zone Protection clause be retained in the SLEP 

together with the details and background information from the Jervis Bay Regional Environment 

Plan being included in the Generic Shoalhaven DCP. 

Recommendation 5. That the SLEP include a clause to prohibit development in “Sensitive 

Coastal Locations” within 100 m of the bank of a Coastal Lake etc as defined in Schedule 1 of 

SEPP 71. 

Recommendation 6. That the same coverage to land use zones as the existing Shoalhaven City 

Council Tree Preservation Order is maintained in the SLEP, including consideration of the 

following options; 


adoption of amendments to optional Clause 5.9 “Preservation of trees or vegetation” to 

 

ensure that it applies to all zones covered by the Tree Preservation Order, or 

adoption of the optional Clause 5.9 “Preservation of trees or vegetation” with the addition 

of clause 5.9.9 included in the Standard Instrument version of 5.9 issued on 13th July 

2011, together with inclusion of the RU 2 Rural Landscape zone. 

Recommendation 7. The proposed zoning of B2 Lands Crown lands identified on Map 17 

“Specified Land of high conservation value” in the South Coast Regional Conservation Plan as 

B2 lands, should be zoned “E 1 National Park/Nature Reserve in the SLEP with “other Crown 

lands to be considered,” zoned either E 1 or E 2 in accordance with advice from the Office of 

Environment and Heritage. 

Recommendation 8. That SLEP 2009 part 7.9 Land (local) subclause 4 be strengthened as 

recommended for parts 7.5 and 7.6. This clause must include objective measures for Council 

planners to evaluate development applications. 




dollars. 

263 RU1 should only include 'airstrip' not 'air transport facilities'. 

81



Low flying aircraft impact on amenity. 

Commercial aircraft facilities should not be allowed in rural zones. 

264 Concerned that parts of Osborne and North Streets are proposed to be rezoned from commercial 

to residential. Devalue property, car park in bridge road ideal for business premises 

265 Object to IN4 at Greenwell Point, this prohibits agriculture which includes aquaculture and I run 

an oyster business. 

E2 would allow aquaculture. 

Businesses other than oyster farming (allowable in the proposed zone eg. boat repair) would 

compromise water quality and the purpose built depuration canal. 

266 Objects to the width of the bypass corridor gone from 60 to 200 metres what about protection of 

flora and fauna 

267 Request undeveloped area around Lake Wollumboola be classified as E2 

Reasoning: 

Lake is listed as wetland of national importance. 

E2 zone will allow maintaining the area as equivalent to Nat Park values 

Fragile environment needs protecting 

Sheep Water Creek provides a buffer between the residential area and the lake and 

should remain untouched 

Possible impact of future SLR for the area has not been considered. 

268 Concerned with the proposed change of 20 Osborne Street and surrounding properties from 

Commercial 3(b) to R3 Medium Density Residential. 

Will decrease the value of the property and other affected properties. 

Have substantially altered the building to make it suitable for business purposes as per the DA 

for the current use making it unsuitable for residential use. 

Properties in this location provide valuable professional suites outside of CBD where parking is 

an issue. 

269 Would like property to remain the same zoning. 

Concerned that developers have attempted to have it rezoned to subdivide and develop - do not 

want to see this. 

270 Concerned with the default building height of 11m across Shoalhaven and requests Council 

provide a height and floor space ratio map for every area of the City. 

Requests that foreshore land in Vincentia be set at 7.5 metres and the remainder of the village at 

8.5 metres. 

These limits must be in the LEP not left to the less enforceable and subjective DCPs. 

Concerned with the proposed B4 zoning for the Burton St, Vincentia shops and surrounds, 

believes this only benefits its current owner who has now placed it on the market. 

Concerned with the lack of the E4 zone. 

No objection to some of the variations in land uses which may come from the mismatching of 

zones, feels that much closer consultation with community groups is needed to identify and then 

82



clarify where there are major alterations. Believes this should have taken place prior to this LEP 

with advertising and consultation for each single change. 

271 Waterway located on the eastern side of Thurgate Oval and extending along southern side of 

Tarrawarra St Bomaderry is incorrect. 

The natural watercourse which feeds into the original swamp starts in the vicinity of Brinawarr 

Street. He believes it is a drainage system not a natural watercourse. 

272 This submission is in the interest of accommodating productive and feasible rural enterprise that 

is readily able to compete with other regional areas, simply by maintaining similar RU1 zoning 

provisions to other regional LGAs. Consequently, this submission is in the interest of all land 

zoned RU1 in the Shoalhaven LGA (not only in respect of ‘Pig Island’). 

These are listed as follows (as defined under the ‘standard instrument’ draft plan): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

animal boarding or training establishment means a building or place used for the 

breeding, boarding, training, keeping or caring of animals for commercial purposes 

(other than for the agistment of horses), and includes any associated riding school or 

ancillary veterinary hospital. 

caravan park means land (including a camping ground) on which caravans (or caravans 

and other moveable dwellings) are, or are to be, installed or placed. 

camping ground means an area of land that has access to communal amenities and on 

which campervans or tents, annexes or other similar portable and lightweight temporary 

shelters are, or are to be, installed, erected or placed for short term use, but does not 

include a caravan park. 

earthworks means excavation or filling. 

flood mitigation work means work designed and constructed for the express purpose of 

mitigating flood impacts. It involves changing the characteristics of flood behaviour to 

alter the level, location, volume, speed or timing of flood waters to mitigate flood impacts. 

Types of works may include excavation, construction or enlargement of any fill, wall, or 

levee that will alter riverine flood behaviour, local overland flooding, or tidal action so as 

to mitigate flood impacts. 

rural worker’s dwelling means a building or place that is additional to a dwelling houseon 

the same lot and that is used predominantly as a place of residence by persons 

employed, whether on a long-term or short-term basis, for the purpose of agriculture or a 

rural industry on that land. 

secondary dwelling means a self-contained dwelling that: 

(a) is established in conjunction with another dwelling (the principal dwelling), and 

(b) is on the same lot of land as the principal dwelling, and 

(c) is located within, or is attached to, or is separate from, the principal dwelling. 

Note. See clause 5.4 for controls relating to the total floor area of secondary dwellings. 

Extract of cl. 5.4 

(9) Secondary dwellings 

If development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling is permitted under this 

Plan, the total floor area of the dwelling (excluding any area used for parking) 

must not exceed whichever of the following is the greater: 

83


Number 


(a) 60 square metres, 

(b) 60% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling. 

SEPP Affordable Rental Housing notes: 

Schedule 1, Development standards for secondary dwellings 

4 Maximum floor area for principal and secondary dwelling 

1. The floor area of a secondary dwelling must not be more than 60 square metres 

or, if a greater floor area is permitted in respect of a secondary dwelling on the 

land under another environmental planning instrument, that greater floor area. 

viticulture means the cultivation of grapes for use in the commercial 

production of fresh or dried fruit or wine. 

water storage facility means a dam, weir or reservoir for the collection 

and storage of water, and includes associated monitoring or gauging 

equipment. 

The inclusion of these defined activities is consistent with established planning practice, and 

examples of permissibility within RU1 zones in other LGAs is provided by way of background in 

Attachment A. 

To ensure the draft Shoalhaven LEP does not artificially limit otherwise feasible rural enterprise 

(including complimentary income sources) as a consequence of default zone prohibitions, we 

submit that each of these uses also be included as permissible with consent for the RU1 Primary 

Production Zone within the Shoalhaven draft LEP 2009. 

273 Objects to the proposed changes to from residential to environmental on the land to the west and 

south west of the village of Culburra Beach. 

Believes majority of the community feel that all these developments are necessary to enable 

Culburra Beach to survive and be a prosperous village well into the future. 

Land should be available for future expansion of our area not more national parks. 

274 Supports the R2 zoning for Cunjurong Point, Manyana and Bendalong. 

Believes that North Bendalong should be R2 as well. 

Requests that Council retains the current 2 storey height limit. 

Supports the E3 zoning of North Bendalong Headland. 

Requests that Green Island be E2 rather than E3. 

Requests that 'caravan parks' be removed from the RU2 zone. 

Requests that the Manyana shops be B1 rather than B2. 

275 Endorses submission of Lake Wollumboola Protection Association. 

Recommendations: 

Lake Wollumboola and its catchment should be protected with surety as it supports 

several threatened ecological communities and for these to be sustainable they need to 

be zoned E2. This should apply to all private land around Lake Wollumboola. Much of it 

was determined by the South Coast Regional Strategy to be E1 by purchase but as this 

seems now unlikely E2 should apply all around so as to maintain high value native 

vegetation which provides the habitat corridor identified by South Coast Regional 

84


Number 


Conservation Plan. It will also give some surety of ongoing protection. 

The northern shore of Lake Wollumboola should also be zoned E2 including SEPP14 

Wetland No 365, the foreshore reserve and Lot 1 East Crescent. 

E2 zoning should apply also to the southwest of Lake Wollumboola catchment and the 

Kinghorn Point area as this has high conservation and Aboriginal cultural values as 

identified by the Office of Environment and Heritage. It remains one of a few undisturbed 

costal/dunal systems and forms part of the wildlife corridor. 

E2 zoned area should not have ‘additional uses’ as this will compromise the high level 

protection E2 purports to provide. The Precautionary Principle is a great tool and by 

limiting E2 zoned areas to ‘Environmental Protection Works’ and ‘Environmental 

Facilities’ the onus of ‘additional use’ remains on the developer rather than on the 

environment. This should certainly apply to the proposed golf course at Long Bow Point 

which is inconsistent with the South Coast Regional Strategy. 

E3 Environmental Management is not sufficient protection for this area. 

The coastal forest and wetland of the Crookhaven River catchment should also be 

protected by E2 zoning with limited residential development allowed, for e.g. E4. This 

area was identified by the South Coast Regional Conservation Plan as part of the 

regionally significant wildlife corridor. This area is also culturally significant for local 

Jerrinja community. 

Building heights should remain at current levels 6-7.5m for coast dunes and a 2 storey 

limit for the rest of the Culburra Beach - Orient Point areas. 11m is too high as it would 

allow for 4 storey buildings. Believes this would destroy the village atmosphere and 

compromise amenity and views. 

Would like to see some regulation regarding the tendency of many modern housing designs to 

block off all ‘through view’ by which I mean high solid gates fences which prevent passers by any 

casual view of vistas which belong to all. 

I would like to see the environment receive higher priority above development throughout this 

new document. 

I fully appreciate the value of LEPs and congratulate you on most aspects. Please give 

environmental matters a higher priority with surer safeguards particularly for Lake Wollumboola 

and Crookhaven River catchments. They require the same level of protection as Jervis Bay. 

Without a healthy environmental protection system in place the whole area will become degraded 

leading to loss of amenity and loss of economic, social and cultural benefits. 

276 Lot 129 is owned by Shoalhaven City Council and is therefore public land. The Lot is classified 

as "Community Land" and categorised as "Natural Area - Foreshore" under the Local 

Government Act, 1993. There is an anomaly should be zoned RE1 not R2. 

The land was resumed by Council in 1976 for the purpose of providing access to the waterfront 

reserve. 

It is also a natural corridor and habitat for a variety of native animals including wallabies, 

echidnas, possums, bandicoots and an abundance of bird life and should be kept in its natural 

state. 

277 Objects to the change of height of buildings, rezoning of commercial and residential areas for 

Huskisson. 

Concerned that these changes will disrupt the native environs of Huskisson. 

85


Number 


Concerned that the remaining historical Huskisson cottages are not protected in the LEP. 

Requests that Huskisson be mapped in consultation with the community, having access to 

appropriate models of other similar communities to enable Council to provide appropriate zoning 

protection for the community and environs in accordance with Council's obligations. 

278 We disagree with the B4 zoning of the present Vincentia shopping centre and feel that it should 

be B1 instead. This centre should not be restricted by the B4 provision that it must not be allowed 

to compete with the District Centre. Many tourists and local residents enjoy the more relaxed 

shopping and dining etc. away from a large shopping centre. If the area is rezoned B4 and 

serviced apartments are allowed (to take advantage of the views offered) and the 11M HOB limit 

eventuates we can foresee large scale development of this type and the gradual buying up of the 

few detached dwellings with a massive increase in local traffic density 

Re the HOB maps we feel that there should be an 8.5M height limit imposed except for foreshore 

blocks which should be 7.5M maximum. An 11M limit would be out of step with the character of 

the area. It would possibly cause friction and even legal claims if somebody’s expensive solar 

power generating or water heating system was compromised by a new dwelling or a building 

modification next door. 

The RE1 zones seem to have permitted with consent clauses that are inappropriate in a lot of 

situations and therefore should be offered greater protection by including them in a different 

zoning or removing some possible uses from the RE1 zone. 

279 Objects to the inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 & RU2 zones and requests that 

Council makes it prohibited in these two zones 

280 Concerned that the LEP may change the lifestyle of the Shoalhaven villages and does not 

believe that the changes to height limits are warranted or needed. 

Does not support mapped height of 7.5m in foreshore areas, present limit of 6m is fine, other 

than extreme building designs. 

11m height limit in seaside villages is not required - might be suitable in Nowra or Berry township 

areas. 

Believes that motel or hotels should not be permissible in R1 zoning. 

281 Concerned with zoning lot sizes and land uses in Huntingdale Park. DCP 70 was designated 

some lots of minimum lot size of 2000 square metres open space around water course, this is 

not in Draft SLEP 

Objects to air transport facility in RU1 zone at odds with the intent of the zone 

282 Objects to the inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. Any demand for airfields 

should be handled through the normal rezoning process. 

283 Do not want North Bendalong to increase beyond its current size. 

284 Clause 4.3 - Delete reference to 11m and map all land in accordance with DCPs or if no DCPs 

apply to the lot, map the height in accordance with the current practice. 

HOB building map for Currarong should be 8.5m to reflect Clause 33 of SLEP 1985. 

HOB for map should be 8.5m for B1 zone. 

86


Number 


Supports Council resolution to map 8.5m height in R2 zone. 

R1 zone in inconsistent with the rest of the village. 

Crown Land Lot 120 DP 823244 zoned R1 is a continuous line of vegetation along Currarong Rd 

and provides a buffer adding to the aesthetic value of the village - Also contains habitat corridors, 

has low flood zones, provides bushfire protection, contains possible acid sulphate soils and 

adjoining site is poorly drained under 2.5m flood level according to Crown Land Assessment. Is 

not suitable for urban development - outcome would be at odds with Clause 1.2 (2) (d) and 

Clause 7.15. 

285 Bomaderry Creek Bushland some is zoned R1 and should be E2 as it is community land and 

environmental resource. 

286 An R2 zoning and 2 storey height limit must be applied in North Bendalong to reduce any further 

over-development of this hamlet. 

The headland at North Bendalong should also be protected by the application of an E3 zoning. 

I wholeheartedly support the R2 zoning for Manyana, Cunjurong Point, the Berringer Lake hamlet 

and Bendalong. 

The height of buildings in these areas should be limited to 2 storeys (8.5m) in keeping with the 

current low density nature of these villages. 

I recommend an E2 zoning for the land east of Inyadda Drive and south of Bendalong Road. 

Green Island should be zoned E2 to preserve its isolated and pristine environment. 

The Goodsell graves in Manyana should be heritage listed. There is so little historical 

preservation in this area. 

Caravan parks should not be permissible in the RU2 rural land zoning category. 

The entirety of Berringer Lake should be zoned W1. 

287 Concerned with any changes to current LEP which is excellent if council would adhere to it – 

questions why 2 group homes were approved on Rural 1(d) land at Nowra Hill 

288 R1 zoning of land between Kinghorne Rd and Currarong Rd and on land bordered by Peel Street 

Currarong Road and Nowra Road this land is low lying subject to flooding. 

Objects to 11metre height limit at Currarong not in keeping with village character. 

Zoning of R1 southern side of Kinghorne Rd Currarong. Request it be rezoned to E2 

Reasoning: 

1. High conservation and biodiversity area 

2. Natural habitat for birds, mammals and frogs 

3. Low lying, flood prone, sulphate acidic soils 

4. Visually attractive entrance to Currarong village 

5. No economic, social or cultural benefit to the village. 

No more empty residences. 

Concerned with the R1 zoning between Kinghorne Road and Currarong Road, Currarong. 

87



Requests that Council rezones it to E2 - it is natural habitat, high biodiversity, bushfire and flood 

buffer zone and visually attractive as an entrance to Currarong Village. 

289 Objects to the inclusion of ‘air transport facilities’ in the RU1 zone. 


Supports an airfield that has developed illegally. 




Supports the National Trust of Australia's nomination of Berry Township Urban Conservation 

Area for inclusion in the draft LEP 2009 Schedule of Heritage Conservation Areas. 

The qualities that make Berry a special place require recognition and protection through heritage 

listing. 




RU4 Primary Production Small Lots and E4 Environmental Living be adopted as outlined in LEP 

Practice Note PN11-002 in LEP 2009 and move land previously zoned as 1(c) Rural Lifestyle in 

LEP 1985 into these zones depending on their current land use, minimum lot sizes and proximity 

to land of high conservation value. 

This is not consistent with the principle of “best fit” administrative changeover adopted for the 

new LEP and we request that council change zonings and lot sizes in the Huntingdale Park 

development to match those in DCP 70. 

290 Vincentia 

Requests that the limit on height of buildings in Vincentia for foreshore land be set at 7.5 metres 

and for all other land at 8.5 metres and that this shown on the Height of Buildings map. 

Requests that the Burton Street shops in Vincentia be changed from the proposed B4 to a like for 

like basis 

Requests that a comprehensive Town Plan be prepared for Vincentia in consultation with land 

owners and the community to consider the long range effects of the new developments at the 

crossroads. 

Lack of retail competition will not benefit local residents. 

Businesses that impact on the Marine Park should be excluded from operating in the area. 

291 Comments - Found website was particularly welcome and useful, especially the updates, Fact 

sheets and various map overlays all readily accessible and made it easy to find information and 

compare with LEP 1985. 

88


Number 


Recommendations: 

1. Marlin Hotel site, Princes Highway Ulladulla - recommended that the site 

identified as the 'Marlin Hotel Tourist Accommodation Sub precinct' in DCP 56 is 

zoned SP3 not B3. 

Floor Space Ratio is not included in mapping of the Marline Hotel Tourist 

Accommodation Sub precinct. 

2. Bannisters Resort, Mitchell Pde, Mollymook. 

The zoning for this site is amended from B4 to SP3 in order to protect the tourist 

nature of the existing development and the low key amenity of the residential 

neighbourhood. 

3. Land in Maisie Williams Drive Mollymook. 

The zoning on this site is be amended from RE2 to E2 which would allow limited 

and appropriate development. 

4. Land in Maisie Williams Drive Mollymook. 

The B4 portion of this site is zoned R3, subject to a height limit of 10m or 3 

storeys, subject to a FSR of 1:0:1 such as DCP 56 and a buffer is created 

between any apartment developments and housing in Huntingdale Dr as it has 

been identified as a habitat corridor. 

5. Ulladulla High School, South Street Ulladulla 

Council consult with landowners to have part of their site zoned RE1 or the local 

Biodiversity Clause applied to the land. 

6. Land on Princes Highway, Burrill Lake 

This site be zoned B1 neighbourhood shops rather than SP3. 

7. 3(g) zoned land on Corner Princes Hwy and Dolphin Point Rd, Burrill Lake. 

That the B4 zoning be reviewed and SP3 would be more appropriate. Also a 

height limit of 8.5 be applied. 

8. General Zoning Recommendations. 

Adopt RU4 for 1c land. 

That SLEP include RU4 and RU6 as stated in DOP Practice Notes 

That lots west of proposed Ulladulla bypass and land previously zoned 

1c between Milton and Narrawallee now zoned R5 be zoned RU4 and 

RU6. 

Some areas should be considered E4 that are currently undeveloped 

and largely uncleared areas proposed to be future residential R1. this 

would enable each small village area to retain its own identity and be 

protected with a buffer zone. 

9. Building Heights 

Request that HOB maps are prepared for all R2 and R3 zones, foreshores, and 

site specific DCPs. Council must formalise the intention to map low density res 

and rural village areas restricting heights to 8.5 metres. 

Part (2) of Clause 4.3 be amended to read "the height of a building on any land 

89


Number 


is not to exceed 10 m or 3 storeys except where the maximum height is shown 

for the land on the HOB map. 

Council must update new heights and FSR's as per DCP 56.5 

10. Request that all submissions be made public and the public be invited to the 

Councillors briefing on the outcomes and submissions on the SLEP. 

Recommended that all proposed changes from submissions be placed on 

exhibition for a period of 4 weeks. 

292 Objects to R5 zone 

Wants no small subdivision in Wandandian. Wants to keep village rural without too many 

people. 

293 The presentation given at Callala Beach was very informative. 

Concerned that there is no further development earmarked for Callala, more residential land is 

needed for the future of the area and ensure the shops are sustainable. 

Concerned that there is no discussion of development on the water in Jervis Bay - Jervis Bay 

desperately needs a marina. Callala Bay should be assessed. 

294 Objects to replacement of 1C Rural Lifestyle with R5 Large Lot residential. Would prefer the 

inclusion of RU4 Primary Production zone in SLEP 2009 to replace 1C zone. 

295 Strongly object to 'air transport facilities' being permissible in the RU1 zone. 

Council should be supporting the tourist industry that relies on the tourists who come here for 

peace and quiet not aircraft noise. 

296 Objects to proposed 11 metres HOB. 


Clause 4.3(2) and replace with "the height of a building on any land is not to exceed the 

maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map" 

and 

Include in SLEP 2009 HOB maps for all land in the Shoalhaven and set heights in accordance 

with current site specific DCPS or other areas in accordance with whole of Shoalhaven DCP's or 

if no DCP's apply to the lot or building thereon, in accordance with current practice. 

Reasoning: 

1. Questions Administrative transfer "best fit" process with HOB's 

2. Intention to amend HOB map - Limited mapping will result in ad hoc changes to the 

character of many streets and areas of the S'haven and lead to uncertainty for land 

owners and developers. 

3. Use of DCPs to control HOB - Neither Council nor DP&I can demonstrate control height 

below that set by the legal document LEP. DCP's are not an effective alternative to 

mapping all land and avoiding uncertainty for land owners and developers. 

4. Other Councils - has listed other council examples wording in clause 4.3 and use of HOB 

maps for comparison. 

297 Objection to URA - Bangalee Road West. 

90


Number 


Inappropriate for the area and inconsistent with other instruments. 

NBSP goals should be delivered in draft SLEP i.e. to cater for large lot/low density housing that is 

consistent with the surrounding urban area (i.e. minimum lot size on acre) and be sensitive to the 

ecological values in the area. 

A buffer should exist between the proposed development and the surrounding vegetation. 

Lot sizes are inconsistent with surrounding areas, NBSP Area 3 strategic direction (pg 17) and 

draft LEP clause 4.1 objective "subdivision is compatible with… the pattern and character of an 

area". 

Objection to high density housing in context of environment, recommends that the URA be zoned 

R5 to ensure the existing low density rural living character can be extended. 

Inconsistency with URA area in NBSP map and draft LEP zone map - area has been extended. 

The adopted and approved NBSP has not been incorporated directly into the draft LEP - 

significant changes have been made in the process. 

Sensitive Area - Habitat Corridor area along Bangalee Rd would be difficult to retain with the new 

development. 

NRB layer affects the URA area - Habitat corridors would be compromised by development of 

living area. 

Bushfire prone areas - Biodiversity land should not be compromised by clearing for APZs. 

Native habitat and vegetation would be exacerbated by the introductions of weeds and exotic 

plants in the planned development - no buffer zone between proposed development and habitat 

corridor. 

Increase in houses would result in increased dogs and cats which would be a significant threat 

on local protected fauna - SLEP "Urban edge biodiversity issues" refers to this. 

Water Courses run through and near to the URA - concerned that additional run-off from 

additional houses with fertilisers, insecticides etc. could affect the water quality of nearby 

streams. 

Objection to Sch 1.7 additional permitted uses - inconsistent with local area and the model LEP 

template. 

298 Objects to Vincentia shops being zoned B4 restricting future retail uses and prohibiting dwellings. 

Recommend a comprehensive town plan be prepared for Vincentia in consultation with 

community. 

299 Concerned with the inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone as it will , requests that 

Council removes it and only allows for airstrips for agricultural use. 

Moved to Shoalhaven for a quiet country retirement. 

300 Remove optional height clause form SLEP and adopt a city wide standard of 8.5m as per 

91


Number 


previous LEP. 

Rezone Berringer to R2 (consistent with Manyana and Cunjurong Pt). 

Rezone Berringer Lake to W1. 

301 Support Currarong Progress Associations submission, Opposed to undeveloped crown land on 

western side of Currarong being R1 should be E2. 

302 Supports the LEP in full. 

303 Concerned that the plan appears to have ignored previous Hyams Beach community concerns 

and submissions. 

It fails to appreciate the natural topography of the village or the community desires for 

sympathetic development. The rezoning of parts of the village, particularly R3 – medium densityappears 

to be based on previous zoning distinctions rather than a review of the effects of 

previous zoning of the village. The council established height codes will not ensure that the 

village character of Hyams Beach is maintained. It is unacceptable that the height is set at 11m 

for all blocks. The height of buildings the earlier SLEP 1985 equated to 8.5m or 2 storeys. This is 

more appropriate for residential blocks other those on the foreshore. 

There are numerous other concerning clauses in the SLEP2009 relating to rezoning of land use. 

We feel that the SLEP2009 places small villages, such as Hyams Beach, at risk of 

unsympathetic development and therefore the degradation of the village ambience. 

304 Concerns include: 

1. The increase in max heights in all zones change height limits in all DCP's without 

community consultation. 

remove the optional statement from Clause 4.3 (11 metres except where stated 

otherwise) 

remove the following words in the objective "and desired future character of a" 

2. Bonus additional 3m height in Owen St Huskisson not be in LEP but covered by Citywide 

DCP. 

Reduce the max height in HOB map for Huskisson CBD to levels in DCP 54. 

Bonus height for lot consolidation be applied as a story in the Citywide DCP not 

in LEP. 

3. Loss of Public Recreation land 6c zoned to B4 Mixed Development whereas the 

equivalent zone is RE1 

4. Increased land uses in RU1 and RU2 to allow airport facilities. Feels Navy air-traffic is 

enough and no need for local airport. 

5. SP2 area on Currambene St and Bowen St not be zoned SP2 due to grave sites there 

making it a significant site in Huskisson giving the town a small village feel. 

6. Strongly objects to 13 and 16 m HOB on Owen St, believes this would have a negative 

impact in Huskisson. Huskisson the gateway to Jervis Bay, people regarding as a 

beautiful village and a nice country feel. If people are seeking a large built up area with 

92



high-rises to have home or holiday, should not look to Huskisson. Huskisson and Berry 

still very heritage in their look, keep it that way. 

305 Objects to 11m height for Kangaroo Valley - as Harry Sawkins said in 1981: don’t kill the goose 

which lays the golden eggs by overdeveloping. 

306 Jervis Bay Baptist church - object to the biodiversity overlay as it is restrictive and detrimental. 

Request they be reviewed and removed. 

307 1. Building height limits equivalent to what currently exist should be maintained -2 storeys 

for Culburra Beach and 6-7.5 m along the dunes at Culburra beach. This will maintain 

the coastal village character. 

2. Private land in the lake catchment outside the existing developed land should be zoned 

E2 environment conservation. This includes the Long Bow Point area south of Culburra 

Rd, areas north of Culburra Beach and areas west and south of the lake. This is 

consistent with the South Coast Regional Strategy decision that the area west of 

Culburra Beach on both sides of Culburra Road should be zoned National park. 

Uses in E2 zoned areas should be limited to Environmental Protection works and 

Environmental Facilities. 

3. The Draft SLEP and the West Culburra Development application are in conflict with The 

South Coast Regional Strategy which specified limited residential development only in 

this area. 

High conservation parts of the lower Crookhaven River catchment should be zoned E2. 

4. The northern shore of Lake Wollumboola should be zoned E2 zoning to protect the lake 

shore, threatened species habitat and endangered ecological communities. This should 

include Lot 1 East crescent. 

5. The south east part of the Lake Wollumboola catchment and the Kinghorn Point area 

should be zoned E2. 

This area has high Aboriginal cultural value and is one of the few areas on the NSW 

coast undisturbed by development. 

I strongly object to the downgrading in the draft SLEP of the decisions of the South 

Coast Regional Strategy. 

Land in my community is of high conservation value and provides a habitat corridor for 

species. 

308 Thinks 1(c) land should be zoned RU4 and/or E4 to allow for small scale agriculture. R5 would 

allow for urban subdivision. 

309 "Natural Resources Sensitivity – Biodiversity Maps 048 and 054." These two maps include two 

Sensitive Area coded areas – 1 Significant vegetation and 2- Habitat corridors. 

RTA are proposing two fauna crossings these Gembrook lane and East of Junction of Tindalls 

lane. There are existing culverts carrying watercourses at these points. 

I submit that the significant vegetation adjacent to these underpasses should be included in the 

SLEP Natural Resources Sensitivity – Biodiversity Maps 048 and 054. The vegetation on the 

93



North side of the new alignment is significant forest. 

310 Strongly opposes the insertion of 'air transport facilities' as a permitted use under the RU1 zone. 

311 Objection to zoning of land in Greens Road Greenwell Point to IN4 Working Waterfront. 

Reasoning: 

Will allow other industries that can cause potential hazards to the water way. 

Agriculture is a prohibited use in IN4. 

Impact on tourism 

Requests a meeting with Council and Oyster farmers to obtain more information. 

312 Supports the rezoning of subject land from 2(a1) to RE1. 


Protect the natural vegetation on the sand dune. 

Protect the land and stop development on this land. 

Allow the community to enjoy the lot for years to come. 

313 Likes the R1 zoning on Bells Lane this is not productive farming land 

314 Objection to short term rental accommodation due to neighbours holiday letting properties 

creating nuisance. 

315 Concerned with high density housing proposed which is not in line with the area. 

Currently a rural area with bushland and 1 acre blocks. 

200 house blocks of an urban size is out of character for Tapitallee. 

The traffic impact, Noise impact, environmental impact. 

316 Requests that the limit on height of buildings in Vincentia for foreshore land be set at 7.5 metres 

and for all other land at 8.5 metres and that this shown on the Height of Buildings map. 

Requests that the Burton Street shops in Vincentia be changed from the proposed B4 to a like for 

like basis. 

Requests that a Town Plan be prepared for Vincentia via personal consultation with the 

community to consider the long range effects of the new developments at the crossroads. 

317 Concerned with the Rural 1(c) zone at Tapitallee going to R5 and the removal of lot density 

restrictions. 

Believes that this will encourage landowners to subdivide or sell to developers, leading to a 

reduction in small agriculture and impacting on the environment. 

318 Do not support lot averaging, would like another method of achieving the same outcome without 

the flexibility that lot averaging gives to Council 

Concerned with Height of Buildings request the 11m be removed and have maps for all areas 

that reflect DCP if no DCP the map should reflect the existing scale of buildings. 

Object to the 1c southern side of Bundewallah Rd Berry being R5 due to potential increase in 

development, adverse impact on scenic valley they are environmentally sensitive and fragile - 1c 

should be E4 

319 Object to the 11metres in rural areas. Kangaroo Valley fought hard for DCP66. Supports 

Kangaroo Valley Community Association submission. 

320 Objects to the 500m2 minimum lot size for Bangalee West URA. 

94



Requests a R5 zoning with 1 acre minimum lot size. Concerned about affect on the environment. 

Not in line with NBSP 

321 Objects to R3 zoning. Requests it be changed to RE1. Land bounded by Parson St to the South 

and Deering Street to the north which backs onto houses in Boree Street to the west and RE1 in 

the east this block is located between RE1 and bushland request the R3 be rezoned to RE1 to 

match the blocks on its eastern boundary. 

322 Objects to the 11m height limit, should be left at 8.5m. 112 South Street Ulladulla, the block could 

not cope with extra traffic parking power. Will affect natural amphitheatre. 

323 Concerned with industrial zonings and deletion and restriction of retail sales (retail, bulky goods 

and ancillary retail). 

324 Concerns: 

1. HOB. Objects to 11m. Supports 8.5m in R2 and RU5 and 7.5 in foreshore areas. 

Believes Max height limit should be no more than 10m. 

2. Reserves zoned RE1 that are gazetted as 'natural bushland' should be E2. Specifically 

Edmund St Reserve, Boobook Reserve and Redhead Point Reserve Sanctuary Point. 

3. Heritage Estates zoned E2. 

4. Vincentia Shopping Centre - Object to proposed zoning. Residential section should be 

R1 without an increase in building heights and the business shopping centre should be 

B1. 

325 Concerned with proposed Bangalee West URA, particularly the small lot size and the zone which 

allows medium density. Out of character with surrounding area and there is no infrastructure. 

R2 is an appropriate zone for URA and surround area. Questioned whether existing area may 

be able to subdivide further if sewer and water provided. 

326 Supports R2 zoning in Manyana, Cunjurong Point, Bendalong and North Bendalong. 

Believes all residential zoning in the area including Berringer and Kylor should be R2. 

Concerned that Berringer RU5 zoning is inappropriate as it is not similar to Kangaroo Valley, 

Woollamia and Bawley Point. 

Believes that building heights should be maintained at 2 storeys for the whole district. 

Concerned with B2 zoning of Manyana shops - should be B1 not be zoned B2 and liked to 

Vincentia and Berry. 

Recommends Council zone Manyana shops B1 zone. 

Requests Council remove 'caravan parks' as a permissible use in the RU2 zone. 

Requests Green Island be zoned E2 similar to other islands in Lake Conjola. 

Concerned with building setbacks and visual effect for the street. 

Supports E3 zoning at the headland of North Bendalong - it requires appropriate protection. 

327 Concerned with any change that would affect the proposed golf course at Culburra Beach. 

328 Draft LEP is not a best fit. 

10 environmental zones to 3 means previously prohibited uses can occur. Object to the failure to 

use E4 zone - 

95


Number 


Housing has never been appropriate in all zones. 

Building height of 11metres in special scenic escarpment coastal and foreshore areas is 

destructive, there should have been community input. 

329 Objects to and request for answers regarding the following: 

1. Building height limits in various areas including Kangaroo Valley, Cambewarra and in 

particular Huskisson/Vincentia, height limits of 11,13 and 16 metres in contrast with the 

majority of the residents. 

2. Zoning in Huskisson (B4) in particular areas covered by DCP99 (there is flood prone 

land should be E2, two lots of public recreation should be RE1). 

3. Rezoning of Industrial land to residential in Greenwell Point inconsistent with 

employment lands strategy. 

4. Zoning of Culburra Urban Expansion Area - councillors gave direction to remove 

residential areas south of Culburra road. 

5. Zoning of S'haven Heads Bowling Club land. 

6. Zoning Airfield Jaspers Brush. 

7. Provision of appropriate commercial zone (generally) to designate existing uses where 

identified. 

330 Support the SP3 zoning of subject caravan park - need to allow motel on the site. Concerned 

with future upgrading of the Shoalhaven River bridge and its uncertainty. 

331 Objection to the 11 metre height limit for Hyams Beach and in particular Lister Crt. 

Height limits in this village should remain unchanged and that should be confirmed on a Height of 

Buildings map. 




dollars. 

333 The subject property is proposed to be changed from Business 3(b) to R3 Medium Density 

Residential. This will make the current use of the site as an office a prohibited use. This will 

impact on future use of the site and the value of the land. He requests that his property and the 

two adjoining properties retain a business use. 

334 I recommend that Council remove the land use “Air Transport Facilities” from RU1 and RU2 

zones and substitute “Airstrip” as the appropriate alternative thus allowing some flexibility for 

private aviation use in rural zones as is commonly accepted. 

Making “Air Transport Facilities” a permissible land use in RU1 zone: 

Has no evident concrete strategic basis at this time. 

Threatens too much land and too many residents because it is an offensive use. 

Provides no limits to the scale of potential air transport developments. 

335 Concerned about: 

No golf course for Culburra affect the sensitive waterway 

No marina in Callala or Jervis Bay, effect whale watching 

Should encourage cycling tourism. 

Need to protect the natural treasures 

336 Concerned that the hard work that went into DCP 66 has been lost through the draft LEP. 

1. Zone 1(g) (LEP 1985) protects flood-prone land in the environs of KV village from 

inappropriate development such as housing, hotels and heliports. Development should 

96



be restricted to non-intensive agriculture acceptable to SCA without adverse impact on 

water quality. All additional uses permitted in the new RU1 zone should be disallowed. 

2. Zone 1(b) (LEP 1985) protects KV village and environs from ribbon development along 

Moss Vale Road. 

All additional uses permitted in the new RU1 zone should be disallowed. 

3. DCP 66 specifies a building height of 5 metres (one storey) on the river side of Moss 

Vale Road and 8 metres (2 storeys) on the other side of the road. Buildings of 11 metres 

would destroy the heritage KV streetscape. 

4. The National Trust has designated KV as a rural landscape of high heritage value. We 

wish to conserve it, not wreck it with all the additional uses permitted in zone RU1 in 

draft LEP 2009. Please disallow them. 

5. Zone 7(e) (LEP 1985) protects escarpments as potential rock-wallaby habitat from nearly 

all development, which new zones E2 and E3 do not. Zone 7e should be extended to 

include a 100-metre buffer both above and below the escarpments to reinforce important 

wildlife corridors and biodiversity. All additional land uses in E2 and E3 should be 

disallowed. Why not use zone E4, permitted by the DP&I template, with rigorously 

applied limits to development 

6. Zones 7(d1) and 7(d2) (LEP 1985) are valuable restraints to development in KV for 

scenic protection. Additional development uses should be disallowed there too. 

7. We fully support the submission by KV Community Association Inc. 

337 Concerned with the amalgamation of the current Rural zones 1(a), 1(b), 1(e) and 1(g) into the 

new RU1 Primary Production zone. 

The current zones clearly defined what uses are permissible 

where the more liberal RU1 zoning means that rural land that would have been used exclusively 

for agriculture would now be zoned for a number of possible future uses which may not be 

compatible with surrounding properties. While DA approval is required, the new RU1 zoning 

could make permission for unsuitable future developments in rural areas more difficult for Council 

to deny. 

Congratulate council on excellent website. 

Request changing the zoning of a Council Reserve on Lot 7 DP 606051 from RE1 to E3. The 

objectives of RE1 do not provide sufficient environmental protection to this sensitive and fragile 

riverbank and I also consider there is a planning anomaly. 

Request changing the zoning of a rural property Lot 6 DP 606051 from RU1/RU2 to E3. (As a 

minimum, request the RU2 zone be changed to E3). RU1/2 provides insufficient environmental 

protection of this property which joins E3 properties. 

The perceived speculative advantage given to the owner of Lot 6 DP 606051 if the proposed 

RE1 of Lot 7 and RU1/ RU2 zonings of Lot 6 are approved. 

Request the deletion of caravan parks from Zone RU2 as this is not in keeping with maintaining 

the rural landscape and compatible land uses objectives. 

Express my overall concern about the wide range of activities now allowed in rural zones RU1 

and RU2 in rural zones. 

Request that the maximum heights of buildings remain at 8m and not increased to 11m. 

97


Number 


Council Reserve at Lot 7 DP 606051 and Lot 3 DP 589582 

The creation of a new RE1 zone in this area is a major rezoning and is at odds with many 

residential and environmental features of the surrounding properties. 

The objectives of E3 provides for vastly improved stability, water quality, ecological values and 

visual amenity of this unstable riverbank area given that the remainder of the Reserve has been 

zoned E3. 

The current Council Reserve is a continuous Reserve in front of Lots 4 & 5 DP589582 and Lot 6 

DP 606051. Lots 4, 5 & 6 are residential properties. 

I understand the current zoning of the Reserve at Lot 7 is 7d(1) and 1(a) for Lot 3. I understand 

that Lots 6 & 7 DP 606051 was the last subdivision in this area. Lots 3,4,5,6 and 7 are all part of 

a scenic section of the Shoalhaven River and the river banks along this section of the river are 

susceptible to erosion and flooding. I consider that the proposed RE1 zoning of Lot 7 of the 

Reserve is an anomaly for the following reasons: 

The fine silt river bank on Lot 7 as well as the bank on Lot 3 in front of Lot 5 are similar 

and are very unstable. The removal of bank vegetation for farming as well as boating 

activity over the years has caused continuous erosion, particularly during major floods. 

Flooding of Lot 7 and part of Lot 3 in front of Lot 5 has occurred during previous flooding 

events. Indeed, previous floods have covered most of Lot 6 and water has been near 

the house on Lot 5. 

The river bank of Lot 3 in front of Lot 4 is the only bank with good bank stability, is not as 

flood prone and offers a solid shale base for the construction of water recreation 

structures. If Council was serious about establishing a public river recreation reserve, 

this would be a more suitable location from a river stability point-of-view and damage to 

any water recreational structures during flooding could be minimised, particularly if 

constructed along the main water pipe reserve, which is not flood prone. 

 

 

No public road access is available to this Reserve. 

The Reserve and surrounding properties are located in an environmental and scenic 

sensitive area and the establishment of a RE1 reserve with the potential to have 

extensive recreational facilities would have a substantial impact on the scenic, 

environmental and amenity values of the area. 

Except for Lot 7 DP 606051, all other Shoalhaven River Reserves are currently zoned 6(a) Open 

Space. 

Lot 6 DP 606051 

Given that Lot 6: 

Is a residential property in a sensitive environmental location. 

Backs onto E3 and half of the property has native vegetation. 

Has a designation of “Sensitive area-habitat corridors”. 

The impact of any major development would have a substantial impact on neighbouring 

residential properties. 

Request that Lot 6: 

98


Number 


Draft zone RU2 is re-zoned E3. 

Draft zone RU1 is re-zoned E3. 

Perceived Speculative Advantage 

In isolation, the rezoning of Lot 6 & 7 DP 606051 could be considered an anomaly. Also, over 

the years camping has become a common event on the Reserve during holiday seasons as well 

as the construction of boating ramps. 

When the range of recreational developments now allowed in the RU1 & 2 zones as well as the 

RE1 zone are taken into account, leads to the perception that these re-zonings would be to the 

benefit of the land owner of Lot 6 for future tourist accommodation and boating activities and is 

therefore considered speculative. 

RU1 and RU2 Zones -One of the objectives of RU1 is: 

To minimise conflict between land uses within the zone and land uses within adjoining zones” 

One of the objectives of RU2 is: 

To maintain the rural landscape character of the land”. 

Unfortunately the range of allowable developments will make achieving these objectives very 

difficult. 

Building Heights 

According to paragraph 4.3, the default height of buildings is 11m except where identified. There 

are very few areas where less than 11m is prescribed. I would request Council to adopt the 

heights in the current DCPs with a maximum default height of approximately 8 metres. 

E3 zones 

Request that “Secondary dwellings” be allowed for the construction of granny style 

separate accommodation. 

Lodge my concern about the typographical error where “Secondary dwellings” is shown 

as “Permitted with Consent” in the E3 zoning where in fact, this is not allowed. 

Request that boat launching ramps be allowed to complement the other boating facilities allowed 

in this zone. 

338 Object to high density zoning over Bangalee Road West Urban Release area, low density should 

be appropriate due to traffic, access issues locality values and environmental impacts. 

339 Applaud the foresight shown in providing an opportunity for all residents to make comment 

I agree with zoning of subject land on Bendalong Road, Lake Berringer. 

I am concerned with any possible changes to land use zoning in relation to vacant crown land 

both to the west and north of our property, I am concerned with high rise over development. 

340 Objects to the inclusion of 'air transport facilities' as a permissible use in the RU1 zone. 

Potential to impact on lifestyle and property values. 

99


Number 


Inconsistent with objectives for RU1 zones. 

Other areas are more appropriate e.g. RU2 zoned areas, HMAS Albatross 

Unfairly legitimises operations at Jaspers Brush Air Strip. 

Contrary to Council's Strategic Vision. 

Objection to inappropriate development permitted with consent on flood liable land. 

Permitted uses in draft LEP are not 'best fit'. 

Uses prohibited in 1(g) are now permissible in RU1 and RU2 such as Tourist and Visitor 

Accommodation, Caravan Parks (RU2), Offensive Industries, Air Transport Facilities, Cellar 

Door, Crematorium, Mining and Veterinary Hospitals. 

Recommends that stronger protection than Clause 7.8(4) - Insert Clause 7.8(5) "The following 

land uses are prohibited in flood liable land: tourist and visitor accommodation, caravan parks 

(RU2 only), offensive industries, air transport facilities, cellar door, crematorium, mining, 

veterinary hospitals". 

341 The re-zoning on Elizabeth Drive, Vincentia and surrounding area within the current retail area. 

This area should remain retail and not changed to residential. Woolworths should not have the 

power to be able to alter or affect other retail outlets in the vicinity. 

If the zoning is altered to residential the retail area may be replaced with residential units up to 11 

metres high, the Council needs to make up and release height maps of the shire. 

Concerned with 11 m HOB. The Council needs to make up and release height maps of the 

whole Shoalhaven. 

342 I do not support the following clauses in the draft SLEP and would like them changed or deleted 

so the intention of the South Coast Regional Strategy to protect Hyams Beach can be achieved. 

Create an individual Map for the Height of Buildings and Floor Space Ratio for Hyams Beach. 

Set the height of building map for all zones in the village at 8.5m except for the foreshore land, 

set this at 7.5m. This will guarantee compliance with the South Coast Regional Strategy (section 

10, Cultural Heritage, page 33) and ensure the character of this village is protected from 

overdevelopment. 

Height of Building Clause 4.3 Objective 1(a) Delete ‘desired future character of a locality’ in this 

objective and replace with ‘to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk, and 

scale of the existing character of a locality’. This will ensure that Hyams Beach village will 

remain a unique village in the Shoalhaven and continue to be a place for tourism promotion. 

Delete Clause 4.3 Height of buildings (2) and replace the clause with: the height of building on 

any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Building Map 

for Hyams Beach. Hyams Beach does not have a height of building map; therefore, all blocks are 

set at 11m in the draft SLEP2009. This is totally unacceptable and does not comply with the 

intent of the South Coast Regional Strategy. 

Inappropriate land zone in Hyams Beach. The R1 zone is Hyams Beach is inappropriate for the 

100


Number 


village and should be rezoned to R2. The land use for R1, such as shop top housing, residential 

flat buildings and Motels and Hotels would be contrary to the character of Hyams Beach and if 

this zone remains in the LEP in Hyams Beach there is always a future prospect of such a 

development occurring. Although this land has heritage status, this does not protect further 

inappropriate development. In the SLEP2009, 2c land was rezoned to R2 in other areas, 

therefore, a rezoning to R2 in Hyams Beach would be consistent with such a spot rezoning. 

RU2 – this section of land should be rezoned SP1 as it is inappropriate to have a rural zone in 

this location -Illowra Lane road and surrounds. 

Inappropriate land use in zones. 

Deleted detached dual occupancy in the R2 in Hyams Beach. This land use has the potential to 

change the existing character of the village. Previously detached dual occupancy was not 

permissible in Hyams Beach therefore this is not an administrative changeover, which was one of 

the ground rules for developing the draft SLEP 

Subdivision 

I do not support the following subdivision clauses. These clauses allow for small lot subdivisions, 

which will change our village completely. 

Delete: Clause 4 1. 1a. To ensure that subdivision is compatible with and reinforces the 

predominant or historic subdivision pattern and character of an area. To date we have had 

subdivision of land that falls below the minimum lot size, which is the mandatory requirement for 

subdivision. Therefore, this clause provides for more subdivision below the minimum lot size. 

4.1 1c. Delete this clause to ensure the lot sizes and dimensions are able to accommodate 

development consistent with relevant development controls’. Subdivision should be clearly stated 

in the LEP and not in DCP’s. It has been proven in the Land and Environment Court that the 

Shoalhaven City DCP for subdivision does not have any development control due to the 

performance criteria and possible solutions. Subdivision statements must be in the LEP, not in a 

DCP. This objective as well as 4.1 1a will allow subdivision in Hyams Beach, which is 

unacceptable and does not comply with the character statement in the South Coast Regional 

Strategy. 

I support the Council’s intention to set a height of building for the R2 zone at 8.5 m for land that is 

not a foreshore block and the 6-7.5m for land on the foreshore. This intention should be included 

in the final draft LEP before it is adopted by Council. 

Inappropriate zone for the Heritage Estates: I do not support the RU2 zone for the Heritage 

Estates. This parcel of land has been the subject of a Federal Government Environmental 

Assessment Act decision and it should be rezoned to E2 and given the protection this unique 

parcel of land deserves. 

343 Concern - Only a very small portion of the subject property is RU1, the rest is RU2. 

Did anyone look at the land We have a cattle stud and our valley which adjoins our neighbour 

(whose land is RU1) is primary production land. We do not understand why more of our land is 

not RU1. Is RU1 and RU2 rated for council rate purposes the same 

344 1. SP2 has been applied to a strip of land running through the middle of the Bomaderry 

Creek Bushland and is obviously still council’s preferred option for the North Nowra Link 

101


Number 


Road despite the vast majority of submissions made last February opposing this route 

and, instead, supporting the West Cambewarra option. As has been stated before, 

cutting through the bushland would inevitably cause disruption to the area and 

particularly the local fauna. 

2. R1 (general residential) has been applied to two parts of land fronting West Cambewarra 

Road and Illaroo Road. This would be a shame as there is little enough natural bushland 

left in the area 

345 Development in Flood Prone Land in RU1 and RU2 Zones 

Land zoned as 1(g) Flood Liable in LEP 1985 has been moved into RU1 and RU2 zones in SLEP 

2009. This will allow development with consent of a number of land uses which were not listed 

as allowed in the old 1(g) zoned land and which are considered incompatible with sustainable 

flood prone land use. 

I ask that to SLEP 2009 add a new point (5) in Clause 7.8 “for the avoidance of doubt the 

following land uses are prohibited in flood prone land: tourist and visitor accommodation, caravan 

parks, air transport facilities, cellar door, crematoria, mining, offensive industries and vet 

hospitals.” 

346 Objects to any proposed change of zoning at Culburra Beach that would prevent the 


347 What I like: 

The new LEP is consistent with the current LEP 

The current LEP has worked well for a long period of time 

The LEP allows for some controlled development and has discretion for the up and down 

nature of farming. 

It allows for some tourism development and growth which is crucial for farms that are 

marginally viable. 

What I am concerned with: 

In the Bellawongarah/Berry Mountain area there is a lobby group called MOOT trying to 

influence the LEP and DCP for their own concerns. 

348 Objection to Burton Street shops zone B4 - not a 'best fit' transfer. 

B4 zoning would enforce the decline of the village shops. 

Concerned that residential flat building development similar to Huskisson will occur. 

Requests Council to amend the zoning of the shopping precinct to B1 and R1 for the surrounding 

residential area. 

Objection to 11m height of buildings. 

Recommends R1, R2 and B1 zone should be mapped at 8.5m and 7.5m in foreshore areas. 

Requests Council include appropriate HOB mapping for Vincentia residential and business 

zones. 

349 Land at the end of Peel St (west of Currarong Village) - the land be zoned E2 to protect and 

maintain integrity of the wetland. 

102



The land sandwiched between Currarong Rd and the rear of properties fronting Kinghorn St be 

zoned either E2 to preserve the current benefits or R2 to ensure any possible development 

meets the same standards as that proposed for the rest of the residential area of Currarong. 

350 Would like it to remain in the beautiful state it is. It is a natural barrier from the main road into 

town. R1 - E2 zoning (Kinghorn Rd Currarong). 

351 Supports the submission made by the Kangaroo Valley Community Association, oppose the 

HOB and allowance for helipads. 

352 Object to the potential for development to occur in certain environmentally sensitive areas of 

Callala Beach, made possible by Council’s proposed inclusion of a wide range of development 

types in ‘E2 – Environmental Conservation’ zones in the Draft Shoalhaven Local Environmental 

Plan 2009 (Draft SLEP 2009, p25) 

I strongly urge Council to provide definitive protective measures in the SLEP 2009 to ensure that 

development does not occur in the environmentally sensitive areas zoned ‘E2 – Environmental 

Conservation’ at Callala Beach (an area that I am familiar with) and indeed for all such similar 

areas under its jurisdiction that exist in the Shoalhaven region. 

In the case of Callala Beach, there are two parcels of land immediately behind the residential lots 

on Queen Mary Street that have been zoned as ‘E2 – Environmental Conservation’ areas. 

These areas are bound by Jervis Bay National Park and incorporate both sensitive vegetation 

and a sensitive waterway/wetland area, which have been identified on various maps included 

with the Draft SLEP 2009. The majority of permitted development types identified, including but 

not limited to bed and breakfast accommodation, dwelling houses, home businesses, home 

industries and roads, are wholly inappropriate for these particular vulnerable bushland areas and 

would be at odds with the stated objectives of the zone, all of which I note relate solely to 

conservation and protection of significant environmental values (Draft SLEP 2009, p24, refer 

below). 

The application of ‘E2 – Environmental Conservation’ zones in the Draft SLEP 2009 is very broad 

and provides no distinction between areas of different character and areas that have different 

levels of environmental sensitivity. For example, a large portion of the ‘E2 – Environmental 

Conservation’ zone shown at Callala Bay comprises subdivided lots that have already been 

developed, largely for residential purposes. This area has a vastly different character and 

environmental qualities to the bushland areas of Callala Beach, however this is not recognised in 

the Draft SLEP 2009. Clearly, the proposed types of permissible development currently 

proposed for ‘E2 – Environmental Conservation’ zones are more appropriate in areas where 

development already exists as it would not necessarily pose a threat to its existing character or 

significant values. The same cannot be said for the environmentally sensitive pockets of land 

behind Queen Mary Street. 

353 Believes the area is near dead and it will be completely destroyed once the new LEP is 

approved. 

354 Wants subject land to be zoned at RU2 instead of R5 as concerned about being able to do 

extensive agriculture in R5, run a cattle business and grow trees. 

Found the facts on the new LEP limited. Concerned that have not received adequate information 

and found the website difficult to navigate. 

355 Objection to Bomaderry Princes Highway upgrade SP2 infrastructure zoning - Left in left out exit 

from Abernethy's Lane access to Princes Highway. Would like existing access left and right exit 

maintained due to family medical conditions. 

356 Supports addition of RU4 Primary Production lots from the standard instrument to the draft SLEP 

103


Number 


2009. 

Strongly object to the change of 1(c) rural zone to R5 residential zone as it is not suited to 

requirements. 

357 Believes that the low rise character of Currarong should be maintained by limiting building 

heights at 8.5m for the whole village including the business zone. 

Supports the inclusion of wildlife corridors for Currarong. Does not support 2c zoning for land 

parallel to Kinghorn Rd area 5(c) old school should be maintained for low rise residential not 

commercial. 

358 Would like 'air transport facilities' removed from the RU1 zone. Against expanding Jaspers Brush 

359 Recommendation 1 - The E3 zone is reduced in size to a maximum of 70m and a preferred 50m 

along the Moss Vale Road frontage of my property. 

Recommendation 2 - the reduced E3 zone is amended to an RU6 transition zone or large lot 

residential zone. 

Recommendation 3 - the visual protection areas shown on Mpa NRS-019 and zones on Map 

LZN-019 are aligned in accordance with the stated requirement for 50 to a maximum of 70m area 

for visual buffer. 

Recommendation 4 - Council considers flexibility in the location of this traffic access point into 

the new residential area and remove SP zone locking the location or moves the location of the 

SP zone a safe distance along main road. 

360 Objection to Changing Rural zone to Residential – moving rural 1c zone to residential R5 zone. 

This move is not an “administrative change over” or “best fit”. 

The change is not supported by SLEP2009 Review Group & Kangaroo Valley Community 

Association Inc. 

This claim is supported by Council’s choice of zones and with the statement in the new R5 zone 

“Objectives of Zone”…”To ensure that large residential allotments do not hinder the proper and 

orderly development of urban areas in the future”. In the LEP (1985), one of the main criteria of 

the 1c zone sets conditions directly in opposition to this. Not a best fit. 

This claim is supported by Council’s continued attempts to gain approval for “lot averaging” in the 

zone. 

The proposed change denies small farm operations in the future or medium size farm operations 

if amalgamations took place. 

There would be conflict with existing businesses “home activities” or future businesses which can 

employ 2 people in addition to the property owners – a job loss situation. 

The change spoils the rural aspect of present and future B&B establishments. 

Removes the buffer zone between primary production zones and residential zones. 

Removes the buffer between primary production and environmental zones 

104


Number 


There is a loss of agricultural classed land. 

It is in conflict with some DCPs 

It would be impossible in 13 weeks to familiarise oneself with this complicated document and 

respond to all the objectionable clauses, conditions and modifications contained therein. Only 

through collaborative responses have some of these been addressed. 

I fully support the SLEP2009 Review Group submission by Council’s own Community 

Consultative Bodies and many other organisations. 

In addition I support the submission by Kangaroo Valley Community Association Inc. 

My own submission has been emailed to Council with copies to Planning at Wollongong and 

Sydney. 

Objection : Problems Specific to Kangaroo Valley 

The following should be considered – 

Remove “helipads” from the village zone 

Main and arterial road protection has been lost. This was an important visual and development 

consideration. 

Noting on the drawings and in the documents the Sydney Catchment SEPP 

Restricting Air transport facilities in RU1 when applied to amalgamated old 1g (Flood prone land). 

This can be provided in the LEP2009 Part 7 (Additional Local Provisions item 7.8 Flood Planning 

Land). 

This should be applied to all flood prone land due to pollution possibilities, flood risks and 

deviation of flood flows. 

The Shoalhaven River should be mapped from the Bendeela Power Station to the Dam as the 

River Bed and surrounding land is afforded special protection and is owned by the State. 

Objection : Failure to implement Administrative change over (best fit) 

Should have been undertaken without Councillor interference. 

Objection to selections from Dictionary for “Permissible uses.” 

Using the DP&I Dictionary of terms expanded the permissible developments in many zones - this 

did not represent “best fit”. 

This should have been excluded in a “best fit” situation eg- helipads; air transport facilities; 

offensive industries. 

105


Number 


A full investigation with the community’s participation, into the loss of residents’ rights must be 

undertaken. 

Objection to One-off Zone changes (called “minor”) not best fit, no justification or community 

consultation. 

Objection to One-off zone change Kangaroo Valley (lot 1 DP 596037) no community 

consultation. Should be done under gateway process not in line with DCP 66. 

Objection to Reducing Zones Used from the state government’s Template. 

Template was not made available to the public. 

Not using all zones available as needed in our large diversified Shire. 

Reduction in established strength/contrast in remaining zones. 

Failure to use all zones or advise community that others existed (RU4, RU6, E4 for example) 

prevented a “best fit” and was “deceitful”. 

Objection to Height of Buildings at 11 metres. 

Breaks Administrative change over promised to public. 

Does not follow Ground Rules set by Council. 

Does not honour LEP1985 statement/control that heights limited to “2 storeys”. 

The 2 storey height was enforced many times in past. 

Imposing 11 metres –in point 4.3- and then an additional 2 metre optional in point 5.6 on all 

zones. 

Ignores established DCP height controls. 

Ignores inferred height in non specific DCP. 

Telling those who inquired that the 11 metre height must be used because it was set in the 

Illawarra Regional Plan – when it clearly is not. 

No other Council, even those which opened up their LEPs and worked with their communities 

used this ploy. This is “deceitful”. 

361 Objects to the changing of Rural 1(c) to R5 Large Lot Residential zoning. Would like RU4 to be 

introduced into the draft LEP and used for subject land on Bollerand Road, Wandandian. 

362 Concerned with proposed changes to Jaspers Brush airfield, it would be wrong to allow any 

further air traffic to use this facility. Increases risk of accidents occurring. 

Concerned with environmental impact on water courses. 

363 The height of buildings should be restricted to 8.5m (or equivalent two stories) within the villages 

of Lake Conjola, Killarney, Conjola Park, Fishermans Paradise and adjacent lands. 

106


Number 


I have a concern with the proposed “R5 Large Lot Residential‟ areas at Conjola Park. If this 

height limit cannot be achieved by the means stated above, consideration should be given to rezoning 

these areas “RU5 Village‟ with protection for their existing lot sizes. 

The property known as “Killarney‟ (east of Evans and Prior Streets Lake Conjola, Lot 372 DP 

1125806) is currently proposed to be zoned “RU5 Village‟ which allows for minimum 500m2 lots. 

This zoning allows for overdevelopment of a sensitive land. Should be E3 with 8.5m minimum lot 

size 1ha to protect sensitive vegetation and landscape quality. 

RE1 along lake edge (30m) to return land to public and provide environmental protection. 

Green Island E3 is inappropriate E2 zoning should apply. 

Should be four E zones in line with SLEP review group argument. 

Generally there are too many allowable activities in each zone, particularly “RU5 Village‟ 

Given the “High Sensitivity‟ and “Significant Protection‟ ratings given to the Conjola/Berringer 

system by the Coastal Lakes Inquiry I do not consider that a ‟W2‟ zoning is appropriate for any 

part of the water body. A “W1‟ zoning should apply 

The SLEP as presented does not meet DP&I requirements as set out in the South Coast 

Regional Strategy for protection in the LEP of the character of coastal and other villages (Section 

117(2) Direction 5.1- Implementation of Regional Strategies). Supports SLEP review Group 

submission 

364 1. Concern with SP2 zoning of Bomaderry Creek Bushland for North Nowra link Road. 

Supports the West Cambewarra Option, believes result in less environmental impact. 

2. Concern R1 applied to two parts of land fronting West Cambewarra Rd and Illaroo Rd. 

Believes natural bushland should be retained. 

365 Supports the rezoning of subject land from 2(a1) to RE1. 


Protect the natural vegetation on the sand dune. 

Protect the land and stop development on this land. 

Allow the community to enjoy the lot for years to come. 

366 Support - R2 zoning for Cunjurong Point, Manyana and Bendalong 





Alter - All Beringer Lake to zone W1 and part W2 


107


Number 





Manyana 


367 Concerned with 

Will agricultural use be permitted on small lots R5 

Lack of clarity in Council descriptions leaving ratepayers without ability to make submissions 

I object to the lack of information about rates variation on each zone 

I object to the uncertainty of valuation or change thereof to our lands 

I object to the friction and uncertainty this has cause in the community. 

368 Likes: 

Draft LEP will retain Berringer Lake's current status. 

No entitlements/amenities will be removed. 

Concerned that CCB 'RHVA' has misrepresented the residents of Berringer Lake through their 

recommendations for the area. 

369 Opposition to rezoning of subject land in North Nowra from 1(d) to E2 


Clause 4.3: 

Delete – “the height of a building on any land is not to exceed 11 metres except when the 

maximum height is shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map” 

Insert - “the height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the 

land on the Height of Buildings Map” 

Include in SLEP2009 Height of Buildings Maps for all land in the Shoalhaven and set heights in 

accordance with current site specific DCPs or for other areas in accordance with whole of 

Shoalhaven DCPs or if no DCPs apply to the lot or building thereon, in accordance with current 

practise. 

370 Requests removal of 'air transport facilities' from the RU1 zone - concerned that Berry will lose its 

charm as a quiet rural town. 

371 Owns two lots that are proposed to be zoned E1 - National Parks has advised that they do not 

wish to acquire the land. Request that land be rezoned to allow the construction of a dwelling. 

372 Concerned that part of her block is zoned E2. It has been underwater for 3 years while Lake 

Durras has been closed but is now above water as the Lake has been open. Has no vegetation 

and has been grazed in the past. 

373 Requesting 1(c3) zoning objectives and permitted uses be maintained to undertake horticulture 

and agriculture, believed RU4 could meet this requirement but was unable to locate definition 

108



374 Some parts of SLEP are contradiction with preserving these values and maintaining proper 

implementation of South Coast Regional Strategy. 

Therefore I take a liberty and ask for certain parts of Draft SLEP 2009 to be reassessed, 

removed and changed. 

Environmental Zones: 

E2 zone - there should not be any consents permitted in this area since proposed uses e.g. 

dwelling houses , tourist facilities etc. - are not consistent with the objective of maintaining 

National Park equivalent and SCRS & ESD guidelines. According to Eurobodalla and Kiama LEP 

- this zoning does not permit new dwellings and this ruling should apply to E2 zone in 

Shoalhaven. 

E2 zone should be recognized as an area of environment conservation, environment protection 

works and environmental facilities. 

E4 Zone, for "Environmental Living" should be included in SLEP where certain low impact 

residential development be allowed. 

"Paper Estates" : So called "Paper Estates" dealt at this stage outside SLEP should be one 

example where this type of restricted low impact residential development be allowed . "Jerbera 

Estate" is the prominent example where this restrictions should take place. 

"Heritage Estate" as such is covered by Federal Government Legislation - to not allow rezoning 

for residential development. 

I am astounded by a Shoalhaven Council proposed land classification as RU1 and a fact of 

ignoring existing legislation. 

"Heritage Estate" should never be included in this category. 

E2 zoning should be applied at the beginning of the Draft LEP. 

Therefore I believe that proposed zoning to be changed to E2. 

Shoalhaven Council is currently seeking funding under the Australian Government "Caring for 

your Country" program to purchase the site for a further inclusion into Jervis Bay National Park 

which is necessary for a survival of different forms of threatened species and biodiversity of both 

Parks - Jervis Bay and Booderee. Therefore I see a reclassification of "Heritage Estate" as a 

must. 

"One Tree Bay" land proposed zoning as E2 seems appropriate on the condition that my earlier 

objections in proposed consents for E-2zones be removed. Or the area be reclassified , since 

any land clearing due to implementing consents be inappropriate and massive water quality 

degradation will take place. 

"Comberton Grange" - proposed zoning RU2 and E3. 

In my opinion zoning should be changed to E2 (Environmental Conservation) to the eastern part 

at least. 

Jervis Bay Regional Environment Plan and SEPP 14 Wetlands states that water quality of 

109


Number 


Currambine Creek (main tributary) of Jervis Bay that forms now Jervis Bay Marine Park needs to 

be protected. The Minister at the time when rejecting amendment to JBREP to allow a 

development stated : 

'the development was likely to significantly affect water quality...was in conflict with the water 

quality for proposed Marine Reserve ( future JB Marine Park ) 

...was likely to result in degradation of a SEPP 14 wetland ... valuable fauna, bird life and fish 

habitat would be threatened .... 

...and a precedent will be set." 

SLEP draft identifies parts of Comberton Grange as a habitat corridor and a significant 

vegetation which links coastal Jervis Bay National Park to the west. 

This area is also recognized by SLEP as an Aboriginal Heritage site - present along Currambine 

Creek. 

Therefore proposed zoning is totally inappropriate and changes have to be implemented. 

Please note: South Coast Sensitive Urban Lands Review also recommends protection of this 

site. 

I believe that part 3A Development Application for residential and tourist development on this site 

was ill conceived, in conflict with abovementioned recommendations, proximity of Marine and 

national Parks as well as doubtful employment 

opportunity figures presented as a part of the project. 

"Lake Wollumboola" and it's catchment presents a high conservation values of national 

significance. 

"Ramsar" status should be proclaimed for the Lake. 

Lake Wollumboola catchment should be zoned E1 (outside existing development area) but since 

there is no agreement to acquire new E-2 zone ( environment conservation, environment 

protection works ) should be implemented. 

Crookhaven River lower catchment should be revisited to perform further studies. 

Kinghorn Point, Warrain Beach should also be classified as a new E2 zoning and should not be 

downgraded. 

We need to remember that those areas have been identified as a "protection essential" by the 

Department of Planning Coastal Laws Protection Scheme. 

Huskisson, Vincentia, Bay and Basin area. 

Some proposed changes to the residential areas are far fetched, undemocratic and in conflict 

with ecologically sustainable development. 

110


Number 


Proposed changes of building heights in the villages as well as minimizing building block sizes 

without any prior community consultation is disputable and in a lot of cases without merits as 

well. Contrary to opinions of majority Councillors - this villages should not be expanded with 11 & 

13 meters high block of units, townhouses etc. on a very small block of land. 

According to surveys and information's gathered by local groups -families with moderate income 

frequent this area. 

They want to spend their holidays outdoors, on the beaches in the local parks . Those people 

favour Shoalhaven for it's unspoiled beaches, 

National Parks, relatively quiet villages where there are plenty possibilities to admire local flora 

and fauna. 

All this vital factors contribute to popularity of Jervis Bay area. 

All of this will be lost if Shoalhaven Council will be able to go ahead with it's current proposal. 

Instead of green villages with plenty of native vegetation and native trees left we will have a 

Concrete Jungle instead. In Huskisson case an area of only 1 square kilometre. 

The existing tree preservation principles should be revisited and further strengthened. We as a 

residents cannot allow to destroy our biggest assets in form of what's attracts tourists to the area. 

Jervis Bay as a water body is not the only reason for visitors. It is a whole package. 

Somehow local Councillors cannot see that and they want to create a "mini Gold Coast" instead. 

They were also concerned of losing values of their existing houses. All those issues, despite 

promises were ignored. 

Therefore increased building height for this villages should not be undertaken, overshadowing, 

overcrowding 

Individual Sydney Councils follow recommendations for every development to be ecologically 

sustainable consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. 

375 Likes: 

That Council has left the area unchanged under draft LEP. 

That no facilities or current entitlements will be removed. 

RU5 zoning propose is best suited. 

Concerned that residents are being misrepresented by minority groups with their own agendas. 

376 Objects to the draft LEP due to: 

Restrictions on enjoyment of land. 

The possibility of the golf course being rejected. 

Leaving vulnerable to bushfire. 

There is enough land already protected environmentally. 

377 Would like to see 'air transport facilities' removed from the RU1 zoning. Even a small airport 

would destroy peace and quiet and devalue their property. 

378 Request that 'air transport facilities' be removed from RU1 zone. 

111



Appreciate need for some farmers to have personal airstrip but do not want commercial use. 

379 Fully supports the R2 zoning for North Bendalong. 

Requests that two storey building heights be retained for the whole Bendalong/Manyana district. 

Supports the E3 zoning of the headland at Nth Bendalong. 

380 Objects to current approach to HoB 

HoB should be set at 6-7.5 foreshore and 8.5 for all other 

The B4 zoning for Burton St shop should be B1. Need comprehensive consultation rezoning 

Burton St shops and residential flats in Vincentia. 

Vincentia should be mapped separately from Shoalhaven demographics, as it is vastly different. 

381 Likes nothing about the new LEP for current 1c zoning 

R5 is totally un Australian they bought in 1c to have animals stock and poultry and want to keep 

them. 

382 Has an approved subdivision which requires the dedication of 7.25 ha to Council where the LEP 

shows 36.15 ha. 

Would like the LEP to be amended to show only the land that is required in the consent for 

dedication. 

383 Bomaderry Creek Bushland 

Concerned with 

1. The SP2 zoning that has been applied to the strip of land through the middle of the park. 

2. The R1 zoning that has been applied to one part of bushland fronting Illaroo Rd and the 

other fronting west Cambewarra Rd should be changed E2. 

I like the environmental conservation area in Bangalee 

I am concerned with: the road stated to go straight through Bomaderry Regional Park with 

threatened species issues. 

384 Supports Council’s intention to set a height of building for the R2 zone at 8.5 m for land that is 

not a foreshore block and the 6-7.5m for land on the foreshore. This intention should be included 

in the final draft LEP before it is adopted by Council. 

Requests that “detached dual occupancy” be deleted from the permitted land use within the R2 

zone in Hyams Beach. This land use has the potential to change the existing character of Hyams 

Beach village. Dual occupancy is not consistent with Low Density Residential/R2 zoning, and if it 

approved in Hyams Beach it will adversely impact on residential amenity because it allows 

Exceptions to The Minimum lot sizes for dual occupancies and multi-dwelling housing (Clause 

4.1A) and subdivisions of lots to 350m2, which is inconsistent with low-density housing zoned for 

R2. 

Requests that “caravan parks, agriculture, childcare centres, entertainment facilities, function 

centres, helipads and restaurants” be deleted from the list of uses permitted for RE1-zoned land 

throughout the City of Shoalhaven. 

Concerned that these land uses do not comply with the objectives for the zone. For example, a 

caravan park on public open space does not fit with the definition in the dictionary for the term 

‘recreation area’. 

112


Number 


Requests that “B & B, Dwelling houses, Home businesses and industries, Sewerage systems 

and agriculture” be deleted from the permitted uses of E2-zoned land. This is a conservation 

zone that is one-step down from the E1 National Park zone. This zone is the most significant 

environmental zone that the Council controls. The inclusion of these forms of land use are 

incompatible with the objectives for the zone. 

Requests that the phrase ‘and desired future’ be deleted from Clause 4.3 Objective 1(a), so it will 

read: ‘to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk, and scale of the existing 

character of a locality’. “Desired future” is too loose a term to use in a Council document that is 

planning our region. Such vague terms are too easily manipulated and raise more questions 

about ‘exactly who’s desired future’ and ‘what period of time are we referring to’ The use terms 

like “desired future” that are open to interpretation, will ultimately lose the Council it’s control of 

planning within the Shoalhaven as developers could rely on the ruling of the Land and 

Environmental Court to make the final assessment and as a consequence, the character of a 

locality could be devastated. The LEP should clearly define the existing character of Hyams 

Beach village. Maintaining the existing character of Hyams Beach village will help achieve one 

of the aims of the draft Plan, namely, to ‘protect …the amenity and character of settlements’ (Part 

1, 1.2 Aims of the Plan (2) (d)). 

Concerned with 11 metre height limit. Believes this is totally unacceptable and it does not comply 

with the intent of the South Coast Regional Strategy. 

Delete Clause 4.3 Height of buildings (2) and replacewith "the height of building on any land is 

not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Building Map for Hyams 

Beach. And that a special height of building map be created for Hyams Beach. 

Requests 8.5m height limit be mapped for all zones in the village and foreshore be mapped at 

7.5m. To comply with South Coast Regional Strategy (pg. 33 - Cultural Heritage), protect from 

overdevelopment and to ensure that Objective 4.3.1(b) is met. 

Delete 'desired future' in Objective Clause 4.4 (Floor Space Ratios) Objective 1(a) and replace 

with: ‘to ensure that buildings are compatible with the bulk and scale of the existing character of a 

locality’. Concerned that 'desired future' is vague and allows for a subjective assessment to be 

made in the future. 

Maintaining the existing character of Hyams beach village will help achieve one of the aims of the 

draft Plan, namely to ‘protect …the amenity and character of settlements’ (Part 1, 1.2 Aims of the 

Plan (2) (d)). 

Concerned that Hyams Beach does not have a Floor Space Ratio map. 

Requests that Floor Space Ratio be entered into the draft SLEP before approval for a 

comprehensive and legal framework. 

Concerned that the objective which Council is proposed to add in Part 4.1(1)(a) is inconsistent 

with the R2 zone minimum lot size of 500sqm - delete the words "or historic" so the objective 

reads "to ensure that subdivision is compatible with and reinforces the predominant pattern and 

character of an area". 

113


Number 


Delete clause 4 1. 1a. Concerned with previous subdivision of land that falls below minimum lot 

size e.g. "Allowrie" in Silver Strand and "The Boathouse" in Cyrus Street. These are precursors 

to applying part 4.1A(2)(a) to subdividing the land to blocks of no less than 350sqm. 

Consequently, Council will have difficulty in preventing such developments because the Land 

and Environment Court may well overrule any Council objection. The recent overruling of 

Council’s rejection of the DA for 20 Bayview St is a case in point. 

Delete clause 4.1 1c. - Subdivision should be clearly stated in the LEP and not in DCP's. 

Concerned that it has been proven in the Land and Environment Court that the Shoalhaven City 

DCP for subdivision does not have any development control due to the performance criteria and 

possible solutions. 

This objective as well as 4.1 1a will allow subdivision in Hyams Beach, which is unacceptable 

and does not comply with the character statement in the South Coast Regional Strategy. 

385 LEP 25yrs old should not have been an administrative change over should of done community 

consultation. 

386 ISSUES OF SPECIFIC CONCERN FOR KANGAROO VALLEY – Objections 

1. Additional permitted 1g land 1b, now RU1 2e village now RU5– should be removed 

2. HOB of 11 metres – Contrary to DCP 66 Kangaroo Valley & Environs South Coast 

Regional strategy and landscape heritage classification 

3. Zone 1c (LEP 1985) – being moved from rural to residential, eliminates many existing 

uses, future uses Destroys prime crop and pasture lands Eliminates employment 

(agriculture, home activities etc) if further subdivision is sought under the new urban 

classification 

4. Reduction in Environmental zones from 10 to 3 

5. Loss of protection for habitat,water catchment area, scenic values, escarpment 

6. Additional housing permitted. This is particularly devastating for Kangaroo Valley. 

Further the HOB provisions for new and modified residences, would further destroy the 

visual environmental attributes of the Valley in a compromised position. 

7. There is a distinct gap in the mapping for areas surrounding Kangaroo Valley: 

The Valley/village is known for its visual, environmental and natural attributes 

and these are well documented. 

 

 

 

For example heritage landscape 

Special notation in the South Coast Regional Strategy (Page 33) stating that 

“Local environmental plans will include appropriate provisions to protect coastal 

towns and villages such as Kangaroo Valley…” and “Along with associated 

natural and cultural landscapes and curtilages”…….”the aim will be to protect 

conservation values and visual character and reinforce their economic value for 

tourism” 

Does not meet DCP 66 KV and Environs 

These special conditions- Natural Resource Sensitivity – “Biodiversity” / Natural 

Resource Sensitivity “Scenic Protection” / Natural Resource Sensitivity “Lands” - 

have been ignored entirely. They should be opened up and discussed with the 

community. 

8. Does not feel community consultation was done. 

387 Object to retail sales being restricted or omitted from industrial zones. There is limited space 

with CBD for growth of business that fit retail, bulky goods and ancillary retail. 

114



388 Comments on erection of dwelling houses and subdivision in Woollamia - No comment on Draft 

SLEP09 

Subject land in Woollamia - I request that the entire block be recognised as having ‘Sensitive 

Area- Habitat Corridor’ and ‘Sensitive Area- Significant Vegetation’ Zoning/ identification. It has 

vulnerable flora and fauna and land around has sensitive area habitat 

NATURAL RESOURCE SENSITIVITY- WATER WOOLLAMIA I request that the tidal estuary 

that flows under Edendale St and Woollamia road be identified on the Natural Resources 

Sensitivity- Water Map. This tidal estuary is vital in releasing water from the Woollamia 

Wetlands into Currambene Creek 

 

 

 

 

 

It is a natural water way that is full of marine life including mangroves, crabs, prawn and 

fish hatchlings and birdlife including the Azure Kingfisher, 

This land is identified as Floodway 

The removal of large areas of vegetation on a floodway is known to exacerbate flooding 

which will have a detrimental effect on the existing residents. 

Increased water diversion into the tidal tributary will intensify the risk to current residents 

There is no information on how the clearing of this large section of land will impact on 

flood storage and behaviour. 

Requests subject land and land on the northern side of Edendale St Woollamia not be Zoned 

Village but RU2 Rural Landscape in alignment with the block it was originally subdivided off and 

the surrounding environment. 

Being Zoned Village there is provision for an increase in the number of houses allowed the land 

is floodway, sensitive area habitat and vegetated EEC and adjacent to Aboriginal heritage. 

389 Requests that 'air transport facilities' be removed from the RU1 zoning and that Council take 

steps to limit future aircraft noise around Berry and to protect the ecology of the rivers, creeks 

and wetlands. 

390 Concerned with the heights in DCP 56 at the time of finalising draft LEP 2009 will be brought into 

the LEP through “height mapping”. , this submission has been lodged to request that the revised 

heights can be included in the LEP should the LEP finalisation precede the DCP 56 amendment 

foreshadowed in Minute No 10.971 

391 Objects to the movement of land previously zoned as Rural into a Residential Zone. 

Need a buffer between rural and residential, There is a logical reason for rural land remaining as 

Rural Lifestyle. 

Objection - Development on Flood Prone Land in RU1 and RU2 Zones. 

The permitted uses such as industries are not appropriate. 

Objection to change in HOB. 

Permitting of buildings to be as high as 11 metres (four storeys with a flat roof) would allow them 

to tower over and diminish the heritage shops and houses in Kangaroo Valley 

When these issues have been reconsidered I would expect a second review period to look at the 

changes to the current SLEP2009. 

Object to lack of adequate environmental corridors across open land and forested land on the 

Biodiversity Overlay and the potential for approval of DAs that would block any wildlife corridor as 

115


Number 


shown on that overlay. 

392 The height of buildings in Vincentia remain unchanged with foreshore land being set at 6 to 7.5 

metres and for all other land at 8.5 metres and that this be confirmed in the new LEP 

(SLEP2009) with a Height of Buildings map; 

1. That the new B4 zoning for the Burton Street shops be rejected and Neighbourhood 

Centre (B1 zone) with existing retail operations being allowed to continue; and 

2. Before any land use changes are implemented, a comprehensive Town Plan is prepared 

for Vincentia in consultation with landowners and the community. 

In addition, the bonus additional 3 metre height in Owen Street Huskisson should not be in the 

LEP but covered by City Wide DCP. while the maximum Height in the Height of Buildings map for 

Huskisson CBD should be reduced to levels in DCP54. 

393 Berringer Village zoned RU5 does not seem fitting. 

Believe W2 for Berringer lake is appropriate. 

394 Concerned with the land zoned R1 bounded by the road entering Currarong and Kinghorne 

Street and Peel Street should be RE1. It is currently bush and shown on the biodiversity overlay. 

Concerned with traffic impacts of extension to Worrigee St accessed from the main road. 

Concerned with the land zoned RU2 at the rear of the fire station, would like land to be zoned 

RE1 to protect bushland from development if the current zone and minimum lot size is not 

sufficient. 

Requests that the maximum height of buildings be limited to 8.5m. 

395 1. Considers that the Draft LEP is not a 'best fit' change over from the 1985 

LEP. Consequently believes the process of developing the draft LEP 2009 has been 

flawed and should restart with full community input. 

2. Objects to maximum height of 11 metres over the whole Shoalhaven. For a “best fit” 

application the entire city should be mapped with Height of Buildings maps, based on 

current Development Control Plans (DCPs) or the 1985 LEP height of 2 storey (or metre 

equivalent.) The current proposal of Council is not consistent with Kangaroo Valley’s 

DCP 66. 

3. In direct opposition to the Ground Rules that no agricultural land was to be changed to 

residential, the draft LEP is changing the 1c Zone (rural , small farming) to the new R5 - 

large lot residential. The 1c Zone was meant to be the buffer between the primary 

agricultural zone and the residential (village) zone. There was a category that 1C could 

have logically transferred to – RU4, and I urge Council to amend the Draft LEP to reflect 

this. 

4. All zones have greatly expanded Land Use Tables. This was to be expected with the 

reduction in number of zones, however many of the new uses are not appropriate for 

some zones– for example RU1 land – the primary agricultural zone now allows air 

transport facilities; offensive industries. 

Arterial & Main Road Protection Zone absorbed into the RU1 (Primary Production) zone 

and is therefore encumbered with many additional “allowable developments”. 

The 1g (Flood zone) absorbed into RU1 zone with similar problems with 47 allowable 

development types on agricultural land. 

116


Number 


5. There were 8 environmental zones in LEP1985. Now there are just 3. This has resulted 

in many previously prohibited developments being allowed into sensitive areas. I 

consider that Council should also use E4 to accommodate some of these uses. I believe 

a logical best fit with the existing LEP would be: 

 

 

 

7(a) and 7(e) go into new E2 (the highest level of environmental protection 

outside E1) 

7 (c), 7(d1) and 7(d2) go into new E3 

7 (f1), 7(f2) and 7(f3) go into new E4 

The current objectives and permitted and prohibited activities should be transferred to 

the respective new E zonings. 

6. Zoning (R1) has been applied to parts of the Bomaderry Creek Bushland. These are 

significant parts of the Bushland biodiversity and contain a number of threatened plant 

and animal species. Development will also have significant impacts on the amenity of 

nearby residents and will generate a significant increase in road traffic. 

SP2 has been applied to a strip of land passing through the middle of the Bushland 

which is Council's preferred route for the North Nowra Link Road. This zoning is preemptive, 

as the matter has not yet been resolved and must include consideration of the 

two other route options. The State Government has not yet given the link road issue its 

consideration and may very well approve one of the options not favoured by Council. 

These R1 and the SP2 zonings should be changed to E2 zoning in order to protect the 

very important environmental values of the Bushland and to avoid unnecessary and 

unacceptable impacts on the amenity of adjacent residents. 

396 Wants to subdivide land in their ownership to 1 X 20 acre and 2 X 15 acres properties. 

397 Land at Crams Road has been zoned as SP2, E2 and RU2. Suggests if these zones are 

implemented in SLEP that the subject land in McMahons Rd, North Nowra be immediately 

acquired. 

398 Supports E2 zoning along the Currambene Creek edge of the parcel of land for Comberton 

Grange development. Affords some environmental conservation and protection. 

Concerned with activities that are allowed in E2 zoning which do not match the objective of 

conservation, including: 

aquaculture and in particular, natural water-based aquaculture, dwelling houses, bed and 

breakfast accommodation, home business, emergency services facilities, research station, roads 

or any of the sewerage systems. All are incompatible with conservation and protection of high 

water quality. For some time now I, along with other Huskisson community members, have 

been asking for a whole of village plan to be done for Huskisson. 

Concerned that some of the draft LEP reflects a desire for increased residents and visitors rather 

than considered planning for a sensible number so that businesses thrive, locals are not 

overwhelmed and visitors continue to come. 

That proportion of Huskisson Village that is proposed to be zoned R3, medium density 

residential, was previously given as 2b2, a height limit of 8.5m. It is now can be 11 m. While I 

agree 

that some areas need to have increased density rather than 

117


Number 


opening up other green field sites, this has the potential to 

make Huskisson a very dense and high village, out of proportion 

with its very confined footprint. 

Believes that some R3 areas could be allowed 11m and some 8.5m, with the greater height away 

from the water. 

Huskisson CBD heights should remain at the currently accepted DCP 54 heights. 

Concerned with the proposed B4 area at the southern end of the village and bounded by Berry, 

Burrill, Murdoch, Moona and Currambene Street. Believes 10 metre height limit is more 

acceptable and that the part of land previously zoned for public recreation should return to that 

zoning. Also believes an Endangered Ecological Community was said to be contained in that 

area. 

Concerned with Woollamia area - habitat corridors over the years have been eaten into and are 

now no longer contiguous. We need to preserve small important pieces and lot 14 DP 1045217, 

Subdivision on North side of Edendale St is one. It needs to be recognised as a sensitive area 

habitat corridor with significant vegetation and zoned to give the appropriate environmental 

protection. 

As a riparian corridor and vital link to the wetlands behind the village it must be identified for the 

information of all those who live/potentially wish to live in the area. 

At the eastern end of subject land there needs to be a heritage zoning to protect the Aboriginal 

middens there. 

Concerned with Burton St shops, Vincentia mixed use zoning. 

Believes there will be a need for neighbourhood facilities at the Burton St site once the large 

shopping centre at Vincentia cross roads is built. 

Burton St site should not change to a mixed use zoning as gradually it will become dwellings and 

change the community hub to just another set of residential units. 

There is the potential here to use the site for community activities that add to the well-being of a 

community such as a better community meeting place/hall. 

399 Likes the workshops and information provided by SCC staff. 

1. E2 is overloaded. When the South Coast Sensitive Urban Land Review recommended 

a number of land parcels for E2, this decision was with a view of environmental 

conservation per the NSW Legislation for E2. The SCC vision of land use in E2 is 

contrary to this recommendation and needs to be revisited. The value of virtually NO 

LAND USE on certain land parcels is lost in the SLEP as presented. 

Manyana and Bendalong have E2 zones that are compromised by the land use 

possibilities in the SLEP. 

2. Green Island in Manyana, is poorly protected by the current E3 designation and would 

be more appropriately zoned E2 as are the other islands in Lake Conjola that do not 

118


Number 


have housing. 

3. I agree with RHVA that Crown Land next to Kylor Land is more appropriately zoned E2. 

4. I support the RHVA recommendation for changing the Manyana Business Centre from 

B2 to B1. In this circumstance, the ‘like for like’ zone exchange does not hold to the 

zone objectives for what is intended to be a neighbourhood centre. 

5. Protection of the Lake Conjola at Berringer Lake catchment is discussed by SC 

Sensitive Land Review in the decision for E2 land usage of the Berringer Crown Land. 

The village of Berringer Lake similarly needs a higher level of conservation such as R2 

and most importantly that the waterway that borders the National Park is more 

appropriately rezoned to W1. 

6. Kylor land will loose certain elements of the existing LEP. I 

support the RHVA recommendations for a height standard of 11 metres. The 30 metre 

building line has existed and should be 

retained to protect the privacy of the bordering land owners. 

400 1. Concerned with the SP2 road zoning through Bomaderry Creek Regional Park. Objects 

to the R1 zoning and the SP2 zoning and request that they be zoned E2. Will impact on 

the environmental and recreational values of the park and the link road will not effectively 

deal with the traffic problems in North Nowra. 

2. Objects the use of 'air transport facilities' in place of 'airstrips' in rural areas. 

401 In relation to Hyams Beach. 

Clause 4.3 Objective 1a - request that the words "desired future character of a locality" be 

deleted as this is a subjective judgement and the timescale is not defined. New buildings should 

be assessed against the existing chararter of the area so that the village atmosphere of Hyams 

Beach is retained. 

Clause 4.3.2. I strongly support the inclusion of a Height of Building Map for Hyams Beach be 

limited to 8.5 metres except for foreshore land that should be restricted to 6.5 to 7 metres. 

I strongly object to my land, and that surrounding me being zoned as R1. It would be more 

appropriate for the land to be zoned R2 with dual occupancy deleted from permitted land uses. 

402 Concerned that subject land in Erowal Bay has been amalgamated with Council owned land and 

classified as Rural Landscape. (Agricultural land i.e. 40hectares). We cannot see the justification 

in the properties under RU2 classification. 

This land was classified as 1(g) Flood Liable and has been changed and as well as the rate 

notices. 

On looking at the map there are a number of properties in Erowal Bay that have been reduced to 

a minimum of 500m2 and not the original land size ie 1000m2 to 1200m2. 

403 Objects to the proposed rezoning of our property from 1(a1) Residential to the new zoning R3 

Medium Density Residential. 

I object to the proposed R3 Medium Density zoning on the following grounds; 

The proposed re-zoning of the land facing Illaroo Road between the round-a-bout and Phillip 

119


Number 


Drive makes no sense and would ruin the amenity and lifestyle of all living along this section, with 

increased traffic and entry and exit issues, lack of services and facilities. 

The proposed medium density zoning being applied to our property and those surrounding us is 

a re-zoning of our land and not a ‘best fit’ transfer in accordance with the ‘standard instrument or 

template’. 

404 Recreational Use of former Waste Disposal Land North Nowra. 

Urge Council and the DP&I to finalise zoning of this land and its associated access for dedicated 

recreational purposes to develop into a sports park ie velodrome. 

405 Objects to the zoning of Killarney for subdivision, would lose recreational area and visually 

unacceptable. 

406 I wish to object to the proposed inclusion of “Air Transport Facilities” even permissible with 

consent in rural zones – as replacement to airstrip facilities allowed under the present LEP. 

Refer to the Model Code of Conduct for local Councils in NSW - and its Key Requirements 

principles in particular designed to protect the interests of the greater community, who are at risk 

should this word change be permitted. 

Additionally the impact of noise from any increase in air traffic will also have a detrimental effect 

on the community of Berry. 



Supports an airfield that has developed illegally. 




408 Concerned that: 

Ambience of property will vanish 

Pointer Rd issues - not LEP related 

Much of area proposed R5 is unsuitable for housing. 

Exclusion zone around piggery not considered. 

Wildlife habitat will be destroyed. 

409 Likes that detached dual occupancies are proposed to be permissible in the zones deferred from 

the Rural Plan (to be R5). 

410 Objects to "heliports", "air transport facility" and "airport" as a use in zones where permitted with 

consent. 

Request that the Land Use Tables in draft LEP be reviewed and make "heliports", "air transport 

facility" and "airport" prohibited in all zones except in the SP zones where those uses are 

nominated as being permissible with consent. 

411 Objects to zoning of area used for Oyster farming at Greenwell Point from 7(a) Ecology to IN4 

working waterfront based on environmental significance. 

412 Proposed R5 zone on Pointer Rd concerned that destructive of fauna and flora increase of traffic 

want land to RU2 

413 Supports the zoning of the majority of the Shoalhaven Starches site as IN1 General Industrial 

120



414 Likes the current lot averaging for Tapitallee that permits 4 lots per 10 ha and current limit of 86 

lots. 


Increased population density; 

Increased traffic and damage to Illaroo Road; 

Adverse environmental impacts; and 

Increased no. of people at risk from bushfire. 

415 Objects to the following: 

1. HOB - would like HOB to be 8.5 except for foreshore land. 

2. R1 zone at Hyams Beach - would like it to be R2 

3. Exhibition homes, res flat buildings and shop top housing in R3 zones 

4. Section of RU2 land in Hyams - would like to be zoned to SP1. 

5. Subdivision Clause 4.1a - would like this to be deleted as clause provides for more 

subdivision below the minimum lot size. 

6. RU2 zone for the Heritage estates. - would like it to be rezoned E2 

416 Currarong 

1. Kinghorn Rd and Currarong Rd proposed R1 to be rezoned to E2. 

Reasoning - unsuitable based on environmental constraints and Crown Land 

Assessment of Currarong 1999 

417 Concerned with 'caravan parks' being permitted in the RU2 zone as this allows for manufactured 

home estates in rural areas. 

Concerned with the 11m height limit. Requests that this be changed to a two storey (8.5m) with 

consent required for anything over that. 

Green Island should be changed from E3 to E2. 

Manyana shops should should be changed from B2 to B1. 

Berringer Village should be zoned R2 not RU5. 

Berringer Lake should be zoned all W1. 

Crown land on the eastern side of Inyadda Drive and the southern side of Bendalong Rd should 

be changed from RU2 to E2. 

Pleased that Manyana, Cunjurong Point, North Bendalong and Bendalong are zoned R2. 

Pleased that the headland at North Bendalong is zoned E3. 

418 Concerned with the lack of height mapping, particularly in R2, RU5 & Foreshore zones. Thinks 

that it is essential that the height limit in these areas to be stipulated at 8.5m. 

Concerned with the “closed” briefings given to councillors by staff, before they give final 

consideration to the form of any changes to the Local Environment Plan. This is such an 

important planning instrument and has the potential to greatly impact on the lives of the residents 

that it seems that the observers should be welcomed by all levels of council. 

121


Number 


The complexity of the LEP has made it very difficult for many people to get a good understanding 

of all the issues which could effect our lives. Believes council has done a good job of ensuring 

that information about this document has been available to the community but it would have been 

a lot better if the document had been made simpler in the first place. 

419 Objects to an easement subject land that has changed to E2 this area is a dirt road and requests 

it be zoned RU2 like the rest of the lot. 

Due to the environmental significance of subject land in Woollamia, requests that the entire block 

up to the roadway is recognised as having ‘Sensitive Area- Habitat Corridor’ and ‘Sensitive Area- 

Significant Vegetation’ Zoning/ identification. 

Request subject land in Edendale St Woollamia not be zoned village should be RU2 

The block should be identified as sensitive area habitat corridor and significant vegetation - it has 

tidal tributary 

420 I am in favour of an RU4 zoning without consent on subject land. 

I am concerned about over development In Wandandian, land is not suitable for residential 

development. 

421 Appreciates constraints of the Template provided by NSW State Government. 

Serious concerns with the inherent flexibility, generality and vagueness of the Draft LEP as it 

currently stands. 

Requests that height of buildings in Lake Conjola and Fisherman's Paradise should be restricted 

to 8.5m (equivalent 2 stories) within our entire CCB catchment area. 

Concerned that the proposed ‘R5 Large Lot Residential’ areas at Conjola Park with a potential 

height limit of 11 metres, is totally out of keeping with the rural values of the area. Re-zoning 

these areas to ‘RU5 Village’ would address the height limit with the proviso that their current lot 

size is protected. 

Concerned with min 500m2 lot size mapped over Crown Land South of Evans Street, between 

Evans St and Lake Conjola Entrance Rd, zoned ‘RU5’ Village in the Draft LEP. The property 

known as ‘Killarney’ (east of Evans and Prior Streets, Lot 372 DP 1125806) is also currently 

proposed to be zoned ‘RU5 Village’ and includes Lake Edge Land. This zoning has the potential 

to allow gross over-development of this environmentally sensitive land. 

Concerned with min lot size of 500m2 proposed for area South of Evans St up to Lake Conjola 

Entrance Rd as would compromise the scenic values of this area and the known habitat and 

feeding ground of the Glossy Black Cockatoo . 

The entire area South of Evans St and along the upper reaches of ‘Killarney’ on the Northern 

side of the road) should be ‘E3’ and 8.5m height limit should apply and min lot size of 1ha. 

Recommends that if any future titles of the property known as 'Killarney' occur, the lake edge 

should be zoned RE1 to return this foreshore to the public domain and maintain environmental 

protection for marine life. The RE1 zone will also take in to consideration planning for future sea 

and water level rises. 

122


Number 


Maintaining a height limit of 8.5m. 

Concerned with E3 zoning of Green Island, should be zoned E2 like other islands within Lake 

Conjola. 

Supports SLEP Review Group paper on "E" zone. 

Concerned with too many allowable uses in each zone, particularly the RU5 village zone - given 

the considerable environmental issues currently facing the lake (one example being the long 

term existence and proliferation of Caulerpa Taxifolia). Activities have potential to conflict with the 

zone objectives, environmental values and Village amenity and characteristics. 

Would be willing to devote time and energy to an analysis of what constitutes a safe, reasonable 

and environmentally cautious approach to ‘allowable activities’ and would welcome that dialogue 

with SCC representatives. 

Concerned with W2 zoning - allows inappropriate uses such as boat repairs, marinas, or water 

recreation structures. The ‘High Sensitivity’ and ‘Significant Protection’ ratings of the Lake 

Conjola/Berringer system by the Coastal Lakes Inquiry is not congruent with a ‘W2’ zoning for 

any part of the water body. 

W1 zoning should apply to entire Lake Conjola waterways. 

Any potential DCP should be referenced with in the LEP to provide additional legal standing in 

case of challenges to future DCP based planning decisions. LEP and DCP controls should be 

complimentary. 

9. It is vital that the character of coastal and other villages (Section 117(2) Direction 5.1- 

Implementation of Regional Strategies) is maintained as a highly valued characteristic of the 

Shoalhaven. 

Supports submissions by SLEP Review Group and Red Head Villages Association. 

422 Requests that Council protects the rural areas by prohibiting 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 

zone. 

Any increase in air traffic will destroy the amenity. 

423 Believes that the draft LEP will completely change the future character of Vincentia and that this 

is being done without detailed community consultation. 


1. The limit on height of buildings in Vincentia for foreshore land be set at 7.5 metres and 

for all other land at 8.5 metres and that this be confirmed in the new LEP with a Height of 


2. That the B4 zoning for the Burton Street shops be rejected and the area be rezoned on 

a like for like basis. 

3. That a comprehensive Town Plan be prepared for Vincentia in consultation with the 

community to consider the long range effects of the new developments at the crossroads 

and how the services needed and the character of the village can be maintained and 

enhance. 

123



424 Objects to B4 for Burton St shops Vincentia not a like for like as B4 allows for tourist not retail 

should be B1. 

R1 behind Vincentia High School (Lot 1 DP 270528) should be RU2 like around this site – it is in 

the middle of bushland with no access to services. 

R1 height of building should be 8.5 need community consultation about such changes. There is 

no indication how the conditional allowance of 7.5 HOB foreshore will be dealt with. 

Little justification for 1ha min lot size on Naval College Road, creates an unfair precedent for 

other RU2 properties the existing use is prohibited. 

425 Concerned Council is considering lifting building height restrictions in Currarong. Increase in 

height is inappropriate for character of village. 


Concerned that rural neighbourhood will be destroyed by commercial type air transport traffic. 


Land available for airport developments has significantly increased. 

Supports existing small scale club at Jaspers Brush Airfield - with no further expansion for 

commercial parachute operation or commercial aviation expansion. 

Supports small scale flying clubs and airstrips for farmers around the Shoalhaven. 

Too much flexibility for future aviation uses at Jaspers brush and other areas. 


427 What I like 

 

 

That Hyams Beach is mostly zoned R2, low density residential. We hope this will help 

to reinforce and maintain the current character of the village. 

The council's intention to set a building height for the R2 zone of 8.5 m for land that is 

not foreshore and 6-7.5 m for land that is on the foreshore. 

What I am concerned with : 

 

 

 

 

The R1 zone in Hyams beach is inappropriate and would be better zoned R2. The R1 

zone includes uses such as residential flat buildings, shop top housing and 

Motels/Hotels which are contrary to the character of Hyams Beach. 

The inclusion of uses such as agriculture, caravan parks, child care centres, 

entertainment facilities, function centres and helipads in the RE1 zone throughout the 

Shoalhaven area. These developments compromise the objectives of public open space. 

Subdivision clauses which allow small lots to be subdivided so that the resulting lots are 

below the minimum lot size. This will change the character of Hyams Beach and other 

coastal villages. 

That coastal villages in the Shoalhaven be protected from overdevelopment which will 

impact upon the natural environment which is so special and vital for tourism promotion. 

428 I do not want Council to approve buildings in the residential area of Ulladulla/Mollymook above 

8m. 

429 Concerned that Crams Road is to be rezoned - land should be retained as rural zoning. 


conservation. 

124





430 Requests that: 

 

 

Council not reduce the opportunity existing upon original purchase of the subject land 

within the parameters of SLEP 1985. Believes that the Rezoning of land from 7d1/Ec3 to 

E2 will prevent future tourist accommodation in non flood prone, limited historical fire 

path area. Blocks in close proximity - Snappy Gums and the Dunes have some 

environment and are fully developed to capacity for tourism - the Springs Road 

SwanHaven. 

Council should allow for ecotourism to be permissible within this zone due to its proximity 

to key tourist areas and will be an improvement to the land. 

431. Concerned that the 30m building line that runs parallel to the northern side of Curvers Drive, 

Manyana has been removed. Request Council reinstate the building line on the zoning maps. 

Objects to zoning of land on the Corner of Bendalong Rd and Inyadda Dr Bendalong going to 

RU2. Believes zoning should be E2 based on high ecological values of the site 

Compels Council to rezone this land E2 in recognition of its ecological significance and also 

because of its environmental compatibility with the surrounding land uses including the National 

Park. 

Clause 4.3 Height of buildings states that the height of a building is not to exceed 11m. This 

height limit is totally absurd and unacceptable in residential areas. 

432. Objects to replacement of 1(c) Rural Lifestyle with R5 Large Lot residential. Prefers the inclusion 

of RU4 Primary Production zone in SLEP 2009 to replace 1(c) zone. 

433. Likes that a number of deferred amendments and zones are being tidied up in the new LEP. 

Concerned with the possibility of a higher concentration of population at the western end of 

Pointer Rd. Would like to see a wider access road. 

Would like to have the ability to sub-divide the 

property (173 Pointer Rd, Yatte Yattah) in the next 10 to 15 years. The RU2 zoning that has been 

given to lot doesn't really fit that well as in the definitions the minimum size is 40ha while there 

are a number of blocks well below this size within the zoning. 

434. Likes: 

- that the draft LEP allows for diversity in the community. 

- that Council has completed an administrative transfer - current zonings are adequate and work 

well. 

- supports E2 zoning of Lot 482 DP823199 at Cunjurong Point. 

Concerned that misinformed people are objecting to the LEP when they don't fully understand 

the administrative changeover. 

435. Concerned that 'dwelling-houses and dwellings attached to and used in conjunction with any 

purpose specified in this Item' has not be carried over from the current 3(d) zone into the B2 

zone. 

436. Concern with wording of the Aims of the DSLEP 2009; believe they should be written to improve 

environmental degradation. 

The wording should read: 

(a) to conserve, maintain and improve biodiversity and ecosystem functions 

125


Number 


(b)to ensure that development is ecologically sustainable and consistent with those principles, 

taking into account the impact of climate change and sea level rise. 

E2 Zones 

Agrees with the objectives but requests that the word 'supply' be removed from 'water supply 

catchments' so that is applies to all Shoalhaven waterways. 

Requests that the following uses be deleted as permissible uses: 

Aquaculture - Bed & Breakfast – dwelling houses – emergency service facilities – home 

businesses – home industries – recreation areas – research stations – roads – sewage systems 

– water recreation structures and water supply systems. 

Supports ‘Environment Protection Works’ & ‘Environment Facilities’ as uses Permitted with 

Consent. 

E3 zone 

Requests the following uses be deleted as permissible uses: 

Animal boarding, Aquaculture – Boat repair facilities – Boat sheds – Cellar door premises – 

Charter and tourisms boating facilities – Dual occupancies (attached) Emergency services 

facilities – Extensive agriculture – Forestry – Group homes – helipads – Home-based child care – 

Home business – Kiosks – markets – Recreation areas – Research stations- Roads – Roadside 

stalls – Secondary dwellings – Sewerage systems – Tourist and visitor accommodation – Water 

recreation facilities – Water supply systems 

Aquaculture (in E2 and E3 zones and ‘Permitted with Consent’) is a totally inappropriate use for 

environmental zones. 

Significant Vegetation and Habitat corridors outside E Zones 

Concerned that cleared land within habitat corridors are not shown on the biodiversity overlay - 

can be revegetated to foster corridor regeneration and connectivity. 


The wording in this section does not adequately address the objective and would not give the 


Recommendation: The wording should be changed to read: 

The objective of the clause is to maintain or improve terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity including: 

Protecting the biological diversity of native flora and fauna 

Supports other objectives. 

(2) a) Identified as a Sensitive area on the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2009 Natural 

Resource Sensitivity – Biodiversity Map, or 

b) Identified as a Sensitive area on the Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan 2009 Natural 

Resource Sensitivity – Water Map and 

126


Number 


c) Situated within 50m of the bank (measured horizontally from the top of the bank of a 

natural water body on land identified in (b) and to include lakes, lagoons and estuaries 

There is no inclusion in this section for estuaries or coastal lakes – This should be clarified to 

ensure protection for all waterways across the city. The definition of a natural water body given in 

the SLEP includes lakes, lagoon & estuary so should be reflected in this Clause. 

And 

(3) Development Consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause 

applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that no significant adverse impact on maintaining 

biodiversity values on the land has been demonstrated, including: 

(i) 

(a) a native ecological community especially Endangered Ecological Communities, their condition 

and local significance 

(b) a locally or regionally significant species of flora, fauna or habitat, 

and 

- any potential to fragment, disturb or diminish the biodiversity values and 

- the condition and role of the vegetation as a locally and regionally significant habitat 

corridor or has habitat elements providing connectivity 

- any wetland reserve 

(ii) That feasible alternatives have been considered 

(iii) That the development must be designed sited and managed to avoid any potential adverse 

environmental impact or, 

(iv) If a potential impact cannot be avoided and feasible alternatives have been taken into 


(a) Minimise disturbance to the existing structure and species composition on native 

vegetation communities and 

(b) Allow native fauna to feed, breed, disperse, colonise or migrate. 

c) Mitigate any residual adverse impact by maximising the regeneration and revegetation of 

degraded lands including with local species. 

Before granting consent to development on which this clause applies the consent authority must 

be satisfied that: 

-The development is sited, designed and managed to avoid any potential adverse 

127


Number 


impacts and 

-The developer must give evidence of how these requirements are to be achieved with 

assessments submitted with any application to develop land that is subject to these 

clauses. 

-The developer be required to mitigate any residual impact through restoration of existing 

disturbed or modified areas on the site. 

If these conditions are not met the application should be refused. 

The width should be 50m from the bank. This is consistent with the widths endorsed in the South 

Coast Regional Conservation Plan (6.4 Riparian Zone). 

R2 Low density Residential 

Supports 8.5m height limit for R2 and for St Georges Basin Business Centre (DCP 17). 

Requests that the zone objectives be changed to include: 

To enable other land uses that provide vegetated land throughout low-density residential areas 


fauna) species still coexisting within the above zone (R2) and to meet the peace of mind- needs 


Permitted Uses (with consent) in R2 – 

Not previously permitted and should not be permitted: 

- Exhibition homes and villages 

- Home Business 

- Boat repair facilities 

- Boat launching ramps 

- Boat shed 

- jetties 

- Emergency Service facilities 

- Buildings and Business signs 

Height of Buildings Clause 4.3 

Concerned there is no definite HOB within the LEP. 

Height maps should be included to ensure the final document reflects the heights and that these 

will be enforced. There should not be a height limit of 11 metres. 

Support the height limit of 8.5 metres in R2 and RU5 zones 

Support height limit of 8 metres in St Georges Basin Development Control Plan (DCP17) 

Support the height limit of 7.5 metres on foreshore residential lots 

Requests a 8.5 metre height of buildings for all Residential zones 

128


Number 


RE1 – Public Recreation 

Questions the proposed uses ‘Permitted with Consent” and believe they do not follow the 

Objectives of this zone 

Concerned with Agriculture – boat repairs facilities; boat sheds; building identification signs; car 

parks; caravan parks; charter and tourism boating facilities; child care centres; community 

facilities; emergency services facilities; entertainment facilities; function centres; helipads; 

information and education facilities; recreation facilities (indoor) and (major); Restaurants; 

sewage systems and water recreation facilities do not fit with many of the reserves across the 

city. 

Does not reflect the high conservation value of some of the reserves within the City and 

specifically in the Bay & Basin. 

Requests that all reserves across the city gazetted as ‘Natural Bushland should automatically 

receive an E2 zoning and included on the biodiversity mapping overlay. 

Reserves known to retain flora and fauna species and are of high conservation value but not 

gazetted as ‘Natural Bushland’ should receive an E2 - Environmental Protection zoning to reflect 

their true biodiversity value. See list below: 

1. Blue Wrens Retreat – Island Point Rd, St Georges Basin 

2. Tasman Rd Reserve - Tasman Rd, St Georges Basin 

3. Firetail Creek - Loralyn Ave/Cammeray Drive, St Georges Basin 

4. Redhead Point Reserve - Greville Ave, Sanctuary Point 

5. Boobook Reserve - Sanctuary Point Rd, Sanctuary Point 

6. Unnamed reserve Edmund St, Sanctuary Point 

7. Gurumbi Creek Nature Reserve - Wrights Beach 

8. Wrights Beach Bushland Reserve - Wrights Beach 

9. Garden and Sepulchre Islands - St Georges Basin 

10. Pelican Point - St Georges Basin 

11. Tallyan Point - Basin View 

Natural Resource Sensitivity – Water maps 

Supports inclusion of these NRS areas given their high conservation value for supporting 

wonderful wetland areas with their biodiversity of high conservation vegetation that give special 

habitat for birds, wildlife, marine creatures and marine vegetation. 

Worrowing Waterway and the associated Crown Land Reserve. 

129


Number 


Requests the reserve system bordering Worrowing Waterway be zoned E2 Environmental 

Conservation to reflect its environmental status and value. 

RU1 Rural Zone 

Requests the land fronted by The Old Wool Rd and St Georges Basin By Pass that is to be 

zoned RU1 be included on the biodiversity overlay map. 

Preservation of trees or vegetation (Clause 5.9) 

Requests that the SLEP 2009 adopt an amendment to Clause 5.9 to ensure that Council’s Tree 

Preservation Order is applied to all zones across the City to ensure the best protection for 

vegetated areas. 

Heritage – The Old Wool Rd 

Concerned that the (Old) Wool Rd is shown on Heritage mapping at St Georges Basin but not 

included in the Heritage list in the draft LEP. This needs to be amended. Specifically of concern 

is the section running from Island Point Rd heading east to The Wool Rd. 

Heritage - Lot 110 DP25769 – 41 Tasman Rd, St Georges Basin 

Requests that the well situated in Tasman Rd Reserve be placed on the draft LEP Heritage List 

and mapped accordingly as the site of the original home of Cyril Blacket, well- known architect 

who built the home in 1885 (Tasman House). Nothing of the house remains but the well. 

There is a significant stand of old growth trees on the reserve so it would be appropriate to place 

the whole reserve on the SLEP Heritage List and mapped accordingly. 

Heritage - Huskisson Anglican Church 

Concerned that this item has been removed from Heritage Listing and concern for the future use 

of this property that holds the historic church with possible destruction of the significant and 

important trees on the church property and/or loss of the important burial plots on the same land. 

Requests that the Huskisson Anglican Church be included on the draft LEP Heritage Listing and 

included on the Heritage Map as a local and regionally significant Heritage Area. 

Heritage Estates EEC site 

Concerned that an EEC that forms part of Heritage Estate on Council owned land is proposed to 

be zoned RE1. Requests that the site be placed in E2 zoning to reflect the important 

environmental attributes. 

Requests that the Heritage Estates be zone E2 Environmental Conservation – to reflect its high 

environmental value and finally the protection required. This should include the Worrowing 

Waterway reserve area now zoned RE1 (Public recreation). 

One Tree Bay 

The site plays an important role in the ongoing health of the sensitive waterway of St Georges 

Basin. Requests it be zoned E2 to truly reflect its high conservation values and gives the 


SP3 Tourist – Island Point Rd, St Georges Basin 

130


Number 


Concerned with Uses Permitted with Consent for the SP3 zone. 

Requests that the lots be changed to R2 low density residential to reflect the adjoining property 

zonings and to reflect the character of this area of St Georges Basin. 

B4 Mixed Use – Island Point Rd, St Georges Basin 

Concerned with the B4 zonings and the height of buildings. Requests that the height of buildings 

on the northern parcel should not be above 8.5m, and be zoned R2 low density. 

RU5 Village - Bream Beach 

Requests that it be zoned R2 Low Density Residential and supports the height limit of 8.5 

metres. 

Wrights Beach zoned E3 

Is a small village surrounded by National Parks (Jervis Bay and Booderee). It has two Council 

managed reserves visited by Threatened fauna species. Must be zoned to reflect its high 

environmental biodiversity values. 

Requests that the following ’Uses Permitted with consent’ be removed from the E3 zone: 

- Animal boarding 

- Aquaculture 

– Boat repair facilities 

– Boat sheds 

– Cellar door premises 

– Charter and tourisms boating facilities 

– Dual occupancies (attached) 

- Emergency services facilities 

– Extensive agriculture 

– Forestry 

– Group homes 

– helipads 

– Home-based child care 

– Home business 

– Kiosks 

– markets 

– Recreation areas 

– Research stations 

- Roads 

– Roadside stalls 

– Secondary dwellings 

– Sewerage systems 

– Tourist and visitor accommodation 

– Water recreation facilities 

– Water supply systems 

Zone W (Waterways) 

Concerned that the sensitive waterway of St Georges Basin has been zoned W2 Recreational 

Waterway - it is a unique waterway and has high conservation values that must be protected. 

Should be rezoned in SLEP 2009 as W1 - Natural waterway - to reflect its high ecological and 

131


Number 


environmental values. 

Aquaculture 

Aquaculture (in W1 Natural Waterways and W2 Recreational Waterways zones and ‘Permitted 

with Consent’) is a totally inappropriate use for environmental zones. 

Natural water-based aquaculture zoning should be removed from W1 Natural Waterway and W2 

Recreational Waterway and W3 Working waterways. 

Bomaderry Creek 

Concerned that parts have been zoned R1 General Residential. This zone covers two parts of 

high biodiversity bushland that contains a number of Threatened Flora and Fauna species. This 

is an important part of the bushland and does not reflect its true value. Requests that it be zoned 

E2. 

Agrees with the E1 National Park and Reserves zoning and agree with the E2 (without uses as 

suggested previously for E2 Environmental conservation). 

Strongly disagrees with the R1 zonings for the vacant Crown land fronting Illaroo Rd and 

Council’s land fronting West Cambewarra as it is totally inappropriate. 

Strongly disagrees with the SP2 zoning (road) as the Link Rd decision has not been determined. 

Requests the removal of the SP2 (road) zoning and replaced with E2. 

437. Opposed to Bangalee West URA and proposed 500m2 minimum lot size. Requests that it be 

zoned R5. 

Inconsistent with character of the area. 

Cost of infrastructure is too great, could be better used elsewhere. 

438. Biodiversity map covers southeast corner of E720 Princes Highway, Yatte Yattah - believes this 

is incorrect. 

439. Opposed to any increase in building heights, this will destroy the character of towns in the area. 

Tourist visitation rates are based on our beautiful unspoilt environment and low density, low rise 

development; should retain current two storey height limit. 

Objects to any changes to subdivide prime rural land into smaller lots, particularly where this 

makes the land unviable for farming. 

440. Concerned with Clause 4.3 objective that includes “and desired future character of a” 

Request that the following words in the Objective “and desired future character of a” are 

removed. 

Request that Council engages the stakeholders in Huskisson to create a Master Plan rather than 

permit developers to grab sections of the village to be “banked” for future profit. 

Department of Regional Development showed that the success of Huskisson as a tourist 

destination is its village charm. Reasons given for visiting Huskisson reflected diversion from 

overdeveloped areas elsewhere. 

Residents want a level of certainty about the height of buildings. 

Request that Council modify its “intention” and Map all zones at heights and FSR that conform to 

132


Number 


existing site specific DCP or generic DCP or convention / precedence for the specific zone or 

village. 

Council should be required to clearly explain its “strategic centres”, beyond the three that have 

already been mapped and engage the community to gain agreement before these strategies and 

any increases in building heights are included. 

Council treats us like second class citizens. Rights are second to those of developers and 

lifestyle is under threat by the greed of people who do not live here and will only stay long 

enough to make big profits and leave. 

Objects to the HOB Maps for Huskisson CBD which have been increased by 3 meters over the 

maximum heights set by DCP54. 

Has automatically awarded the bonus heights through the increase of maximum heights by 3 

meters over those set by DCP54. Concerned that the other requirement in the DCP won’t apply 

as they are not in the LEP. 

Reduce the Max Height in Huskisson CBD, to levels in DCP54. Bonus height for Lot 

Consolidation to be applied as a Storey in the City Wide DCP, NOT in the LEP. 

Concerned with the loss of Public Recreation land along Berry Street, Huskisson currently zoned 

6(c), transferred to B4 mixed Development. The correct and equivalent zone is RE1. Much of 

this area is below the 1/100 year flood area and other areas adjoin threatened ecological 

community areas and are extreme fire zone areas. 

Flood Prone land zoned 1(g) at the ‘extension’ to Currambene Street has been zoned B4 mixed 

Development. It should be E2 Environmental Conservation similar to land 200 meters to the 

north zoned E2 as part of a Crown lands assessment. 

Concerned with changed land uses in R3 medium density residential zones NOT in accord with 

existing stated uses and not in accord with the objectives for the zone. 

Hostels, Residential Flat buildings, Shop Top Housing, Tourist & Visitor Accommodation, 

Sewerage systems, Registered Clubs, Veterinary Hospitals, Water Supply systems, Boat Repair 

facilities, boat launching ramps, boat sheds, jetties are totally unsuitable in a medium density 

residential zone in a small rural or coastal community 

Combined impact of any change in land use plus an increase of max height from 8.5m to 11m in 

this zone will have a huge impact and adversely impacting tourism through over-development. 

The new uses include: 

- Dual Occupancies 

- Hostels & Residential Flat buildings 

- Shop Top Housing 

- Neighbourhood Shops are a mandated use, however Shop Top housing creates a gross 

impost on the surrounding area 

- Tourist & Visitor Accommodation 

- Home industry and Home industries 

- Sewerage Systems 

- Registered Clubs - a source of noise inappropriate to a residential area 

- Veterinary hospitals - a source of noise inappropriate to a residential area 

- Water Supply Systems 

- Boat Repair facilities, 

- boat launching ramps, 

133


Number 


- boat sheds, 

- jetties 

- Building & Business Identification signs 

Concerned that Council have increased the maximum height of buildings across Shoalhaven 

through the inclusion of “11 metres except where” into Clause 4.3 of the Draft SLEP2009 

The default height for the vast majority of the Shoalhaven at 11 metres or 3 to 4 storeys. This 

compares with the default height in SLEP1985 of 2 storeys say 6 to 8.5 metres. 

Request that Council map all zones (HOB and FSR) in Huskisson to reflect existing maximum 

heights and FSR whether they are set by site specific DCP or generic DCP or convention / 

precedence for Huskisson. 

Concerned with the compression of allowable zonings and expansion of permitted land uses in 

specific zones, particularly Caravan parks (and mobile homes) and air transport facilities being 

allowed in areas zoned as RU2 Rural Landscape. 

Kiama has not included Caravan Parks in RU2 in their LEP 


inconsistent with the Objectives set by DoP: 

previously a prohibited land use 

Group Homes 

Offensive Industries 

Hazardous Industries 

Extractive Industries 

Not previously a permitted use 

Hazardous Industries 

Boat Repair facilities, boat launching ramps, boat sheds, jetties, marinas, moorings 

AIR TRANSPORT FACILITIES 

Tourist & Visitor Accommodation … incl caravan parks 

Entertainment facilities, Markets, 

Food and Drink Premises 

Request that Council be instructed to carry out Community Engagement to collaborate with the 


Concerned with increased Land Uses allowed in RU5 Village zone 


inconsistent with the Objectives set by DoP and were previously not permitted in the 2(e) zone: 

- Dual Occupancy (detached) 

- Attached dwellings 

- Boarding Houses 

- Group Homes 

- Hostels… 

- Residential flat buildings 

- TOURIST & Visitor Accommodation. 

- Caravan parks 

- Exhibition homes 

134


Number 


- Function centres 

- Home industries 

- Home Activity 

- Air Transport facilities, incl Helipad 

- Sewerage Systems 

Concerned with the zoning of the existing Vincentia (Burton Street) shops and the surrounding 

land as B4 Business Mixed Use contrary to the best fit approach. 

Rezoning came from the largest business landowner on the block. There are 3 other owners of 

land zoned 3(c) and 23 blocks of land zoned 2(c). We are not aware that any of the other 

landowners were consulted and certainly the community were not consulted about this rezoning. 

Request that no rezoning to B4 should be considered until a detailed Town Plan has been 

prepared for Vincentia and discussed with all landowners and the community. 

Request that on a “best fit” basis, the existing 3(c) business zone should be translated into B1 

Neighbourhood Centre and that the height of Buildings restricted to 8.5 metres 

The 2(c) residential area adjacent to the Vincentia Neighbourhood Shops should be R2 low 

density residential. 

Unreasonable to penalise the shop keepers, effectively forcing them out of business through the 

inclusion of the Objective “To ensure that retail uses do not compete with the commercial core” 

as required under B4. 

441. Height of building up to four storeys will devalue homes. 

Concerned with changes to lot sizes, currently average block 700sqm and this will change to 

500sqm. 

Also concerned with nine new subdivision in North Nowra, roads can’t take it and infrastructure 

issues. 

Concerned that Crams Road is to be rezoned - land should be rural only. Zoning half residential 

and the other half environmental conservation is a contradiction. 

442. Strongly objects to the changing of the zoning in residential areas from 2(c) to the new zoning as 

some blocks have been brought for commercial building for the super funding of peoples 

pensions. They have paid a premium for the blocks and now you want to rezone them to a 

decreased zoning which will be a lesser value for their properties. 

443. Strongly opposed to the LEP. 

Believes Council plans to remove the shops on Burton Street would be an inconvenience, loss of 

independence for many of the elderly, increase need to use cars, totally change the face of 

Vincentia. 

No confidence that the rezoning of the Burton Street shops to B4 will be restricted to mixed 

businesses, but more likely multi-storey apartments. 

A beneficial improvement to the local area would be to add a library, perhaps adjacent to the Bay 

& Basin Leisure centre, allowing a multi-use space as well as full library facility. 


1.The limit on height of buildings in Vincentia for foreshore land be set at 7.5 metres and for all 

other land at 8.5 metres and that this be confirmed in the new LEP (SLEP2009) with a Height of 

Buildings map; 

135


Number 


2.That the new B4 zoning for the Burton Street shops requested by a developer be rejected and 

the area be rezoned on a like for like basis with existing retail activities being allowed to continue; 

and 

3.A comprehensive Town Plan be prepared for Vincentia in consultation with land owners and 

the community to consider the long range effects of the new developments at the crossroads. 

Congratulates Council on the improvement of our path extensions & improvement along 

Collingwood beach. 

444. Urges Council to engage in more community consultation regarding the new LEP for Kangaroo 

Valley. The 'best fit' approach taken by the council/government in this instance is sadly lacking 

and opens the door for extremely unsuitable development in one of Australia's premier tourist 

and bio-diverse valleys. 

Objects to new maximum height of 11 metres over the whole Shoalhaven. For a “best fit” 

application the entire city should be mapped with Height of Buildings maps, based on current 

Development Control Plans (DCPs) or the 1985 LEP height of 2 storey (or metre equivalent.) The 

current position of Council would destroy KV’s DCP 66. 

Object to 1(c) zone (rural, small farming) to the new R5 - the 1(c) Zone is a buffer between the 

primary agricultural zone and the residential (village) zone. This change will affect a large 

number of KV residents and the wider Shoalhaven. There was a category that 1(c) could have 

logically transferred to – RU4, but Council chose not to use that zone. There is evidence also that 

Council will seek subdivision of all R5 land in the future. This too breaches DCP66. 

All zones have greatly expanded Land Use Tables. This was to be expected with the reduction in 

number of zones, however many of the new uses should have been put to the community prior to 

their inclusion – for example RU1 land – the primary agricultural zone now allows air transport 

facilities; offensive industries; etc. 

Kangaroo Valley has a very strong DCP developed with extensive community consultation that 

has until now protected our valley and kept it beautiful, scenic and environmentally sustainable. 

We urge you to make sure DCP 66 is incorporated into the new LEP. 

The new LEP as it stands means: 

1(b)(Arterial & Main Road Protection) Zone is now absorbed into the RU1 Primary Production 

zone and is therefore encumbered with many additional “allowable developments”. This breaks 

DCP66. 

The 1(g)(Flood zone) is also absorbed into RU1 zone with similar problems with 47 allowable 

development types on agricultural land. Surely development in flood prone land is not the best 

idea after this year of Queensland & NSW floods Again – breaks DCP66. 

The 2(e)(Village) zone will now allow helipads – is this wise or desirable in small rural villages. 

Also breaches DCP66. 

The “environmental zones “– previously 10 now crammed into 3 - have resulted in less protection 

for the previous Scenic, Special Scenic, Water Catchment and Escarpment zones, and 

remember allows 11 metre high developments! 

One-off zone changes are used all over Shoalhaven at Council’s discretion with the justification 

of the Ground Rule relating to “Minor rezoning matters and anomalies”. There is one in KV village 

136



on land with current zoning the same as that Colys tried to have rezoned – surely the same 

conditions should apply. Any private zone changes allowing rural land to become residential 

should come before the public after the LEP is finalised and not slipped into this complicated 

document. 

445. RU5 zoning for Killarney (east of Evans and Prior Street Lake Conjola, Lot 372 DP 1125806) is 

inappropriate and would not suit the character of the upper lake region. 

Request it be rezoned to E3. The land bordering the lake edge of Killarney be RE1 with a view 

to being returned to public access. 

446. The document does not include concept of 'ecological sustainability' which should underlie the 

instrument. 

The bio-diversity provisions are weak and should be more adequately addressed including 

application of biodiversity protection in E2. 

11 metre maximum height of buildings is inappropriate eg not in line with DCP66. 

Contrary to ground rules no rural to go to residential, Rural 1(c) has gone to R5. Believes it 

should be RU4. 

The land use table is greatly expanded, community input is required. 

Some specific concerns are: 

The 1(b)(Arterial & Main Road Protection) Zone is now merged with the RU1 Primary Production 

zone and is therefore subject to many additional “allowable developments”. This appears 

inconsistent with DCP66. 

The 1(g)(Flood zone) is also absorbed into RU1 zone with similar problems with 47 allowable 

development types on agricultural land. Development in flood prone land is a significant concern 

and may be contrary to DCP66. 

The 2(e)(Village) zone will now allow helipads. This may be unnecessary and inappropriate for 

small rural villages, and again, likely to breach DCP66. 

The reduction of “environmental zones “ from 3 from 10 under the previous arrangements, may 

mean less protection for the previous Scenic, Special Scenic, Water Catchment and Escarpment 

zones, and may be subject to 11 metre high developments, which may be clearly inappropriate. 

One-off zone changes may be applied across the Shoalhaven at Council’s discretion under the 

Ground Rule relating to “Minor rezoning matters and anomalies”. Any private zone changes 

allowing rural land to become residential should come before the public after the LEP is finalised. 

447. Objects to elements of the proposed LEP and its potential impact. Support the Aims of the LEP 

as expressed in Part 1.2 of the Plan. 

Urges Council to strongly to consider the economic value of what is the most unaffected low 

density coastal environment within reach of Sydney. There is absolutely no doubt that these 

characteristics will bring rewards to the whole region if they are promoted, maintained and 

protected. 

Specific objections relevant to proposals in Currarong: 

1. Zoning of Crown Land 

Objects to the proposed zoning of that Crown land that fringes the western side of Currarong as 

R1. It is inconsistent with adjacent built zonings (R2). Urges Council to zone that land 

137



appropriately to E2 as it acts as a buffer to the main road traffic, is prone to bushfire and 

connects to the extensive wetlands adjacent to the built areas. The Department of Land and 

Water Conservation judged it to be unsuitable for development because of its poor drainage and 

possible acid sulphate soils. 

2. Height of Buildings 

Request that Council mandate and map a 2 storey limit for Currarong including the residences in 

the village, shops in the village and areas not developed on the fringes of the village. The 

economic value of Currarong property relates in part to its low visual impact and scale. 

3. Environmental Areas 

Urges Council to zone the land on the fringes of Currarong proposed to be zoned RU2 or E3 as 

E2 so as to avoid the loss of economic value imposed by the addition of commercial and 

industrial activities in what is a low key residential village in a pristine environmental setting 

4. Currarong Shops 

Urges Council to adopt a two storey height limit throughout Currarong and specifically to the 

business zoning of the village shops. 

448. Requests removal of 'air transport facilities' from the RU1 zoned to prevent a commercial airport 

on rural land. 

Would like Council to limit future aircraft noise and protect our creeks and rivers from acid sulfate 

soils. 

449. Concerned that Council wish to rezone (SP2) a 30-metre wide road through Bomaderry Regional 

Park as it is such a valuable, bio-diverse sanctuary and recreational area. 

Also concerned with the proposal to introduce further residential development (R1) in three 

parcels immediately adjacent to the Regional Park. Will not only detract from its appeal from a 

recreational standpoint but also weaken the park's ability to function as an ecological reservoir. 

Council should work with State government to confirm the boundaries of the Bomaderry Creek 

Regional Park. The biological gem that is the Park will be in walking distance from the core of the 

residential areas of Nowra, a feature almost unique in NSW, and continue to become a centre for 

visitation from far and wide. 

450. Objects to the proposed inclusion of “Air Transport Facilities” as permissible with consent in rural 

zones. 

Given the requirements of the Model Code of Conduct for local Councils in NSW, and given the 

known aviation interests of at least one councillor - along with earlier questionably illegal actions 

of aviation interest group(s) within the region - (whose development actions were previously 

quashed because of public reaction), it is difficult to see how Council could justify the inclusion of 

“Air Transport Facilities” in the LEP Proposal. Allowing such change will result in severe and 

adverse impact on the interests and amenity of the greater community. 

The proposed change would compromise community interests by allowing introduction of an 

“offensive noise industry”, over a large residential area. 

By allowing such a change, Council will potentially expose its-self to negligence of community 

interest and its duty of care to the community, since it will be enabling an industry, previously 

publically rejected, and over which it then has no subsequent control of air noise, activities or 

development. 

451. 1. Support the R2 zone for Nth Bendalong. The overall amenity of this small village site would be 

best protected by that zone. 

138


Number 


2. Manyana, Cunjurong Point and Bendalong have all been zoned R2 - Low density residential. 

Supports the proposal to limit the height of buildings in this zone to 8.5m (2 storeys). 

3. Berringer Village is provisionally zoned RU5 Village. By way of comparison villages throughout 

the City having this zone include Kangaroo Valley, Woollamia and Bawley Point. These villages 

are on a vastly different scale to Berringer. An R2 zoning - low density residential - consistent 

with the surrounding villages is strongly recommended. 

4. Caravan parks have been included as permissible use on rural land zoned RU2. Caravan 

parks should be deleted as a permissible use from RU2 land. The old LEP also permitted 

‘caravan parks’ but this resulted in the Land and Environment Court permitting a permanent 

manufactured home estate development on rural land west of Inyadda Drive. There are other 

pockets of RU2 zoned land which represent a similar problem (see Point No 8 ).The State 

template does NOT include ‘caravan parks’ and other surrounding government areas such as 

Kiama, Eurobodalla and Bega do not allow caravan parks. 

5. Two storey building heights should be retained for the whole District. Council has included an 

11m (4 storeys) building height into the Draft SLEP; it states that heights for R2 and RU5 will be 

determined at 8.5m (2 storeys) but this might only be addressed after the exhibition period. For 

all zones comprising Kylor land this would mean that an 11m building height would apply. The 

current LEP restricts development to a 2 storey limit with Council consent being required for 

anything over that. The general practice for this area has been 2 storeys (including the Manyana 

Shops). The general amenity of the village would be adversely affected should an 11 m building 

height be allowed. 

6. All of Berringer Lake should be zoned W1 in order to provide greater environmental protection 

for this Lake. This lake is essentially bounded by National Park and environmentally protected 

land around its perimeter with minimal development in the catchment area (Berringer Village, 

Rustic Caravan Park and Berringer Cottages). A W1 zoning exists to protect “‘natural waterways” 

for their ecological and scenic values as well as protecting them from the adverse effects of 

development. 

7. The Headland at Nth Bendalong (Allawah Cabins) is proposed to be zoned E3 – 

Environmental Management. Strongly supports the E3 zoning. 

8. The Crown land located on the eastern side of Inyadda Drive and the southern side of 

Bendalong Road is zoned Rural landscape RU2 which permits many uses including caravan 

parks. This area has also been mapped as having high biodiversity and scenic values as well as 

serving as a major east-west habitat corridor from the coast to Conjola NP. In order to protect 

this area and limit further possible development through to Bendalong Rd an E2 zoning should 

be recommended. 

9. Green Island needs stronger protection and should be zoned E2. It is Crown land and is 

proposed to be zoned E3 – Environmental Management. This iconic island has no buildings on it 

and has good coastal biodiversity qualities. Other islands within Lake Conjola, some having 

structures on them, have been zoned E2 – Environmental Conservation. 

10. The Goodsell graves are located on Kylor land. These graves play an important part in our 

local history; Manyana was previously known as Goodsells’ Farm and much of the land 

surrounding Red Head was owned by this family. The grave site has been maintained voluntarily 

by local residents but to safeguard its future, the site should be included on the heritage list 

(Schedule 5 of SLEP2009) and incorporated into the heritage overlay map. 

11. The Manyana shops should be zoned B1 not the current B2 Local Centre zone which 

provides for a range of retail, business, entertainment and community functions that service a 

wider catchment than a Neighbourhood Centre. B1 – Neighbourhood Centres - are typically 

small scale retail and business premises such as Mollymook and Bawley Point shops. The 

Manyana shops should be zoned B1 so that any future development is compatible with the 

surrounding residential areas. 

139



452. Hyams Beach 

1) Support intention to set R2 height at 8.5 and 6-7.5metres for foreshore land. 

2) An individual Height of Buildings plan for Hyams Beach should be created which limits building 

height in the village to 8.5m for all zones except the foreshore which should be limited to 7.5m. 

3) Concerned that the Height of Building objective refers to the 'desired future character of a 

locality' and support changing the word 'future' to 'existing'. 

1) Heritage Estate should be zoned E2 in line with Federal Government decision. 

2) The reserve between Cyrus Street and the beach zoned RE1 should exclude caravan parks, 

childcare centres, entertainment facilities, function centres, helipads and restaurants; they are 

not compatible with heritage status of Hyams Beach. 

3) Shop top housing residential flat buildings, motels and hotels would be contrary to Hyams 

Beach village character therefore R1 is inappropriate should be zoned R2 . 

4) R2 in Hyams beach should not allow detached dual occupancy – previously it was not 

permitted in Hyams Beach. 

1) Do not support subdivision clauses as they allow for small lot subdivisions 

2) Lot sizes should be detailed in LEP not the DCP. 

453. Objects to ‘Air Transport Facility’ as a blanket permitted use in RU1 zone. 

454. Supports the inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. 

455. Objects to prohibiting camping ground, where it is now permissible in 7(f1) zone. Requests 

camping grounds be permissible in E3 zone. Or the approved development be an additional use 

in the land use Clause 2.5. 

Requests that Clause 4.1 be amended to retain the potential to vary the 40 hectare standard 

currently provided by LEP 85 clause 11(3). 

456. Supports the National Trust of Australia's nomination of Berry Township Urban Conservation 



listing. 

Concerned with Height of Buildings, request that clause 4.3(2) be removed and height of building 

maps be inserted to cover all areas and reflect DCPs and if no DCP should reflect existing form 

and scale of Berry, no more than 2 storeys. 

457. Concerned that Council plans to restrict bulky goods and hardware in the industrial zones. 

Council should encourage this type of retail in industrial zones as they are more suited to the 

handling and sales of bulky goods. 

458. Objects to zoning of Lot 7309 DP 1148878 Yerriyong and Lot 7313 DP 11543421 North Nowra 

that will prohibit motorsport activities. 

Supports the proposal for a motorsport facility on the Yerriyong site, good for tourism, and 

potential for additional workshops etc in neighbouring industrial zones. 

North Nowra site is an ideal opportunity for the holding of motorkhanas. 

Motorsports off the public streets works wonders for driver behaviour. The club is supportive of 

keep speed off the street objective. 

459. Acknowledges there are some good changes. 

Requests that all private land in the Lake Wollumboola catchment outside the developed areas 

be zoned E2 including Long Bow Point consistent with OEH. Believe proposed zonings and 

uses will destroy natural values and areas. 

Northern shore of Lake Wollumboola should be zoned E2, inc SEPP 14 Wetland and Lot 1 East 

140



Crescent instead of RE1. 

E2 should be applied to Lake Wollumboola and Kinghorn Point. 

HOB be 2 storey only and 6 to 7.5 m along dunes at Culburra Beach. 

E2 should be applied to HCV parts of the Crookhaven catchment. 

Objects to RE1 zoning for Crookhaven Headland 

Objects to added uses to Standard Instrument mandated uses for E2 and E3 zones. 

460. Request that the reference to 11 metres in clause 4.3(2) be removed and insist that Height of 

Buildings Maps be prepared for all areas and that these maps should reflect the DCP’s that apply 

and if no DCP’s exist the maps should reflect the existing form and scale of buildings in the area. 

461. Concerned that the SLEP gives greater importance to development than conservation of the 

environment. 

An example of inappropriate zoning creating problems for the community, Council and the 

developer is the 24 lot subdivision at Lot 1 East Crescent, Culburra Beach with current zonings of 

2(d) and 6(b). Lot 1 must be protected under E2 due to its identification on the Biodiversity map 

as a sensitive area significant vegetation/habitat corridor. I understand that Part 3 Exempt and 

Complying Development means that a development is not complying if it is identified as an 

endangered ecological community (EEC) – Lot 1 is comprised of EEC bangalay sand forest, is 

environmentally sensitive land due to its close proximity to Lake Wollumboola (a part of Jervis 

Bay National Park), Sheepwash Creek and within 100m of SEPP14 wetland no 365. 

Lake Wollumboola catchment should be zoned E2 (except for the existing residential area) – just 

as it is for the nearby Curley’s Bay/Crookhaven River shoreline. 

Support E2 private conservation zoning for Long Bow Point and the 5(c) zoned part of the 

catchment even though it is not consistent with the recommendation of South Coast Regional 

Strategy (SCRS), ie E1 national park. 

Object to the addition of permitted development in the E2 zone (such as dwelling houses). Apart 

from the standard LEP option of environmental protection works, support activities that would be 

allowed in an E1 zone, such as walking tracks, an interpretive centre. All other options must be 

deleted to ensure proper and genuine protection of high conservation value (HCV) private land 

which realistically has the same conservation value as the nearby Jervis Bay National Park. 

Concerned with development application for a golf course on Long Bow Point. This DA must be 

rejected on the basis of recommendations from inquiries and investigations over the years 

relating to potential detrimental impacts on Lake Wollumboola and destruction of HCV habitat 

and threatened species in its catchment. 

Do not support the IN1 industrial, RE1 recreational and RU2 rural zonings in the catchment due 

to the likelihood of development having negative impact on Lake Wollumboola and on the 

viability of identified habitat linkages. Considering the number of uses council has added to these 

zones it would constitute a serious downgrade of the E1 National Park recommendation in the 

SCRS and the SLEP recommendation of E2 for the lake catchment. 

Support the E2 zoning of SEPP14 wetland no 365 on the northern shore of the lake. Adjoining 

land should also be included, ie. Lot 1 East Crescent, Sheepwash Creek and the public reserves 

to complete and protect the habitat linkage around the lake. 

Support the expansion of habitat corridors as shown on the Biodiversity map. It is vitally 

important to protect vegetated interconnecting areas as habitat corridors and as a buffer between 

our waterways and existing built up areas. It is just as important to protect cleared land to allow 

for regeneration of native vegetation to reconnect patches of habitat. 

Concerned with the E3 zone for Kinghorne Point. Permitted activities are totally out of step with 

the objectives and the area deserves better protection with an unmodified E2 zone. 

The additional Clause 7.4 would allow for permanent residential occupation of tourist 

accommodation. It’s another case of turning a zone designed for a specific purpose into yet 

another residential area. This should not be allowed as it is not the purpose of the zone as stated 

141



in the existing LEP for related activities. 

The added Biodiversity (local) clauses 7.5 (4b&c) and Water 7.6 (5b&c) assume that 

development will be approved even if the development causes an adverse impact. Development 

that is likely to impact on wetlands and waterways should not even be considered. Unsustainable 

and damaging development will undermine the objectives of these clauses. 

Additional Clause 7.6 (b) Water (local) should protect riparian vegetation to 100m (not 50m) of a 

bank of a river, creek or lake consistent with SEPP71. 

Concerned that Tree Preservation clause 5.9 suggests that only certain trees will be retained on 

a development site, particularly on sites identified as a habitat link or corridor. Biodiversity cannot 

be sustained if preservation of habitat is selective. Should retain the existing Tree Preservation 

Order and apply it to all zones. 

The height limit proposed in the SLEP could result in 11m buildings on Lot 1 East Crescent and 

the proposed West Culburra development. Building height limits should be the same as currently 

exists. They should apply to all zones in the Culburra Beach and surrounding urban areas 

including Lake Wollumboola and Crookhaven catchments and Kinghorne Point. 

462. Concerned that the proposed larger lots (2000 sq m) on the Kylor land will be changed to smaller 

residential lots. Requests that the appropriate zoning be placed on this land to the west of the 

“tourist development” to ensure that these lots are the larger sized lots. 

Request the 30 metre buffer zone between the houses on Curvers Drive and the Kylor land be 

on the Plan. Additionally, to retain the visual amenity of this small village I request a buffer 

between the Kylor land and the road in (which is immediately to the west). 

463. 163 River Rd, Sussex Inlet 

Denial of normal family use & development of the above property, family owned for around 50 

years. 

Denial &/or minimisation of existing rights use under state environmental planning policy No1. 

(SEPP1). 

The overly restrictive conforming use & mixed use. 

Please make an exceptional variation & exclude the above property from its 

commercial/business designation & revert it to a more general/domestic/family classification. 

464. Supports the proposed business zone for the Sourdough Bakery site in Berry. 

Believes we should be supporting and encouraging business like this that encourage tourism and 

raise the profile of the area. 

465. Objects to proposed zoning for 'air transport facilities' 

Objects to 2/3 storey buildings under the 11 metre height limit. 

466. Objects to proposed R1 zone of URA - Bangalee Road West. 

Objects to high density housing. The pocket of high density house at Bangalee Road West is 

inappropriate. The removal of trees, extra public transport, multi storey buildings etc. would 

destroy the area. 

467. Likes - the use of my land as I see right 

Concerns - Bureaucracy limiting my lifestyle 

468. Bomaderry Creek Bushland - concerned proposed zoning will not protect what certainly is a "rare 

& precious natural gem of Shoalhaven. 

469. It is a good idea to include building heights in the LEP. 

142


Number 


The low rise character of Currarong should be maintained by limiting building heights at 8.5m for 

the whole village including the business zone. 

Supports the inclusion of wildlife corridors for Currarong. 

470. Concerned with the change in the nature of Huskisson/Vincentia from a “sleepy holiday village 

area” and requests that: 

1. The limit on height of buildings in Vincentia for foreshore land be set at 7.5 metres and for all 

other land at 8.5 metres and that this be confirmed in the new LEP (SLEP 2009) with a Height of 


2. The new B4 zoning for the Burton St shops requested by a developer be rejected and the 

area be rezoned on a like for like basis with existing retail activities be allowed to continue. 

3. A comprehensive Town Plan be prepared for Vincentia in consultation with land owners and 

the community to consider the long range effects of the new developments at the crossroads. 

471. 1. The proposed allowable heights of buildings on the foreshore in Huskisson are too high to suit 

a beach area and Shoalhaven in general. It is unacceptable to devalue the properties of those 

owners who have property either having views blocked or shadowed by these dramatically 

increased building heights. 

2. The draft indicates that some more stringent restrictions will be applied in some locations. 

One example given is Hyams Beach but this should be written in the document before approval 

is given. 

472. Jerberra Estate - would like to be able to build on the land bought 20 years ago - believes that 2 

1/4 acres is big enough for a dwelling and the environment. 

473. (1) Concerned that the residential areas are not all mapped for building heights. 

Support 8.5 metre height of buildings in R2 and R5 but believe this should be the same for all 

residential areas across the city. 

While there are sure to be instances when a height should exceed 8.5 metres, there should be a 

limit set that is not 11 metres. Possible a 3 storey would be acceptable in Nowra CBD. 

Also support the 7.5 metre height of building limit for Foreshore properties. 

(2) Reserve system presently zoned RE1 public recreation. 

Coordinate Basin Bushcare group and manage four local reserves that have high conservation 

value and should receive greater protection than that of RE1 zone. 

While the reserves are community assets and used by the community – they are for passive use 

only, well vegetated, supply habitat and connectivity to other reserves in the nearby area, link 

with vegetation on RU2 zoned rural properties and should be shown on biodiversity mapping 

The uses “Permitted with consent” are not applicable to these reserves that are listed below: 

(i) Blue Wrens Retreat – Island Point Rd, St Georges Basin – part of which is the Heritage listed 

Old Wool Rd. This is a retreat for small birds and there are still sugar gliders inhabiting this area. 

Feathertail gliders have been found not too far away. 

The reserve is vegetated with some stands of remnant eucalypts, casuarinas and shrubs. 

143


Number 


(ii) Tasman Rd Reserve – Tasman Rd, St Georges Basin 

This small reserve holds a marvellous stand of Spotted gum also maintained by Basin Bushcare 

members to ensure it will support local birds and wildlife. The reserve plays a connective role for 

wildlife movements. There has been Sugar gliders found in this reserve, Feathertail gliders close 

by and noted that native bird visitation has increased since management commenced by Basin 

Bushcare group. E2 zoning will ensure ongoing support and habitat for birds and wildlife in the 

local suburban area. 

(iii) Firetail Creek – Loralyn Ave/Cammeray Drive – St Georges Basin 

This important high conservation value reserve is known to support an Endangered Ecological 

Community (EEC). 

This reserve plays a role in linking vegetation existing on The Wool Lane (surrounding the 

sporting fields) and some foreshore vegetation that forms part of an unmarked habitat corridor 

and maintains biodiversity in the urban situation. 

Most of this important reserve is wetland and can never be used for ‘public recreation’ except for 

a small walking track section to the east. 

Recommendation: That these four reserves be zoned E2 Environmental Protection in the 

SLEP2009 and included on the biodiversity mapping. 

(3) Natural Bushland and Foreshore reserves 

The RE1 Public recreation zoning doesn’t reflect the true values of some of the reserves across 

the city. 

The reserves gazetted as ‘Natural Bushland’ are not shown on the SLEP2009. 

These reserves hold a special place in our environment they are remnant bushland parcels 

across the city and need to be protected. Natural Bushland reserves link habitat corridors, 

contain habitat for bird and wildlife species as well as flora species that should not be lost. 

Foreshore reserves also hold a special place in the local area as they also supply a connecting 

link for bird and wildlife species and most contain remnant native species. The vegetation is vital 

in preventing erosion around the foreshore and need to be fully protected. Most of these 

foreshore reserves in the St Georges Basin area are managed by Bushcare volunteers under the 

guidance of Council. 

Request that those reserves gazetted as ‘Natural Bushland’ and those reserves known as 

‘Foreshore’ be zoned in the SLEP2009 as E2 Environmental Protection to ensure the greatest 

protection for these wonderful environmental assets. 

(4) Heritage Estate. 

Reserve has an Ecologically Endangered Community, has Threatened flora and fauna species, 

maintains the health of the sensitive waterway of St Georges Basin all points recognised with 

Council’s caring for Country’ grant application to finally submit this site into the National Park 

system. 

144


Number 


I request that Heritage Estate be zoned E2 in the SLEP2009 to truly reflect the high conservation 

values proven for this site. 

I also request that the Worrowing Waterway reserve system be zoned E2 to also reflect its value 

to assist in maintaining the biodiversity and high conservation value of the Heritage Estate. The 

reserves cannot be utilised with the ‘Uses’ proposed. 

St Georges Basin – zoned W2 Recreational Waterway 

Is a unique waterway and has high conservation values that must be protected. 

It is reported as being unique and not typical of south coast lakes and lagoons and has a diverse 

and abundant ecological system maintaining eighteen (18) SEPP14 wetlands (saltwater and 

freshwater marshes). 

The Basin catchment is known to contain at least 12 Endangered animal species and a large 

amount of Threatened flora species. 

This sensitive waterway is listed on the Directory of Wetlands of National Importance and 

provides habitat for migratory birds. There are known birds listed as Threatened Species 

inhabiting areas of this waterway at the moment being monitored by NPWS. 

St Georges Basin has a natural vegetation catchment of 83% with ‘high’ conservation values and 

this natural catchment is one of the main reasons the sensitive waterway of St Georges Basin is 

recognised as having those ‘high’ conservation values. 

Recommendation: St Georges Basin should be zoned as W1- Natural waterway. 

474. Objects to proposed zoning for 'air transport facilities'. 

Objects to 2/3 storey buildings under the 11 metre height limit. 

475. Concerned with the height limit on the Marlin Hotel in Ulladulla. It should be the same as 

adjoining properties to ensure that this heritage listed building to be kept and maintained through 

the ability to develop the existing land around the property to bring tourism and jobs to the centre 

of town and to make the Marlin Hotel a historic icon. 

476. Objects to the 11 metre building heights and requests the 'optional' statement in clause 4.3 

removed and remove from the objective 'and desired future character of a …' 

Requests Council commits to a map building height for all zones to reflect maximum heights and 

FSR in DCP 

The bonus additional 3 metre height in Owen Street, Huskisson should not be in LEP but in DCP. 

Rural 1(c) should not be R5, R5 should be limited to 2(a2) and 2(a3) should be RU4 or E4. 

The 6(c) land off Berry Street is zoned incorrectly; it should be RE1. 

Flood prone land at end of Currambene street should be E2. 

Does not believe there is enough protection of the natural environment which is Huskisson’s 

heritage. 

The land uses in R2 and R3 are not in accord with existing objectives. Additional permissible 

uses added. 

Does not want RU1 and RU2 to have air transport facility as a permissible use. 

145



477. The proposed SLEP 2009 aims to divide the Wool Road between B4 and RE1, and of 

considerable concern is that RE1 prohibits Health Consulting Rooms and Service Facilities ( 

although Medical Consulting Rooms are provided for by the infrastructure SEPP), and prohibits 

office premises. This will impact upon any expansion and provision of other office space to other 

non-dental/health professionals. 

Removal of the existing development right will impact the saleability of ongoing commercial 

interests. 

Amendment Request: 

That the North side of the Wool Road, between Beach Street and Elizabeth Drive, be allowed to 

include professional offices, health consulting and service facilities as permitted uses. 

No reason why both sides of the Wool Road, between Beach Street and Elizabeth Drive, should 

not be zoned B4, as a lot of professionals have gravitated to this area over a number of years 

and will continue to do so, and as Council is trying to limit the impact of the development at the 

Crossroads on the Mall, wouldn’t this make much more sense rather than restricting usage 

478. Objects to the change at 25 The Wool Road, Vincentia which prohibits office premises, health 

consulting rooms and services facilities and that existing development rights are being removed. 

479. Likes the rural environment - what is left on top of Nowra Hill should be preserved as large 

agricultural rural holdings without rezoning to allow for cluster housing, subdivision or group 

homes. 

Concerned with RU2 allowing more than one group home (The William Campbell College). 

480. Height of Building 

4.3(2) states 11m is not to be exceeded except where the max height is shown for the land on 

the Height of Building Map. Hyams Beach does not have a height of building map. I support the 

council's intention to set the building height for the R2 zone at 8.5m and for land on the foreshore 

at 6-7.5m (as it is now) but this should be included in the final draft SLEP to make sure it occurs. 

All foreshore blocks should have this restriction to avoid high rise buildings and let everyone 

enjoy the foreshore without shadowing. 

481. Supports E2 zoning of higher and very steep or pristine escarpment, where it adjoins E1 zoning 

to act as buffer. 

Concerned with the E2 zoning of lower and developed areas of escarpment adjoining RU1 or E3 

- should be E3 or E4. 

Aims of Plan 2 (a): This aim focuses on the economy of the Shoalhaven; however here is little 

evidence within the document to support this aim. We therefore recommend that a clear 

statement be added to the Draft LEP that demonstrates the aim 2(a) will be achieved. 

Land Use Table: - on any holding Existing and permissible usages are to continue under the new 

LEP as permissible uses. 

RU1 & RU2 : remove Air Transport Facilities from ‘permitted with consent’. 

R2: agree, A more appropriate minimum lot size of 600sqm should be applied. Where the 

community has expressed a firm desire for a lower height limit this should be observed. 

R3: Where the community has expressed a firm desire for a lower height limit this should be 

observed. 

E2 and E3: Peased to see that sensitive land is zoned as E2 Environmental Protection and E3 

Environmental Management, but most of the mapped E2 zoning is substantially used land that 

146


Number 


not too long ago was Rural 1(a) or the new RU1 equivalent and should be drafted and mapped 

as E3 zonings. This flags to landowners and developers the constraints they will have to consider 

in proposing developments for the land. Rather than preventing cart blanch development. 

The economy of the Council cannot withstand such an approach to development of the area. 

Although rural landholders may complain that the Draft LEP impinges on their rights to farm their 

land, evidence presents a different picture of the realities of land use in the Shire. Rural land use 

is that 91% of rural land is NOT primarily used for agricultural purposes. But used for tourism in 

one way or another, hence the E3 zone is the zone that reflects that and not E2. E2 is mainly for 

untouched undisturbed areas and should not be represented in a widespread blanket as it has 

been. 

Concerned about limited number of E zones compared to the existing plan 1985 LEP. E2 should 

be E3 and E4 And allow smaller holdings of 2- 4 ha for ease of management and care. 

Subdivisions or community title should be allowed. 

4.2A Should include E2 as well 

4.2A (2) Strata plan and community title development. We suggest that it should be allowed . 

Part 5.3 Development near zone boundaries, the relevant distance should be increased and or 

include a formula determining it that takes the area of the holding and similar useable permissible 

areas within the holding. Eg. 20m is ok for residential or industrial areas where area of holding is 

say 1000m2 that could represent 50% of the area. But unfairly it does not work that way for 40ha 

properties. 

Hence it should be based on a proportional basis of say 50%. 

Part 5.4 Bed and breakfast 5 bedrooms should be brought on par to farm stay 7 bedrooms 

Part 6.15 Building Height - see real benefit in supporting these height limits as firm direction to 

halt coastal urban sprawl. 

482. Objects to rezoning of Vincentia shops. 

Supports the Vincentia Ratepayers and Residents association submission. 

Need a comprehensive town plan prepared for Vincentia in consultation with community. 

483. Berringer Lake is a small village consisting of 14 homes, it is a pristine lake and should be 

protected against any development that could destroy or have any adverse effect on the lake. 

It is not suitable for RU5 zoning and services are already suffering with current population - 

concerned with increase of industrial noise and pollution, fire risk and/or chemical explosion. 

Area is definitely not suitable for industrial or caravan parks. 

Industrial zoning does not belong near waterways or homes. 

484. Supports 8.5m as the maximum building height for the R2 and RU5 zones, not 11m. 

485. Concerned with the inclusion of retail in industrial areas as this will impact on Nowra CBD. 

486. Objects to changes from residential to environmental on land to the west and south west of the 

village of Culburra Beach 

487. The Environmental and Water Zones 

- The number of future developments that may be permitted in E2 and E3 zones, needs to be 

reduced in order to be consistent with the objectives of the zone and the intention of the South 

Coast Sensitive Urban Lands Review and the South Coast Regional Strategy. 

- The E4 ‘Environmental Living’ zone should be reinstated 

147



- Permitted developments in W2 'Recreational Waterways' should be reduced to only 

‘Environmental Facilities’, ‘Environmental Protection Works’, ‘Recreational Areas’ and ‘Boat 

Launching Ramps’. 

The Biodiversity Clause Recommendations: 

- The objective needs to include the words; “The objective of this clause is to protect, maintain 

and improve...” The objective should ensure that significant constructs captured in the terms, 

"threatened species", "habitat corridor" and endangered ecological communities" are included in 

the sub clauses of the objective. 

- the consent authority should be fully satisfied that there is no significant adverse impact on 

biodiversity on the land where development is proposed. 

-the role of connectivity of the vegetation as significant habitat corridor both locally and 

regionally, should be addressed in the clause. 

- proposed developments need to fully identify measures to minimise or mitigate any possible 

adverse impacts on biodiversity. 

Swan Lake / Cudmirrah-Berrara-Swanhaven 

The current SLEP draft W1 zoning for approximately two thirds of Swan Lake should remain. 

The estuarine channel from the bridge on Springs Rd Cudmirrah south east to the Swan Lake 

entrance (currently W2) should be rezoned W1’Natural Waterways’. 

The current RE1 ‘Public Recreation’ zoning to the east of Swan Lake between Springs Road and 

Cudmirrah Beach that extends north of the Swan Lake estuarine channel should be zoned E2 

‘Environmental Conservation’. 

The current E3 Environmental Management zoning of land immediately to the north of the 

Swanhaven village should be zoned E2. 

The E2 recommendation of the Sensitive Urban Lands Panel re Badgee Lagoon should be 

adopted in the SLEP (2009), as currently endorsed by the draft SLEP 2009. 

488. Vital to have a 8.5 metre height limit for R2 and RU5. 

Requests that the height of all buildings around the Ulladulla Harbour are kept to a minimum. 

Requests a change in the R3 zoned area bounded in the South by Parson Street north by 

Deering Street and West by rear of dwellings in Woorree Place should be reconsidered as the 

R3 would allow for registered club, motel, hostel and exhibition homes. 

489. Supports: 

- R2 zoning for Cunjurong Point, Manyana and Bendalong 

- North Bendalong headland zoned E3 

- North Bendalong village zoned R2 

Requests that caravan parks be deleted as a use from rural land zoned RU2. 

- The 8.5 metre height should apply everywhere including Kylor land. 

- Larger lot sizes (2000 sq m) on the Kylor land should definitely not be changed to smaller lots. 

- 30 metre buffer should be placed between the Kylor development and Curvers Drive houses. 

- Buffer along the western border of the Kylor land and along the road in should also be put in to 

retain the village amenity. 

- Manyana shops should be zoned B1 and not B2. 

Why have the submissions not been placed on the website as has previously happened. 

490. Requests that the reference to 11m in clause 4.3(2) be removed and that height of building maps 



491. Major changes to the building heights allowed could destroy Currarong. 

New housing (any height) adjacent to Kinghorn Rd & Peel St Currarong will destroy huge 

population of frogs. 

492. Objects to the proposed inclusion of “Air Transport Facilities” as permissible with consent in rural 

zones – as replacement to airstrip facilities allowed under the present LEP. 

148


Number 


The proposed change could compromise the interests of the community by allowing introduction 

of an “offensive industry”, creating high noise levels over a large residential area, particularly in 

the northern Shoalhaven and Berry region, an area presently noted for its rural charm and 

relative peace. 

By allowing such a change, Council will potentially become negligent of community interest and 

its duty of care to the community, since it will be enabling an industry, previously publicly 

rejected, over which it then has no control of air noise, activities or development. 

493. Supports R2 zoning of North Bendalong village not an R1 zoning. 

494. Under the current 1 (c) zone, Agriculture is permissible with consent. Under the proposed R5 

zone it is not. This does not appear reasonable based on the original objectives of the rural 

lifestyle blocks. 

Perhaps if they are over a certain size, say 4ha, then extensive agriculture should be permissible 

with consent. 

Under the current 1(d) zone, Forestry is permissible without consent. In the new RU2 zone, 

Forestry will require consent. 

I am assured by Council officers this is not the intent and RU2 should be amended to include 

Forestry as being permissible without consent. 

Under the existing zones 1(a),1(b),1(d) and 1(d), Agriculture is permissible without consent, 

which includes farm dams and associated earthworks relating to agriculture. 

Under the proposed zones RU1 and RU2, earthworks require consent. I believe there are 

adequate State Government controls on agricultural land covering acceptable earthworks, ie.Soil 

Conservation and water conservation legislation. Earthworks in conjunction with Extensive 

Agriculture should remain a State Government issue and should be permissible without consent 

in the LEP. 

Objects to the decision to drop the deferred 1(c) zone area on Pointer Rd Yatte Yattah. 

Whether council has the resources now to fully investigate the merits of rezoning the area from 

deferred 1(c) to 1(c), should not jeopardise their ability to do it sometime in the future as 

intended. This must be the intention for the other reclassified deferred 1(c) areas. 

The land has at least been identified for 12 years as having potential. All residents, new or old 

have known or should have known of its zoning status. This should mitigate one of the main 

impediments to future developments, identifying potentially suitable areas. 

495. Objects that houses are to be allowed in all environmental zones and can be built to 11 metres 

when the previous height was 2 storey (8-8.5metres). 

This is especially outrageous and short-sighted for a place like Kangaroo Valley. 

This is not a best fit transfer should be rewritten with community input. 

Objects to loss of E4 and controls that previously protected the Shoalhaven. Requests a review 

of all environmental zones. Concerned that 10 environmental zones have been reduced to just 3 

as this allows for many previously prohibited developments in sensitive areas. 

496. Would like RU4 zone from the Standard Instrument introduced on our property. Strongly objects 

to R5 zoning. 

497. Objects to the B4 zoning at Murdoch St, Moona St, Burrill St, Moona Moona Creek, Huskisson - 

requests that it be R2. 

149


Number 


Objects to the B4 zones at Tappalla Ave and Jervis Street; Duncan Street, Nowra Street and 

Fegan Steet; Beach Street, Nowra Street and Winnema Lane and request that they be zoned 

either R1 or R2. The range of uses allowed in the B4 zone could destroy the amenity of the 

Huskisson area by creating a high rise barrier separating the Bay from the rest of Huskisson. 

Increases in height limits in all zones should not be allowed and existing height limits should be 

maintained. 

498. Congratulates Council on the level of access to view the draft LEP. 

Supports the zoning of the section of land west of Waddell Street, Huskisson as E2 as it is flood 

prone and provides a buffer to national park. 

Endorse the vision in Council's Vision 2020 in the Community Strategic Plan and ask Council to 

be mindful of these goals in their decision making. 

Concerned that there are many instances where the draft LEP is not a best fit transfer. 

Objects to the proposed 11m height limit (up to 4 storeys) unless otherwise mapped. Believes 

that the currently height limit is 8.5m. 

Requests that the height of buildings in Huskisson and across all zones in Shoalhaven reflect 

existing maximum height of buildings and floor space ratios whether they are set DCPs or 

conventions for the specific zone or village and that these be mapped. 

Objects to the 3m bonus height in Owen St, Huskisson being shown in the draft LEP. Believes 

that this will mean that developments don't have to comply with the lot consolidation required in 

the DCP. 

Concerned that land currently zoned 6(c) along Berry St, Huskisson is proposed to be zoned B4 

Mix Use. Requests that this be RE1. 

Concerned that the B4 zone along Berry St has been extended to the southern edge of Moona 

Street and incorporates flood prone land and land identified on the Biodiversity map as 

'significant vegetation'. Requests that the flood prone section be zoned E2 and that Council 

considers rezoning this section to either E2 or E3. 

There have been a number of changes to permitted land uses which are contrary to current 

permitted land uses. 

R3 now permits hostels, residential flat buildings, shop top housing, sewerage systems, 

registered clubs, veterinary hospitals, water supply systems, boat repair facilities, boat launching 

ramps, boat sheds, jetties, building and business identification signs, tourist and visitor 

accommodation, serviced apartments and bed and breakfasts. Concerned that these are at odds 

with the objectives of the zone and requests their removal. 

R2 now permits exhibition homes and villages, home industries, boat repair facilities, boat 

launching ramps, boat sheds, jetties, sewerage systems, emergency services facilities, building 

and business identification. 

Objects to the objective added to the R2 zone 'to provide an environment for detached housing 

and to ensure that other development is compatible with that environment', this essentially 

removes low density residential for the land use zones. 

Requests that dual occupancies, building and business signs, emergency services facilities and 

150


Number 


home industries be prohibited. 

Concerned with additional uses in the RU2 zone, these changes will allow the development of 

airport facilities to the west of Huskisson which is undesirable as it adds noise and pollution and 

air travel is least environmentally responsible. 

Requests removal of 'caravan parks' as permissible in the RU1 until the completion of the review 

of SEPP 21 Caravan Parks & SEPP 36 Manufacture Home Estates. 

Primary production land zoned 1(c) should not be included in R5 Large Lot Residential, this 

should be limited to 2(a2) and 2(a3). Primary production land could be RU4 or E4. 

Suggests Sydney Street beyond Bowen Street, Huskisson is removed from the map as is it 

confusing as it is not formed. 

Believes changes in the draft LEP have been made without community consultation or a 

masterplan for densification. 

Did not buy in Huskisson to be surrounded by high rise buildings. 

499. Buildings outside the commercial area of Ulladulla should be restricted to around 8m in height. 

Was most upset when there were restrictions place on the play fields at Ulladulla due to the 

presence of burrowing frogs. Aware of the need to be environmentally aware but this putting 

frogs above humans is going too far. 

500. Requests that RU1 not be applied around Berry so that a commercial airport cannot be built at 

Jaspers Brush. 

Berry is noise free and peaceful, continuous aircraft noise would be a disaster for residents. 

There are two large retirement complexes in Berry that would be badly affected. 

501. Requests that the Burton Street shops in Vincentia be changed from the proposed B4 to a like for 

like basis. 

Requests that a comprehensive Town Plan be prepared for Vincentia in consultation with land 

owners and the community to consider the long range effects of the new developments at the 

crossroads. 

Concerned that other landowners were not advised of the rezoning and this was a request from 

the largest business landowner on the block. 

Not convinced that the Vincentia Village shops will need to be developed after the Vincentia 

District Centre is built - needs to be considered urgently undercover of SLEP2009 for the 

following reasons: 

- The Vincentia District Centre (VDC) has been approved but construction has not started and it 

is unlikely to be open for business until late 2013 at the earliest; 

- It will take some time to determine what existing businesses in Burton Street can compete with 

the VDC and number of vacant premises resulting; 

- The existing tenancies at Burton Street are unlikely to expire for 3 years, or with options, 

perhaps longer; 

- There are many controversial issues to consider under SLEP2009 and this rezoning which has 

far reaching consequences will not be given the importance it deserves; 

151


Number 


- There has been no community consultation. 

Concerned that the two principal current uses of the area, retail and dwellings will be restricted or 

no longer be allowed under a B4 zoning. 

Concerned that similar residential flats or serviced apartments in Huskisson will be developed at 

Vincentia. 

Concerned that the development of a high rise enclave in the centre of Vincentia would be 

completely out of character with Vincentia and the needs of the community. 

Concerned that the effect on landowners in the adjacent R1 zone of rezoning the shops has not 

been considered by Council. 

Concerned that 11m height limit is unacceptable. 

Concerned that the approach taken by Council in respect of Height of Buildings (HOB) is not the 

“best fit”. It differs from the approach taken by neighbouring Councils and as proposed will create 

uncertainty for landowners and developers and completely changes the character of Vincentia. 

Delete Clause 4.3 (1) objective a) 

Delete Clause 4.3 (2) and replace with "the height of building on any land is not to exceed the 

maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings map" and map all land in 

Vincentia showing heights of no greater than 8.5metres. 

Expects Council to honour its intention to map R2 and RU5 zones 8.5m height limit in Height of 

Buildings maps, however is concerned that this leaves many areas unmapped. 

Requests the following uses be deleted from R1 zone: 

Boat repair facilities (noisy business activity, use B, IN or W zone) 

Home industries (light industry not compatible with residential) 

Registered clubs (not compatible, noise and traffic, use R3, B or RE2) 

Tourist and visitor accommodation (not compatible due to noise and traffic, use SP3 or R3) 

Veterinary hospital (not compatible due to noise, use R3 or B zones) 

Delete objective of R1 Zone "to identify land suitable for future expansion" as this could preexempt 

consideration of the appropriate zoning when land is to be released. 

Requests the following uses are deleted from R2 zone: 

Dual occupancy (now allowed in R1 and R3, not compatible with R2 ”Low Density” residential, 

an oxymoron.) 

Emergency service facilities (not compatible due to noise and traffic) 

152


Number 


Home industries (light industry not compatible with residential) 

Requests the following uses are deleted from B2 zone: 

Residential care facilities (should be adjacent not part of shopping centre). 

Requests the following changes to B4 zone: 

Delete - Crematorium (inappropriate) 

Add - Mortuaries (appropriate) 

Requests the following uses be deleted from RE1 zone: 

Agriculture (incompatible with passive recreation) 

Caravan parks (incompatible with passive recreation) 

Child care centres (cannot meet objectives) 

Entertainment facility (potentially large buildings and noise, incompatible with passive recreation, 

use B zones) 

Function centres (potentially large buildings and noise, incompatible with passive recreation, use 

SP3 or B zones) 

Recreation facilities (indoor) (potentially large buildings e.g. squash courts and incompatible with 

passive recreation, use B zones) 

Restaurants (too intensive and incompatible with passive recreation, but kiosks are allowed) 

Requests the following uses be deleted from E2 zone: 

Aquaculture (cannot meet objectives) 

Bed and breakfast accommodation (if appropriate zone land E4) 

Dwelling houses (if appropriate zone land E4) 

Home businesses (if appropriate zone land E4) 

Home industries (if appropriate zone land E4) 

Submits that E4 is the appropriate zone to be used where housing is allowed instead of E2. 

Concerned with Clause 4 - any changes made to the DP&I approval as this land is incorporated 

in SLEP2009 must be re-exhibited for public comment. 

Concerned with Clause 4.1A - the R2 zone in Vincentia should be excluded from clause 4.1A. 

Concerned with Clause 4.4 - for clarity and to provide certainty for landowners all lots should 

have a FSR shown on the FSR map. 

The appropriate zoning for the Heritage Estate is E2. 

502. Supports Council’s resolution with respect to HOB for the R2 and RU5 zones. 

The maximum HOB for all development land zones in Currarong should be 8.5 metres. 

153


Number 


Clause 4.3 – part (2) change to read 

"the height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on 

the Height of Buildings Map" 

Map heights for all land in Shoalhaven to in accordance with current site specific DCP’s or for 

other areas in accordance with whole of Shoalhaven DCP’s or if no DCP’s apply to the lot or 

building thereon, in accordance with current practice. 

Proposed R1 Zones - Currarong 

For the reasons in the Crown Lands Assessment of Currarong dated 1999, it is suggested that 

both proposed R1 zoned sections in Currarong should be zoned E2. 

Proposed RU2 Zone – Currarong 

This zone should be E2 with a further recommendation that it become part of the greater National 

Park E1 zone, subject to the Crown Lands concurrence. 

Proposed E3 Zone – East of Fishery Rd Currarong 

This zone should be E2 with a further recommendation that it become part of the greater National 

Park E1 zone, subject to the Crown Lands concurrence. 

Proposed B1 Zone – Shops at Currarong 

Zoning is appropriate for this area. 

The HOB limit in this area should be a maximum of 8.5 metres to conform with the current and 

expected future surrounding built environment. This would also conform to the “objectives” of the 

zone as per the DLEP document page 15. 

Boarding houses, hotel and or motel accommodation should be deleted from the permitted with 

consent listing locally. 

R2 Zone – Currarong 

The administrative changeover from the 1985 LEP to R2 is agreed. 

Land in this zone should have a maximum HOB of 8.5 metres 

Dual occupancies in this zone should have a minimum lot size of 500sqms and no less. 

503. Support the inclusion of home businesses and home industries as permitted with consent. 

Concerned that home occupations are prohibited in E2 zone whereas in other zones, innocuous 

home occupations are permitted without consent. That should also be the case for the E2 - 

permit home occupations without consent 

B2 Local Centre zone: 

Shop top housing - with the change to the standard instrument removing the previous wording ‘or 

otherwise attached to’ there needs to be new residential accommodation land uses added to the 

table for this zone. 

In relation to the B2 Local Centre zone: 

It seems contradictory that signage is prohibited but that building identification signs and 

business identification signs, which are included in the definition of signage in the dictionary, can 

154



be permitted with consent. I suggest removing signage from the list of prohibited developments in 

B2 zone. 


The only food and drink premises mentioned for this zone is restaurants (permitted with consent). 

Where does that leave pubs, take away, cafes, milk bars I think they should all be permissible in 

this zone so I suggest replacing restaurants with the higher level food and drink premises in 

developments permitted with consent. But then why include this category at all given that they 

are retail premises (to be replaced by commercial premises) which is already included in the 

draft zoning table as permissible with consent 


Light industry (or general industry) would also be an appropriate use in the zone. For example, 

there is currently at least one business in Berry that (with appropriate approvals) processes food 

products on site that are not for immediate consumption and operate a retail outlet for their 

product 

RU1 Primary Production Zone: 

It is extremely inappropriate that air transport facilities are included in permissible developments 

in this zone. This is a very significant change in land use zoning for very large areas of land 

where air transport facilities are prohibited under the current LEP. 

504. Supports the E1 proposed zoning of the Bomaderry Creek Regional Park and to object to the R1 

and SP2 proposed zonings. 

Council should consider changing these to E2 zonings in order to protect the very important 

environmental values of the Bushland and to avoid unnecessary and unacceptable impacts on 

the amenity of adjacent residents. 

The proposed North Nowra Link Road should be built using the West Cambewarra Road parallel 

route option, rather than cut a path through the Regional Park. Further residential development 

proposed in the draft plan along Illaroo Road and West Cambewarra Road is not appropriate 

given its impact on the biodiversity of the Bushland & increased traffic. 

505. RU1 Primary Production 

Objectives 

Remove second part of added objective “for economic extraction of hard rock, mineral sand or 

gravel resources” 

Permitted with Consent 

Delete: 

air transport facilities, boat repair facilities, crematoria, entertainment facilities, food and drink 

premises, offensive industries, places of public worship, recreation facilities (indoor, outdoor and 

major), water recreation structures, Tourist and visitor accommodation but insert B&B, Farm 

stays, Backpackers, 

All of these uses are inconsistent with the zone objectives and will only lead to possible losses of 

high quality agricultural land. 

RU2 Rural Landscape 

Objectives 

155


Number 


Direct from the SI – no change 


Delete: 

air transport facilities, boat repair facilities, caravan parks, entertainment facilities, food and drink 

premises, freight transport facilities, funeral homes, group homes, markets, offensive industries, 

places of worship, recreational areas (indoor, outdoor, major) water recreation structures, Tourist 

and visitor accommodation but insert B&B, Backpackers, Farm stays 

Most of the above are inconsistent use of rural lands, many of which were rezoned from 1(a) to 

1(d) under a very poorly administered City–wide change several years ago. The need to 

conserve our precious rural assets will be lost if such uses are permitted, in particular: 

Caravan Parks: The inclusion of caravan parks in rural landscapes is highly dangerous. L&EC 

result for Manyana meant that a 75 lot permanent caravan park – a de-facto manufactured home 

estate subdivision – was permitted. In short the current wording of SEPP 21 (caravan parks) and 

SEPP 36 (Manufactured homes) needs to be reviewed. DP&I has undertaken to do so this year 

and Council should await the results before burdening the landscape with unplanned 

subdivisions.. 

Offensive Industries, especially noise producing, should not be incorporated into rural land use. 

Such industries have a rightful place in industrial zones but not rural ones. Although this use was 

permitted under the 1985LEP there is no need to slavishly follow poor planning decisions that 

were made in the past. 

RU3 Forestry 

Objectives 

Delete added objective, ”to encourage recreational use of forest resources where such use is 

compatible with timber production”. 

Forestry, like NPs, can exercise its right to create the equivalent of State Recreational Areas; it is 

not a primary aim for forestry. 


No changes 

RU4 Rural Small Holdings 

Objectives 

No change 


Add agriculture, aquaculture, B&B accommodation. 

156


Number 


Council has failed to use this zoning. There is a clear conflict of intention when residential zones 

are substituted for rural zones; in this instance the transition from rural 1(c) zones to R5.. This is 

exploitation of useful rural small holdings that act as important ‘buffers“ between agricultural 

lands RU1 and RU2 and more dense residential areas. Expectations for residents in residential 

zones are usually very different to those landholders having a rural orientation and as such this 

will lead to inevitable conflicts between land holders – the very reason why RU4 was part of the 

SI. 

Council has made it clear that it will rezone R5 lands to R2 if the State Government determines 

that the NVA will apply to R5 zones. This will create a totally new dimension for unrestrained 

development; this would clearly be spot rezoning on a massive scale and could never be 

countenanced under the umbrella of an “administrative transfer”. 

RU5 Village 

Objectives 

From the SI - no change 


Delete: 

Caravan parks, tourist and visitor accommodation and insert instead Hotel and Motel 

accommodation, B&B, Backpackers 

506. Enjoys hobby farming lifestyle without the need to gain DA consent. 

Objects to R5 zoning, restrictions will reduce value of property. 

Supports RU4 zoning so future owners can continue to rural living without applying for 

development consent. 

507. Concerned with some of the proposed zonings, particularly in the Culburra Beach-Orient Point 

area and believes they are inconsistencies in the SLEP with decisions of the South Coast 

Regional Strategy (SCRS). 

(A). Crookhaven headland zoning - believes the RE1 proposed zoning to be inappropriate. It is 

not consistent with Council's own Generic Community Land Plan of Management: Natural Areas 

(SCC July, 2001). It fails to take into account the nature of the natural landscape. Headland 

vegetation includes an EEC. It is Crown land under Council's administration, there is a 

requirement under the Local Government Act in terms of its status as a "Natural Area" for it to be 

managed for its natural assets/biodiversity, and not primarily for recreation/public use as would 

be the case with an E1 zoning. A RE1 zoning would allow for incompatible uses - including 

clearing and other unsuitable activities 

Recommendation (A) A zoning of RE2 should apply to this significant (in a natural and 

cultural/heritage sense) headland area, with special requirements applying to the curtilage of the 

historic lighthouse building. 

(B).Parts of the lower Crookhaven catchment - a R1 residential zoning as proposed for most of 

the Crookhaven River catchment west of Culburra Beach would have detrimental effects upon 

the shore and wetlands, water quality, and the wildlife associated. Proposed zoning is also not 

consistent with the SCRS decisions which specifies that this area would be suitable for only 

"limited" residential development. This is a sensitive environment, and is of high conservation 

157


Number 


value and this should be recognised in the zoning applicable. 

Recommendation (B): These parts of the Crookhaven Rv. catchment, should be better protected 

through E2 Environment Conservation zoning, with "limited" residential zoning, such as an E4 

Environmental Living zoning in already cleared and disturbed areas only. 

(C) Zoning proposed for parts of the catchment of Lake Wollumboola - concerned will not protect 

the catchment of this magnificent lake. The importance of maintaining the natural condition of this 

catchment cannot be stressed too much. This is vital for ensuring that the water quality of the 

Lake is not compromised, nor consequently this as habitat for the wildlife that utilise it (eg. roost, 

feed and breed within it). 

Recommendations (C) 1. E2 zoning must apply to the south east part of the Lake Wollumboola 

catchment and the Kinghorn Point area. It is noted that this is mainly private land, with public 

land at Kinghorn Point, and it adjoins Jervis Bay National Park. Private land with high 

conservation values and /or contiguous with such land (as in this case) also needs to be 

appropriately zoned for environmental protection. No further clearing or development should be 

allowed to occur in this area. 

(C) 2. E2 zoning should apply to the northern shoreline of Lake Wollumboola, encompassing 

Sheepwash Creek, SEPP 14 Wetland 365, the foreshore reserve and Lot 1 East Crescent. This 

is necessary to protect the shoreline of the Lake, and the Threatened Species and Endangered 

Ecological Communities that occur along there. The only area to which R E 1 Public Recreation 

zoning would be appropriate in any way is the actual Lakeside Park Picnic area itself. 

(C) 3. E 2 zoning should apply to all private land in the Lake Wollumboola catchment outside the 

existing developed area of Culburra Beach-Orient Point. It should be noted that this includes the 

Long Bow Point area south of Culburra Rd., (which has been the subject of a state government 

Commission of Inquiry); areas north of Culburra Rd., as well as areas west and south east of 

Lake Wollumboola. The catchment of Lake Wollumboola needs better protection and an 

appropriate zoning under the SLEP should ensure this. Developments such as the recently 

mooted 18 hole golf course are not appropriate for this catchment area. 

(D). Opposed to the proposed revised building height limits (i.e. an increase to 11m and 8.5 m), 

particularly as these would apply to the Culburra Beach-Orient Point urban areas, and its village 

character. These new height limits would be a blight on these urban areas and lead to 

overdevelopment. 

Recommendation (D): Height limits for the Culburra Beach-Orient Point urban areas must 

remain (at the maximum) at the existing levels of 2 storeys, and a lesser height of 6-7.5 m along 

the dunes at Culburra Beach. Further, these levels must form part of the SLEP i.e., as a statutory 

requirement, and importantly not be left to definition in individual DCPs. Such DCPs could be 

legally challenged leading to unacceptable heights in areas of the urban landscape, especially 

where it interfaces with natural landscapes (e.g. along dune areas). 

(E) The additional 'uses' added to the Standard uses in the Environmental zonings categories are 

of great concern, they have an undermining role in relation to the very objectives of any 

environmental zoning ie the E 2 and E 3 zonings. These additional 'uses' would allow for a 

multitude of incompatible uses within the catchments of Lake Wollumboola and the Crookhaven 

River. This would include clearing for development. These additional uses should be reviewed 

and amended, to ensure the biodiversity values of the Lake and River and their catchments are 

protected. 

508. Concerned the LEP is not really an administrative transfer, that political decisions have been 

made such as allowing dwellings in all environmental zones when 7(d2) and 7(f2) do not allow 

dwellings. 

158



Believes the community should have been consulted straight away not that the end of the 

process. 

Concerned that E4 hasn't been used. 

Believes that clause 33 in SLEP 1985 sets a maximum height of two storeys and concerned with 

the 11m height limit in the draft LEP. 

SLEP2009 is a disappointment. Requests that environmental provisions, at least, be thoroughly 

reviewed in an open, transparent process which disavows any possibility of policy decisions 

being smuggled in through an allegedly administrative exercise. 

509. Objects to the B4 zoning of Bannisters Resort – it is currently 3(g) and is proposed to be B4. 

Feels SP3 would be more appropriate given the current development and residential nature of 

the surrounding area. 

510. Concerned with houses being built higher than 8.5m including the potential for three storey 

blocks of flats in the R2 zone. 

Requests that the R2 Low Density Residential zone height be kept at 8.5m not 11m. 

511. Objects to any increase in maximum building heights under the proposed LEP. 

512. Liked interactive exhibition format and the clear directions on how to comment. 

Concerned with the repeal of Jervis Bay REP and Illawarra REP 1 and lack of REP to 

encapsulate their intent in the new LEP. 

Object to Clause 7.5 - does not ensure ecologically sustainable development in Biodiversity map 

areas. It is too weak and subjective to be effective. It will not protect the critical habitat corridors 

and sensitive vegetation in its current form. Clause 7.5.3 and 7.5.4 are particularly offensive to 

the aims of the SLEP and dismissive of the legacy of the REPs 

where the only requirement of Council is to "consider impacts". 

It must be strengthened by DAs demonstrating a non-significant impact, by application of the 

Tree Preservation Order in the key areas, by the outlawing of application RAMAs in habitat 

corridors. If these cannot be achieved the only reasonable outcome is to apply E2 zoning to 

habitat corridors and sensitive vegetation corridors of the Jervis Bay REP. 

Objects to a lack of transport corridor options for bypassing or through-passing Nowra CBD other 

than the lazy western bypass option that will result in a huge environmental and social impact. 

That impact could be reduced and economic gains made from an internal bypass, but this has 

not been addressed in the LEP. A significant internal bypass within Nowra is possible and 

shown to work economically socially and environmentally in other regional centres. 

513. Concerned with ‘bulky goods retailing’ and stand alone commercial ‘office premises’ being 

permitted in IN1 and IN2 zones as this will lead to a decline in retailing and professional offices in 

the CBD. 

NSW Planning has raised concern with the allowance of such uses. 

The LEP should be used as a tool to reinvigorate the CBD. 

514. Likes the subdivision restrictions associated with RU4 zone as they don’t affect me; would rather 

be zoned rural than RU5. 

Concerned with agricultural and environmental restrictions associated with RU5 zoning 

Doesn’t want residential restrictions. 

515. Likes the way height limits and floor ratios are managed in Ulladulla at this time. 

Concerned with high rise in R2 areas of the Ulladulla CBD. The maximum height limit above the 

159


Number 


natural ground level should be set at 8.5 meters and enforced. 

Believes that future councils should not be able to approve a development, which exceeds a 

height of 8.5 meters, even if so called special circumstances exist at the time. 

516. Supports the zoning of 35 The Marina, Culburra Beach as RE1. 

517. Would like the heights in the vicinity of Seaview St in Mollymook to remain at 8.5m. 

Supports Council's intention to lower the maximum height from 11m to 8.5m. 

518. Concerned with 'stand alone commercial offices and bulky goods retailing in industrial zones as it 

weakens Nowra CBD 

Inconsistent with State Government Policy. 

Important to work towards a virile, strong central CBD. 

519. Supports B4 zone for Lot 1 DP 741946 Cnr Burton Street and Elizabeth Drive in Vincentia - 

particularly residential apartments above ground floor to increase surveillance of existing centre. 

Supportive of B4 zone objectives. 

Requests Council include Tourist and Visitor Accommodation as a permitted use in the B4 zone. 

Recommends that site be mapped as building height of 11m and FSR of 1:1.2. 

520. Point No 1 

Manyana, Cunjurong Point and Bendalong have all been zoned R2 - Low density residential. 

This is the ‘best fit’ from the previous LEP and is suited to maintaining the village amenity. 

Council also proposes to limit height of buildings in this zone to 8.5m (2 storeys) which should 

also be supported. 

Point No 2 

Berringer Village is provisionally zoned RU5 Village. This zone permits a mix of residential, retail 

and other business uses. By way of comparison villages throughout the City having this zone 

include Kangaroo Valley, Woollamia and Bawley Point. These villages are on a vastly different 

scaler. An R2 zoning - low density residential - consistent with the surrounding villages is 

strongly recommended. 

Point No 3 

Nth Bendalong is tentatively zoned R2 which should be supported. However, Department of 

Planning considers that an R1 zoning (general residential) should apply. This provides for higher 

density housing and is subject to an 11m (4 storeys) building height. The overall amenity of this 

small village would be best protected by an R2 zone. 

Point No 7 

Nth Bendalong Headland (Allawah Cabins) is proposed to be zoned E3 – Environmental 

Management. This zone aims at protecting, managing and restoring areas that have special 

ecological, scientific, cultural and aesthetic values. This is a good decision as the ‘equivalent 

transfer zone’ would not provide sufficient environmental protection for this iconic headland. The 

E3 zoning should be strongly supported. 

Point No 8 

160


Number 


Crown land located on the eastern side of Inyadda Drive and the southern side of Bendalong 

Road is zoned RU2 which permits many uses including caravan parks. This area has also been 

mapped as having high biodiversity and scenic values as well as serving as a major east-west 

habitat corridor from the coast to Conjola NP. In order to protect this area and to limit further 

possible development through to Bendalong Rd an E2 zoning – Environmental Conservation – 

should be recommended. 

Point No 9 

Green Island is Crown land and is proposed to be zoned E3 – Environmental Management. This 

iconic island has no buildings on it and has good coastal biodiversity qualities. Other islands 

within Lake Conjola, some having structures on them, have been zoned E2 – Environmental 

Conservation. Stronger protection for Green Island is warranted - zone E2. 

521. Supports intention to map building heights at 8.5m in R2 zone and foreshore blocks at 6-7.5m. 

Concerned with the effects of a blanket zoning which can affect small villages like Hyams Beach. 

Recommends that an individual map for height of buildings, FSR, and land uses should be 

created for Hyams Beach. 

R1 zone in Hyams Beach is inappropriate and could allow residential flat buildings, Motels and 

Hotels which would be contrary to the character of the village. 

RE1 zones should not allow caravan parks, agriculture, childcare centres, entertainment 

facilities, function centres, helipads and restaurants throughout the Shoalhaven area. 

E2 zones should not include B&Bs, dwelling houses, home businesses and industry, sewerage 

systems and agriculture. 

522. Concerned that ‘bulky goods retailing’ isn’t permissible in the IN1 zone and request Bulk Good 

Retail be included in IN1. 

523. Objects to B4 zoning for Vincentia shops as this will take away their shopping centre and would 

impact on the community centre. 

Objects to height of building - wants foreshore to be 7.5m and all other heights 8.5m. 

524. Requests that the Natural Resource Sensitivity of the adjacent land be extended to include Lot 

14, DP 1045217 in Edendale St Woollamia. 

The recognised zonings as stated in the SLEP on Lot 14 – “Sensitive Area – Habitat Corridor” 

and “Sensitive Area – Significant Vegetation”, are the same as on adjacent lots, yet the NRB 

map in the SLEP does not show this. 

Correct this anomaly, and amend SLEP maps to show this. 

Lot 14 is just as important to the Woollamia village environment as adjacent lots, and should 

therefore be included in this category. 

Resident of a heritage listed property – Strathroy - 759 Woollamia Rd, Woollamia, idenified an 

anomaly in the Draft SLEP. 

In Schedule 5 property is numbered 1523, however on the Heritage Map it is noted as 1522. 

Similarly for item 1522 in Schedule 5 which is noted as 1521 on the map. Maybe there is a 

sequencing error somewhere 

Request that the essential existing watercourse which traverses between the Woollamia 

wetlands, under Woollamia Rd and Edendale Street, to Currambene Creek, should be identified 

on the Natural Resources Sensitivity – Water map. 

This is a natural watercourse (not a drainage easement or man made course), and is essential 

for the healthy maintenance of the Woollamia wetlands; it houses a great diversity of natural bird 

161



and marine life, including mangroves, crabs, prawns, juvenile fish and birdlife. 

525. Likes private quiet natural bush surrounds flora/fauna bird life, rural type life style yet close 

enough to town for all necessary service. Prefer current SLEP 

Concerned with disturbance of vegetation and animal habitat, loss of privacy, higher noise levels, 

increased traffic flows possible higher bush fire risk as only one road servicing area (Tapitallee). 

Limited services eg council, RFS, Telstra, integral. 

526. Concerned with the location for the Western Bypass on the subject land - Lot 4 DP 268209 Moss 

Vale Road. It should revert to the original location (as per the Nowra Bomaderry Structure Plan) 

indicated with notations that allow for temporary zoning and the possible abandonment of the 

Western Bypass project. 

Concerned that the current location is based on a political decision rather than an engineering 

one and that the RTA have not been involved in making the decision. 

Objects to the E3 setback of 100 metres along the 1km of frontage of the subject land to Moss 

Vale Road. Requests that the 100m setback and the 250 metre set back form the apex at the 

boundary with Abernethys land in the NW corner of the property should be reduced to be 

consistent with the 30 metre set back identified from Bell Lane to the crossover of the Western 

By Pass 

Concerned with the location of the Educational Establishment SP2 and the RE1 on the subject 

land. The land use proposed for this section of the subject land is hampered by inadequate 

access and the location of a large dam on the property which will be incorporated as a major 

feature in the proposed development of the subject land. 

Believes that the proposed area of SP2 Educational Establishment on the southern side of Moss 

Vale Road is a better location as can co-locate a primary and secondary school. 

Concerned that the triangle of land in the south east corner that the land that is isolated by the 

proposed western by pass and believes it should allow for higher density development or 

commercial development. 

527. Wants Currarong to be R2 so height of building will not be more than 8.5metres. 

528. Has viewed the plan, especially Bundewallah Road at Berry and has no objections. 

529. Would like Council to keep rural zoning on properties and small acreage lots so as to keep rural 

lifestyle. 

Supports zoning to RU4 Rural Production Small Lots. 

Concerned with over development of small acre lots and large lots being broken up for residential 

housing and loss of rural aspect. 

Concerned that horses, cattle or any other animals can no longer be kept and unable to continue 

general farming. 

530. Supports the B4 zoning of the Riverhaven Motel site at Scenic Drive, Nowra as it is an ideal site 

for future tourist accommodation and associated facilities to enhance the appeal of the riverfront. 

Seeks Council's co-operation in relation to future developments. 

531. 1. State Government was trying to give residents and developers a more certain 

planning environment. This would be a major advantage. 

2. Council have NOT honoured this objective, nor the intent of the Department. Rather the 

document has dozens of potential uses in RU1 and E2 which are in clear conflict with the zones 

objectives. 

162


Number 


3. Whilst these uses require council approval, we think this is a costly and upsetting outcome 

which helps neither the developer nor existing residents. 

4. This approach is very costly. Consuming large amounts of staff time dealing with proposals 

which should not see the light of day; rather than spending time improving the quality of 

proposals that would be approved. 

5. Most of RU1 zone on “Berry Mountain”, should be rezoned to RU2; the objectives of which are 

better suited to the landscape on the mountain. 

6. E2 should be highly protected. To allow all sorts of development with permission makes a 

mockery of a zone designed to protect existing environment. This zone should allow NO 

development as State Government intended. 

7. If there are E2 areas where development would be appropriate then zone them E3. 

Think Council (not staff) have wasted a once in 20 year opportunity to lock down planning for 

Shoalhaven. We call on council to action the State Government intent by removing the “wiggle 

room” in SLEP 2009. 

1. State Government was trying to give residents and developers a more certain 

planning environment. This would be a major advantage. 

2. Council have NOT honoured this objective, nor the intent of the Department. 

3. Came to Berry for its vibrant community which requires a careful blend of development for 

growth and retention of the characteristics of a small country town. 

4. The country town feel is secured by village type development, extensive rural land and 

beautiful escapements. 

5. Surprised to see some of the potential uses Council thinks may be appropriate on land 

surrounding Berry. These should be removed. 

6. Very surprised to see a height limit of 11M in SLEP 2009 and think this is completely 

inappropriate. 

a. Also have a flat in Sydney and the 3 story block of flats is not 11M high!!! 

b. If we wanted to live in a densely built environment then frankly we would take our development 

dollars and go back to Sydney. 

c. While we accept that the DCP for Berry will not allow this, the DCP is not as strong legally as 

the SLEP; so why create the problem. 

Think Council (not staff) have wasted a once in 20 year opportunity to lock down planning for 

Shoalhaven. We call on council to action the State Government intent by removing the “wiggle 

room” in SLEP 2009. 

532. Objects to the inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. 

533. Concerned with R1 zones in Currarong and the potential to allow housing estates of medium 

density - the natural bushland and old growth Eucalyptus Botyroids (Bangalay) supports a large 

163


Number 


amount of native birds, marsupials and mammals. 

Believes the R1 portion of land should be zoned E2. 

534. Objects to no environmental value being placed on Edendale St, Woollamia. 

Edendale St is a sanctuary and corridor for native species. 

Consideration should be given to flora and fauna, potential flood hazards and recognise 

Edendale Creek. 

535. Concern with change from 1(c) zoning to R5 and not being properly informed on the true purpose 

of the change impacting on rates and property value. 

536. Supports views of Vincentia Residents and Ratepayers Association. Opposed to the proposed 

increase in the height of buildings. 

Concerned with the impact of the LEP on the Burton St shops at Vincentia . 

537. Opposes an 11 metre height limit for dwellings. 

No R1 zoning anywhere in Currarong 

No R1 or R2 on Kinghorn Rd and Peel Street, rezone it to E2 due to wetlands/flooding 

conservation and biodiversity, high fire, no infrastructure. Believes it to be a nature corridor and 

not suitable for an expansion to Currarong Village. 

538. Supports the rezoning of 35 The Marina, Culburra Beach from 2(a1) to RE1. 





539. Objects to 11 metres height of building plus the increase in heights from DCP 54 for B2 zone in 

Huskisson. Significant height increases in R1 and R3 Land along foreshore B4 is concerning due 

to potential for development. 

Recommendation re HOB across Shoalhaven; 

1. Remove the following words in the Objectives for both Clause 4.3 and Clause 4.4 ‘and desired 

future character of a’ 

2. Remove the “optional” statement from Clause 4.3 ‘11 metres except where’ 

3. Building heights for all zones in Shoalhaven to be clearly and ONLY stated on Maps 

a) Map all zones (HOB and FSR) in Shoalhaven to reflect existing maximum heights and FSR 

whether they are set by site specific DCP or generic DCP or convention / precedence for the 

specific zone or village. 

b) No other heights are to be Mapped for zones until the Council conforms with DoP 

requirements and declares its “strategic centres” and enters into serious Community 

Engagement to establish a plan that brings stability and sustainability for the future of 

Shoalhaven. 

c) Council should not rely on the City Wide DCP to control heights. There is no evidence to 

164


Number 


support the proposal that 3 dimensional envelopes are a viable option. All heights must be 

mapped and in meters. 

4. Recommendation re HOB in Owen Street Huskisson; 

a. Reduce the Max Height in HOB Map for Huskisson CBD, to levels in DCP54. 

Bonus height for Lot Consolidation to be applied as a Storey in the City Wide DCP, NOT in the 

LEP. 

i. Reduce the max building height on the north side of Owen Street to 10 meters. 

ii. Reduce the max building height on the south side of Owen Street to 13 meters. 

b. Reference to the landholdings of the RSL, specifically, the block currently known as the “RSL 

Car Park”. The HOB Map states a maximum height of 13 meters whereas DCP54 limits 

construction height to 10 meters. DCP54 also sets conditions of set backs to preserve the view of 

Currambene Creek from the corner of Owen & Currambene Streets, the iconic signature of 

Huskisson. 

c. Use the City Wide DCP as a means to award an additional Storey for lot consolidation. The 

alternative of increasing the heights in the SLEP2009 will be the subject of a Land and 

Environment court challenge …with a very high likelihood of the court finding in favour of the 

SLEP2009 over the DCP. 


new zones, the land uses inserted by Council, 

a. that were previously prohibited .. OR … 

b. not previously stated as a permitted land use in one of the existing zones. 

are removed from the particular new zone. 

c. Council be instructed to carry out Community Engagement to collaborate with the community 

in determining the most appropriate land uses for each zone. 

2. Remove all land uses in the R3 zone that were previously stated as prohibited or NOT stated 

as permissible. Remove all land uses that are not subservient to a family life style in a medium 

density residential area located in a small rural or coastal environment. 

3. It is not reasonable to use the premise … that a previous “spot zoning” somewhere in 



The 6(c) zoned land off Berry St is incorrectly zoned B4, it should be RE1. Correct the zoning 

error. 

The 1(g) flood prone land at the end of Currambene St should be E2 .. NOT B4 .. as per 

equivalent flood prone land 200 meters to the north as approved by Crown Lands. 

Concerned with residential land bordering eastern side of town along the foreshore is zoned B4 

which may result in high rise medium density along the foreshore which will detract from the 

165


Number 


visual amenity of the area. 

Concerned with the following changes to the R3 & R2 zones: 

R3 now permits hostels, residential flat buildings, shop top housing, sewerage systems, 

registered clubs, veterinary hospitals, water supply systems, boat repair facilities, boat launching 

ramps, boat sheds, jetties, building and business identification signs, tourist and visitor 

accommodation, serviced apartments and bed and breakfasts. Concerned that these are at odds 

with the objectives of the zone and requests removal. 

R2 now permits exhibition homes and villages, home industries, boat repair facilities, boat 

launching ramps, boat sheds, jetties, sewerage systems, emergency services facilities, building 

and business identification. 

540. Strongly supports the proposed zonings of North Bendalong as R2 - Low Density Residential - 

consistent with the proposed R2 zoning for the neighbouring Bendalong, Manyana and 

Cunjurong Point. 

Opposes any proposal to zone North Bendalong R1 - concerned with increased density and an 

11m building height. Requests the retention of 2 storey building heights. 

Strongly supports the zoning of North Bendalong Headland E3 - Environmental Management - 

supports protection and restoration of this pristine and iconic headland. 

Requests Caravan Parks be deleted from the RU2 zone - Inconsistent with other Councils such 

as Kiama, Eurobodalla and Bega and has the potential to destroy important tracks of land such 

as that located on the eastern side of Inyadda Drive and the southern side of Bendalong Rd. 

Recommends Green Island be protection with a E3 zone - beautiful, environmentally sensitive 

piece of Crown Land and deserves protection stronger than proposed E2 zoning. 

Believes Manyana shops should be zoned B1 to allow small scale retail and business premises 

such as Mollymook and Bawley Point shops with the district rather than B2 zoning. 

541. Concerned there is no horticulture so no gardening will exist. 

Waterways fenced means native wildlife have no access 

Land rates higher. 

Working rural to residential no more hobby farming. 

No individual sustainable living, relying on commercial farming only will have bigger impact on 

land. 

542. Concerned that some of the crown land on Thomson Street, Sussex Inlet has been rezoned as 

residential. The township of Sussex Inlet is zoned as 'flood zone' and any increase in the number 

of houses in the catchment area that drains through Sussex Inlet, will increase the frequency and 

severity of future floods. 

543. RU1 and RU2 zones should not include 'air transport facilities' but merely 'airstrip'. 

Airstrips are required for agricultural uses and are usually inoffensive. 

'Air transport facilities' can include a domestic airport with flights each day. 

Agricultural land would be depreciated by an airport which would damage the land and the 

amenity. 

544. Concerned with the proposed change in the height of buildings from 8.5m to 11 m. 

Concerned with the rezoning of the current retail area on Elizabeth Drive, Vincentia. Objects to 

this area being rezoned to residential and believes it should remain retail. 

Believes that a change in zone will mean the retail area may be replaced with residential units up 

166



to 11m. 

545. Matrix is very easy to use. 

Concerned that existing uses at 7 Alaska St, Cunjurong Point (service station, takeaway and 

general store) are not permissible under the proposed zoning of R2. 

What the requirements are for dual occupancies under the new LEP for this location. 

546. Objects to a blanket 11metre height limit; it is out of character with the majority of Shoalhaven. 

Supports the KV Community Association and Berry Alliance recommendations in relation to 

heights. 

Supports KV Community Association and Berry Alliance submission 

Concerned with RU zones: 

- permitting development on flood prone lands and 

- additional land uses permissible that are inappropriate 

Buffer zones are needed between existing rural and residential areas 

The new zoning and the land uses will erode DCP66 which is designed to maintain and protect 

the village nature of Kangaroo Valley. 

547. Objects to zoning of Bomaderry Creek bushland. The bushland is significant and should be 

zoned E2 not SP2 and R1. 

The proposed plans will have a major negative impact on the integrity and viability of the 

bushland as an urban natural resource. 

548. Concerned with proposed zoning of land between Currarong Rd and Kinghorne Rd, Currarong. 

If land is zoned residential it should be the same as the majority of land in the village. 

Disagrees with any proposal to raise the present limit on building heights. 

549. Concerned with sensitive habitat corridor and significant vegetation mapped on 1252 Naval 

College Rd, Worrowing Heights (Lot 1743 DP 28785) 

The corridor is no longer, considering the development around the block. What is the significant 

vegetation 

Requests that it be removed from the block of land. 

550. Requests an E2 zoning for Bomaderry Creek Bushland. 

551. Objects to Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings. 

Objects to Objective 1(a) “to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale 

of the existing and desired future character of a locality” 

Request that the words “and desired future” in this objective be deleted so the clause would read 

‘to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk, and scale of the existing character 

of a locality’. This will ensure the character of Hyams Beach village will be retained and the 

intention of the South Coast Regional Strategy will be honoured. 

Objects to Clause 4.3 (2) “The height of a building on any land is not to exceed 11 metres except 

where the maximum height is shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.” 

167


Number 


This should be replaced with a clause such as “the height of building on any land is not to exceed 

the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Building Map.” 

Request Hyams Beach Mapped so that all zones in the village are set at 8.5m except for the 

foreshore land, which should be set at 7.5m. 

Objects to an R1 zone in Hyams Beach. 

The R1 zoning opens up future potential to build hotels, motels, apartments, etc. The properties 

in Cyrus Street that are zoned R1 should changed to R2. The R2 zone would be more 

appropriate in Hyams Beach and a rezoning change would be consistent with other 2(c) 

rezonings that have occurred in the SLEP2009. 

R2 - Low Density Residential 

Objects to detached dual occupancy. Previously detached dual occupancy was not permissible 

in Hyams Beach and this inclusion has the potential to change the existing character of the 

village. Delete detached dual-occupancy from the R2 zone. 

R3 – Medium Density Residential 

Delete exhibition homes and villages, residential flat buildings, shop top housing, tourist and 

visitor accommodation and dual occupancy in this zone. These forms of accommodation were 

not permitted previously and do not fit with the residential nature of this zone in Hyams Beach or 

any other village in Shoalhaven. 

RE1 Public Recreation 

Delete caravan parks, childcare centres, entertainment facilities, function centres, helipads, 

aquaculture and restaurants in the RE1 zone throughout the City. The inclusion of these land 

uses does not comply with the objectives for the zone. 

E2 Environmental Conservation 

Delete B & B, Dwelling houses, Home businesses and industries from this zone. This zone is the 

most significant conservation zone outside of the E1 zone and should have controls that protect 

the uniqueness of the area. The inclusion of these forms of land use is incompatible with the 

objectives for the zone, the South Coast Regional Strategy and Environmentally Sensitive 

Development principles. 

552. Remove land uses from zones in which they will fail to satisfy objectives. 

Change wording under prohibited from “Any other development not specified in item 2 or 3” to 

“Any other development not in keeping with objectives” (or of similar intent to this phrase) and 

under Permitted with Consent in all zones where it is included, remove “Any development not 

specified in items 2 or 4.” 

- Rezone Marlin site, Ulladulla from B3 to SP3 as per DCP56 amendment 5 intent for the site to 

be predominantly for tourists. (ref. Clause 2.1.3 Marlin Hotel Tourist Accommodation Sub 

Precinct). 

- Rezone Bannisters Resort, Mitchell Parade Mollymook from B4 to SP3. Previous zoning was 

3(g) which converts to either B4 Mixed Use or SP3Tourist. SP3 is the appropriate zone. 

Bannisters is obviously a tourist facility. B4 allows for much denser and more varied use, 

incompatible with the surrounding scenic, low density residential neighbourhood which needs to 

be protected 

- In B3 add shop top housing to permitted with consent (this being in an objective warrants 

specific listing) 

- In B4 remove Tourist and visitor accommodation from Prohibited list. Seems surprising that 

tourist and visitor accommodation is prohibited in B4 Mixed Use. The land around Ulladulla 

Harbour is zoned Mixed Use under DCP56 amendment 5 and certainly proposed developments 

168


Number 


there are looking at having tourist and visitor accommodation. A close check of permitted uses 

reveals that 4 of the 5 uses listed under the group term Tourist and Visitor Accommodation are 

listed as permitted. The exception is Farm stay accommodation so it would seem more helpful 

and clearer to list this as prohibited rather than Tourist and Visitor accommodation as prohibited. 

- Remove Caravan parks from RU2 Rural Landscape. 

Caravan parks are permitted in a total of 5 land zones, only one of which is (partially) mandated 

by the SI. Use is totally out of keeping with the objectives of the zone and are not permitted in 

RU2 under the SI. Adjoining coastal Council of Kiama has not included this use under RU2. It 

should be withdrawn pending completion of the review of SEPP 21 (State Environmental 

Planning Policy – Caravan Parks) and SEPP 36 (State Environmental Planning Policy- 

Manufactured Homes Estates) by the NSW government. 

Allow agriculture in zone R5 Large Lot Residential or Transfer 1(c) to RU4 Primary Production 

Small Lots or E4 Environmental Living. 

Include RU4 Primary Production Small Lots zone. 

Include E4 Environmental Living zone - will provide greater flexibility for council whilst making a 

better environmental protection statement for lands assesses as E2/E3 

Include Zone RU6 Transitional. 

What happens if existing use is no longer permitted under the new zoning Can an owner sell 

land with existing use or does this use lapse with sale of land This has implications for property 

values. 

Restrict permitted uses in E2 to Environmental protection and Environmental facilities. 

Permitted development in E2 is far too broad to fit into the objectives for this zone which focuses 

strongly on protection and restoration of our fragile and highly significant environmental features. 

The SI allowed only Environmental protection in the permitted list; all others were added by 

Council. Uses such as “dwelling house” are not consistent with the objective of maintaining 

national-park equivalent values and not consistent with SCRS and ESD principles. Existing 

dwelling houses are permitted but new ones should not be (new dwellings are not permitted by 

Bega, Eurobodalla and Kiama LEPs in E2 zones.) By limiting use in the highly sensitive E2 zone 

the natural beauty which is a magnet for tourists will be retained and we will be acting 

responsibly towards future generations. 

Areas where a broader range of uses is required (whilst maintaining environmental protection) 

may be more appropriately zoned E3 Environmental Management. 

Restrict permitted uses in E3 Environmental Management zone. 

Uses should be restricted to Home occupations, Dwelling houses, Environmental Protection 

works and Home industries, together with Environmental facilities, Dual occupancies (attached), 

Visitor Information Centre and Roads in addition to the Standard permitted uses. 

The wide range of additional uses proposed will impact on these two environmental protection 

zones and undermine the intent of the South Coast Sensitive Urban Lands Review and the South 

Coast Regional Strategy. 

Concern with mapping of coastal risk areas and associated clauses 5.5 and 7.11. I fully support 

objectives 1(a) and (b) in clause 5.5I submit that there should be an explanatory statement on 

the Natural Resource Sensitivity – Land Map and in the associated clause that this mapping is 

subject to review/confirmation. 

Objects to the Height of building provisions 

169


Number 


Clause 4.3 should not be optional. 

Clause 4.3 should be amended to read: 

Height of buildings 

1. the objectives of this clause are as follows 

(a) to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and 

desired future character of a location (as decided upon in a community engagement process) 

Remaining text for 4.3 (1) be as printed 

2 Map a maximum height of 8.5 for Environment protection zone E2 

3. Formalise the intention to map low density residential and rural village areas, restricting height 

to 8.5metres and to detail the existing site specific building heights that are set in existing DCPs 

and incorporate these site specific DCP height limits in LEP 2009 "height of buildings' maps and 

include them in the plan as part of its finalisation. 

Aims of Plan 

Instead of (a) to encourage economic.... It should be (f) 'to protect social well being and 

community through the implementation of appropriate economic and environmental management 

strategies. Be (a) and current (a) could become (c). 

Floor space Ratio 

FSR is set in DCP 56 the ones in LEP are from Amendment 4 of the DCP not Amendment 5 and 

need to be updated. 

All additional R3, B4, B3 and SP3 zones as well as areas subject to DCPs which include FSR 

should be mapped. 

Zoning of infrastructure 

Do not support the D&PI stand on giving infrastructure same zone as adjoining properties this 

could see loss of infrastructure. Need to address each site carefully prior to rezoning to adjacent 

zone. 

There should be a brief re-exhibition period of 4 weeks. 

553. Hyams Beach concerns 

Objects to: 

1. HOB - wording of Clause 4.3 Objective 1(a) – “desired future character of a locality”. The 

wording "existing character" should be included in the wording. 

2. HOB - Clause 4.3 Objective (2) – Objects to an 11 m HOB and requests that HOB be mapped 

at 8.5 and 7.5 for Hyams beach. 

Inappropriate zoning of the cabins at Whalers Cottage locale. Object to R1 zone, request zoning 

of R2. 

Inappropriate land use in zones. 

170


Number 


- R2 - Dual Occupancy 

- R3 - exhibition homes and villages, residential flat buildings, shop top housing, tourist and 

visitor accommodation 

- RE1 - caravan parks, agriculture, childcare centres, entertainment facilities, function centres, 

helipads and restaurants 

Subdivision into small lots. - Objects to 350m2 min lot size for Hyams Beach. 

554. Objects to: 

11 metre height limit for Hyams Beach and in particular Lister Crt 

Height limits in this village should remain unchanged and that should be confirmed on a Height of 


555. Strongly objects to 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. Such facilities have no place in the 

rural environment as they would impact on amenity and create noise and visual pollution. 

556. Supports full retail zoning including sale of food for the South Nowra industrial area. 

- landholders would like to recoup losses from the South Coast Correctional Centre 

- Manufacturing capabilities are being decimated. 

557. Private land in the Lake catchment outside the existing developed area of Culburra Beach-Orient 

Point should be zoned E2 Environment Conservation including the Long Bow Point area south of 

Culburra Rd, areas north of Culburra Rd as well as areas west and south east of the Lake. 

High Conservation value parts of the lower Crookhaven River catchment should be protected 

through E2 Environment Conservation zoning, with “limited” residential zoning, such as an E4 

Environmental Living zone located in cleared and disturbed areas only. 

The northern shore of Lake Wollumboola should be zoned E2 zoning including SEPP 14 Wetland 

No 365 as well as the foreshore reserve and Lot 1 East Crescent, to protect the Lake shore, the 

EEC and Threatened species habitat. 

E2 zoning should apply to the south east part of the Lake Wollumboola catchment and the 

Kinghorn Point area. 

The existing character of Culburra Beach and Orient Point and the surrounding areas should be 

maintained by setting building height limits in the SLEP equivalent to what currently exists. These 

height limits should apply to all zones in the Culburra Beach and Orient Point urban areas as well 

as the surrounding Lake Wollumboola, Crookhaven catchment and Kinghorn Point areas. 

558. Edendale Street – North side – Lot 14 DP 1045217 - this area of Sclerophyll forest is zoned for 

development – it contains important habitat for Yellow Bellied Gliders – currently listed as 

Vulnerable in NSW. The site is also occasional habitat for Glossy Black Cockatoos. This area 

should be zoned as E2 and clearing not permitted. 

Tongue of land Zoned RU2 at the northeast end of Sunnyside Avenue - land is environmentally 

sensitive and is important tidal wetland of Currambene Creek and Jervis Bay. It should be zoned 

E2. 

Tidal Tributary of Currambene Creek at Edendale Street - this should be included on the Natural 

Resources Sensitivity Water map as a tidal stream and protected from development by retaining 

an appropriate buffer zone of 40 metres of natural vegetation. 

Heritage Estates - unsuitable for development and should be zoned E2 Environmental 

Conservation. 

Supports R2 zoning for Cunjurong Point, Manyana and Bendalong. 

171



Supports Nth Bendalong Village being zoned R2. 

Supports Nth Bendalong Headland being zoned E3. 

Change Berringer Village to zone R2 and not RU5 

Delete caravan parks from rural land zoned RU2. 

Alter Berringer Lake to zone W1 and part W2. 

Retain 2 storey building heights throughout the District, especially Kylor land. 

Change Crown Land zoning at corner of Inyadda Drive and Bendalong Rd to E2. 

Change Crown Land zoning for Green Island to E2. 

Include Goodsell grave site (Kylor land) on heritage listing and heritage overlay map for 

Manyana. 

Change Manyana shops form B2 to B1 zoning. 

559. Objects to 40 hectare minimum lot size in greater Tomerong area up to village boundary, within 

2km radius the minimum lot size should be 2 hectares (efficient land use). 

There should be no further residential development within 5 kilometres from the seashore 

because of rising sea levels and beach erosion. The foreshore should be left for sensitive tourist 

day trip development, with residential development located 10km from seashore. 

560. Likes being given the opportunity to have opinions heard. 

Concerns: Building Heights being raised from 8.5 metres to 11 metres in our area. Most of the 

dwellings are single story and 11 metre buildings would destroy the ambience which attracted us 

to purchase in this environmentally sensitive area. If some of the older dwellings were 

redeveloped to 11 metres we could lose our sunlight. 

Also concerned that proposed traffic changes would re-route traffic down Sydney Road and 

along Currambene Street in Huskisson which would then become a major thoroughfare with 

increased traffic noise. 

561. Requests height of buildings in Vincentia remain unchanged with foreshore land being 6 to 

7.5metre and all other land 8.5metres. 

Requests that the B4 zoning for Burton Street Shops at Vincentia be changed to B1. 

562. Concerned with: 

Changing village boundaries 

Disrupt native wildlife 

Height codes 

R1-E2 Zone 

563. Requests that the reference to 11m in clause 4.3(2) be removed and that height of building maps 



564. Opposes 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. Considers it to be totally inconsistent with 

agricultural use and leaves the door open for any farm in the Shoalhaven with an approved DA to 

establish a commercial airport. 

565. Objects to the rezoning of rural land at Taylors Lane, Cambewarra to residential (Moss Vale 

Road South URA). Believes that we shouldn't be planning for future demand, let future 

generations decide for themselves. Concerned that it will destroy the amenity of the area. 

566. Supports the detailed submission of the Lake Wollumboola Protection Association and ask that 

Council further extend E2 zones of the areas in SLEP 2009 so that the forests, sand hills, wildlife 

172


Number 


and water supply that are essential parts of the lake’s system are kept in their undeveloped 

state. 

Concerned with the protection of Lake Wollumboola and its catchment as a unique ecosystem. 

To maintain the lake and its diverse natural features and species and its beauty, the whole of the 

catchment must be protected. 

While we support the proposed E2 zoning (in lieu of E1 zoning which seems unachievable) on 

Longbow Point i, this E2 zone must be extended to include the whole of the catchment as 

recommended in the South Coast Regional Strategy. Several government reviews have 

recommended complete protection of the area. 

Development in the region should occur in existing urban areas with their established services. 

567. Issues with HOB unclear and challengeable. 

Requests HOB maps for all residential and business zones and that Council formalises its 

intention to map low density and rural village to 8.5metres. 

Requests a zone 50-60 metres from bank of Millard Creek to protect the riparian corridor. 

568. Object to zoning of Bomaderry Creek Bushland as R1 and SP2, need to change to E2 to protect 

this environmental and recreational bushland. 

569. Objects to Schedule 8 Fair Trading Option of LEP 1985 not being incorporated into SLEP 2009. 

Lots 9 & 33 DP 794398 Garrads Lane, Milton are currently listed in this schedule in SLEP 1985 

but no allowance has been made for them in SLEP 2009. 

Would like to discuss enabling the 'fair trading' provisions to remain or to incorporate similar 

provisions in SLEP 2009 

Requests that Council not include Clause 4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot size in the LEP or any set 

lot size such as the current 40ha minimum and instead use a merit based system to determine 

subdivision sizes. 

Objects to the non inclusion of lot averaging clause, which allows for flexibility in subdivisions, 

while still protecting sensitive lands. 

570. Supports the proposed R5 zoning at 50 Mortimer Rd, Falls Creek. 

571. There is an anomaly in the heritage map in relation to property A15 Princes Highway, Berry. This 

cottage is part of Pulman conservation area which is not reflected in the mapping 

The description of the property on the heritage schedule also needs to be changed to 'Constable 

Cottage' not Wynderie. 

572. Objects to the 11m maximum height of buildings as it is not in keeping with desired character, not 

done in consultation with the community. 

Concerned that the increase in Height on Owen Street is not in line with DCP54 - need to keep 

DCP54 heights 

Concerned with the loss of recreational land along Berry Street Huskisson which has been zoned 

B4 not RE1. 

573. Would like subdivision in keeping with current lot averaging. 

574. Support the proposed zoning in the South Nowra area and the inclusion of bulky goods and 

ancillary retail. 

Oppose moves by CBD parties to restrict bulky and ancillary retail in South Nowra. 

173



575. Likes: 

- that Council has left the area unchanged under draft LEP - current LEP works and allows 

different diverse villages within community. 

- that no facilities or current entitlements will be removed. 

576. Objects to RU5 zoning for Berringer, should be R2, all surrounding towns are R2 which we 

support. 

R2 for villages with a 2 storey height limit. 

Caravan Parks need to be removed from RU2 

Object to B2 zoning of commercial area in Manyana. B1 would ensure small scale development 

more suited to village. 

Support North Bendalong as E3, but feel Green Island and Crown Land east of Inyadda Drive 

and South of the Bendalong Road should also be E3 for biodiversity and scenic values. 

577. 1. Supports R2 zoning for Cunjurong Point, Manyana and Bendalong and the height limit of 8.5m 

proposed for the R2 zone. 

2. Requests that Berringer Village be zoned R2 and not RU5. 

3. Supports Nth Bendalong Village being zoned R2. 

4. Requests deletion of Caravan Parks as a use from the RU2 zone 

5. Requests 2 storey building heights throughout the District, especially Kylor land. 

6. Requests that Berringer Lake be zoned W1. 

7. Strongly supports Nth Bendalong headland being zoned E3. 

8. Requests that Crown Land at corner of Inyadda Drive and Bendalong Rd be zoned E2. 

9. Requests that Crown Land - Green Island be zoned E2. 

10. Requests that the Goodsell grave site located on Kylor land be added to the heritage listing 

and overlay map for Manyana. 

11. Requests that Manyana shops be changed from B2 to B1. 

578. Concerned with the possible restriction of retail sales in industrial zones. 

Bulky goods and ancillary retailing are currently allowed in industrial areas. 

Requests as a minimum the retention of the present zonings proposed. 

Should be allowing more enterprise type development in industrial areas. 

Supports the submission made by the Vincentia Ratepayers and Residents Association. 

579. Supports the Vincentia Ratepayers association in regard to rezoning the village shops and the 

need for community consultation prior to rezoning. 

Concerned with increased building height of 11m and request this be reduced to 7.5m. 

Concerned with proposed added land use in general residential zone such as 'boat repair 

facilities, registered clubs, and other items as stated in the plan. 

Requests that a comprehensive town plan be prepared for Vincentia in keeping with its village 

character. 

580. Objects to any proposed change of zoning at Culburra Beach that would prevent the 


581. Thanks the Council for the opportunity to make a submission and the work staff has done in 

producing and disseminating the SLEP. 

Concerned that it is not an administrative transfer and believe that it is disingenuous of Council to 

continue to purport this notion. 

Believes that Aim (2) (a) is not appropriate and should be addressed in other planning 

instruments and that placing this aim at the top of the list of aims reveals the real intentions and 

174



mind set of Council. 

Concerned that there has been no indication of how Council will deal with submissions, believes 

that there needs to be a transparent framework which is understood by the community. 

Concerned that 'caravan parks' are permitted in the RU2 zone. 'Caravan parks' in rural 

landscapes is highly dangerous as it can result in defacto manufactured home estates. 

Supports the decision to zone North Bendalong headland as E3. 

Requests that Manyana shops be B1 not B2. 

Requests the removal of the second part of the added objective in the RU1 zone “for economic 

extraction of hard rock, mineral sand or gravel resources" as this exacerbates the possible use of 

prime crop and pasture land for coal seam gas extraction for example. 

Request that air transport facilities, boat repair facilities, crematoria, entertainment facilities, food 

and drink premises, offensive industries, places of public worship, recreation facilities (indoor, 

outdoor and major), water recreation structures, Tourist and visitor accommodation but insert 

B&B, Farm stays, Backpackers be removed as permitted with consent from the RU1 zone. 

Requests that air transport facilities, boat repair facilities, caravan parks, entertainment facilities, 

food and drink premises, freight transport facilities, funeral homes, group homes, markets, 

offensive industries, places of worship, recreational areas (indoor, outdoor, major) water 

recreation structures, Tourist and visitor accommodation but insert B&B, Backpackers, Farm 

stays be removed from the RU2 zone 

Delete added objective in the RU3, ”to encourage recreational use of forest resources where 

such use is compatible with timber production” as it is not a primary aim for forestry. 

Concerned that Council hasn't used the RU4 zone and concerned that the R5 zone has been 

used for Rural 1(c) land. 

Delete Caravan parks, tourist and visitor accommodation and insert instead Hotel and Motel 

accommodation, B&B, Backpackers from the RU5 zone. 

Believes that Shoalhaven’s greatest assets are its natural ones and that these should be 

protected. 

582. Very opposed to the inclusion of 'air transport facilities' and demands that Council removes them 

from the LEP. 

583. Property address / area and map reference: 1178 Comerong Island, Road Numbaa 

Thanks Council for the considerable efforts in ensuring community engagement, participation 

and input into the Draft SLEP 2009 and for the meticulous attention to the principles of “best-fit 

transfer” of SLEP 1985 to the Draft SLEP 2009. 

Concerned with the wording of clause 2 of Schedule 1 Additional permitted use. The exact 

wording of enabling clause 39 as promulgated in January 1987: 

“Boat building and repairs, the excavation of boat mooring facilities and the erection of buildings 

ancillary thereto, Lot 2 DP 1077521, Comerong Island Road, Numbaa (formerly Lot 21 DP 

659549 and prior to that part Lot 21 DP 2813)” 

Must be used rather than the proposed wording of: 

“development for the purposes of boat repair facilities and moorings” 

The wording of these two clauses (the existing and the proposed) is significantly different and 

removes significant existing rights as currently contained in clause 39 from the subject land. 

Please contact prior to the finalisation of clause 2 of Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Use of Draft 

175



SLEP 2009. 

584. Request 1(c) Bundwellah Rd be RU2 to retain the 10ha minimum 

The adjoining land Lot 6 DP1093641 would be reclassified from rural to residential (Rural Zone 

1(c) to Large Lot Residential (R5), despite the fact that it is currently listed as Agricultural Land 

Class 3. The minimum lot size for subdivisions would change from 10 Ha to 1 Ha. 

585. What I like We like the proposed bypass roads that will relieve traffic congestion in central 

Nowra. 

Strongly disagree with the proposal to re-zone land from R1 General Residential to R3 Medium 

Density Residential along Berry Street, Nowra. 

We bought our house in this street because it features attractive classic country houses and 

gardens. They are a relatively small number of the properties in the precinct that represent the 

earliest period in Nowra’s history. The loss of these properties to ‘Progress’ would strip away 

more of the soul that this city desperately needs. 

For the reasons given above we do not believe that Council’s 

objective, to ‘…maintain or enhance the residential amenity of the street’, can be met if the 

proposed rezoning of Berry Street to R3 Medium Density Residential is permitted. 

The areas proposed in the LEP for rezoning within central Nowra appear to have been selected 

randomly – we could not find the rationale for the ‘on-ground’ selection stated anywhere in the 

document. For instance, as discussed above we consider the rezoning along Berry Street to be 

short-sighted, and particularly the illogical nomination of the isolated ‘finger’ of rezoning that 

extends between Douglas and Jervis Streets. 

Surprised that the LEP does not refer to Nowra and nearby coastal towns having the real 

potential to be linked by a network of cycle routes that would be a great attraction in the growing 

active tourism market, thereby boosting the local economy. These cycle paths would also serve 

as beneficial health and transport facilities for residents. 

586. All residential in Currarong be zoned R2 Low density residential the proposed changes not in line 

with Clause 1.2(d) 

587. Objects to rezoning of land around Berringer Lake. 

Concerned as the Real Estate Agent - a business owner in Ulladulla exchanged on a large parcel 

of land just before this change of zoning was announced. 

Would like an answer why Berringer Lake has been rezoned. 

588. Questions reasoning for Objectives, Land uses and 'best fit transfer' in regards to R3 zone. 

Concludes: 

The permitted uses, in combination with the draft elevation of height limit to 3 to 4 storeys , i.e. 

default max height 11m, would in effect turn draft R3 medium density residential - into higher 

density tourism and visitor facilities, but with some light industrial elements, i.e. boat sheds and 

boat repair. 

Believes is not an administrative transfer, but a re-zoning to more intensive, higher impact uses, 

and therefore conflicts with the intent of the ‘best fit’ transfer process. 

Many of the draft permitted uses within draft R3 zones are inappropriate to the objectives of the 

draft zone. They not in accordance with existing uses. 

176


Number 


The following draft permitted uses should be deleted from draft R3 zones: 

¨ hotels and motels 

¨ hostels and residential flats 

¨ shop top housing 

¨ registered clubs 

¨ veterinary hospitals 

¨ boat repair facilities and boat sheds 

¨ home based childcare 

Insufficient criteria are currently available on which to assess the ‘conflict with the residential 

environment’. 

Objects to draft B4 Mixed Use draft zone used for bushland area bounded by Currambene St 

(Powerline) - Berry Street - Burrill Street and Moona Street Huskisson. This area should receive 

an E2 and/or RE1 zoning. 

Reasoning: This area was included in a separate study during 2010 -2011, DCP 99 but Council 

indicated during the course of that study that they thought it was more suitable for environmental 

zoning, i.e. unsuited to development (bushfire and flood prone). This stance now appears to have 

been reversed in the exhibited draft SLEP 2009, which shows draft Mixed Use B4 with 13m 

height limit. 

The area in Huskisson bounded by Currambene - Keppel - Berry Streets - and the Moona Moona 

Ck bushland, draft zoned R3 Medium Density, should be height mapped to 8.5m or two storeys, 

in conformity with the surrounding R2 residential lots. 

All adjacent Councils (Eurobodalla, Kiama, Shellharbour, Wollongong) on the south coast have 

height mapped their areas. Why has Council so far avoided height mapping 

Concern with HOB map for Huskisson as per DCP 54 being mapped at maximum height of 13m 

and 16m on Owen Street to include bonus storey awarded for consolidation of lots. Believes 

HOB map should show 10m and 13m so it doesn’t give impression that additional storey is 

automatic to any development. 

Building Heights set on existing Development Control Plans have been arbitrarily changed 

without community consultation: 

Remove the statement ’..11 metres except where..’ from Clause 4.3 of the draft SLEP 2009. 

Substitute ‘..in conformity with existing and generic DCP, or height maps prepared in conformity 

with these..’ 

All lots in the city should be height mapped in conformity with existing site specific DCP (eg DCP 

54 and DCP 56), and generic DCPs (eg DCP 71, DCP 91). 

Requests removal of land uses from the RU2 zone that aren't subservient to rural activities and 

primary production where the potential for food protection and rural employment is a reality. 

Requests the removal of 'air transport facilities' and 'hazardous industries' from the draft RU2 

177


Number 


zones. 

Concerned that a weekend tourist airport facility near Huskisson would be detrimental to the 

amenity of the Jervis Bay. 

Concerned that land uses previously prohibited are permitted in RU2 - these uses include: group 

homes, offensive industries, hazardous industries, extractive industries, boat repair facilities, boat 

launching ramps, boat sheds, jetties, marinas, moorings, air transport facilities, tourist & visitor 

accommodation including caravan parks, entertainment facilities, markets, food and drink 

premises. 

Concerned that the recent inappropriate clearing and surface works (Council issued a stop work 

order) on an old informal landing strip west of Huskisson could be permitted and would create a 

nuisance that would be to the ultimate detriment of the coastal village community and the many 

visitors. 

589. Concerned with the impact of the Western Bypass on North Nowra. Will result in significant 

noise, pollution and traffic impacts. 

590. Oyster business located at 19/170 Greens Rd, Greenwell Point. 

Concerned with change of zoning from environmental protection to working waterfront. 

Reason: Concerned that contaminants such as anti foul and fibre glass dust in the water of the 

shallow and fragile canal where water for depuration and other farming activities is very 

concerning. This will greatly impact ability to comply with and adhere to the standards relating to 

pollution as set buy the food authority as a result this will render my business unviable. 

591. Praises use of maps and website. Submission has a number of objections and support. 

Concerns with - Administrative change as legislated by the State LEP Instrument and ‘best fit’ 

direction - additional permitted land uses and the addition of some zones and limited 

environmental zones. 

Supports Shoalhaven LEP Review Group’s recommendations: 

The LEP should be returned to Council with instructions that a proper Community Engagement 

be carried out to enable community input and aspirations to structure the ultimate document. 

Alternatively, the LEP be changed in line with controls in existing DCP’s and /or in line with the 

detail included in the following submissions or as the majority of submissions provided by the 

Shoalhaven community would request. 

Fishermans Paradise Estuary Lake Conjola 

The Estuary in Fishermans Paradise is zoned W2. The permitted uses for this zone would leave 

this important breeding and habitat necessary for a healthy lake wide open to further destruction. 

The silt and sludge from farm, chemical run off from village and surrounding dairy farms, animal 

faecal matter, storm water and septic seepages has already made this part of the lake black and 

disgusting. It needs restoration and protection, not further destruction with the W2 land uses 

permitted. 

Rezone to W1 and surrounding land to E2. Stormwater needs addressing, curbing and guttering 

and water catchment drains that make use of modern technology and knowledge. 

178


Number 


Run off into the lake and zones that deal with this growing problem. It is already contributing to 

the death of a previously healthy, sustainable lake system. 

Green Island is zoned inappropriately, recommend E2 or National Parks . 

Lake Conjola Waterway 

Concerned that the W2 zone is potentially destructive and damaging for the lake that sustains 

the tourist industry in this region. Boat refilling, repairs etc can be done in Ulladulla. These 

business would take away the character and beauty and hence the attraction of the lake. I 

support submission by Lake Conjola Lake Care Community Consultative Body. Should be W1, 

not W2. 

Village zone to RU5 is not in the spirit of best fit. 

To protect to appeal and unique character of village zones will be compromised by the 

permission of saw mills, depots, junk yards, water recreation structures and smash repairs, etc. 

Prohibited uses: 

Rural tourist facilities, surf life saving facilities, drive in take away food shops, brothels, abattoirs, 

animal establishments including large chicken shed farms, saw mills, junk yards, water 

recreation structures, offensive and hazardous industries, water system structures, sewage 

systems, drive in banks, stock and sale yards, liquid fuel depots, mines, offensive and hazardous 

industries, recreation vehicle areas, restricted premises 

Permit with consent 

Farm stay with clauses, retail shops with restrictions, cabins and small scale tourist operations, 

creative industry pursuits with clauses, development that is ecologically sound, not charter boats, 

marina’s, etc 

RU5 concerns 

RU5 has land use proposals that could potentially destroy the character and the ecological and 

environmental values that make rural villages attractive and sustainable places to live and work. 

As a home based worker, the bird life, native animals, healthy air and peaceful space is 

necessary for existence. I am not alone. In Fishermans Paradise, there are people who have 

chosen to live here and need to live in an environment like a small village for psychological and 

physical health reasons as well as an environment that is conducive to home based work, such 

as writing, Art, Music, backyard chickens, growing vegetables and plants. 

Recommend 

The proposed permitted land uses are not in keeping with these objectives and would impact on 

the sustainable natural resource attraction of the bird life in particular. Helipads, Water 

Recreation Structures, junk yards, saw mills, transport depots, Major tourism developments 

including charter boat structures, timber and building supplies, sewer systems, businesses 

Identification signs, residential flats and smash repair shops would destroy the value of the 

village and these should be repealed or village rezoned with residential and business zones. 

E2 zones 

Additions to these zones are incongruent with the objectives of environmental protection. While 

the environment protection zones are all we have, it is not enough for protection as the SI has set 

179


Number 


out. 

To save time and money for those who put in DAs as permitted with consent, then court actions 

to stop it as it compromises the objectives of environmental protection zones. 

Environment and biodiversity are our most sustainable and necessary natural resources in the 

Shoalhaven and E2 zones should be protecting these. 

All additions to land use table be removed. 

E3 zones 

E3 zone may be the best fit for foreshore protection; however, additions to land use in E3 are not 

appropriate for Environmental Management. The term transition is of great concern, and E3 in 

transition to anything goes. 

Coastal Protection zones 

Lake and estuary, salt marsh, wetlands, natural flood plains, mangroves should all be zoned as 

E2. 

All foreshores including coast and lake should be protected under E2 and E3 with clauses. 

Coastal and foreshore zones be submitted to government as a need in our shire and all shires. 

Alternatively, the Zone required for no disturbance have its own zone clause to prevent further 

destruction as has happened at Burrill Lake, with mown areas called recreation being permitted, 

which is illegal and not based in modern knowledge. 

E4 zones should be used throughout the City. 

RU1, RU2 and RU3 should have clauses to allow with provisions, for rural holiday cabins and 

farm stay accommodation as per the Farm and Nature Tourism project. (Byron Bay LEP) 

Fishermans Paradise and Lake Conjola 

Lot 119779 is zoned inappropriately – the RU2 should be E2 as it is a vital wildlife habitat area 

and right next door to residential living. With RU2 permitting hazardous and offensive industries, 

mining and all sorts of other inappropriate land use permitted where people are living next door. 

For example a smelly chicken farm or a quarry would render the adjoining housing hazardous to 

health for human, bird and wildlife. 

Concerned about the zones for all lots that are near and adjoining this residential village as the 

land uses permitted in the proposed zones compromise the objectives of a small rural village 

where the value of the village is the absence of billboards, destructive, extractive, noisy and 

offensive industries in an area of high ecological significance. 

Requests that the trees and native veg that lines Fishermans Paradise Road and the adjoining 

Alma Ave, which have ecologically important purposes for the bird life in this village be zoned as 

E2. 

Appreciates Council may have all the additional land uses permitted for the sake of ease for 

development and planning, however, would argue that it is too hard for communities to keep 

abreast of the DA’s that will eventually come through. 

The character of the village zones and rural landscape that adjoin these mostly residential areas, 

the lakes, remnants of native vegetation that provide the habitat for many species of birds, 

reptiles and mammals as well as aquatic life is what makes this a nice place to live and work and 

180


Number 


holiday. 

These natural and sustainable resources must be protected in law and preserved for our future in 

tourism, eco native veg tourism, bird watching and gourmet food production to name a few. The 

creative industries are also low impact on the environment and would do well in this area for 

years to come. 

No provisions in the zones for climate change and sea level rises and zones according to 

predictions in changes in rainfall either. Future needs to move away from shorelines and lake 

edges are already problems in some parts and it appears the SI has not planned for these new 

issues. 

The SI is inadequate and the omission of a specific coastal zone to provide for the management 

of infrastructure both private and public as well as biodiversity is gravely lacking. 

I would recommend to LEP be linked in law with the DCP to include the biodiversity conservation 

strategies, with special lots zoned as E2 and HCV and the balance RU2. 

RU1, RU2 and RU3 could have a clause to allow, with provisions, rural holiday cabins and farm 

stay accommodation as per the farm and nature tourism project. 

Wildlife corridors connecting native Veg remnants should be justified by a Biodiversity 

Conservation Strategy and in E3. 

An LES should be linked to the LEP to justify the zonings contained in the draft. 

592. Would like the current zoning to remain, doesn't see any reason for this change, it is a total waste 

of time and money. 

Concerned with increase of rates if made urban. 

Loss for people wanting to subdivide their land. 

593. Requests removal of 'air transport facilities' from RU1. 

594. 1. Land behind Kinghorn Rd, Currarong is swamp and flood prone. 

2. Peel St land also swamp and very high fire risk. 

3. No benefit at all to our village - the visual aspect driving in should be park land. 

4. Currarong Rd will never handle the traffic it is bad enough now when the tourists come in at 

Christmas and Easter. 

595. Concerned with the minimum lot size of 40ha for their property as the current LEP allows 

subdivision to 10ha (lot averaging). Would like these provisions carried over into the draft LEP. 

596. Supports the rezoning of their land at 179 Worrigee Road, Nowra to enable subdivision for 1ha 

blocks. 

597. Objects to airport at Jaspers Brush and the air traffic over Berry 

598. The Rustic Caravan Park - 990 Bendalong Road, Berringer Lake 

We are concerned with over development. We permit pets - any change to neighbouring Crown 

land could affect our business. 

181



We support the RU2 zoning for our property. 

599. Supports the rezoning of Lot 1033 DP 11893 (35 The Marina, Culburra Beach) from 2(a1) to 

RE1. 





600. Lot 11 DP 1149684, Settlers Way, Mollymook 

Concerned that: 

1) an area with natural waterways is being considered to be changed into a residential zone (or 

worse in future) 

2) an area which is currently zoned as a conservation area is being considered to be zoned to be 

developed. Is council going to allow all the beautiful natural feature of the Settlers Way Nature 

Reserve to be bulldozed down. How selfish to the bush and the residents who's houses would 

otherwise be facing this lovely reserve. 

3) Is NOT this area a significant wildlife corridor and conservation area It should be kept as 

such. Does every available piece of land have to be developed for financial profit There are 

blocks across the street from this reserve yet to be purchased. Do we need more 

4) Didn't move to this lovely natural estate to live alongside two proposed development areas 

(the other being Lot 621 DP 804355, Mollymook) where the natural environment we moved to be 

near is going to be removed. 

This area should remain zoned E2 ! 

601. Objects to Clause 4.3 Objective 1(a) - 'future character of a locality' should be existing character 

instead. 

Objects to the 11metre limit, should be 8.5m especially for Hyams Beach. 

602. Concerned with restricting retaining in industrial zones, as it will restrict use of my industrial 

holding and artificially enhance the value of land holdings located in CBD. 

603. Believes that the development of South Nowra complements the CBD and strengthens its 

position as a regional shopping centre. 

Shouldn't restrict bulky goods retailing in industrial areas. 

604. Strongly object to the change to 11 metres maximum height from the present maximum of 2 

storeys above ground level without consent of Council. 

The 11 metre standard would allow inappropriate development in towns and villages. 

It could also cause friction between neighbours in established communities due to 

overshadowing, loss of privacy, rendering solar installations ineffective and other unforeseen 

effects. 

182


Number 


Requests that the reference to 11 metres in clause 4.3(2) be removed and insist that the Height 

of Buildings Maps be prepared for all areas and that these maps should reflect the DCPs that 

apply and if no DCPs exist the maps should reflect the existing form and scale of buildings in the 

area. 

605. In conformity with the precautionary principle, requests that as much of the private undeveloped 

land as possible, around Lake Wollumboola and Crookhaven River and their catchments, should 

be zoned “E2 Environmental Conservation”. 

Requests that the two E3 areas around the Lake (one SE centred around Kinghorn Point and the 

other at the proposed golf course site at Long Bow Point) be rezoned as E2 – as well as Lot 1 

East Crescent, SEPP 14 Wetland No 365 and the foreshore reserve on the northern shore. 

Concerned with the R1 zone in this location – about the density of development and the degree 

of clearing of the extant native bushland permitted under the R1 zoning. 

606. Requests in relation to the Huskisson Beach Moona Moona Creek Reserve and in accordance 

with the Plan of Management adopted by Council in 2004 that: 

a) change reservation of the Crown reserves containing the Endangered " Sydney coastal 

estuary swamp forest complex" to "environmental protection " 

b) apply to formally close unmade section of Fegen Street (Burrill St) and include in proposed 

reserve for environmental protection. 

c) consider rezoning the wetlands area 7(a) (Environment Protection "A" (Ecology) zone ) in the 

future review of the Shoalhaven LEP 1985. 

607. Supports the rezoning of Lot 1033 DP 11893 (35 The Marina, Culburra Beach) from 2(a1) to 

RE1. 





608. Supports inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. Shoalhaven marketed as a 

tourism hotspot but is lacking in recreational facilities. The inclusion of 'air transport facilities' will 

provide more opportunities for recreational aviation and flight training and more tourist dollars. 

609. Supports the R2 zoning for Manyana, Cunjurung Point and Bendalong. 

North Bendalong does not need 4 story height therefore I support an R2 zoning otherwise the 

special character of the area would be spoilt. 

Supports the zoning E3 for North Bendalong Headland . 

Supports a change to Berringer Village to R2 zoning to keep low density feeling. 

Objects to caravan parks on land zoned RU2. 

A two story building limit for the whole area should be the limit. This will keep help to keep the 

character of the area. 

For greater environmental protection a W1 zoning for Lake Berringer should be included. 

Green island should stay free of any building therefore a zoning of E3 Is warranted. 

183



Manyana shops should be zoned B1 

610. Supports inclusion of 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 zone. Shoalhaven marketed as a tourism 

hotspot but is lacking in recreational facilities. The inclusion of 'air transport facilities' will provide 

more opportunities for recreational aviation and flight training and more tourist dollars. 

611. Strongly objects to the proposed RU1 zoning and requests the removal of 'air transport facilities' 

from the RU1 zoning to limit aircraft noise and to protect our creeks and rivers from sulfate soils. 

612. Objection to RU2 is no airport for Huskisson. 

613. Requests that Berringer Lake be zoned to R2 in common with surrounding villages and remove 

all reference to RU5 zoning. 

614. Requests the removal of 'air transport facilities' from the RU1 zone. 

615. Council's "best fit" transfer of the LEP 1985 to the draft SLEP 2009 is in breach to the rules 

approved by Council in 2006. Change from 1(c) to R5 breaches the rule that no agricultural land 

would be rezoned as residential. 

Max height of 11m is inappropriate for Kangaroo Valley and would override DCP66. 

Concerned with reduction of environmental zones. 

Council chose not to consult with the local community before preparing draft LEP. 

616. Strongly objects to SLEP 2009 and the way it was produced without full public consultation with 

the communities in the areas affected by the changes. We know some other councils such as 

Kiama Council did so. 

Object to the short period of time for public submissions in response to the plan. For something 

of such major importance we feel the process needs to begin again with wide consultation for the 

best outcome for everyone concerned. 

617. Likes: 

The availability to subdivide into two hectare lots. 

To live in a small rural area without the tight restrictions currently observed. 

The relaxation of environmental impact studies regarding house and buildings. 

The ability to have a few cattle, horses, chickens, etc. 

The reduction of tree removal for fire buffer zones for dwellings, sheds, etc. 

618. Concerned with the possible restriction of retail sales in industrial zones. 

619. Objects to replacement of 1(c) Rural Lifestyle with R5 Large Lot residential. Would prefer the 

inclusion of RU4 Primary Production zone in SLEP 2009 to replace 1C zone. 

620. Residents do not know what Council is trying to achieve because the finer details are in the nonexistent 

DCPs. 

Tourist Accommodation should be included in the R5 zone. 

Definitions are very restrictive and unimaginative - no consideration for new forms of tourism 

suitable for R5 zone. 

No detail on energy requirements for residents. 

Sensitive Area - Habitat Corridor on property is incorrect - Photos provided. 

Watercourse (Cat 2) is incorrect - watercourse does not exist and others only run during flooding 

rains. 

Map shows dam on property but doesn't show dams on neighbours properties. 

Council has made a sloppy attempt to create watercourses from a crude contour map. 

Council is going to try and severely restrict activities in areas of biodiversity and water courses. 

Concerned at the minimum lot sizes of 1ha on one side of Illaroo Rd and 10ha on other side and 

draft LEP maps min 1ha lot sizes. 

621. Objects to the proposed rezoning of 2(a1) land to R3 at Illaroo Rd North Nowra due to: 

184


Number 


- traffic 

- lack of facilities/services 

- existing shopping facilities not able to expand 

- not a best fit 

622. Strongly supports the R2 zoning for Manyana, Cunjurong Point and Bendalong and also support 

limiting the height of buildings to 8.5m. 

Strongly supports North Bendalong being zoned R2. 

Strongly supports the E3 zoning for the North Bendalong headland. 

Requests all of Berringer Lake be zoned W1 to protect it from inappropriate development. 

Strongly opposes the RU5 Village zoning for Berringer Village and recommend this be changed 

to R2. This village is far too small for this inappropriate zoning. 

I request that “caravan parks” be deleted as a permissible use from RU2 land. Neighbouring 

councils do not allow caravan parks in this zoning. 

Would like the 2 storey building height of 8.5m retained for the whole district, especially for Kylor 

land. 

Would like to change the zoning of the land at the corner of Inyadda Dr and Bendalong Rd to E2, 

to preserve the habitat corridor. 

Would like the Goodsell graves on the Kylor land preserved by placement on Council’s heritage 

list and included in the heritage overlay map. 

Would like to change the zoning of Green Island to E2 to further protect its environment. 

Requests that the Manyana shops be zoned B1 to keep future development appropriate to the 

surrounding area. 

623. Objects to the proposed zoning dealing with Bomaderry Creek bushland i.e. R1 and SP2. 

Request that Council considers the zonings to be to E2 in order to protect the environmental 

values of the bush land and avoid unacceptable impact on the amenity to the adjacent residents. 

The area adjacent to Lake Wollumboola should remain non-residential and non-developed to 

preserve the bushland ecosystem and the waters of Lake Wollumboola. 

The area on the Northern side where the proposed development is sited should be zoned nonresidential 

to protect Koori lands and Curley Bay. 

I object to a Golf course and residential development. The objections are both environmentally 

and sociologically based. 

624. Land behind Kinghorn Rd (Currarong) is low lying wet and swamp land and flood prone. 

Land at Peel St swamp land and very high fire risk. 

Cannot see any befits to Currarong only more empty houses. 

Currarong Rd cannot handle traffic at the moment. 

625. Objects to the R5 zoning (246 Pointer Rd Yatte Yattah). 

Operates a bee farm - development around them may not like bees. 

Buffer around the Piggery is 655 GHD advised should be 955 and therefore the R5 could not be 

developed NSW Ag advised should be 1.5km. 

185


Number 


Other comments not LEP related regarded vegetation, habitat corridors/road conditions. 

Requesting the R5 be changed to RU2. 

626. Likes the RU4 zone, roadside stalls, hobby farms, agriculture and orchards in the Sussex Inlet 

area and diversity of use. 

Concerned with the R5 zone as it is too restrictive on usage, excludes interest for tourism and 

spreads residential too far. 

627. 67 Hosking Ct, Sussex Inlet 

Questions the need to change the zoning of the land. 

Land only purchased in 2001 we are concerned and object to the rezoning as it will impose 

further conditions to those already existing and they in turn will diminish existing rights and uses 

of land. 

We have created our family home on this land we did not expect that it would be rezoned after all 

the studies carried out prior to the subdivision 

Concerned with the accurate mapping of land ie habitat corridor, flood free area. 

Lot 1 DP 554118 The Springs Road, Swanhaven - concerned with zoning, 7(d1)/E3 is 

appropriate for this land, rezoning will prevent tourism in a unique environment. 

Why the need and ulterior motive for changing the zoning 

628. Liked Council's community meetings on the zonings and the golf course. 

Concerned with any reduction in zoning protection around Lake Wollumboola which is such a 

precious haven and sensitive body of water for the birdlife which flocks to it. 

Believes E2 zoning on the west side of Lake Wollumboola should be retained to ensure a golf 

course does not leave destruction long into the future - any recreational use on this area should 

not involve the removal of large areas of trees and ground works which could contaminate the 

lake. 

Concerned that there is no buffer zone near Currarong Rd on the lake's edge where allotments 

are proposed to go to the water's edge. 

Concerned that housing bordering National Parks will pose a problem when trail bike riders 

cannot be kept from destroying natural bushland. 

629. Land Use Table Amendments 

Recommendation 

E2 Environment Conservation : “Environment Protection works” and “Environmental Facilities” 

are the only uses which should be permitted. 


E3 Environmental Management : “Dwelling Houses,” “Environmental Protection Works,” 

“Environmental Facilities” and “Home industries” should be the only permitted uses. 

186


Number 



E4 Environmental Living: This zone should be included in the SLEP to allow for low impact 

residential development. 

Rural Zone RU2: Delete ‘caravan parks’ as a permissible use. Determine impact of revised 

SEPP 21 and 36 to determine where best to locate this potential use. 


Water Zone W1: Delete ‘sewerage treatment plants’. 

Height of Buildings (Clause 4.3) & Floor Space ratio (Clause 4.4) 

Map all zones (HOB and FSR) in the Shoalhaven LGA to reflect existing maximum heights 

whether they are set by Development Control Plan (DCP) or by convention/precedence. This will 

enable Council to succinctly declare its “strategic centres” and plans for the future of the City; 

and 

Remove the “optional” height from Clause 4.3. 

Amend the Current Biodiversity Clause (7.5) 

The current clause should be removed and replaced with the following text : 






preserving open passage for wildlife along habitat and riparian corridors. 





Resources Sensitivity- Water Map, and situated within 50 m of the bank (measured horizontally 

from the top of the bank of a natural water body on land identified above in 2(b). 








187


Number 




















Amend the Tree Preservation Clause (5.9) 

That the same coverage to land use zones as the existing Tree Preservation Order is maintained 

in the SLEP, including consideration of the following options; 





clause 5.9.9, together with inclusion of the RU2 Rural Landscape zone. 

Option c} would mean that trees and other native vegetation would be preserved on land zoned 

RU2, R5, E2, E3 and E4. All these except for RU2 are included in clause 5.9.9 in the revised 

version. 

Site-Specific Recommendations 

One Tree Bay, St Georges Basin 


Badgee Lagoon 

188


Number 



Cudmirrah Berrara 


Swanhaven 


Cudmirrah Dunes 


630. Concerned about proposed re-zonings for housing development of Culburra West and a golf 

course. 

I strongly object to re-zoning of areas surrounding Culburra Beach, Lake Wollumboola and Orient 

Point and present recommendations below: 

Private land in the Lake catchment outside the existing developed area of Culburra Beach-Orient 

Point should be zoned “E 2 Environment Conservation” including the Long Bow Point area south 

of Culburra Rd, areas north of Culburra Rd as well as areas west and south east of the Lake. 

Uses in the E 2 zoned areas should be limited to ‘Environmental Protection Works’ and 

‘Environmental Facilities. 

E2 zoning for Long Bow Point should be extended to all undeveloped parts of the Lake 

catchment in private ownership. 

High Conservation value parts of the lower Crookhaven River catchment should be protected 

through E2 Environment Conservation zoning, with “limited” residential zoning, such as an E4 

Environmental Living zone located in cleared and disturbed areas only. 

The northern shore of Lake Wollumboola should be zoned E2 including SEPP 14 Wetland No 

365 as well as the foreshore reserve and Lot 1 East Crescent, to protect the Lake shore, the 

Endangered Ecological Communities and Threatened species habitat. 

E2 zoning should apply to the south east part of the Lake Wollumboola catchment and the 

Kinghorn Point area. 

The existing character of Culburra Beach and Orient Point and the surrounding areas should be 

maintained by setting building height limits in the SLEP equivalent to what currently exists. These 

height limits should apply to all zones in the Culburra Beach and Orient Point urban areas as well 

as the surrounding Lake Wollumboola, Crookhaven catchment and Kinghorn Point areas. 

631. Concerns with restricting retail uses in Industrial zones and impact on Nowra's growth. 

Need for consultation with business owners in industrial zones. 

632. E2 - “Environment Protection works” and “Environmental Facilities” are the only uses which 

should be permitted. 

Other proposed uses (e.g. dwelling houses/sewerage systems/bed and breakfast 

accommodation, etc) are not consistent with the objective of maintaining national park-equivalent 

values and not consistent with the South Coast Regional Strategy (SCRS) and ecologically 

189


Number 


sustainable development (ESD). While existing dwelling houses are permitted, the E2 zones in 

Bega, Eurobodalla and Kiama LEPs do not permit new dwellings. 

E3 - “Dwelling Houses,” “Environmental Protection Works,” “Environmental Facilities” and “Home 

industries” should be the only permitted uses. 

Council has added many uses likely to adversely impact on High Conservation Value (HCV) 

areas. Such uses are not consistent with the SCRS and ESD principles. Therefore additional 

uses should be limited to “Visitor information centre,” “Home-based child care”, ”roads,” and 

“Home based business.” Other “Tourist and Visitor accommodation” definition uses are not 

consistent with the stated zone objective. 

E4 Environmental Living: This zone should be included in the SLEP to allow for low impact 

residential development. 

RU2 : Delete ‘caravan parks’ as a permissible use. Determine impact of revised SEPP 21 and 

36 to determine where best to locate this potential use. 

W1 : Delete ‘sewerage treatment plants’. 

The zone has been specified where the general intent is to protect ecological and scenic values 

and where low impact uses do not have an adverse effect on the natural value of waterways. 

The inclusion of Sewerage Treatment Plants in this zone is at odds with the zone objectives. 

They are of high impact and have the potential to damage waterways should accidental spills or 

breakdowns occur. Water zones W1 and W2 also appear to include multiple uses inconsistent 

with “conserve and maintain” objectives. Other uses with adverse environmental impacts should 

be reviewed. 

Height of Buildings (Clause 4.3) & Floor Space ratio (Clause 4.4) 

Map all zones (HOB and FSR) in the Shoalhaven LGA to reflect existing maximum heights 

whether they are set by Development Control Plan (DCP) or by convention/precedence. This will 

enable Council to succinctly declare its “strategic centres” and plans for the future of the City; 

and 

Remove the “optional” height from Clause 4.3. 

Amend the Current Biodiversity Clause (7.5) 

The current clause (7.5) should be removed and replaced with the following text : 






preserving open passage for wildlife along habitat and riparian corridors. 


190


Number 





Resources Sensitivity- Water Map, and 

situated within 50 m of the bank (measured horizontally from the top of the bank of a natural 

water body on land identified above in 2(b). 


























The purpose of biodiversity clauses (7.5) is to provide the basis for assessing development 

applications in areas covered by the Natural Resource Sensitivity Biodiversity NRB Overlay Map, 

191


Number 


including corridors and significant vegetation, as distinct from areas in the E zones. It is not the 

intention to impact on development submissions that would not breach the Native Vegetation Act 

(NVA), but is intended to protect on an ongoing basis the integrity of remnant vegetation and 

areas being revegetated as part of corridors programs. Typically the latter is supported with 

public monies and the outcomes of these programs must not be negated by adverse 

developments. Revegetated areas would be classed as protected vegetation by the NVA and 

should be reflected as such in the Shoalhaven LEP for ease of development assessment. 

The problem:- 

Clause 7.5.4 assumes that consent would be granted. Subsections a-c deal with avoiding 

adverse impacts and where can’t avoid, minimise, and where can’t minimise, best minimise! As 

indicated previously this section does not provide any qualitative or quantitative indicators to 

assess as the basis for making judgements regarding the capacity of an application to “maintain 

biodiversity.” Moreover, there is no requirement for consideration of alternatives and 

amelioration. 

However from our enquiries we have established that different South Coast Councils have 

adapted the clauses and improved on them. 

The legislative requirement:- The South Coast Regional Conservation Plan's (SCRCP) objective 

is to guide South Coast councils in achieving biodiversity outcomes through instruments such as 

LEP's (ref. 1.2 page 1). The principles to apply to biodiversity (2.3 page 4 of the Plan) are to 

improve or maintain by avoiding losses to biodiversity, where unachievable to mitigate against 

adverse impacts, and as a last resort to compensate for unavoidable losses by applying offsets 

in priority locations identified in the SCRCP. Reference 50m in 2 c) above is to SCRCP section 

6.4 riparian corridors page 39. 

Clause 3 a) 2. is to apply to locally as well as regionally significant species of flora and fauna and 

habitat and habitat elements providing connectivity consistent with the Department of 

Environment and Climate Change “Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines, Assessment of 

Significance” under section 5 (a) of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979. These 

guidelines involve assessment of local significance, as opposed to regional significance because 

of the longterm cumulative loss of biodiversity at all levels arising mainly from the accumulation 

of losses and depletions of populations at a local level. 

Amend the Tree Preservation Clause (5.9) 

That the same coverage to land use zones as the existing Shoalhaven City Council Tree 

Preservation Order is maintained in the SLEP, including consideration of the following options; 





clause 5.9.9 included in the Standard Instrument issued on 13th July 2011, together with 

inclusion of the RU2 Rural Landscape zone. 

Option c} would mean that trees and other native vegetation would be preserved on land zoned 

192


Number 


RU2, R5, E2, E3 and E4. All these except for RU2 are included in clause 5.9.9 in the revised 

version. 

Concerned with the RU1 and RU2 zones, particularly the combining of zones. Consider the 

changes go beyond a 'best fit transfer'. 

Request that: 

1. That the second part of proposed additional objective for RU1 ie “for economic extraction of 

hard rock, mineral sand or gravel resources” be removed as it is not an administrative change 

from the previous LEP and is not consistent with Department of Planning recommended 

objectives. 

2. Remove Offensive industries from list of Permitted with consent uses as totally inconsistent 

with its explicit status as Prohibited in the prior LEP. 

3. Remove from the RU1 zone: 

Air Transport Facilities 

Crematoria 

Entertainment Facilities (in conjunction with tourist accommodation) 

Food and drink premises 

Group Homes 

Recreation Facilities (major) proposed Permitted with Consent uses which are not consistent 

with Zoning Objectives and are additional to the uses proposed in the DoP template. Should a 

full commercial airport be planned for the Shoalhaven we think it most appropriate that Ministerial 

approval be required to over-ride the LEP in this instance. 


Offensive Industries 

Extractive Industries 

Hazardous Industries … (Note 1(d) prohibits all Industries other than rural) 

which were Prohibited under the previous LEP and are additional to the DoP template. 


Air Transport Facilities 

Crematoria 

Entertainment Facilities (in conjunction with tourist accommodation) 

Food and drink premises 

193


Number 


Funeral homes 

Freight Transport Facilities 

Group Homes 

Marinas 

which are not consistent with Zoning Objectives and DoP template. Should a full commercial 

airport be planned for the Shoalhaven we think it most appropriate that Ministerial approval be 

required to over-ride the LEP in this instance 

Supports the National Trust of Australia's nomination of Berry Township Urban Conservation 



listing. 

One Tree Bay, St Georges Basin 


Draft SLEP zoning : E2 on St Georges Basin shore, RU2 for remainder of the site. 

The site known as One Tree Bay is located in the isolated south west catchment of St. Georges 

Basin. Rezoning this site as E2 Environment Conservation is consistent with its high 

conservation values, which are equivalent to the adjoining Conjola National Park west of the site. 

The current Rural zoning is not consistent with these national park-equivalent values. While the 

proposed RU2 zone may represent a best fit to the existing zoning, it is not consistent with the 

inherent site values. 

The site is mainly undisturbed coastal forest of high conservation value with vegetation 

communities including Blackbutt Turpentine Tall Forest, Blackbutt Scribbly Gum Forest, Scribbly 

Gum Casuarina Forest/Woodland and Scribbly Gum Bloodwood Woodland. St. Georges Basin is 

a wetland of National Importance and in this part is poorly flushed. 

The area is identified in the South Coast Regional Conservation Plan as a regionally significant 

habitat corridor. A Part 3A development application for a new town of 5,000 people is under 

consideration. Any development of this site is of major concern, due to impacts on site, habitat 

corridor and water quality values, whether or not it proceeds under the current zoning and 

associated lot sizes or under the proposed zonings for the Part 3A application. 

Badgee Lagoon 


Draft SLEP zoning : E2/RU2 

Badgee Lagoon and its SEPP 14 wetlands are considered to form a highly sensitive 

environment. The proposed E2 zoning abutting the shoreline of Badgee Lagoon is supported, 

and is consistent with the recommendations of the South Coast Sensitive Urban lands Review 

and the South Coast Regional Strategy. 

194


Number 


Consideration should also be given to further extending the proposed E2 zoning into the 

surrounding RU2 zone to the north west of Badgee Lagoon based on the findings of the Local 

Environment Study endorsed by Council on 16th August 2011, which indicated that much of the 

land north west of Badgee Lagoon was suitable for conservation purposes. 

Cudmirrah Berrara 


Draft SLEP zoning : E2 for land parcel and W1 and W2 for Swan Lake 

Rationale 

This site is part of the catchment of Swan Lake, identified in the South Coast Regional Strategy 

as a Significant and Vulnerable coastal lake. The catchment supports threatened salt marsh 

plants, SEPP 14 wetlands and Endangered Ecological communities as well as threatened 

species including the Green and Golden Bell Frog. Much of the catchment is included in the 

Conjola National Park. 

The recommendations of the South Coast Sensitive Urban Lands Review adopted in the South 

Coast Regional Strategy indicate that the majority of the Cudmirrah Berrara site is unsuitable for 

development because of the potential adverse impacts on the ecology of Swan Lake from urban 

run-off and the existence of Endangered Ecological Communities. It should rezoned as E2 

Environment Conservation in the draft SLEP. 

The SLEP recommendation for E2 zoning is therefore supported. 

The draft SLEP recommendation regarding zoning of parts of Swan Lake as W2 needs to be 

modified to W1 in the estuarine channel from the Springs Rd Bridge to the ocean entrance as 

this part of Swan Lake is only suitable for passive recreational use such as canoes and kayaks. 

The residual area of W2 zoning is also of concern because the range of permitted development 

uses and activities (such as marinas, sewerage systems, boat repair facilities, aquaculture and 

restaurants) would pollute the Lake, degrade the ecology and lead to a reduction in species, 

including threatened species. 

Swanhaven 


Draft SLEP zoning : E3 

The E3 zoning on the Crown Land parcel immediately north of the present Swanhaven Village 

boundary should be amended to E2 in order to reflect its importance as a buffer between the 

village and Conjola National Park, its proximity to the shore of Swan Lake and its susceptibility to 

erosion. This zoning would be consistent with a Crown Lands assessment of the site carried out 

in 2004. 

Cudmirrah Dunes 


Draft SLEP zoning : RE1 ‘Public Recreation’ 

195


Number 


Land to the east of Swan Lake between its shoreline and Cudmirrah Beach, including important 

sand-dunes featuring the highest dunes on the south coast, is currently proposed to be zoned 

RE1 ‘Public Recreation’. This is unsuitable given the area includes important Endangered 

Ecological Communities such as Bangalay Sand Forest, and Coastal Saltmarsh associated with 

a wetland, and is contiguous with large areas of high conservation value Conjola National Park. 

The Cudmirrah Dunes area should ideally incorporated within Conjola National Park (i.e. E1 

zoning), or at the least should be rezoned E2 ‘Environmental Conservation’. 

633. Concerned about the amount of E2 and E1 areas declared. Not good for development and 

residential at Culburra Beach. Shoalhaven needs more housing and especially at Culburra 

Beach. 

634. Rezone R1 to E2. Concerned with more empty houses in Currarong. Peel Street is high fire risk 

635. Currarong 

Objects to 11m height in B1 zone at Currarong - not in character. 

Objects to the R1 zone at Kinghorne & Peel St 11 metres not in character should be E2 

Proposed RU2 - this area should be E2 due to high conservation and biodiversity value. 

636. Objects to R5 zoning 

Would like Council to include RU4 in the LEP allowing land owners to continue grazing stock on 

small blocks. 

637. Believes the current planning policy is outdated and unfair to rural landowners. Would like to see 

reasonable subdivision to provide income. Concerned that a managers cottage is not even 

permitted. Believes a rezoning is long overdue. 

638. Requests that the land south of Kinghorne Road, Currarong be rezoned from R1 to E2 to leave it 

in its natural state for residents, visitors and wildlife to enjoy. 

639. Likes the environmental and heritage listings provisions. 

Likes the height and floor space ratio for Ulladulla CBD (although notes some of height limits in 

Princes Hwy & Wason Street higher than agreed to in most recently adopted DCP56) 

Concerned with the R2 residential zoning - should be 8.5 metres no higher. 

640. Height of Buildings - considers existing heights should be maintained, does not like the 'one size 

fits all' B4 13 metres. These would disrupt views and change the character of the area. 

Proposed changes in R2 and R3 residential zones are not in accord with existing uses. 

RE1 zones allows commercial operations such as caravan parks, child care centres and function 

centres is in conflict with the objectives. 

E2 zone allowing bed and breakfasts and dwelling houses is inappropriate. 

E3 allow dual occupancy helipads and group homes in inappropriate 

The increased land uses in RU1 And RU2 to allow for airport facilities would be detrimental to 

amenity of Jervis Bay. 

Need comprehensive town plan developed for Huskisson 

641. Like R2 zoning for Cunjurong Point, Manyana and Bendalong 

Like R2 for North Bendalong not R1 as this would allow for 11m 

Support North Bendalong headland being zoned E3 

Like the height limit of 8.5 in village zones 

Oppose the RU5 for Berringer - insufficient infrastructure and effect on environment. 

Remove 'Caravan parks' from RU2 land 

Should retain 2 storey building heights in the entire district 

All Berringer Lake should be zoned W1 to provide greater environmental protection. 

196



Want E2 zoning on Crown land eastern side of Inyadda Drive and Southern side of Bendalong 

Rd from RU2 - for biodiversity and scenic values. 

Change Green Island from E3 to E2 to give greater environmental controls. 

Change Manyana shops from B2 to B2 to make development compatible with surrounding area. 

642. Concerned with the 'scare mongering' being done by the Berry Airport Action Group and the 

inaccuracies in their flier on the Jasper Brush airfield and in the Berry Town Crier in September. 

The publications claim that that Jaspers Brush will become another Albion Park or Bankstown 

which is not feasible for a number of reasons. 

643. Supports the R5 zoning for Lot 4 DP 1129204 1020 Illaroo Rd West Cambewarra 

644. Lot 1 DP860791, 92 Albatross Road, South Nowra. 

It is presently zoned Open Space 6(c), it is designated in the draft LEP as SP2 - Emergency 

Services which is not exactly appropriate for the proposed mixed use. 

645. Concerns with 'best fit approach' process. Believes it was an unacceptable process that denied 

the community input as it was developed. 

Concerns with SLEP overiding DCP 66 Kangaroo Valley 

1. The proposed new 11 metre height limit raising the existing 2 storey limit in the existing LEP. 

2. R5 replacing 1(c) suggests RU4 would have been a more appropriate transfer. 

3. Fitting current 10 Environmental Zones into 3 - lessened protection 

4. expanded Land Use Tables in zones causing huge community concern, for example 2(e) 

allowing helipads; RU1 enables development on flood prone land; RU1 (primary agricultural) 

allows “offensive industries”, air transport facilities (much broader than a mere air strip for crop 

spraying) 

5. Inclusion of numerous one-off and unexplained changes to zoning, enabling proposed 

developments that have been on the table for some time to slip quietly through. Although 

described as “Minor rezoning matters and anomalies” at least one in Kangaroo Valley village 

replicates a proposed zone change that was bitterly opposed by the community when proposed 

for the Colys development. Such a zone change should have been brought before the 

community in an open way, not slipped into a complex document. 

6. Requests draft not proceed in its current form; and a substantial review/ rewrite of it to take 

account of the manifest issues raised here and by others. 

7. supports issues raised in submissions from KV Community Association 

646. Objects to the rezoning of the two 6(c) areas of land adjacent to Berry St, Huskisson (Lot 7037 

DP 1094569) - believes it should be rezoned RE1 which is the equivalent zone in line with the 

"Administrative Changeover". Was advised at a community meeting last year that were no plans 

to rezone these two areas - when questioned about the change on the map during the 

presentation, it was indicated that it was an oversight. 

It is unfair and rude to remove public recreation land and include it in a mixed development zone 

which will only benefit developers. 

Objects to 1(g) land at the end of Currambene St has been put into zone B4 - mixed 

development. This is inconsistent with 1(g) land to the north in Sydney St is recommended to be 

zoned E2. 

This land is unsuitable to be zoned B4 because: 

- it is flood prone 

197


Number 


- it is also in a high risk bushfire area 

- it is adjacent to the areas that are environmentally sensitive area 

- if the 1(g) land to the north in Sydney St is recommended to be rezoned E2 then why should 

this 1(g) land be rezoned B4-mixed development 

Concerned with height of buildings - Cl 4.3(a) of the draft SLEP 2009 objectives - who is going to 

decide what the desired future character of a locality should be - this statement in a) above 

could open the way for unwanted changes to the character of some Shoalhaven's unique coastal 

villages without due regard for community views on the character of a locality. 

Concerned that part of Huskisson's unique character and charm are the older style 1950's single 

storey dwellings, many of which have been restored/renovated in keeping with the overall 

character and charm of the village - wishes not to see this area destroyed by someone's idea of 

the future character of Huskisson meaning masses of multi storey buildings. 

647. Objects to the 11m rule for blocks in coastal villages such as Hyams Beach. I understand that 

Hyams Beach does not have a height of building map and if all blocks are subjected to the 11m It 

would destroy the character of the village. I think it should be left as it is and set at 8.5m other 

than for land on the foreshore 6-7.5m which is the councils intention for R2 and must be Included 

in the final draft of the SLEP for areas such as these. 

Objects to dual occupancy in areas such as Hyams Beach and other coastal villages in the 

Shoalhaven where over development means more stress on environmentally sensitive areas 

Especially Jervis Bay if it to remain the pristine location it is and world renown. 

648. Concerned that Council is proposing to allow 'air transport facilities' in the RU1 & RU2 zones. 

This will lead to intensified use of both airfields in Shoalhaven with enormous impacts. 

Any 'air transport facilities' in rural zoned should subject to a rezoning process. 

Requests that 'air transport facilities' be removed from the RU1 & RU2 zones and replaced with 

'airstrips' with restrictions on use. 

649. Likes: the surrounding land of Berringer is environmentally protected. 

Concerned that Berringer Lake being changed from residential to RU5. Why has Berringer been 

singled out Does council have an agenda with this I believe Berringer should be zoned R2 as 

the other villages in the area are. 

The waterways of Berringer Lake should all be W1. Berringer Lake is a pristine lake and should 

remain that way. If industries permitted under W2 were to occur, the lake would suffer. 

There is no infrastructure to support the types of facilities permitted in RU5 and W2. There is no 

kerb and guttering, storm water does not get away and sewer is by grinder pump. 

Height of 11 metres for buildings throughout Shoalhaven, I believe to be too high. A limit of 8 

metres would be more like it. 

650. Concern with RU1 - allowing Air Transport Facilities as a permissible use. Issues with best fit as 

air traffic facilities are prohibited in 1(g). 

Believes air transport facilities are catered for in Shoalhaven i.e. Albatross. 

Would allow expansion and intensification of the (currently illegal) use of the airstrip at Jaspers 

198


Number 


Brush. 

Request further extensive period for public consultation after Council has received submissions. 

651. Supports a 8.5m height limit for Currarong 

652. Requests that R1 zoned areas have a height restriction of 8.5m and two storeys. 

R1 zoned land at Currarong should be zoned RE1 or if it remains residential, should be R2 with a 

8.5m height limit and a maximum of one or two storeys. 

653. Enjoys using own property to produce and sell adding to my income meet cost of living. This 

property is for farming not lifestyle. 

Concerned that the change of zoning can not be a good change for working farm as it could 

cause property value to decrease and income to stop - concerned that they will have to move. 

654. Concerned with the NRS - Biodiversity map showing 'significant' vegetation' over 114 Myola 

Road, Myola as approximately 50% of the property has been cleared and replaced with cut 

flower production, roads, house, sheds, shade houses, fencing and bush fire protection zones 

and a further 35% has had the understorey vegetation removed. Has provided photographs of 

property to support objection. 

655. Objects to proposed subdivisions SF10230, SF9821 and west of Bangalee Rd (SLEP 2009). 

Concerned with inadequate and rundown infrastructure and services which are insufficient for the 

current population size of the North Nowra, Illaroo Rd, Cambewarra and Tapitallee precincts. 

656. Wishes to pay tribute to the helpful website and staff members. 

“Airstrips” replace “Air Transport Facilities” in the “permitted with consent” in RU1 and RU2 

zones, there being a significant difference in the level of activity and its effect on surrounding 

properties between the two. The designation “Air transport facilities” should not be used in the 

SLEP 2009. 

The items in red, added by Council, be removed from both E2 and E3 in order to respect the 

stated objectives of these two important zones E4 Environmental Living be used as the zoning 

for rural lifestyle and rural living in corridors in heritage conservation areas. 

Green belts around rural and coastal villages 

R5 areas between Agars Lane and Beach Road and on the subdivision known as Campbells 

Run be rezoned from R5 to E4 Environmental living 

South Coast Regional Conservation Plan Identification of a Corridor in the Berry Area - E2, E3 or 

E4 zonings should be applied to land in the corridor area. 

More use be made of the E3 and E4 zonings in the area designated as the Berry Corridor and in 

the area Designated as the Berry Heritage Landscape. 

Landscape altering varieties such as Leylandia should be banned in ecologically sensitive and 

scenic protection zones 

There should be provision for promoting environmental and biodiversity values through 

recommending that local varieties be planted. 

657. Concerned with a proposed road closure at 47 Marine Parade, Callala Bay. 

658. Requests removal of 'air transport facilities' from the RU1 zoning. 

Limit aircraft noise and protect our creeks from contamination. 

199



Stop this intrusion in a tourist area. 

659. Wings of Life with raises funds and awareness for the Royal Flying Doctors Service and to 

inspire youth in aviation. 

Strongly recommends that 'air transport facilities' be included in the RU1 zone. 

Airfields like Jaspers Bruch are fundamental in contributing to our future aviators and providing 

recreational facilities. 

660. Objects to Clause 7.3 Short term accommodation which allows for short term rentals of private 

dwellings without consent as he believes since it was originally introduced in 2006 it has had a 

detrimental effect on accommodation providing tourist facilities that have had to get development 

consent. 

Requests that Council corrects this flaw in the plan or alternatively allow genuine short-term 

accommodation providers to provide permanent accommodation. Submits that Clause 7.4 

should be amended as follows: 

a) incorporate all tourism facilities that were approved prior to June 2006 regardless of their 

current zoning on the Local Clauses 7.4 map; 

b) Delete the words 'and zoned SP3 or B4 Mixed Use…' in Clause 7.4(2) or completely reword; 

c) Add a subclause to subclause 2(c) to state "Providing the facility was approved prior to 16th 

June 2006, then not more than 75% of the units within the facility may be uses for permanent 

residential accommodation". 

Also believes that DCP 63 should be amended to allow for larger cabins to enable operators to 

meet AAA Tourism 4.5 start ratings. 

Concerned that wildlife corridor now covers a larger area of property at 21 Pritchard Ave, 

Woollamia. 

661. Supports the exclusion of lot averaging from SLEP 2009 specifically in the Termeil Area. 

Reasoning - Areas defined in Termeil are close to transport, shops and fuel. No fire hazard and 

land is not prime agricultural land. Would like the opportunity to subdivide as property getting too 

much to manage. 

662. Proposed SP2 Road. Should be located East of existing bridge. Plenty of existing vacant land to 

construct a major by pass to South Nowra. 

663. Objects to the B2 Local Centre zoning for Milton, believes that it is a downgrade from the current 

Business 3(a) and should be B3 Commercial Core. 

664. Objects to Lot 23 DP 755965, 142 Blackbutt Range Road, Tomerong being identified on the 

Biodiversity overlay as 'Habitat Corridor'. The western half of the site is mainly cleared and used 

for farming. The current 'land of ecological sensitivity' hatching over the land means that many 

agricultural uses that would otherwise not require consent need a development application. 

Requests that the 'habitat corridor' be removed from the biodiversity overlay for the site and also 

off the surrounding 1(c3) zoned area. 

665. Requesting min lot size for rural Parcel stage 1A Twynam Land to be 2ha to allow for flexibility. 

666. Gurumbi Creek Nature Reserve, Wrights Beach Bushland Reserve, Eastern side of Erowal Bay 

zone RE1 change to E2 

Heritage Estate RU2 change to E2 

200



Foreshore area between Bream Beach Caravan park and Wrights Beach SP3 change to E2 

Wrights Beach Village RU5 change to R2 

All natural bushland areas should be included in the biodiversity mapping to allow habitat 

corridors and wildlife sanctuaries. 

667. Sinclair Road , Falls Creek 

Requests that their current Rural 1(c) zoned land be zoned RU4. 

668. Suggests that 71 Sunset Strip, Manyana should be zoned the same as the adjoining Waterfront 

Reserve – RE1 Public Recreation instead of R2 Low Density Residential as it is Council land 

that is classified as "Community Land", categorised as "Natural Area”. 

669. Gardner Road, Falls Creek 

Requests their land be RU4 it fits with the lifestyle and requirements that they sought when the 

property was purchased. 

670. Pointer Rd, Yatte Yattah 

The 2 ha parcel should be rezoned from R5 to RU2 or RU4 to allow for the continued commercial 

keeping bees on the site. Concerned that the R5 zone would result in more subdivision and 

more neighbours who may object to bee keeping operations. 

671. 102 Gypsy Point Rd Bangalee 

The current rural zoned portion of the 17.29 ha should be changed from E3 to RU2 consistent 

with the ‘best fit transfer’ from SLEP 1985. The E3 zone removes the possibility of the landowner 

undertaking agriculture on the site in the future should he wish to. 

672. Amend Clause 4.3 “Height of buildings” to include an additional subclause (3) to read: 

(3) Notwithstanding subclause (2) ancillary structures such as silos, ventilation stacks and the 

like required for the efficient operation of industrial activities are permitted up to a maximum 

height of 22 metres. 

50 BTU Road, Nowra Hill 

Include the 37 ha rural zoned site in Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses to allow ‘sawmills and 

log processing works’ and ‘forestry’ to ensure the ongoing use and possible future expansion of 

the existing forestry and sawmill operation. 

‘Sawmill and log processing works’ are permissible in the RU2 zone but not in the SP2 zone. 

Requests that Council defer adoption and gazettal of the environmental constraints layers NRS – 

Biodiversity and NRS – Water that affect a number of their sites. 

They are based on desktop reviews and there is no conclusive methodology, justification or 

explanation of the basis or material used in informing the mapping. 

Requests a meeting to discuss NRS – Biodiversity overlay. 

673. Requests that the maximum height of buildings for the medium density site at Worrigee (Lot 1 DP 

1130415, Isa Road, Worrigee) be 12m and the FSR be 0.75:1. 

674. Terara Road, Terara (Pig Island) 

Request one of the following changes: 

1. Amend Schedule 1 to enable ‘eco-tourist facilities’ (as defined) specifically on this land. This 

removes any unintended implications of eco tourist facilities uses applied to Rural zones in other 

areas of the LGA; or 

2. Amend the provisions of the RU1 Zone to allow eco-tourist facilities as a supplementary land 

use. 

675. The 60 ha subject site that makes up the majority of the proposed Bangalee West URA. Request 

that: 

201



1. The minimum lot size be greater than 500m 2 to be more consistent with adjoining large lot 

residential development (700 – 1000m 2 ). 

2. Additional areas of the subject site outside the currently proposed URA be considered for 

rezoning to R1 based on detailed ecological work they have had completed. 

3. The phasing of the URA be brought forward, together with the provision of waste water 

infrastructure, to enable release of the land to meet demand for land north of the River for at 

least 5 years. 

676. Warrah Rd, Tapitallee 

Request that additional areas of the subject 73.68ha site outside the currently proposed URA be 

considered for rezoning to R1 based on detailed ecological work they have had completed. 

202

Summary of General Submissions - SLEP - NSW Government

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?