Development Assessment Panel

 

Business Paper

 

date of meeting:

 

Wednesday, 27 November 2013

location:

 

Function Room,

Port Macquarie-Hastings Council,

17 Burrawan Street,

Port Macquarie

time:

 

2.00pm


Development Assessment Panel

 

CHARTER

 


 

 

Functions:

 

1.       To review development application reports and conditions.

 

2.       To determine development applications outside of staff delegations.

 

3.       To refer development applications to Council for determination where necessary.

 

4.       To provide a forum for objectors and applicants to make submissions on applications before DAP.

 

5.       To maintain transparency for the determination of development applications.

 

 

Delegated Authority:

 

Pursuant to Section 377 of the Local Government Act, 1993 delegation to determine development applications under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 having regard to the relevant environmental planning instruments, development control plans and Council policies.

 

 

Format Of The Meeting:

 

1.       Panel meetings shall be carried out in accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practise for Council Sub-Committees, except where varied by this Charter.

 

2.       Meetings shall be "Open" to the public.

 

3.       The Panel will hear from applicants and objectors or their representatives. Where considered necessary, the Panel will conduct site inspections which will be open to the public.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Development Assessment Panel

 

ATTENDANCE REGISTER

 

 

Member

10/07/13

24/07/13

14/08/13

28/08/13

11/09/13

Paul Drake

P

P

P

P

P

Matt Rogers

 

 

 

 

 

Dan Croft

Patrick Gailbraith-Robertson (alternate)

P

P

P

P

P

David Fletcher

Paul Biron (alternate)

P

P

P

P

P

David Troemel

P

P

P

P

P

 

 

Member

25/09/13

09/10/13

23/10/13

13/11/13

27/11/13

Paul Drake

P

P

P

A

P

Matt Rogers

 

 

 

P

 

Dan Croft

Patrick Gailbraith-Robertson (alternate)

P

P

P

P

P

David Fletcher

Paul Biron (alternate)

P

P

P

P

P

David Troemel

P

P

P

P

P

 

 

Member

11/12/13

22/01/14

 

 

 

Paul Drake

P

P

 

 

 

Matt Rogers

 

 

 

 

 

Dan Croft

Patrick Gailbraith-Robertson (alternate)

P

P

 

 

 

David Fletcher

Paul Biron (alternate)

P

P

 

 

 

David Troemel (alternate)

P

P

 

 

 

 

 

Key: P =  Present

         A  =  Absent With Apology

         =  Absent Without Apology

        

 

 

 

 

 


Development Assessment Panel Meeting

Wednesday, 27 November 2013

 

Items of Business

 

Item       Subject                                                                                                      Page

 

01           Acknowledgement of Country............................................................................ 5

02           Apologies......................................................................................................... 5

03           Confirmation of Minutes.................................................................................... 5

04           Disclosures of Interest..................................................................................... 10

05           DA 2011 - 0539 - Section 96 Modification to Existing Jetty Assocatied With Previous Approved Dwelling House - Lot 7 DP 1156002, 45 Harbourside Crescent, Port Macquarie... 14

06           DA 2013 - 0329 - 18 Lot Residential Subdivision - Lot 3 DP 1151282, 995 Ocean Drive, Bonny Hills...................................................................................................................... 25

07           DA2012 - 630 - Ancillary building (Shed),  26 Brierley Avenue, Port Macquarie.... 77  

08           General Business

 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      27/11/2013

Item:          01

Subject:     ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

 

"I acknowledge that we are gathered on Birpai Land. I pay respect to the Birpai Elders both past and present. I also extend that respect to all other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people present."

 

 

Item:          02

Subject:     APOLOGIES

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the apologies received be accepted.

 

 

Item:          03

Subject:     CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Development Assessment Panel Meeting held on 13 November 2013 be confirmed.

 


pmhc_logo_VER_smallMINUTES                                                                                      Development Assessment

                                                                                                                           Panel Meeting

                                                                                                                                  13/11/2013

 

 

 

PRESENT

 

Members:

 

Matt Rogers (Chair)

Dan Croft

David Fletcher

David Troemel

 

Other Attendees:

 

Fiona Tierney

Clinton Tink

Ben Roberts

 

 

The meeting opened at 2.02pm.

 

 

01       ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

The Acknowledgement of Country was delivered.

 

 

02       APOLOGIES

CONSENSUS:

That the apology received from Paul Drake be accepted.

 

 

03       CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

CONSENSUS:

That the Minutes of the Development Assessment Panel Meeting held on 23 October 2013 be confirmed.

 

 

04      DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

 

There were no disclosures of interest presented.

 

 

 

05       DA 2013/0346 - ADDITIONS TO DWELLING

Speakers:

Chris Jenkins (o)

Michelle Love (applicant)

James Collins (applicant)

 

CONSENSUS:

That DA 2013/0346 for a additions to the dwelling at Lot 32, DP 261737, No. 36 Ocean View Terrace, Port Macquarie, be determined by refusing consent for the following reasons:

1.       In accordance with clause 79(C)(1)(b) the proposal will have a significant impact in terms of overshadowing on the primary open space area of the adjacent property at 38 Ocean View Terrace.

2.       In accordance with clause 79(C)(1)(a)(iii) the proposed development fails to meet development provision 5.2 and the relevant objectives of the DCP.

3.       In accordance with clause 79(C)(1)(e) it would be contrary to the public interest to vary the requirements and intent of the DCP in this instance.

 

 

06       DA2013 - 0458 - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DWELLING - LOT 39 DP 231816, 33 MATTHEW FLINDERS DRIVE, PORT MACQUARIE

 

Speakers:

Philip Nelson (o)

Chris Jenkins (applicant)

 

CONSENSUS:

That DA 2013 - 0458 for alterations and additions to dwelling at Lot 39, DP 231816, No.33 Matthew Flinders Drive, Port Macquarie be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions and as amended below:

Add the following condition in Section B of the consent:

‘(B006) An application pursuant to Section 138 of the Roads Act, 1993 to carry out works required by the Development Consent on or within public road is to be submitted to and obtained from Port Macquarie-Hastings Council prior to release of the Construction Certificate. Such works shall include concrete footway and gutter crossing from the Matthew Flinders Drive to proposed garage in accordance with Council’s AUSPEC standards.’

 

 

 

07       DA 2013/0515 - ADDITIONS TO MEDICAL CENTRE & INCREASED HOURS OF OPERATION LOTS 1 & 2 DP 1177043, 150 & 152 GREENMEADOWS DRIVE, PORT MACQUARIE

Speakers:

Susan Peace (o)

Scott Marchant (applicant)

 

CONSENSUS:

That DA 2013/0515 for additions to the medical centre and increased hours of operation at Lots 1 & 2, DP1177043, No. 150 & 152 Greenmeadows Drive, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

 

08       DA2013 - 0593 PROPOSED SINGLE STOREY DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY AND TORRENS TITLE SUBDIVISION - LOT 105 DP 1183714 ECHNIDA STREET, PORT MACQUARIE

 

Speakers:

Malcolm Paull (o)

Derek Collins (applicant)

 

CONSENSUS:

That DA 2013 - 0593 for a single storey detached dual occupancy and Torrens Title subdivision at Lot 105, DP 1183714 Echnida Street, Port Macquarie be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions and as amended below:

 

·                Amend condition A4 to read:

‘Staging of the development is approved as follows:

o      Stage 1 = Construction of proposed unit 2.

o      Stage 2 = Torrens title subdivision. This stage is to include provision of an 88b instrument requiring that any building on proposed lot 1 is to be constructed in accordance with DA2013/593. Port Macquarie-Hastings Council is to be nominated as the sole part able to vary or remove the restriction.

o      Stage 3 = Construction of Unit 1.

Unless specified, the conditions of this consent will apply to all stages, with any decision on any discrepancy with conditions and associated staging resting with Council. Any decision to allow a change to staging will rest with Council along with applicable conditions and any contributions payable.’

 

 

 

09       DA 2013 - 0464 - LOG PROCESSING WORKS, LOT 1 DP 779638, 2952 OXLEY HIGHWAY, HUNTINGDON

Speakers:

Lisa Hawkins (o)

Steve Dobbyns (applicant)

 

CONSENSUS:

That DA 2013/464 for a log processing works at Lot 1 DP 779638, No. 2952 Oxley Highway, Huntingdon, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

 

10       DA 2013 - 0216 - STAGED 23 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH RESIDUE LOT AT LOT 665 & 666 DP 722669, 158-170 PACIFIC DRIVE, PORT MACQUARIE

 

Speakers:

Tony Thorne (applicant)

Peter Kallin (applicant)

 

CONSENSUS:

1.       That DA 2013/0216 for a staged 23 lot residential subdivision with residue lot  at Lot 665 & 666 DP 722669, 158-170 Pacific Drive, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions and as amended below:

·                Delete condition E5.

2.       That the General Manager exercise delegation granted by the Council resolution of 22 October 2008 to enter into the Pacific Drive Integrated Housing Environmental Management Land Planning Agreement.

 

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 3.24pm.

 

 

 

 

 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      27/11/2013

Item:          04

Subject:     DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Disclosures of Interest be presented

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST DECLARATION

 

 

Name of Meeting:     ………………………………………………………………………..

 

Meeting Date:           ………………………………………………………………………..

 

Item Number:            ………………………………………………………………………..

 

Subject:                      ………………………………………………………………………..

                                    …………………………………………………….……………...…..

 

 

I, ..................................................................................... declare the following interest:

 

 

        Pecuniary:

              Take no part in the consideration and voting and be out of sight of the meeting.

 

 

        Non-Pecuniary - Significant Interest:

              Take no part in the consideration and voting and be out of sight of the meeting.

 

        Non-Pecuniary - Less than Significant Interest:

              May participate in consideration and voting.

 

 

For the reason that:  ....................................................................................................

 

.......................................................................................................................................

 

 

 

Signed:  .........................................................................  Date:  ..................................

 

 

Growth Bar b&w(Further explanation is provided on the next page)


 

Further Explanation

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

A conflict of interest exists where a reasonable and informed person would perceive that a Council official could be influenced by a private interest when carrying out their public duty. Interests can be of two types: pecuniary or non-pecuniary.

 

All interests, whether pecuniary or non-pecuniary are required to be fully disclosed and in writing.

 

Pecuniary Interest

 

A pecuniary interest is an interest that a Council official has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the Council official. (section 442)

 

A Council official will also be taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter if that Council official’s spouse or de facto partner or a relative of the Council official or a partner or employer of the Council official, or a company or other body of which the Council official, or a nominee, partner or employer of the Council official is a member, has a pecuniary interest in the matter. (section 443)

 

The Council official must not take part in the consideration or voting on the matter and leave and be out of sight of the meeting. (section 451)

 

Non-Pecuniary

 

A non-pecuniary interest is an interest that is private or personal that the Council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Act.

 

Non-pecuniary interests commonly arise out of family, or personal relationships, or involvement in sporting, social or other cultural groups and associations and may include an interest of a financial nature.

 

The political views of a Councillor do not constitute a private interest.

 

The management of a non-pecuniary interest will depend on whether or not it is significant.

 

Non Pecuniary – Significant Interest

 

As a general rule, a non-pecuniary conflict of interest will be significant where a matter does not raise a pecuniary interest, but it involves:

(a)   A relationship between a Council official and another person that is particularly close, for example, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child of the Council official or of the Council official’s spouse, current or former spouse or partner, de facto or other person living in the same household.

(b)   Other relationships that are particularly close, such as friendships and business relationships. Closeness is defined by the nature of the friendship or business relationship, the frequency of contact and the duration of the friendship or relationship.

(c)   An affiliation between a Council official an organisation, sporting body, club, corporation or association that is particularly strong.

 

If a Council official declares a non-pecuniary significant interest it must be managed in one of two ways:

1.     Remove the source of the conflict, by relinquishing or divesting the interest that creates the conflict, or reallocating the conflicting duties to another Council official.

2.     Have no involvement in the matter, by taking no part in the consideration or voting on the matter and leave and be out of sight of the meeting, as if the provisions in section 451(2) apply.

 

Non Pecuniary – Less than Significant Interest

 

If a Council official has declared a non-pecuniary less than significant interest and it does not require further action, they must provide an explanation of why they consider that the conflict does not require further action in the circumstances.

SPECIAL DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST DECLARATION

 

 

By

[insert full name of councillor]

 

 

In the matter of

[insert name of environmental planning instrument]

 

 

Which is to be considered at a meeting of the

[insert name of meeting]

 

 

Held on

[insert date of meeting]

 

 

PECUNIARY INTEREST

 

 

Address of land in which councillor or an  associated person, company or body has a proprietary interest (the identified land)i

 

 

Relationship of identified land to councillor

[Tick or cross one box.]

 

Councillor has interest in the land (e.g. is owner or has other interest arising out of a mortgage, lease trust, option or contract, or otherwise).

 

Associated person of councillor has interest in the land.

 

Associated company or body of councillor has interest in the land.

 

MATTER GIVING RISE TO PECUNIARY INTEREST

 

 

Nature of land that is subject to a change

in zone/planning control by proposed

LEP (the subject land iii

[Tick or cross one box]

 

The identified land.

 

Land that adjoins or is adjacent to or is in proximity to the identified land.

Current zone/planning control

[Insert name of current planning instrument and identify relevant zone/planning control applying to the subject land]

 

Proposed change of zone/planning control

[Insert name of proposed LEP and identify proposed change of zone/planning control applying to the subject land]

 

Effect of proposed change of zone/planning control on councillor

[Tick or cross one box]

 

Appreciable financial gain.

 

Appreciable financial loss.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor’s Signature:  ……………………………….   Date:  ………………..


 

 

Important Information

 

This information is being collected for the purpose of making a special disclosure of pecuniary interests under sections 451 (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1993.  You must not make a special disclosure that you know or ought reasonably to know is false or misleading in a material particular.  Complaints made about contraventions of these requirements may be referred by the Director-General to the Local Government Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary Tribunal.

 

This form must be completed by you before the commencement of the council or council committee meeting in respect of which the special disclosure is being made.   The completed form must be tabled at the meeting.  Everyone is entitled to inspect it.  The special disclosure must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i.   Section 443 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that you may have a pecuniary interest in a matter because of the pecuniary interest of your spouse or your de facto partner or your relativeiv or because your business partner or employer has a pecuniary interest. You may also have a pecuniary interest in a matter because you, your nominee, your business partner or your employer is a member of a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.

ii.  Section 442 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that a pecuniary interest is an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person. A person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to the matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in section 448 of that Act (for example, an interest as an elector or as a ratepayer or person liable to pay a charge).

iii.   A pecuniary interest may arise by way of a change of permissible use of land adjoining, adjacent to or in proximity to land in which a councillor or a person, company or body referred to in section 443 (1) (b) or (c) of the Local Government Act 1993 has a proprietary interest—see section 448 (g) (ii) of the Local Government Act 1993.

iv.   Relative is defined by the Local Government Act 1993 as meaning your, your spouse’s or your de facto partner’s parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child and the spouse or de facto partner of any of those persons.

 

 

 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      27/11/2013

 

 

Item:          05

 

Subject:     DA 2011 - 0539 - Section 96 Modification to Existing Jetty Assocatied With Previous Approved Dwelling House - Lot 7 DP 1156002, 45 Harbourside Crescent, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Fiona Tierney

 

 

 

Property:                 Lot 7 DP 1156002, 45 Harbourside Crescent, Port Macquarie

Applicant:               G & M Watson c/-Collins W Collins

Owner:                    G & M Watson

Application Date:   21 October 2013

Estimated Cost:     $3000

Location:                 Port Macquarie

File no:                    DA 2011-536

Parcel no:               61869

Alignment with Delivery Program

4.9.2  Undertake transparent and efficient development assessment in accordance with relevant legislation.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2011/0539 for a s96 modification to an existing jetty associated with a previous approved dwelling house at Lot 7, DP 1156002, No. 45 Harbourside Crescent, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a Development Application for a s96 modification to an existing jetty associated with a previous approved dwelling house at the subject site.

 

This report provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Subsequent to exhibition of the application, submission has been received.

 

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and surrounding development

 

The site is zoned R1 General Residential in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, as shown in the following zoning plan:

 

 

The modification proposal only relates to the provision of a floating mooring adjoining the existing approved jetty for out of water storage of jet-skis or small boats.

 

The existing subdivision pattern and location of existing development within the immediate locality is shown in the following aerial photograph:

 

 

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the application proposal include the following:

 

 

·    An additional floating mooring of 1.5m width for storage of jet skis and small boats out of the water.

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    21 October 2013-Modification application lodged

·    29 October-12 November 2013

 

3.       STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

 

Is the proposal substantially the same?

Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 enables the modification of consents and categorises modification into three categories - S.96 (1) for modifications involving minor error, misdescription or miscalculation; S.96 (1A) for modifications involving minimal environmental impact; and S.96 (2) for other modifications.

 

The proposal will not alter the essence of the development primarily comprising a dwelling with associated jetty to be altered in location and therefore will be substantially the same. The modification application is being considered under the provisions of Section 96(1A).

 

Are there any condition(s) of consent imposed by a Minister, government or public authority that require modification?

 

No conditions were imposed by any other authorities other than Council.

 

Does the application require notification/advertising in accordance with the regulations and/or any Development Control Plan?

 

The modification application was notified in accordance with the provisions of DCP May 2011.

 

Any submissions made concerning the modification?

One (1) submission (2 letters) have been received following completion of the required public exhibition of the application.

 

 

Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the Regulations:

 

One (1) written submission has been received following completion of the required public exhibition of the application.

 

Key issues raised in the submissions received and comments in response to these issues are provided as follows:

 

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

Additional mooring is not for a jet ski but a large boat.

Plans describe floating pod for jet ski/’Tinnie’. The photograph provided in the submission confirms a small “tinnie” being stored on the pontoon.

Distance between moorings is now about 8 metres which contravenes ‘Development Specific Provisions OB14-DP14.1.

Council’s DCP requires a 10m separation to allow for adequate distances between moorings on adjoining properties. This distance is a guideline and individual circumstances and suitable distances can be considered. In this instance the primary vessel is moored on the Western side of the existing jetty. Through the installation of the pod it effectively restricts mooring on the Eastern side of the jetty. A restriction is recommended for the consent prohibiting mooring off the pod and for small craft to be stored on the pod when not in use. This will in effect provide greater certainty to the adjoining mooring for more consistent manoeuvring availability. A distance of 8.950m has been shown from the edge of the proposed pod to the adjoining mooring on the eastern side. The prolongation of the property boundary falls approximately half way between the edge of the pod and the adjoining mooring.

 Any matters referred to in Section 79C(1) relevant to the modification?

Development Control Plan 2011

The DCP has the following specific recommended development provisions which are applicable to consider as part of the modification application:

DP14.1 Jetties and mooring (both fixed and floating) shall be located a minimum of 10m from any jetty or mooring (both fixed and floating) located on any adjacent property.

DP 14.2 Boat ramps and jetties shall be located in such a way that vessels using the boat ramp or moored on a jetty do not project past a line which is a prolongation of the side boundaries of the development site.

 

With regard to the deemed acceptable development provisions above, the modified proposal will not retain compliance with the above DCP provisions relating to the 10m separation distance. It is however proposed to provide a separation  distance of 8.95m minimum (and impose a condition of consent restricting mooring of vessels on the eastern side) which in this circumstance will still provide adequate separation distances and will still achieve the requirements under DP 14.2.

 

(e)     The Public Interest:

 

The proposed development satisfies relevant planning controls and is unlikely to impact on the wider public interest.

 

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

No development contributions applicable to the modification proposal.

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Issues raised during assessment and public exhibition of the application have been considered in the assessment of the application. Where relevant, conditions have been recommended to manage the impacts attributed to these issues.

 

The site remains suitable for the proposed development, is not contrary to the public's interest and will not have a significant adverse social, environmental or economic impact. Consequently, it is recommended that the application be approved, subject to the recommended amendments to conditions of consent provided in the attachment section of this report.

 

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2011 - 539 Plan

2View. DA2011 - 539 Recommended Conditions

 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


 


 


 


 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      27/11/2013

 

 

Item:          06

 

Subject:     DA 2013 - 0329 - 18 Lot Residential Subdivision - Lot 3 DP 1151282, 995 Ocean Drive, Bonny Hills

Report Author: Clint Tink

 

 

 

Property:                 Lot 3 DP 1151282, 995 Ocean Drive, Bonny Hills

Applicant:               Land Dynamics Australia

Owner:                    Scribbly Gums Holdings Pty Ltd

Application Date:   14 November 2013

Estimated Cost:     $285,000

Location:                 Bonny Hills

File no:                    DA 2013 - 0329

Parcel no:               60174

Alignment with Delivery Program

4.9.2  Undertake transparent and efficient development assessment in accordance with relevant legislation.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2013/0329 for an 18 Lot Residential Subdivision at Lot 3 DP 1151282, 995 Ocean Drive, Bonny Hills, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a Development Application for an 18 lot residential subdivision at the subject site.

 

This report provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Subsequent to exhibition of the application, 12 submissions were received. Attached to one of the submissions was a petition containing 73 signatures.

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 1.071ha.

 

The site is zoned R1 General Residential in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, as shown in the following zoning plan:

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl3571_C0A8C986:014268075436:2EF7:0F905398%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:014268075436:2EF7:0F905398

 

The site has frontage to Ocean Drive to the north and John Phillip Drive to the east. Rainbow Beach is also located approximately 500m to the east.

 

Surrounding the site is a mixture of residential housing and undeveloped residential land.

 

The existing subdivision pattern and location of existing development within the immediate locality is shown in the following aerial photograph:

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl3274_C0A8C986:014268075436:2EF7:0F905398%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:014268075436:2EF7:0F905398

 

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the application proposal include the following:

 

·    Creation of 18 residential lots.

·    Access to be provided off John Phillip Drive with no access off Ocean Drive.

·    Lot sizes range from 451m² to 519m².

·    Removal of existing residence and ancillary structures.

·    Removal of 16 trees and other weeds and shrubs.

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    18/6/2008 - DA 2007/506 was approved by Council and included an aged care development and subdivision. The consent was acted on by virtue of the subdivision aspect being registered. Two modifications to the consent have also been approved.

·    27/11/2012 - Concept proposal was presented to Council’s Pre-lodgement meeting.

·    18/6/2013 - Application lodged with Council.

·    1/7/2013 - Council staff requested additional integrated development fees.

·    2/7/2013 - Applicant submitted additional integrated fees.

·    4/7/2013 - Council staff requested additional information on APZ locations and compliance with SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007.

·    5/7/2013 to 19/7/2013 - DA notification period.

·    16/7/2013 - Council staff requested further information on the layout, road extension design, stormwater management and footpath paving.

·    1/8/2013 - Meeting was held between Council staff and the applicant to discuss additional information requests.

·    26/8/2013 - Applicant provided response to additional information. Bushfire Safety Authority was also received from the NSW RFS.

·    28/8/2013 - Part of the applicant’s response on 26/8/2013 was missing and subsequently requested by Council staff.

·    29/8/2013 - Missing section of applicant’s response received.

·    6/9/2013 - Council staff raised concerns with the information submitted by the applicant on 26/8/2013 in relation to the road extension, stormwater and footpath. Applicant was also advised to contact Council’s Contribution section regarding offsets for carrying out public infrastructure work.

·    1/10/2013 - Applicant contacted Council’s Contribution Section regarding offsets for work.

·    2/10/2013 - Meeting between Council staff and the applicant regarding additional information request.

·    8/10/2013 - Applicant confirmed demolition of the brick garage as part of the application. Council’s Contribution section also contacted the owner of the property to advise of contribution payment options.

·    21/10/2013 - Council’s Contribution Section confirmed options with the applicant regarding works in kind etc. In particular, works are conditioned and any public benefit and reduction in contributions is dealt with as a separate process to the DA.

·    23/10/2013 - Follow up email was sent to the applicant confirming contribution aspect and that detail was still required on road design and stormwater. Applicant confirmed that the issues were being addressed.

·    6/11/2013 - Council staff advised the applicant that a response to the email on 23/10/2013 had not yet been received. Applicant submitted response and revised plans. Council staff questioned status of stormwater matter.

·    7/11/2013 - Further discussions were held between Council staff and the applicant regarding outstanding information.

·    14/11/2013 - Applicant submitted the last of the outstanding information. Water quality manuals to be provided.

 

3.       STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

 

Section 79C(1) Matters for Consideration

 

In determining the application, Council is required to take into consideration the following matters as are relevant to the development that apply to the land to which the development application relates:

 

(a)     The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i)      any Environmental Planning Instrument:

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

The property is over 1ha in size and therefore triggers the provisions of SEPP 44 to be considered. An ecological report considering SEPP 44 was submitted with the application and confirmed that the site shows use by koalas but does not contain Potential Koala Habitat.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

In accordance with clause 7, following an inspection of the site and a search of Council records, the subject land is not identified as being potentially contaminated and is suitable for the intended use.

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 62 - Sustainable Aquaculture

In accordance with clause 15C, given the nature of the proposed development, proposed stormwater controls and the location of the subdivision; the proposal will be unlikely to have any identifiable adverse impact on any existing aquaculture industries.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 71 – Coastal Protection

The site is located within a coastal zone as defined in accordance with clause 4 of SEPP 71. The site is not identified as being within a sensitive coastal location.

In accordance with clause 7, this SEPP prevails over the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 in the event of any inconsistency.

Having regard to clauses 8 and 12 to 16 of SEPP 71 and clause 5.5 of Hastings LEP 2011 inclusive the proposed development will not result in any of the following:

a)      any restricted access (or opportunities for access) to the coastal foreshore;

b)      any identifiable adverse amenity impacts along the coastal foreshore and on the scenic qualities of the coast;

c)      any identifiable adverse impacts on any known flora and fauna (or their natural environment);

d)      subject to any identifiable adverse coastal processes or hazards;

e)      any identifiable conflict between water and land based users of the area;

f)       any identifiable adverse impacts on any items of archaeological/heritage; and

g)      reduce the quality of the natural water bodies in the locality.

In particular, the site is located within an area zoned for residential purposes. The site is shielded from the coast and waterways by topographical features. Pedestrian access to the beach will be retained via installation of footpath linkages. Ecological impact has been addressed.

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Clause 100 of the SEPP refers to development on a classified road. In  this case, the only work proposed on the classified road (Ocean Drive) are some stormwater and pedestrian works to link in with existing facilities. The works are designed to improve the efficiencies of Ocean Drive and will create no adverse impact.

Clause 101 refers to development with frontage to a classified road. While this development fronts Ocean Drive, access will be obtained from John Phillip Drive and thereby create no impact.

Clause 102 refers to noise and vibration impacts from a classified road on non road development. The clause only applies to freeways, tollways and roads with an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of 40,000 vehicles. As Ocean Drive accommodates 15,000 vpd at most in some of the busier sections and is not a tollway, freeway etc, the clause will not apply.

In addition to the above, a noise impact assessment was carried out as part of an aged care development in 2008. The study showed that the impacts of Ocean Drive road noise on residents was at or below acceptable levels and that no additional work was required.

Regardless of Clause 102 not applying, it is also considered that fencing and future BASIX requirements for dwellings will ensure the dwellings are afforded further noise and vibration protection.

The development does not trigger any of the traffic generating developments thresholds of Clause 104. Referral to the RTA is not required.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005

The development does not trigger any of the clauses or thresholds in the SEPP.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, the proposed development for a residential subdivision using Clause 4.1 is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

•     To provide for the housing needs of the community.

•     To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.

•     To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

In accordance with clause 2.3(2), the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives, particularly as the proposal is a permissible landuse and is consistent with the established residential locality. The development will also provide additional housing lots and densities within the locality.

In accordance with Clause 4.1, the proposed lots comply with the 450m² minimum lot size standard.

In accordance with clause 5.9, trees listed in Development Control Plan 2011 are proposed to be removed. This application includes the removal of such vegetation. The removal of the vegetation has been justified by an ecologist report as creating no adverse impact.

In accordance with clause 5.10, the site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage items or sites of significance. The site shows a history of past disturbance/clearing. Notwithstanding this, a precautionary condition of consent has been recommended to be imposed in the event items are discovered during the development process.

In accordance with clause 7.1, the site does not contain potential acid sulfate soils.

In accordance with clause 7.3, the site is not land within a mapped “flood planning area”.

In accordance with clause 7.13, satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential public utility infrastructure.

(ii)     Any draft instruments that apply to the site or are on exhibition:

 

None relevant.

 

(iii)    any Development Control Plan in:

 

Port Macquarie Hastings Development Control Plan 2011

 

DCP 2011: General Provisions

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

DP 2.1

Development has been notified in accordance with DCP.

Adjoining property owners were notified in accordance with the DCP.

Yes

DP 6.1

Social Impact Assessment

The development does not trigger the need for a social impact assessment.

Yes

DP1.1

Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline

Adequate casual surveillance will be provided from future houses. No significant entrapment or concealment areas proposed. Property boundaries defined. Pathways have clear lines of site.

Yes

DP5.1

Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls

Cut and fill not does not exceed 1m.

Yes

DP6.1

0.8m max. height retaining walls along road frontage

No new retaining walls proposed.

Yes

DP6.2

Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structure engineer

No new retaining walls proposed.

Yes

DP6.3

Combination of retaining wall and front fence height

No retaining wall/fence combination proposed.

Yes

DP 10.1

Habitat offset requirements where vegetation removed. VMP required for any environmental land.

The site does not contain any significant habitat as identified in the ecological report accompanying the application.

Yes

DP11.1 onwards

Removal of hollow bearing trees

The ecological report accompanying the application confirmed that the site does not contain any hollow bearing trees.

Yes

DP1.1

Tree removal (3m or higher with 100m diameter trunk and 3m outside dwelling footprint

Tree removal has been addressed in the ecological assessment that accompanied the application. No adverse impacts foreseen.

Yes

 

Bushfire risk, Heritage, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater

Refer to main body of report. APZ’s are contained within the site.

Yes

DP2.3

Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking

Driveway numbers and width acceptable. No access to Ocean Drive proposed.

Yes

DP8.1

Parking in accordance with AS 2890.1

None proposed or required.

Yes

DP11.1

Section 94 contributions

Refer to main body of report.

Yes

DP12.1 onwards

Landscaping of parking areas

None proposed or required.

Yes

DP14.1

Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified

Driveways to be required at dwelling stage.

Yes

DP15.1

Driveway grades first 6m or ‘parking area’ shall be 5% grade with transitions of 2m length

Driveway grades to be required at dwelling stage.

Yes

DP17.1

Parking areas to be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.

None proposed or required.

Yes

DP17.2

Vehicle washing facilities – grassed area etc available.

To be required at dwelling stages.

Yes

DP3.1

Off-street Parking spaces:

•  1 space = single dwelling (behind building line)

Parking to be assessed according to how each lot is developed.

Yes

 

DCP 2011: Subdivision

DP1.1 Provision of suitable site analysis in accordance with listed requirements.

Site plan submitted with the application included suitable analysis detail.

Yes

DP2.1

·    Min. 15m width measured at 5.5m from front boundary;

·    Min. width of 7m when side boundaries are extended to kerb line

·    Min. depth 25m;

·    If avg. slope equal to or greater than 16 degrees, road and driveway grades provided.

Due to the double end cul de sac, the lots are not all standard rectangle or square in shape. However, the majority of lots have a 25m depth or where less than 25m, the variations are minor and offset by the lot width being increased.

Except for Lots 3, 5, 12, 13, 15 & 16, the width of each lot exceeds 15m at 5.5m. The variations to the above lots are caused by the cul de sac frontage and battleaxe type lots that area created. The variations are only minor due to the handle shape of the lots. The lots meet the 15m width requirement in the core area of the lot. In this regard, the subdivision provides a variety of lot shapes and sizes with each lot also still retaining suitable area for a future dwelling.

No, but acceptable.

DP2.2 Lots smaller than 450m created only through community or strata title scheme, or integrated torrens housing development

 

Note: All newly created lots meet minimum lot size in accordance with Cl. 4.1 of LEP

The proposed lots meet the minimum lot size standard of LEP 2011.

Yes

DP3.1 Battleaxe discouraged in Greenfield development.

There are 4 distinct battleaxe lots proposed in this development being 3, 5, 12 and 15. Overall the site is not considered to be a substantial greenfield area but rather a pocket of undeveloped residential land in an existing built up area. The lots are also of significant size to still allow dwellings to be constructed. Being located at the end of a cul de sac, no adverse impact on streetscape will occur. Each handle allows suitable area for driveway, services and storage of waste bins on collection day. Larger lots could be created but are likely to be subject to future subdivision as often occurs.

No, but acceptable.

DP4.1 Lots designed to create dwellings with no more than 1m cut and fill outside building walls.

Addressed previously.

Yes

DP4.2

·    Lot area and width created in accordance with slope category (prevails over zoning)

Slope %

Category

Min lot area (m2)

Min width in any direction (m)

0-10

A

450

15

11-15

B

600

18

16-20

C

1000

20

21-25

D

1200

25

>25

Subdivision discouraged

 

·    In addition to DP1.1, information provided regarding slope in accordance with Table 5.

The slope of the site is around 10%. The lots meet the 450m² lot size and the 15m width has been addressed previously in this report.

 

Yes

DP5.1-5.2 Solar access considered through:

·    Minimal creation of narrow north facing blocks;

·    Blocks generally created with north-south orientation & in accordance with fig. 12;

 

The lots and housing design make good use of solar access and views.

Yes

DP5.3 Lots ensure future dwelling has ample opportunity for solar passive design.

Refer to above comment.

Yes

DP6.1 & DP6.2

·    Provision of suitable street plan derived from site analysis (see DP1.1);

·    Street Plan provided in accordance with requirements listed in DP6.2

Street design has been accepted by Council’s Engineering staff.

Yes

DP6.3

·    Kerb and guttering provided, or alternative solution demonstrated.

·    Acceptable drainage techniques demonstrated

Street design has been accepted by Council’s Engineering staff.

Yes

DP6.4 Size of blocks may vary provided acceptable ease of movement demonstrated.

Size of lots are acceptable.

Yes

DP7.1 & DP7.2 Subdivisions close to urban centres, or along arterial roads serviced by public transport achieve >35 dwellings per hectare (high – medium yield)

Lots sizes are in accordance with the LEP. The higher density is also considered acceptable in this case, especially due to the location of the site to key features such as Rainbow Beach and Ocean Drive.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

(iiia)  any planning agreement that has been entered into under Section 93f or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under Section 93f:

 

None relevant.

 

iv)     any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

 

New South Wales Coastal Policy

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and strategic actions of this policy. Refer to comments on SEPP 71 for further context.

 

Demolition of buildings AS 2601  - Cl 66 (b)

To be conditioned.

 

v)      any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), that apply to the land to which the development application relates:

 

None relevant.

 

(b)     The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, social and economic impacts in the locality:

 

Context & Setting

The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts to existing adjoining properties and satisfactorily addresses the public domain.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with other residential development in the locality and adequately addresses planning controls for the area.

There is no adverse impact on existing view sharing.

There is no adverse privacy impacts.

 

Access, Transport & Traffic

 

Roads

Ocean Drive is a classified road and requires Road and Maritime Services (RMS) concurrence for any works proposed on this road. This development does not propose to enter Ocean Drive directly, but will get access from John Phillip Drive which is an 8m wide local road, sealed with layback type kerb and gutter on both sides. John Phillip Drive joins onto Bundarra Way which accesses onto Ocean Drive. It is noted that the proposed road will be narrower than John Phillip Drive and there will need to be a transition to this section of roadway. Roads within the subdivision shall conform to Council’s AUSPEC standards for a road of Access Place category.

Traffic

The site currently consists of one residential property and is proposed to have 18 lots. This leads to additional traffic on the road network of 17 x 7 = 119 vehicles per day (VPD). The existing road network has sufficient capacity for future traffic demands arising from the development.

 

Access

Vehicular access to the proposed 18 lots will be from John Phillip Drive. It is also proposed to provide pedestrian access from the cul-de-sac head via a pathway to Ocean Drive.

 

Lots with narrow frontages are proposed within the cul-de-sac heads. Council requires vehicle access (4m wide as per AUSPEC D1.31.4) and services to road frontage to be provided as part of the subdivision works for the full length of any access handle less than 5m wide.

 

Manoeuvring

Residential subdivision will allow for manoeuvring from each lot, and double cul-de-sacs are provided in accordance with AUSPEC “Access Place” category to allow for turning of vehicles, including garbage vehicles within the road network.

 

Pedestrians

Council’s Bonny Hills Local Area Traffic Management Plan (LATMP) requires a footpath across the frontage of the site as part of the link between Bonny Hills town centre and the northern town outskirts (Bonny Hills Tavern area). Council’s LATMP also requires an on-road cycleway on Ocean Drive, across the frontage of the site.

The existing John Phillip Drive has no concrete pathway and a link will be required to Ocean Drive. Works of substantial public benefit may be considered as works in kind subject to agreement with Council’s contributions section.

 

Public Domain

The development will provide additional pedestrian linkages to public areas, which will create a positive impact on the public domain.

 

Utilities

Utilities are available to the site and will need to be installed/upgraded at the applicant’s expense.

 

Stormwater

A stormwater drainage concept plan has been submitted in support of the proposed development and demonstrates how stormwater runoff is directed to the downstream drainage system in Ocean Dr.

 

The plan includes water quality controls that comply with Council’s AUSPEC D7 including a GPT, litter basket and sand filter device.

 

Stormwater detention facilities are not proposed for the site on the basis that catchment modelling undertaken by Land Dynamics demonstrated  that the provision of stormwater detention would have negligible impacts on peak flows within Saltwater Creek.

 

In addition, the proposal provides each lot with a direct connection to Council’s piped stormwater network. And provides for overland flows via the pedestrian access way connecting the proposed cul-de-sac to Ocean Drive.

 

Note that the existing road drainage along the Ocean Dr frontage of the site (open drain) will require upgrading to a system of pit(s) and pipes as part of the proposed subdivision of the site. The works shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s AUSPEC Specifications.

 

Sewer

Sewer is available and connected to the site via a 150 main traversing the South East boundary. This will not serve the whole site. Another connection is available from a manhole and sideline located adjacent the North (Ocean Drive) boundary. A separate service terminating in each lot is to be provided. A Clear distance of 1m is required around any manhole or VIS located on each lot.

The sewer strategy submitted utilises both mains mentioned above and appears to be adequate for the proposed subdivision. Engineering design of the sewer in accordance with Council’s adopted Auspec Specification is to be submitted with the application for Construction Certificate.

 

Water

Water is available to the Lot from a 150mm PVC water main on the northern side of John Phillip Drive and from a 100 AC water main on the same side of Ocean Drive.

The plans supplied with this application are satisfactory in principle. However, some adjustment to location of the proposed water main is required. Each proposed lot is to have a separate sealed water service from the proposed main.

 

Soils

The proposed development will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts on soils in terms of quality, erosion, stability and/or productivity subject to a standard condition requiring erosion and sediment controls to be in place prior to and during construction.

 

Air & Micro-climate

The operations of the proposed development will be unlikely to result in any adverse impacts on the existing air quality or result in any pollution.

 

Flora & Fauna

An ecological assessment was completed by Conacher Travers Environmental Consultants in August 2007 with the application for the aged care facility (DA 2007/506). Given the recent nature of the report, Council staff requested that an addendum be produced identifying changes in the development, legislation and associated impacts since the 2007 report. The key findings of the assessments are as follows:

 

-        Site vegetation is limited to scattered trees over a paddock dominated by exotic grasses and landscape gardens.

-        No threatened flora occur and no vegetation onsite qualifies as an Endangered Population or Ecological Community.

-        Fauna use of the site was limited due to limited habitat onsite (i.e. only a handful of canopy trees exist).

-        While the site shows use by koalas it does not qualify as Potential or Core Koala Habitat.

-        There are no hollow bearing trees onsite.

-        The aged care proposal was considered to have no significant impact. The updated subdivision proposal will have impacts of almost identical magnitude and significance.

-        No species known, previously considered to occur or newly listed (and considered a potential occurrence), are likely to be significantly impacted by the proposal.

-        Where landscaping provisions permit, consideration should be given to using Tallowwood and E. patentinervis to provide potential koala habitat.

      

Based on the above, there will be no significant impact on flora and fauna. Section 5A of the Act is considered to be satisfied.

 

Waste

Satisfactory arrangements are in place for proposed storage and collection of waste and recyclables. All the battleaxe lots have been noted to still allow the driveway access and the storage of at least two bins. No adverse impacts anticipated.

 

Noise & Vibration

Refer to comments on SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 above in this report for road traffic noise impacts on the development.

In addition, conditions are recommended to restrict construction to standard construction hours.

 

 

 

Natural Hazards

The site is identified as being bushfire prone and due to the subdivision aspect; the proposal represents integrated development. The applicant has submitted a bushfire report, which was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service. The NSW Rural Fire Services have since provided their General Terms of Approval/Bushfire Safety Authority, which will form conditions of any approval.

 

Contamination Hazards

Refer to comments on SEPP 55 above in this report.

 

Safety, Security & Crime Prevention

Adequate casual surveillance will be made available by future dwellings on the proposed lots. No significant entrapment or concealment areas proposed. Property boundaries defined. Pathways have clear lines of site.

 

Social Impact in the Locality

The development is unlikely to have any adverse social impact given the following:

-     The site has been identified for residential purposes.

-     The site makes use of existing and adjoining infrastructure.

-     The development will provide linkages and pedestrian access to the area.

-     Improved bushfire protection to the area.

The development may create negative impacts during construction through noise, dust etc. However this is considered to be capable of being managed to an acceptable level. Overall, it is considered that the development will not have a significant adverse social impact.

 

Economic Impact in the Locality

No adverse impacts. Likely positive impacts can be attributed to the construction of the development and associated flow on effects, such as maintained employment and expenditure in the local area.

 

Site Design and Internal Design

The proposed development design satisfactorily responds to the site attributes and will fit into the locality. The subdivision layout also makes use of existing roads and services. None of the other developable lots to the west appear to be landlocked and it is considered that there are other opportunities for the western property owners to achieve suitable access arrangements and develop their land. There is also the option of the owners to west purchasing one of the lots in the proposed subdivision to gain access into John Phillip Drive. This would result in the western property owners gaining access to John Phillip Drive while at the same time providing payment to the owner/developer of this application. In this regard, the design is unlikely to create any significant adverse impact.

 

Construction

No potential long term impacts identified to neighbouring properties with the construction of the proposal. Conditions will be imposed limiting construction hours.

 

Cumulative Impacts

The proposed development is not expected to have any adverse cumulative impacts on the natural or built environment or the social and economic attributes of the locality.

 

(c)     The suitability of the site for the development:

 

The proposal will fit into the locality and the site attributes are conducive to the proposed development.

Site constraints have been adequately addressed and appropriate conditions of consent recommended.

 

(d)     Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the Regulations:

 

Subsequent to exhibition of the application, 12 submissions were received. Attached to one of the submissions was a petition containing 73 signatures.

 

Key issues raised in the submissions received and comments in response to these issues are provided as follows:

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

Access to the subdivision should be off Ocean Drive and not John Phillip Drive. Previous approved aged care facility had dual access.

Clause 101(2)(a) of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 requires, where practical, access to a property should be made other than via a classified road (i.e. Ocean Drive). Multiple access points to classified roads can create traffic and safety issues on what are essentially the roads designated more for maximising high volumes of traffic. The less conflict nodes created on these roads the better for the community and road users. The development has been designed to comply with such a requirement.

Continuation of John Phillip Drive through the property and allowing access onto McGilvray Road/Ngamaba Place should be considered. The revised road arrangement would allow other lot owners to connect in and result in a more efficient design.

None of the other developable lots to the west appear to be landlocked and the proposed road layout has been accepted by Council’s Engineering Section from a traffic and design perspective. A similar decision was made on the aged care facility approved in 2008, which also did not provide extension of John Phillip Drive to the west.

Furthermore, it is considered that there are other opportunities for the western property owners to achieve suitable access arrangements and develop their land. There is also the option of the owners to west purchasing one of the lots in the proposed subdivision to gain access into John Phillip Drive. This would result in the western property owners gaining access to John Phillip Drive while at the same time providing payment to the owner/developer of this application.

Based on the above, the matter would be more a civil matter for relevant parties to negotiate.

Traffic management, flow, noise, parking etc will impact on residents of John Phillip Drive, especially during construction.

The road design etc has been accepted by Council’s Engineering Section as being capable of servicing the development. The construction period is normally limited and at worst will result in only short term impacts.

Oppose the small lots, which are not consistent with the existing area and will subsequently devalue the area.

The minimum lot size allowed in the area is 450m² and frontages should not be less than 15m wide. The development complies with the lot size aspect and except for the cul de sac ends, the lots comply with the width requirements. The majority of lots are 15-16m wide. The surrounding area lot sizes would be on average 600m²+ with a number of lots having frontages approximately 18m wide. Given the difference in frontages is only 2-3m, the change in density is not considered to be significant. Furthermore, the change will not present a transition in going from one area to another, but rather as an end node due to the cul de sac design. This further limits the impact.

 

Within the next 30 years as a number of houses in the area reach the end of their life, it is envisaged that there will be a transition to higher density development as properties are re-developed to maximise the close proximity to the beach. There are also existing pockets of higher density development within 500m of the area, such as the row of developments fronting Rainbow Beach on Ocean Drive.

 

Based on the above, the lots sizes are considered acceptable.

The lots appear to encroach on public land.

The lots are contained within private land.

The development will have an adverse impact on koalas.

Refer to comments on SEPP 44 and Flora and Fauna above in this report. The ecological reports accompanying the application consider there will be no significant impact.

Not all people in the area were notified.

Council’s practice is to notify property owners who directly adjoin the subject development site, which occurred in this application.

Garbage trucks currently have trouble turning at the end of John Phillip Drive.

The end of John Phillip Drive appears to be a temporary setup and would create difficulties for a garbage truck to manoeuvre. This application will allow the road to continue with new cul de sac ends built to relevant design specifications.

The intersection of Bundarra Way and John Phillip Drive is dangerous. What is being done to improve this.

The subject intersection and any upgrade is not part of this application. Council Engineers have accepted the development on traffic and road design standards.

Drainage is currently an issue at the corner of Ngamba Place and Bundarra Way as well as Ocean Drive.

The development design has shown that stormwater runoff from the development will not increase above existing conditions or result in concentrated water being directed onto any adjoining private land. The inclusion of stormwater treatment onsite and into Council infrastructure will improve drainage in the area.

The development will impact on road surface.

Any new development will impact on road surfaces within the area and rates and contributions are levied on properties to provide for repairs/maintenance. Bonds are also included in conditions of consent to ensure damage to Council infrastructure during construction is repaired accordingly.

Access from John Phillip Drive through to Ocean Drive will be lost. Parents often drop kids off at the end of John Phillip Drive and kids walk through to Ocean Drive to catch the bus.

Technically the land at the end of John Phillip Drive is privately owned and not available for the public to traverse. Through this application, a public pedestrian link will be formalised through the site to Ocean Drive.

Smaller street widths will create parking issues in the new estate and back up into older areas.

Except for the cul de sac ends, the lot widths comply with relevant controls. The battleaxe lots will have longer driveways that can accommodate informal parking.

Bonny Hills Sewerage Treatment Plant is at capacity with smell noticeable on Rainbow Beach. How is this being addressed through these high density developments.

Council’s Sewer Section have accepted the proposal subject to conditions. In particular, no adverse impacts are proposed to occur on sewer infrastructure as a result of this application.

An easement for APZ on the adjoining western property has not been agreed to by the owner.

Noted. The Bushfire Safety Authority does not require an easement for an APZ to the west.

An APZ has not been provided to the eastern adjoining properties.

An APZ to the east is not required (i.e. there is no bushfire threat to the east). Furthermore, the lots and roads associated with DA 2013/329 provide protection to eastern properties from any fire that starts in the west/south west.

(e)     The Public Interest:

 

The proposed development satisfies relevant planning controls and is unlikely to impact on the wider public interest.

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

·    Development contributions will be required towards augmentation of town water supply and sewerage system head works under Section 64 of the Local Government Act 1993.

·    Development contributions will be required under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 towards roads, open space, community cultural services, emergency services and administration buildings.

 

Refer to draft contribution schedule attached to this report and recommended conditions.

 

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Issues raised during assessment and public exhibition of the application have been considered in the assessment of the application. Where relevant, conditions have been recommended to manage the impacts attributed to these issues.

 

The site is suitable for the proposed development, is not contrary to the public's interest and will not have a significant adverse social, environmental or economic impact. Consequently, it is recommended that the application be approved, subject to the recommended conditions of consent provided in the attachment section of this report.

 

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2013 - 329 Plans

2View. DA2013 - 329 Development Contributions Calculation

3View. DA2013 - 329 Recommended Conditions

4View. DA2013 - 329 Submision - Marks

5View. DA2013 - 329 Submision - Smallwood

6View. DA2013 - 329 Submission - Ashworth

7View. DA2013 - 329 Submission - Bligh-Jones

8View. DA2013 - 329 Submission - Hanlon

9View. DA2013 - 329 Submission - Moore

10View.           DA2013 - 329 Submission - O Connor

11View.           DA2013 - 329 Submission - Petition

12View.           DA2013 - 329 Submission - Rixon

13View.           DA2013 - 329 Submission - Ruming

14View.           DA2013 - 329 Submission - Schouten

15View.           DA2013 - 329 Submission - Upton

 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      27/11/2013

 

 

Item:          07

 

Subject:     DA2012 - 630 - Ancillary building (Shed),  26 Brierley Avenue, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Stephen Ryan

 

 

 

Property:                 Lot 85 DP1175588, 26 Brierley Ave, Port Macquarie

Applicant:               Beukers & Ritter Consulting

Owner:                    John Bloomfield

Application Date:   6 December 2012

Estimated Cost:     $8,000

Location:                 26 Brierley Ave, Port Macquarie

File no:                    DA 2012/630

Parcel no:               62436

Alignment with Delivery Program

4.9.2  Undertake transparent and efficient development assessment in accordance with relevant legislation.

                           

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2012/630 for an ancillary building at Lot 85, DP1175588, No. 26 Brierley Ave, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a Development Application for an ancillary building (shed) at the subject site.

 

This report provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Subsequent to exhibition of the application, one (1) submission has been received.

 

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 624.7m².

 

The site is zoned R1 (General residential) in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, as shown in the following zoning plan:

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl9724_C0A8C986:0142722E1D57:4834:4168D20A%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:0142722E1D57:4834:4168D20A

The property is located on the western side of Brierley Avenue.  The surrounding locality is characterised by newly constructed residential dwellings.

 

The existing subdivision pattern and location of existing development within the immediate locality is shown in the following aerial photograph:

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl5155_C0A8C986:0142722E1D57:4834:4168D20A%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:0142722E1D57:4834:4168D20A

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the application proposal include the following:

 

 

·    Construction of a brick veneer shed with sheet metal roof.

·    Proposed setback 500mm from the rear and north side boundary.

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    6 December 2012 - Application lodged

·    17 December 2012 - 9 January 2013- Neighbour notification

·    18 December 2012 - Copy of notification plans requested by adjoining owner.

·    21 December 2012 - further advice regarding shed use requested from adjoining owner.

·    11 January 2013 - Objection received

·    23 January 2013 - Revised plans to be submitted by owner.

·    7 November 2013 - Original plans resubmitted to Council for determination.

 

3.       STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

 

Section 79C(1) Matters for Consideration

 

In determining the application, Council is required to take into consideration the following matters as are relevant to the development that apply to the land to which the development application relates:

 

(a)     The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i)      any Environmental Planning Instrument:

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 14 - Coastal Wetlands

The site is not identified as containing Coastal Wetlands as identified in the SEPP.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

There is no Koala Plan of Management on the site. Additionally, the site is less than

1ha in area therefore no further investigations are required.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 Remediation of Land

In accordance with clause 7, following an inspection of the site and a search of

Council records, the subject land is not identified as being potentially contaminated

and is suitable for the intended use.

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 62 - Sustainable Aquaculture

In accordance with clause 15C, given the nature of the proposed development, and

its‘ location; the proposal will be unlikely to have any identifiable adverse impact on

any existing aquaculture industries within Lake Innes approximately 1.2 kilometres from the site.

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 71 Coastal Protection

The site is not located within a coastal zone as defined in accordance with clause 4 of SEPP 71.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)

2004

BASIX is not applicable.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

In accordance with clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned R1 General Residential.

In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, the proposed

development for a single dwelling house is a permissible landuse with consent.

 

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

·  To provide for the housing needs of the community.

·  To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.

·  To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to

day needs of residents.

 

In accordance with clause 2.3(2), the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives,

particularly as the proposal is a permissible landuse (being ancillary to a dwelling) and is compatible with the existing established residential locality.

 

In accordance with clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the proposal from

ground level (existing) is 4.35m which complies with the standard height limit of

8.5m applying to the site.

 

In accordance with clause 4.4 the floor space ratio of the proposal complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

 

In accordance with clause 5.9, no listed trees in Development Control Plan 2011 are

proposed to be removed.

 

In accordance with clause 7.1, the site is not identified as containing Acid Sulphate

Soils.

 

In accordance with clause 7.3 the site is not land within a mapped flood planning

area‘ (Land subject to flood discharge of 1:100 annual recurrent interval flood event

plus 0.5m freeboard) or is land at or below the flood planning level.

 

Clause 7.5 - Koala Habitat - The land is not identified as a ―Koala Habitat area on

the Koala Habitat Map.

 

In accordance with clause 7.13, satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision

of essential public utility infrastructure.

 

The requirements of the LEP are therefore satisfied.

 

(iii)    any Development Control Plan in:

 

Port Macquarie Hastings Development Control Plan 2011

 

DCP 2011: Dwellings, Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses, Multi dwelling houses & Ancillary development

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

DP1.1

Ancillary development:

4.8m max. height

Single storey

60m2 max. area

100m2 for lots >900m2

24 degree max. roof pitch

Not located in front setback

Shed

4.35m

Single storey

45.05m²

N/A

Rear setback

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

N/A

Yes

Yes

 

DP4.1

DP4.2

900mm min. rear setback for sheds. Variation subject to DP 4.2.

0.5m proposed

 

No*

DP5.1

 

Side setbacks:

Ground floor = min. 0.9m

 

0.5m proposed

 

No*

DP6.1

35m² min. private open space area including a useable 4x4m min. area which has 5% max. grade

Available at rear

Yes

DP10.1

DP10.2

DP10.3

DP10.4

Privacy:

Direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. i.e. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed

 

No direct views from shed onto adjoining properties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DCP 2011: General Provisions

DP1.1

Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline

Adequate casual surveillance available

 

DP5.1

Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls

Fill contained within building footprint

Yes

DP11.1 onwards

Removal of hollow bearing trees

No tree removal proposed

N/A

DP1.1

Tree removal (3m or higher with 100m diameter trunk and 3m outside dwelling footprint

No tree removal proposed

N/A

 

Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater

Refer to main body of report.

 

DP2.1

New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads

Maintains existing

N/A

DP2.3

Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking

Maintains existing

N/A

DP8.1

Parking in accordance with AS 2890.1

 

N/A

DP11.1

Section 94 contributions

Refer to main body of report.

 

DP12.1 onwards

Landscaping of parking areas

 

N/A

DP14.1

Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified

Maintains existing

N/A

DP17.2

Vehicle washing facilities – grassed area etc available.

Available on site

Yes

DP3.1

Off-street Parking spaces:

1 space = single dwelling (behind building line)

Within existing garage

Yes

 

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision DP 4.1.

 

The relevant objectives are:

-     To allow adequate natural light and ventilation between dwellings/buildings and to private open space areas.

-     To provide useable yard areas and open space.

 

Having regard for the development provisions and relevant objectives, the variation is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

-  There are no privacy implications on the adjoining property at the rear.

-  There is not anticipated to be any overshadowing of adjoining properties.

-  Adequate light and ventilation will be available between dwellings.

 

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision DP 5.1.

 

The relevant objectives are:

-     To reduce overbearing and perceptions of building bulk on adjoining properties and to maintain privacy.

-     To provide or visual and acoustic privacy between dwellings.

 

Having regard for the development provisions and relevant objectives, the variation is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

-     Visual and acoustic privacy will be maintained between the dwellings.

-     A 500mm setback will not contribute to perceptions of building bulk and will allow for maintenance between the boundary and the shed.

 

(iiia)  any planning agreement that has been entered into under Section 93f or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under Section 93f:

 

No planning agreement has been offered or entered into relating to the site.

 

iv)     any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

 

New South Wales Coastal Policy

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and strategic actions of this policy.

 

Demolition of buildings AS 2601  - Cl 66 (b)

Demolition of the existing building on the site is capable of compliance with this Australian Standard and is recommended to be conditioned.

 

v)      any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979), that apply to the land to which the development application relates:

 

None applicable.

 

(b)     The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, social and economic impacts in the locality:

 

Context & Setting

•     The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts to existing adjoining properties and satisfactorily addresses the public domain.

•     The proposal is considered to be consistent  with other residential development in the locality and adequately addresses planning controls for the area.

•     There is no adverse impact on existing view sharing.

•     There is no adverse privacy impacts.

•     There is no adverse overshadowing impacts. The proposal does not prevent adjoining properties from receiving 3 hours of sunlight to private open space and primary living areas on 21 June.

 

Access, Transport & Traffic

The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts in terms access, transport and traffic. The existing road network will satisfactorily cater for any increase in traffic generation as a result of the development.

 

Other utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

 

Sewer

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

 

Stormwater

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

 

Water

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

 

Soils

The proposed development will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts on soils in terms of quality, erosion, stability and/or productivity subject to a standard condition requiring erosion and sediment controls to be in place prior to and during construction.

 

Air & Micro-climate

The operations of the proposed development will be unlikely to result in any adverse impacts on the existing air quality or result in any pollution.

 

Flora & Fauna

Construction of the proposed development will not require removal/clearing of any significant vegetation and therefore will be unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on biodiversity or threatened species of flora and fauna. Section 5A of the Act is considered to be satisfied.

 

Waste

Satisfactory arrangements are in place for proposed storage and collection of waste and recyclables. No adverse impacts anticipated.

 

Energy

The proposal includes measures to address energy efficiency and will be required to comply with the requirements of BASIX.

 

Noise & Vibration

No adverse impacts anticipated. Condition recommended to restrict construction to standard construction hours.

 

Natural Hazards- Bushfire

The site is not identified as being bushfire prone

 

Safety, Security & Crime Prevention

The proposed development will be unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area.  

 

Social Impact in the Locality

Given the nature of the proposed development and its location the proposal is unlikely to result in any adverse social impacts.

 

Economic Impact in the Locality

No adverse impacts.

 

Site Design and Internal Design

The proposed development design is satisfactorily responds to the site attributes and will fit into the locality. No adverse impacts likely.

 

Construction

No potential adverse impacts identified to neighbouring properties with the construction of the proposal.

 

Cumulative Impacts

 

The proposed development is not expected to have any adverse cumulative impacts on the natural or built environment or the social and economic attributes of the locality.

 

(c)     The suitability of the site for the development:

 

The proposal will fit into the locality and the site attributes are conducive to the proposed development.

Site constraints of have been adequately addressed and appropriate conditions of consent recommended.

 

(d)     Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the Regulations:

 

One (1) written submission has been received following completion of the required public exhibition of the application.

 

Key issues raised in the submission received and comments in response to these issues are provided as follows:

 

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

Setback does not comply with 0.9m requirements.

Height of the shed interrupts views to the south west.

A variation in the 900mm setback is considered to be acceptable as the proposed 500mm setback complies with the Building code of Australia. Further there is no foreseeable impact to the objector’s property due to a reduction in sunlight due to overshadowing. The height of the shed is compliant with height requirements for ancillary structures. The potential view loss across the adjoining boundaries is considered to be minor and of insufficient grounds to sustain refusal of the application. There are no iconic or significant views toward the south west with views principally toward adjoining residential dwellings.

Roof slope towards objector will result in glare.

The roof slope of 3° is considered to be minor and the consent will be conditioned for the roof to be of a non reflective nature.

The size of the shed will result in overdevelopment of the site.

The size of the shed is well within the 60m² allowable size for ancillary structures under DCP 2011. Private open space requirements have been achieved.

 (e)    The Public Interest:

 

The proposed development satisfies relevant planning controls and is unlikely to impact on the wider public interest.

 

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

N/A

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Issues raised during assessment and public exhibition of the application have been considered in the assessment of the application. Where relevant, conditions have been recommended to manage the impacts attributed to these issues.

 

The site is suitable for the proposed development, is not contrary to the public's interest and will not have a significant adverse social, environmental or economic impact. Consequently, it is recommended that the application be approved, subject to the recommended conditions of consent provided in the attachment section of this report.

 

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2012 - 630 Plans

2View. DA2012 - 630 Submission Denby

3View. DA2012 - 630 Recommended Conditions

 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

27/11/2013