Flooding concern leaves drive-through restaurant development in deep water

A development application for a mixed-use commercial project has an uphill battle for approval after warnings the proposal would expose staff and customers to serious flood risk.

Port Stephens Council staff are recommending councillors refuse the Raymond Terrace development over flood risk and several other planning requirements that remain unresolved.

The application from Vanreid Industries seeks approval to demolish the existing buildings at 2 to 8 Carmichael Street and replace them with a food-and-drink premises with a drive-through, a rural supplies store and warehouse, and three office tenancies.

It will go before council at Tuesday night's ordinary council meeting.

A report by the council's development services section manager, Ryan Falkenmire, recommends councillors refuse the application, DA 16-2026-50-1.

The report identifies flooding as the most serious of the concerns raised during assessment.

It found the proposed floor levels for the development fell well short.

Modelling cited in the report shows the food-and-drink premises would flood in most events of a one-in-20-year flood.

In a one-in-100-year flood, the report estimates more than a metre of water would move through the premises, affecting the kitchen, seating and operating areas.

"The proposal provides no detail or certainty on where future staff or customers would evacuate to in the event of a flood, and if there are suitable and safe flood egress options without the need to traverse flood waters," Mr Falkenmire said.

"The principal reliance on evacuation through procedures yet to be outlined within a future Flood Emergency Response Plan (FERP) are not considered an appropriate response for managing risk to life and property.

"On this basis, the development fails to satisfy the objectives of the flood controls contained in the Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan."

Beyond flooding, the report lists several other unresolved issues.

The council found the development's added traffic had not been adequately addressed.

The council had also asked the applicant for a preliminary site investigation into land contamination, as the site is mapped as containing potential acid sulphate soils, and the project involves excavation to about 1.6 metres. The report says neither was provided, meaning council "cannot be satisfied" the land is suitable for the proposed use.

No bulk earthworks plan was submitted either.

The council's engineers estimate the project would require more than 2000 cubic metres of imported fill up to 1.5 metres deep, with no flood modelling done to show what effect that fill would have on drainage or flood behaviour nearby.

The applicant's statement of environmental impacts argues the development should be approved.

The consultants point to a separate traffic study estimating the development would generate about 32 vehicle trips in the morning peak and 42 in the afternoon peak, and conclude the surrounding road network has enough spare capacity to absorb this without affecting safety or efficiency.

The developer's report takes the opposite position to council, stating the project will not involve excavation more than a metre below natural ground level and therefore does not trigger the need for an acid sulphate soils management plan.

On flooding, the developer's report concedes the proposed ground floor level of the food-and-drink and rural supplies buildings sits below both the site's minimum required wastewater level and the one-in-100-year flood level, meaning the ground floor would be inundated in a significant flood.

The consultants argue this is offset by "flood-compatible design measures" such as elevating or anchoring equipment, flood-resilient building materials, and moving the office tenancies to an upper floor.

The council's assessment does not accept that this is sufficient, finding the development still fails to meet the objectives of the flood controls in the council's planning documents.

The application would normally be determined by council staff under delegation, but it has been "called up" for a councillor vote by councillors Giacomo Arnott and Peter Francis on the grounds of public interest.

No public submissions were received during the application's exhibition period, which ran from February 18 to March 4 this year.

A decision is expected when council meets on Tuesday.