REPORT ON CONSULTATION

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 12/03

BLOCK 622 MAJURA
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE TRAINING AREA

APRIL 2012

CONTENTS

1	Introduction
1.1	Purpose and background
1.2	National Capital Plan requirements
1.3	Effect of the Development Control Plan
2	Public consultation
2.1	Development Control Plan process
2.2	Release of the draft Development Control Plan for public comment
Public Information Session
Written Submissions
3	Issues
3.1	Access to Site, Parking, Traffic & Majura Parkway
3.2	Bushfire Management
3.3	Conservation Management Plans
3.4	Aircraft Flight Paths
3.5	Noise generated by the Facility
4	Recommended Changes
5	Conclusion
Appendix A – Summary of submissions

1	
Introduction
1.1	Purpose and background
This report summarises the issues raised during the public consultation process undertaken by the National Capital Authority (NCA) on draft Development Control Plan (DCP) 12/03 for Block 622 Majura.
In September 2011, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) began a review into the master plan for their future training and operations facility at Block 622 Majura.  The review recommended a change in configuration of the facility and as such required a revision to the Development Control Plan (DCP) 171/08/0004, currently in place for the site.
AFP requested that the NCA amend the current DCP to be consistent with the new master plan and set out planning and urban design policies to guide future development on the site.
1.2	National Capital Plan requirements
The National Capital Plan (the Plan) came into effect on 21 January 1990.  The site is National Land located outside the Designated Areas of the Plan.  Part 5.3.1 of the Plan (Special Requirements for Broadacre Areas) requires that:
Development, including subdivision and leasing proposals, of all National Land not included in a Designated Area of this Plan, is to conform to Development Control Plans agreed by the Authority.
Development Control Plans are to reflect the relevant provisions of the Territory Plan, and meet the following requirements:
i.	Adverse environmental impacts from on-site developments, on adjacent land and development, shall be identified and redressed to the extent practicable.
ii.	Adequate provision should be made where appropriate for visitors to sites.
iii.	Functional relationships between uses within and external to the site shall be provided for.
iv.	Consistency in the external design and site layout of buildings and landscaping shall be sought.
v.	Satisfactory arrangements shall be made for parking accommodation and vehicular access and egress.  Traffic impacts of development shall be taken into account.
Draft DCP 12/03 has been prepared in accordance with the Plan.

1.3	Effect of the Development Control Plan
DCP 12/03 establishes planning and urban design provisions including building height, landscape character, access and parking for Block 622 Majura. 
DCP 12/03 includes the following provisions: 
•	General planning and urban design objectives for development of the AFP Majura Training and Operations Facility.
•	preserving the rural landscape character of the site and surrounding area.
•	providing for development of the area for the range of uses permitted by the Plan.
•	requirements for building height, massing, landscape treatment and architectural quality in built form.
•	requirements for access to the area and parking.

2	Public consultation
2.1	Development Control Plan process
The process for making a Development Control Plan is outlined in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Outline of the Development Control Plan process.

STEP 1
Development intention expressed	
	
STEP 2
Preparation of a Draft DCP. NCA considers the views and issues expressed by key stakeholders and prepares the Draft DCP for public consultation	
	
STEP 3
Public consultation on a Draft DCP	
	
STEP 4
Consideration by Authority	
	
STEP 5
Decision	

2.2	Release of the draft Development Control Plan for public comment
On 6 January 2012, the NCA released the draft DCP for public consultation. The following stakeholders were identified as having an interest in the future development of the site:
•	ACT Government Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate (ESDD)
•	ACT Government Territory and Municipal Services Directorate (TaMSD)
•	Australian Federal Police (AFP)
•	Department of Defence
•	Canberra International Airport
•	Residents of the Majura area.
ACT and Australian Government agencies as well as adjacent residents were advised by letter about the release of the draft DCP for public comment and provided with a copy of the draft document.  A letter box drop was undertaken to inform residents in the immediate vicinity of the subject site.
The consultation period, in accordance with the NCA’s Commitment to Community Engagement (August 2011) ran for six weeks and concluded on Thursday 5 April 2012.  The consultation process included:
•	Wednesday 22 February 2012 – draft DCP published on the NCA’s web site, a media release was provided to media outlets; notice published in The Canberra Times
•	Wednesday 22 & Saturday 25 February 2012 – notices were published in The Canberra Times
•	Thursday 23 February 2012 – written notices sent to identified key stakeholders (including email advice and letter box drop)
•	Wednesday 1 March 2012 – public information session held at the NCA Offices
•	Thursday 5 April – period for written submissions concluded.
Public Information Session
On Thursday 1 March 2012, a public information session was held at the NCA offices between 12pm and 1.30pm.  Two representatives from the AFP attended the information session, as well as two members of TaMSD.  No members of the general public attended the session. 
Written Submissions
The NCA received five written submissions in response to the draft DCP.  All submissions were acknowledged by the NCA. A summary of these submissions together with the NCA response is at Appendix A.

3	Issues
The NCA received five written submissions in response to the draft DCP.  These submissions were acknowledged by the NCA.
The key issues raised are discussed below.
3.1	Access to Site, Parking, Traffic and Majura Parkway
Issue
There was concern that the realisation of the master plan would increase pressure on the surrounding road network by increasing volume of traffic.  Also, there was concern about the variety of vehicle types such as semi trailers and armoured vehicles on the Majura Road. 
There was also a concern that the Majura Parkway would allow views into the site potentially compromising some security measures. 
NCA response
The AFP has been in discussion with TaMSD and the Majura Parkway steering committee throughout the development of the Parkway and the review of the master plan.  The proposed development of the AFP site has been considered in the design of the Majura Parkway 
In terms of preventing views into the site, landscape screening prescribed by the DCP would be unlikely to achieve the height capable of screening the site from the proposed Parkway alignment. No change is recommended. 
3.2	Bushfire Management
Issue
Concern was raised that the bushfire management and siting of Asset Protection Zones (APZ) was not considered in the design and development of the DCP and landscape strategy of the site.
NCA response
There is currently a bushfire maintenance program ongoing at the site.  The draft DCP and the landscape strategy developed by AFP and their consultants identify hills and rural landscape areas as potential ’Fire Buffer Zones’.  These areas will likely form the Inner APZ (approx. 30m). More detailed bushfire analysis, including siting of the inner APZ, will be conducted as part of the Landscape Master Plan which is a requirement of the recommended DCP. No change is recommended.
3.3	Conservation Management Plans
Issue
It was noted that the diverse range of natural, cultural and indigenous heritage sites may not be adequately acknowledged and cared for. 
NCA response
Conservation management plans are required by the DCP prior to any development occurring within the vicinity of conservation zones as per DCP Drawing 12/01 – 1.  This ensures that all heritage sites will be protected adequately and according to their assessed heritage value.  The Conservation management plans must be agreed to by the NCA.  No change to the DCP is recommended. 
3.4	Aircraft Flight Paths
Issue
ESDD noted that the site falls within the departure flight path for aircraft.  The Draft National Airports Safeguarding Framework’s principles and guidelines were mentioned as particularly relevant to this proposal. 
NCA response
The Canberra International Airport was notified of the draft DCP.  No comment was provided. 
The draft DCP does not refer to any specific development application.  If in the future the AFP develops the site, each individual application will be assessed by the NCA to ensure it is not inconsistent with the Plan, an approved DCP and any applicable framework. Proposed developments on the site will need to be consistent with the Draft National Airports Safeguarding Framework. It is recommended that this be made a formal requirement of the DCP. 
3.5	Noise generated by the Facility
Issue
The noise generated by activities on the facility was seen as quite disruptive and may have exceeded the recommended maximum noise amenity for rural areas. It was suggested that the location of the driver training track and scenario villages may increase the level of noise pollution felt by adjacent lessees. It was noted that changes made to the initial design concept now can reduce the possibility of future compensation to effected lessees displaced or affected by lack of noise consideration. 
It was suggested that the location of the driver training track, future scenario villages,  helicopter landing areas and their possible effect on nearby residences be considered as part of the proposal. 
NCA response
Block 622 Majura and surround leases are zoned in the Plan and the Territory Plan as Broadacre Areas as distinct from Rural Areas. These areas are zoned as to allow for development that would benefit from a non urban setting. The relocation of the driver training track was part of a master plan refresh in 2005 and was accompanied by a noise assessment. If the AFP submits an application for the development of the driver training track or other potentially noise creating facility.  The NCA may require an updated noise assessment to be conducted. 

4	Recommended Changes
In response to submissions received, and as a result of internal review, three changes are recommended to draft DCP 12/03 as follows:
•	Clause 4.5 be added to read as follows:
Development should generally be consistent with the National Airports Safeguarding Framework. 
To ensure development is appropriate to its location within one of the Canberra International Airport’s departure paths.
•	Clause 8.5 has been amended to read as follows:
The ecological value of the site shall be improved through the revegetation of creek corridors to improve habitat and reduce erosion.  Endemic vegetation communities, commensurate with the Majura Lowland Woodland Corridor, should be reinstated and a hill vegetation protection zone enforced on site consistent with managing fire risk.
To ensure development recognises the wider landscape setting and regional scale natural heritage of the locality.
•	Tambreet Street has been identified on DCP Drawing 12/03 – 1.
To ensure clarity of the document, Tambreet Street is mentioned within the DCP a number of times. Its axis is very important to the urban structure set out in the DCP.
5	Conclusion
Draft DCP 12/03 Block 622 Majura was released for public consultation in February 2012 in accordance with the NCA’s Commitment to Community Engagement (August 2011).  Five written submissions were received in regard to draft DCP 12/03.
Three changes to the DCP have been recommended. 
Appendix A – Summary of submissions
Note: Details of each submission have only been reproduced in this table where a submitter has granted permission for their name and/or address to be used by the National Capital Authority for the purpose of the Report on Consultation for DCP 12/03.
Submission No.	Details of submitter	Key points raised in submission	NCA consideration	
1.	ACT Government -Territory and Municipal Services Directorate (TaMSD)
GPO Box 158
Canberra 2601	A need for fuel management works to an Inner Asset Protection Zone (APZ) (30m wide) and to an Outer APZ (220-300m wide). Indicates the need for the Inner APZ to have the following management applied to greater than 80% of the area:
•	maintain the area to an overall fuel hazard of  less than ‘low’; and
•	3.5m canopy separation of fuel gap to crown greater than 3m. 	The AFP Majura site currently operates a bushfire management program that was developed in association with the ACT Rural Fire Service.  Fire buffers and the need to balance landscape character with fire risk are included in the draft DCP.  The level of detailed requirements for fire protection for the proposed development will form part of the Landscape Master Plan. 

		States that the AFP will be expected to maintain the Inner APZ. Recommends that the DCP be amended to include reference to the Inner APZ located within the boundary of Block 622 Majura.	The AFP already operates a bushfire management program onsite. 

	
		States that the Outer APZ would need an overall fuel hazard ‘less than moderate’ applied to 70% of the area, to be maintained by the Territory.	Noted.

	
		Recommends consultation with the Emergency Services Agency to further develop the plans with the aim of bushfire protection. 	The development of the Landscape Master Plan is a requirement of the DCP.  The relevant subject matter experts and authorities will be consulted during this process. 	
		Suggests locating the car park to the western edge of the complex to give the facility a fire break.	Detailed siting of buildings and car parks will be determined by future phases of the master plan review.  The siting of these elements will need to be in accordance with an approved DCP and other relevant legislation.	
2.	National Trust of Australia (ACT)
PO Box 1144
Civic Square 2608	Supports the requirement for a Landscape Master Plan. Welcomes the intention for a Conservation Management Plan.	Noted.

		The value of heritage areas identified within Block 622 Majura should be conserved. 	The DCP identifies areas within Block 622 as Heritage Conservation Zones.  It is a requirement of the DCP that a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) is implemented when required. 	
		A public inspection of the CMP’s points would make for a more thorough examination of sites of potential natural, cultural, or Indigenous value.	The lessee is required to manage the development of the CMPs.  The role of the NCA will be to ensure that the CMPs are not inconsistent with the Plan or the DCP and adequately protect the value of the heritage places on the site	
		States that the National Trust is willing to provide comment on the heritage assessment and would like to be actively involved in the process.	Noted.
	
		States that it is important that the Conservation Management Plan is undertaken prior to the DCP being finalised.	An approved DCP is required to undertake a more in depth review of the AFP Majura Master Plan. This review will investigate issues such as heritage in more detail as part of the development of the Master Plan.  The DCP requires CMPs and a Landscape Master Plan to ensure that these later phases of the review take these issues into account. 	
3.	Australian Federal Police (AFP)
GPO Box 401
Canberra 2601
	State that Majura site is a key component to AFP’s operations and training capabilities.	Noted.	
		State that the DCP accurately depicts accommodation objectives for the site to support future operational and training requirements. 	The DCP also illustrates NCA objectives for the site including landscape character, building height and massing.	
		Supports the proposed DCP and looks forward to further consideration by the NCA.	Noted.	
4.	ACT Government – Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate (ESDD)

GPO Box 158
Canberra 2601	The draft DCP complies with the recommendations made in Navin Officer’s 2003 Report, ‘Proposed Redevelopment of block 622, Majura, ACT – Cultural Heritage Study’.  A CMP would therefore be required ahead of development to manage heritage conservation zones and heritage sites conserved.	Noted.
	
		States that the outstanding heritage requirement is an assessment of impacts on the Majura Lowland Woodland Corridor.  It is therefore likely that a natural heritage assessment would be needed or, at the very least, natural heritage components of the block need to be considered.  Consequently, it is requested that the draft DCP be updated to reflect the above.	An assessment of the natural heritage and ecological components of the site will be undertaken as part of the Landscape Master Plan. The DCP ensures that development does not adversely affect the ecology, heritage or landscape character of the site.  The DCP will mention the Majura Lowland Woodland Corridor.	
		State that the subject site falls within the departure flight path of aircraft. Therefore, the Draft National Airports Safeguarding Framework applies.  This includes a set of principles and guidelines.  Of particular relevance to this proposal are the following two Guidelines:
-	Guideline E – Managing the Risk of Distractions to Pilots from Lighting in the Vicinity of Airports; and
-	Guideline F – Managing the risk of Intrusion into the Protected Operational Airspace of Airports.	The draft DCP does not make any land use change. If in the future the AFP develops the site, each individual application will be assessed by the NCA to ensure it is not inconsistent with the Plan or any applicable guidelines or framework.  The National Airports Safeguarding Framework, when complete, is a document that development will need to be consistent with.  The DCP will contain a provision ensuring this requirement. 

		The NCA may consider referring the draft DCP to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for comments, particularly in relation to the issues covered in the guidelines above, especially in regard to building heights.	There is no specific development proposed by the draft DCP.  Any future development applications will be assessed against the Plan, an approved DCP and relevant guidelines.  Any agency that may assist is assessment against these guidelines will be consulted as part of the process. 	
		Note that land to the west of the comprising of blocks 165, 586, 620 and 621, is unleased Territory land, and under the Territory Plan it is identified as Plantation Forestry within the non urban broad acre zone.
	Noted.