Development Assessment Panel

 

Business Paper

 

date of meeting:

 

Wednesday 14 February 2018

location:

 

Function Room

Port Macquarie-Hastings Council

17 Burrawan Street

Port Macquarie

time:

 

2:00pm

 


Development Assessment Panel

 

CHARTER

 


 

 

1.0     OBJECTIVES

 

To assist in managing Council's development assessment function by providing independent and expert determinations of development applications that fall outside of staff delegations.

 

 

2.0     KEY FUNCTIONS

 

·                To review development application reports and conditions;

·                To determine development  applications  outside  of staff delegations;

·                To  refer development  applications to  Council for  determination  where necessary;

·                To provide a forum for objectors and applicants to make submissions on applications before  the Development Assessment Panel (DAP);

·                To maintain transparency in the determination of development applications.

 

Delegated Authority of Panel

 

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.

·                Vary, modify or release restrictions as to use and/or covenants created by Section 88B instruments under the Conveyancing Act 1919 in relation to development applications for subdivisions being considered by the panel.

·                Determine Koala Plans of Management under State Environmental Planning Policy 44 - Koala Habitat Protection associated with development applications being considered by the Panel.

 

Noting the trigger to escalate decision making to Council as highlighted in section 5.2.

 

 

3.0      MEMBERSHIP

 

3.1      Voting Members

 

·                Two independent external members. One of the independent external members to be the Chairperson.

·                Group Manager Development Assessment (alternate - Director Development & Environment or Development Assessment Planner)

 

The independent external members shall have expertise in one or more of the following areas: planning, architecture, heritage, the environment, urban design, economics, traffic and transport, law, engineering, government and public administration.

 

3.2      Non-Voting Members

 

·                Not applicable

3.3      Obligations of members

 

·                Members must act faithfully and diligently and in accordance with    this Charter.

·                Members must comply with Council's Code of Conduct.

·                Except as required to properly perform their duties, DAP members must not disclose any confidential information (as advised by Council) obtained in connection with the DAP functions.

·                Members will have read and be familiar with the documents and information provided by Council prior to attending a DAP                                              meeting.

·                Members must act in accordance with Council's Workplace Health and Safety Policies and Procedures

·                External members of the Panel are not authorised to speak to the media on behalf of Council. Council officers that are members of the Committee are bound by the existing operational delegations in relation to speaking to the media.

·                Staff members shall not vote on matters before the Panel if they have been the principle author of the development assessment report.

 

3.4      Member Tenure

 

·                The independent external members will be appointed for the term of four (4) years maximum in which the end of the tenure of these members would occur in a cascading arrangement.

 

3.5      Appointment of members

 

·                The independent external members (including the Chair) shall be appointed by the General Manager following an external Expression of Interest process.

·                Staff members of the Panel are in accordance with this Charter.

 

 

4.0     TIMETABLE OF MEETINGS

 

·                The Development Assessment Panel will generally meet on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday each month at 2.00pm at the Port Macquarie offices of Council.

·                Special Meetings of the Panel may be convened by the Director Development & Environment Services with three (3) days notice.

 

 

5.0      MEETING PRACTICES

 

5.1      Meeting Format

 

·                At all Meetings of the Panel the Chairperson shall occupy the Chair and preside. The Chair will be responsible for keeping of order at meetings.

·                Meetings shall be open to the   public.

·                The Panel will hear from applicants and objectors or their r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .

·                Where considered necessary, the Panel will conduct site inspections which will be open to the public.

 

5.2      Decision Making

 

·                Decisions are to be made by consensus. Where consensus is not possible on any item, that item is to be referred to Council for a decision.

·                All development applications involving a proposed variation to a development standard greater than 10% under Clause 4.6 of the Local Environmental Plan will be considered by the Panel and recommendation made to the Council for a decision.

 

5.3      Quorum

 

·                All members (2 independent external members and 1 staff member) must be present at a meeting to form a quorum.

 

5.4      Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson

 

·                Independent Chair (alternate, second independent member)

 

5.5     Secretariat

 

·                The Director Development &n Environment is to be responsible for ensuring that the Panel has adequate secretariat support. The secretariat will ensure that the business paper and supporting papers are circulated at least three (3) days prior to each meeting. Minutes shall be appropriately approved and circulated to each member within three (3) weeks of a meeting being held.

·                The format of and the preparation and publishing of the Business Paper and Minutes shall be similar to the format for Ordinary Council Meetings.

 

5.6      Recording of decisions

 

·                Minutes will record decisions and how each member votes for each item before the Panel.

 

 

6.0     CONVENING OF “OUTCOME SPECIFIC” WORKING GROUPS

 

Not applicable.

 

 

7.0     CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

 

·                Members of the Panel must comply with the applicable provisions of Council’s Code of Conduct. It is the personal responsibility of members to comply with the standards in the Code of Conduct and regularly review their personal circumstances with this in mind.

·                Panel members must declare any conflict of interests at the start of each meeting or before discussion of a relevant item or topic. Details of any conflicts of interest should be appropriately minuted. Where members are deemed to have a real or perceived conflict of interest, it may be appropriate they be excused from deliberations on the issue where the conflict of interest may exist. A Panel meeting may be postponed where there is no quorum.

 

 

8.0     LOBBYING

 

·                All members and applicants are to adhere to Council’s Lobbying policy. Outside of scheduled Development Assessment Panel meetings, applicants, their representatives, Councillors, Council staff and the general public are not to lobby Panel members via meetings, telephone conversations, correspondence and the like. Adequate opportunity will be provided at Panel inspections or meetings for applicants, their representatives and the general public to make verbal submissions in relation to Business Paper items.


Development Assessment Panel

 

ATTENDANCE REGISTER

 

 

 

Member

25/10/17

08/11/17

22/11/17

06/12/17

13/12/17

Paul Drake

P

P

P

P

P

Robert Hussey

P

P

P

P

P

David Crofts

(alternate member)

-

 

 

 

 

Dan Croft

(Acting Director Development & Environment)

Clinton Tink

(Acting GM Development Assessment

(alternates)

- Director Development & Environment

- Development Assessment Planner

P

 

 

P

P

 

P

P

 

P

P

 

P

 

Key: P =  Present

         A  =  Absent With Apology

         =  Absent Without Apology

 

 

 


Development Assessment Panel Meeting

Wednesday 14 February 2018

 

Items of Business

 

 

Item       Subject                                                                                                      Page

 

01           Acknowledgement of Country............................................................................ 8

02           Apologies......................................................................................................... 8

03           Confirmation of Minutes.................................................................................... 8

04           Disclosures of Interest..................................................................................... 13

05           DA2017 - 355.1 - Demolition Of Dwelling And Construction Of Child Care Centre - Lot 14 DP 262597, 17 Kulai Place, Port Macquarie............................................................ 17

06           DA2017 - 553.1 - Multi Dwelling Housing And Strata Title Subdivision - Lot 2 DP 18127, 34 Chapman Street, Port Macquarie.................................................................... 253

07           DA 2017 - 914.1  Additions To Dwelling - Lot 111, DP 246248, No. 14 Hibbard Drive, Port Macquarie..................................................................................................... 332

08           DA2017 - 529.1 Alterations To Caravan Park - Lot 2 DP 598227, Bell Street, Dunbogan  364

09           DA2017 - 979.1 Construction Of A New Dwelling (Including Clause 4.6 Variation To Clause 4.3 (Height Of Buildings) Of The Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, Swimming Pool And Spa at Lot 143 DP 1229250, No 62 Surfers Drive, Lake Cathie.......... 462

10           DA2017 - 632.1 Multi Dwelling Housing And Strata Subdivision - Lot 1 DP 596122, 25 Hibbard Drive, Port Macquarie.................................................................................... 506  

11           General Business

 


AGENDA                                              Development Assessment Panel      14/02/2018

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 December 2017 be confirmed.

 


MINUTES

Development Assessment Panel Meeting

                                                                                                                                  13/12/2017

 

 

 

 

PRESENT

 

Members:

Paul Drake

Robert Hussey

Clinton Link

 

Other Attendees:

Dan Croft

Ben Roberts

Fiona Tierney

 

 

 

The meeting opened at 2:05pm.

 

 

01       ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

The Acknowledgement of Country was delivered.

 

 

02       APOLOGIES

Nil.

 

 

03       CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

CONSENSUS:

That the Minutes of the Development Assessment Panel Meeting held on 6 December 2017 be confirmed.

 

 

04      DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

 

There were no disclosures of interest presented.

 

 

05       DA2017 - 336.1 Boundary Adjustment Between Two Torrens Title Lots, Residential Flat Building And Café With Associated Strata Title Subdivision - Lot 167 Seaside Drive And Lot 229 Surfers Drive, Lake Cathie

Speakers:

Neil Beecroft (o)

Steve Bottle (o)

Tricia Moss (o)

Michelle Love (applicant)

Graham Burns (applicant)

Tim Veness (applicant)

 

 

CONSENSUS:

 

That DA2017 – 336.1 for a boundary adjustment between two existing torrens title lots, residential flat building and café with associated strata title subdivision including a Clause 4.6 objection to Clause 4.3  (Height of Buildings) of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 at Lot 167 DP 1229250 & Lot 229 DP1235792, Seaside Drive and Surfers Drive, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

06       DA2017 - 455.1 Residential Subdivision (10 Lots) Including Clause 4.6 Objection To Clause 4,1 (Minimum Lot Size) Of The Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 At Lot 65 DP1226839, Shore Break Crescent, Lake Cathie

Speakers:

Michael Mowle (applicant)

Kate McKinnon (applicant)

 

 

CONSENSUS:

 

That it be recommended to Council that DA2017 – 455.1 for a residential subdivision (10 Lots) including Clause 4.6 Objection to Clause 4.1 (Minimum Lot Size) of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 at Lot 65, DP 1226839, Shore Break Crescent, Lake Cathie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions as amended below:

 

Amend condition B7 to state:

 

B7 (B029) The ‘laneways’ to lots 401, 402 and 403 shall include:

a)    Extension of driveways, water supply, telephone and electricity in conduits laid for the full length of the shaft.

b)    Lots 401 and 402 shall be served by a minimum 4.5m wide sealed (e.g. concrete) driveway while Lot 403 shall be served by a minimum 4m wide sealed driveway.

c)    The laneways shall be held in ownership of the lots they benefit, with reciprocal rights of access and services.

d)    Services shall be contained within the laneways and not on adjoining Council land as illustrated on the DA approved plans.

Details shall be provided with the application for Construction Certificate and constructed prior to release of Subdivision Certificate.

 

 

07       DA2017 - 877.1 Dwelling - Lot 709 DP 1228141, No 49 Yaluma Drive, Port Macquarie

CONSENSUS:

That DA 2017 – 877.1 for a dwelling at Lot 709, DP 1228141, No. 49 Yaluma Drive, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

08       DA2017 - 866.1  Alterations And Additions To Dwelling And Construction Of Pool - Lot 134 DP 246284, No 60 Hibbard Drive, Port Macquarie

Speakers:

Richard Raab (o)

 

CONSENSUS:

That DA 2017 – 866.1 for alterations and additions to dwelling and construction of pool at Lot 134, DP 246284, No. 60 Hibbard Drive, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

09       DA2017 - 966.1 Animal Boarding And Training  Establishment (Dogs) - Lot 6 DP 252224, No 406 Pembrooke Road, Redbank

Speakers:

Graham Wass (o)

Gael Nelson (applicant)

 

CONSENSUS:

That DA2017 – 966.1 for an animal boarding and training establishment (dogs) at Lot 6, DP 252224, No. 406 Pembrooke Rd, Redbank, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions as amended below:

 

Amend condition F2 to state:

 

F2 (F025) Hours of operation of the training component of the development are restricted to the following hours:

-   4 pm to 6.30 pm – Thursday

-   9 am to 12.30 pm – Saturdays

-   No work is to be carried out on Sundays and Public Holidays

 

Add condition F9 to state:

F9 (F195) The operator is to keep a log book and record any complaints received and mitigation action taken. The log book is to be made available to Council at any time.

 

 

10       GENERAL BUSINESS

Nil.

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 4:00pm.

 

 

 

 

 


AGENDA                                              Development Assessment Panel      14/02/2018

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:  ....................................................................................................

 

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

 

Name:  …………………………………………………….

 

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.  The Council official must not be present at, or  in sight of, the meeting of the Council at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed, or at any time during which the council is voting on any question in relation to the matter.  (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 Name:  …………………………………………

 

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..

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                                              Development Assessment Panel      14/02/2018

 

 

Item:          05

 

Subject:     DA2017 - 355.1 - Demolition Of Dwelling And Construction Of Child Care Centre - Lot 14 DP 262597, 17 Kulai Place, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Clint Tink

 

 

 

Applicant:               BDM Constructions

Owner:                    Danks Family Pty Ltd

Estimated Cost:     $1,500,000

Parcel no:               11365

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2017 – 355.1 for demolition of a dwelling and construction of a child care centre at Lot 14, DP 262597, No. 17 Kulai Place, Port Macquarie, be determined by refusing consent for the following reasons:

1.       The development fails to provide suitable road access as required by Clause 7.13 of the Port Macquarie Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011.

2.       The development fails to adequately address traffic requirements in Chapter 2.5 of Port Macquarie Hastings Development Control Plan 2013.

3.       The development is not considered suitable for the site. In particular, the access to the site is not suitable for the type and scale of development with the narrow access creating adverse traffic and safety issues for the street and occupants of the development.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a development application for demolition of a dwelling and construction of a child care centre at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Following two (2) exhibition periods of the application, submissions were received from nine (9) people/groups. It should be noted that one (1) of the submissions was lodged on behalf of twelve (12) people/groups with some of the people/groups also choosing to lodge separate individual submissions.

 

It is recommended that the application be determined by refusing consent for traffic and access reasons (a draft set of conditions is provided at the end of this report in the event that the Panel consider the application should be approved).

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

 

The site has an area of approximately 3488m².

 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, as shown in the following zoning plan:

 

http://pmhq-v-gtx01.pmhc.nsw.gov.au/Geocortex/Essentials/GXE471/REST/TempFiles/EBP%20Layout.jpg?guid=1ee929b0-555e-4167-be6d-a47806eebc34&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aerial Photo 2012

http://pmhq-v-gtx01.pmhc.nsw.gov.au/Geocortex/Essentials/GXE471/REST/TempFiles/EBP%20Layout.jpg?guid=97051fc9-2753-44e9-bc03-72b90db90a46&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

Aerial Photos 2017

 

2018_02_05_08_49_20_PhotoMaps_by_nearmap_Internet_Explorer_clinton tink

 

2018_02_05_08_51_18_PhotoMaps_by_nearmap_Internet_Explorer_clinton tink

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

 

·    Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of child care centre (71 children).

·    The building is a mixture of single and two storey construction.

·    A 20 space car park is proposed, which includes a disabled parking space. Within the car park is a turning area and delivery zone. There is also two (2) passing bays proposed to address the single width entry creating a blockage point for vehicles accessing and egressing the site.

·    Approximately 19 trees are to be removed and 16 retained.

·    Signage is provided at the front entry driveway.

·    Hours of operation are nominated as 6:30am to 6:30pm, weekdays.

·    Proposal is for pre-school aged children.

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    1/5/2017 – Development Application lodged with Council.

·    9/5/2017 – Council staff requested additional information on the site plan, signage, fencing, hours and setbacks.

·    11-24/5/2017 – Notification period.

·    11/5/2017 – Applicant provided update on addressing additional information.

·    17/5/2017 – A neighbour requested an extension to notification period.

·    18/5/2017 – Council staff requested more information from the neighbour on the need for extension.

·    19/5/2017 – Neighbour provided more detail on need for extension, which was granted.

·    22/5/2017 – Discussion with neighbour and Council staff regarding Engineering and traffic detail.

·    23/5/2017 – Discussion with neighbour regarding extension to notification period.

·    5/6/2017 – Email to applicant regarding submissions and Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 (ie referenced as SEPP (EECCF) 2017 throughout this assessment).

·    9-14/6/2017 – Discussion with applicant regarding submissions received. Redacted copy of submissions provided to applicant upon request.

·    19/6/2017 – Preliminary email to the applicant regarding further additional information being drafted in response to issues raised in submissions.

·    21/6/2017 – Council staff requested additional information regarding SEPP (EECF) 2017, types of children using the facility, compliance with zone objectives, noise assessment, cut and fill, tree retention, engineering and stormwater.

·    25/8/2017 – Applicant provided response to additional information.

·    14/9/2017 – Council staff advised the additional information provided on 25/8/2017 was not accepted. Applicant requested to provide clarity on SEPP (EECCF) 2017, noise assessment, cut and fill, tree retention, engineering and stormwater issues.

·    26/9/2017 – Email from traffic consultant regarding Council requirements.

·    5/10/2017 – Follow up email from traffic consultant to email of 26/9/2017.

·    8/10/2017 – Council staff responded to traffic consultant.

·    12-17/10/2017 – Discussion and meeting between Council staff and the applicant regarding traffic issues and access.

·    23/10/2017 – Applicant submitted draft plan to address additional information. Council staff advised that further detail still required.

·    27-30/10/2017 – Applicant provided partial response to additional information requested on 23/10/2017.

·    5-6/11/2017 – Discussion between Council staff and the traffic consultant regarding report details.

·    6-9/11/2017 – Discussion between Council staff and the applicant regarding pedestrian access requirements and suitability of the site.

·    21/11/2017 – Applicant provided partial response to additional information matters.

·    30/11/2017 – Civil drawings provided by the applicant.

·    1/12/2017 – Email from Council staff to the applicant regarding internal circulation of material and re-notification. Confirmation on hours of operation still sought.

·    7-20/12/2017 – Re-notification period.

·    15-18/12/2017 – Extension to notification period sought by some neighbours due to Christmas period. Extension granted until 2/1/2018 when Council re-opened.

·    18/12/2017 – Council staff requested additional information on owners consent for stormwater and clarification on the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA).

·    19/12/2017 – Applicant sought clarification on Development Assessment Panel (DAP) process and confirmed hours of operation.

·    2/1/2018 – Council staff responded to applicant’s email dated 19/12/2017.

·    3/1/2018 – Council staff requested clarification on the hours of operation not matching the noise assessment and also how occupants would access the rear yard.

·    8/1/2018 – Applicant responded to query on TIA dated 18/12/2017.

·    8/1/2018 – Applicant advised revised noise assessment to be provided.

·    9/1/2018 – Owners consent to stormwater issue resolved/provided.

·    10-15/1/2018 – Updated noise assessment detail provided.

·    14/1/2018 – Council staff advised the TIA information provided on 8/1/2018 was not accepted.

·    15/1/2018 – Applicant responded to TIA issue.

·    16/1/2018 – Council staff advised the TIA information provided on 15/1/2018 was not accepted.

·    16-17/1/2018 – Discussion with neighbour on DAP process.

·    23/1/2018 – Applicant responded to TIA issue.

 

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 No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

There is no Koala Plan of Management on the site. Additionally, the site is less than one hectare in area. Therefore, no further consideration of the SEPP required.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

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.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 62 – Sustainable Aquaculture

Given the nature of the proposed development and proposed stormwater controls, the proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impact on existing aquaculture industries.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

The proposed development includes proposed advertising signage in the form of a business identification sign.

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

The following assessment table provides an assessment checklist against the Schedule 1 requirements of this SEPP:

 

Applicable clauses for consideration

Comments

Satisfactory

Clause 8(a) Consistent with objectives of the policy as set out in Clause 3(1)(a).

The proposed sign is nominated to be 1.8m wide by 1.2m high. The sign is proposed to not be illuminated. The sign is to be located along the entry driveway. The signage is not excessive in size, would provide effective communication, is able to comprise a quality finish and is unlikely to impact on the amenity or visual character of the area. In this regard, the signage is relatively consistent with the objectives.

 

However, the location of the sign will obstruct views to the street from the people waiting in the proposed passing bays. This will create a traffic conflict. For this reason, the sign is not supported.

 

Should the application be approved, the applicant can seek consent for alternate signage via a separate application, unless deemed exempt development.

No

Schedule 1(1) Character of the area.

The proximity of the development to other commercial based uses and signage in and around Kingfisher Road/John Oxley Drive; ensures the development is not out of character with the area. In addition, the small scale nature of the sign and location of the sign onsite, further ensures no adverse impact on the character of the area.

 

Yes

Schedule 1(2) Special areas.

The area is not considered to comprise a special area.

Yes

Schedule 1(3) Views and vistas.

 

There are no specific views or vistas that the sign will impact on.

Yes

Schedule 1(4) Streetscape, setting or landscape.

 

The sign is of a scale and appropriately setback from the road; to ensure no adverse impact on streetscape.

Yes

Schedule 1(5) Site and building.

 

The sign is not compatible with the site. In particular, the location of the sign will obscure the views from the occupants of the vehicles in the passing bays and their ability to interpret when they can leave the site.

No

Schedule 1(6) Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures.

None proposed.

N/A

Schedule 1(7) Illumination.

 

Sign is not proposed to be illuminated.

N/A

Schedule 1(7) Safety.

Based on previous comments above, it is considered that the signage will obscure sight lines from vehicles using the passing bays. This will reduce safety onsite.

 

Should the application be approved, the applicant can seek consent for alternate signage via a separate application, unless deemed exempt development.

No

Based on the above, the proposed signage is not supported.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy  (State and Regional Development) 2011

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 (SEPP (EECCF) 2017)

It should be noted that a Draft of the SEPP (EECCF) 2017 was exhibited during the assessment period of the development application. As a result, the applicant was initially advised to have regard to the Draft as per 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. However, the Draft has since been gazetted. As a result, the following Schedule 5 Savings Provisions apply:

1   Savings provision

(1)  This Policy does not apply to or in respect of the determination of a development application made under Part 4 of the Act, but not finally determined before the commencement of this Policy.

(2)  Despite subclause (1), before determining a development application referred to in that subclause for development for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility, the consent authority must take into consideration the regulatory requirements and the National Quality Framework Assessment Checklist set out in Part 4 of the Child Care Planning Guideline, in relation to the proposed development.

As a result of the above, the table below takes into consideration the National Quality Framework Assessment Checklist set out in Part 4 of the Child Care Planning Guideline.

 

Child Care Planning Guideline – National Regulations (Chapter 4)

Requirement

Proposed

Complies

4.1 Indoor space

·    3.25m² per child. Areas to exclude outlined in Guideline.

·    71 children x 3.25 = 231m²

·    Verandahs can be included as indoor space with written approval from Department of Education - see page 24 of Guideline.

·    Cannot double up on use of verandahs in indoor and outdoor space calculations

·   

·    Minimum 0.3m³ external storage per child.

·    71 children x 0.3m³ = 21.3m³

·   

·    Minimum 0.2m³ internal storage per child.

·    71 children x 0.2m³ = 14.2m³

·    Storage of items such as prams, bikes and scooters should be located adjacent to the building entrance.

Indoor space exceeds 250m².

 

Room exists onsite to ensure compliant outdoor storage. In particular, storage can be incorporated into the sub floor area.

 

Internal storage exceeds 27m³.

 

Area exists at the front entry of the property for storage of prams, bikes etc.

Yes

4.2 Laundry and hygiene facilities

·    Must contain washer(s), dryer, laundry sinks and storage for soiled items.

·    If external laundry to be utilised, the proposal must address requirements on p25 of Guideline.

A laundry is proposed containing relevant requirements.

Yes

4.3 Toilet and hygiene facilities

·    Designed for use by children.

·    Contain screening but allow supervision.

·    Allow for direct access to activity and outdoor play areas.

·    Minimum number outlined in BCA.

·    A sink and hand washing facilities in all bathrooms for adults.

·    External windows in locations that prevent observation from neighbouring properties or from side boundaries.

The toilet and hygiene facilities can be designed for use by children, contain screening but allow supervision, allow for direct access to activity and outdoor play areas, contain sinks for adults and are designed to prevent observation from neighbours.

Yes

4.4 Ventilation and natural light

·    Good design using mixture of natural and mechanical ventilation.

·    Consideration of ceiling heights being adequate when depth room exceeds 2.5 times the ceiling height.

·    Minimise reliance on artificial lighting.

Each room is provided with numerous openings to ensure natural light and minimise reliance on artificial illumination.

Yes

4.5 Administrative Space

·    Must provide for admin functions, consultation with parents, be private, desk and chair areas, storage and filing area.

Administrative areas provided and/or capable of being designed to meet the requirements of the Guideline.

Yes

4.6 Nappy change facilities

·    Properly constructed nappy change bench.

·    Provide a baby bath within 1m of nappy change.

·    Hand cleaning facilities for adult within vicinity of nappy change.

·    Provide storage for steps.

·    Position nappy change to allow staff to supervise play area.

Sinks may be required if the sinks in adjoining room are deemed to be not in the vicinity. Overall, nappy area is capable of complying.

Yes

4.7 Premise designed to facilitate supervision

·    Development allow supervision but dignity of child.

·    Requirements on p30 of Guideline.

Overall design allows supervision of key areas but suitable protection in bathroom and hygiene areas.

Yes

4.8 Emergency and evacuation procedures

·    Requirements for multi storey listed on p31.

·    Safe haven provided to count numbers before evacuation.

·    Emergency and evaluation plan submitted with DA in accordance with p31 requirements.

An evacuation plan has not been submitted with the DA.

Due to the proximity of the car park to the building, it is unlikely that the car park would be deemed a safe assembly point. As a result, occupants of the child care facility would likely have to traverse the site to the street (Kulai Place). The confined driveway width is likely to create a conflict point for occupants, vehicle users and fire safety personnel. 

Considering the above, it is questionable whether a suitable evacuation plan is possible due to the one way driveway.

No

4.9 Outdoor space requirements

·    7m² per child. Areas to exclude outlined in the Guideline.

·    71 children x 7m² = 497m²

·    Verandahs as outdoor space see p32 of Guideline.

·    Exemptions (ie including verandah areas, simulated indoor areas etc) allowed and outlined on p23-25 of Guideline.

Factoring in exclusions, the outdoor area easily exceeds 500m².

Yes

4.10 Natural Environment

·    Create a natural environment using trees, sand, rocks etc.

·    Avoid having unsafe trees/plants.

·    Provide a variety of experiences.

·    Avoid elements that will limit supervision.

·    Create an environment that enhances learning, interaction etc.

The site is capable of creating a suitable natural environment. Vegetation to be retained onsite has been assessed and deemed suitable.

Yes

4.11 Shade

·    Provide solar access to at least 30% of ground area.

·    Provide shade to at least 30% and evenly distributed.

·    Not more than 60% of outdoor space should be shaded.

·    Planting for shade and solar access is enhanced by:

-     placing appropriately scaled trees near the eastern and western elevations

-     providing a balance of evergreen and deciduous trees to give shade in summer and sunlight access in winter.

·    Built structures should not create safety hazards. Support systems such as upright posts should be clearly visible with rounded edges or padding. Vertical barriers at the sides of shade structures should be designed to prevent children using them for climbing. Shade structures should allow adults to view and access the children’s play areas, with a recommended head clearance of 2.1 metres. The floor area underneath the structure should be of a sufficient size and shape to allow children to gather or play actively.

Site contains a mixture of shaded and un-shaded areas that would allow compliance with the solar access standards.

Yes

4.12 Fencing

·    Required around outdoor areas.

·    Design prevent climbing, going through or under.

·    Prevent outside people gaining access.

·    Not create a sense of enclosure.

·    No climbing points higher than 150mm from the ground.

·    No gaps greater than 100mm between pickets.

·    Have self-closing gates as per AS2890.

·    Side and rear fences must be solid, minimum 1.8m high and be non-climbable.

Capable of complying and can be reinforced through conditions.

Yes

4.13 Soil assessment

·    Soil assessment required - see p38 of Guideline.

Has not been provided. Following a site inspection and given the history of the site as a dwelling, it is unlikely there would be any adverse soils risks/contamination.

No, but acceptable

While not required to be considered, the following aspects of the SEPP (EECCF) 2017 provide an insight into how the suitability of a site will be measured in the future and is relevant when considering 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

SEPP (Childcare - Part 3) Assessment Table

Requirement

Proposed

Complies

Clause 24 - Centre based child care in IN1 and IN2 zone.

-     Minimise land use conflicts.

-     Consider safety of occupants.

-     Compatible with surrounding uses.

-     Development should not sterilise surrounding industrial uses.

The site adjoins an IN1 zoning. The applicant has submitted a noise assessment, which has been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer. The report concluded that noise from the industrial area is unlikely to impact on the operation of the centre. Fencing around the site will provide safety to occupants.

Yes

Clause 25 - Non discretionary standards that if complied with, prevent the consent authority applying more onerous standards.

a)   Location - the development may be located at any distance to another child care.

b)   Indoor/outdoor spaces comply with Clause 22 above.

c)   The development may be located on a site of any size, over any part of the site and have any length of street frontage or allotment depth.

d)   The development can use any colour, building materials or shade structures (if not heritage).

Development complies.

 

In terms of the width of the lot, Council staff are not refusing the development based on a standard regarding the width of the lot. Council staff are refusing the development on the inability to provide a suitable driveway and the subsequent impacts that result (ie evacuation issues, traffic impacts etc).

Yes

Child Care Planning Guideline – Matters for Consideration (Chapter 3)

Matter for Consideration/

Requirement

Proposed

Complies

3.1 Site selection and location p9-10

C1

For proposed developments in or adjacent to a residential zone, consider:

·    the acoustic and privacy impacts of the proposed development on the residential properties

·    the setbacks and siting of buildings within the residential context

·    traffic and parking impacts of the proposal on residential amenity.

For proposed developments in commercial and industrial zones, consider:

·    potential impacts on the health, safety and wellbeing of children, staff and visitors with regard to local environmental or amenity issues such as air or noise pollution and local traffic conditions

·    the potential impact of the facility on the viability of existing commercial or industrial uses.

For proposed developments in public or private recreation zones, consider:

·    the compatibly of the proposal with the operations and nature of the community or private recreational facilities

·    if the existing premises is licensed for alcohol or gambling

·    if the use requires permanent or casual occupation of the premises or site

·    the availability of on-site parking

·    compatibility of proposed hours of operation with surrounding uses, particularly residential uses

·    the availability of appropriate and dedicated sanitation facilities for the development.

For proposed developments on school, TAFE or university sites in Special Purpose zones, consider:

·    the compatibly of the proposal with the operation of the institution and its users

·    the proximity of the proposed facility to other uses on the site, including premises licensed for alcohol or gambling

·    proximity to sources of noise, such as places of entertainment or mechanical workshops

·    proximity to odours, particularly at agricultural institutions

·    previous uses of a premises such as scientific, medical or chemical laboratories, storage areas and the like.

The applicant has submitted a noise assessment, which has been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer. The report concluded that noise from the development is unlikely to adversely impact on adjoining residential properties.

 

Traffic and parking issues will be created as a result of the single width driveway – discussed later in this report.

No

C2

When selecting a site, ensure that:

·    the location and surrounding uses are compatible with the proposed development or use

·    the site is environmentally safe including risks such as flooding, land slip, bushfires, coastal hazards

·    there are no potential environmental contaminants on the land, in the building or the general proximity, and whether hazardous materials remediation is needed

·    the characteristics of the site are suitable for the scale and type of development proposed having regard to:

-     size of street frontage, lot configuration, dimensions and overall size

-     number of shared boundaries with residential properties

-     the development will not have adverse environmental impacts on the surrounding area, particularly in sensitive environmental or cultural areas

·    where the proposal is to occupy or retrofit an existing premises, the interior and exterior spaces are suitable for the proposed use

·    there are suitable drop off and pick up areas, and off and on street parking

·    the type of adjoining road (for example classified, arterial, local road, cul-de-sac) is appropriate and safe for the proposed use

·    it is not located closely to incompatible social activities and uses such as restricted premises, injecting rooms, drug clinics and the like, premises licensed for alcohol or gambling such as hotels, clubs, cellar door premises and sex services premises.

The site is in part considered acceptable. However, the issue with the subject site is that it is located at the end of an existing quiet, low density residential cul de sac. Furthermore, access to the site is via a single driveway entry.

 

The additional traffic created by the facility, associated issues and conflicts near the narrow single entry, warrant the site being unsuitable (Note: traffic issues are discussed later in this report).

No

C3

A child care facility should be located:

·    near compatible social uses such as schools and other educational establishments, parks and other public open space, community facilities, places of public worship

·    near or within employment areas, town centres, business centres, shops

·    with access to public transport including rail, buses, ferries

·    in areas with pedestrian connectivity to the local community, businesses, shops, services and the like.

Child care facility is located within the vicinity of an area being developed for commercial, medical, education etc

Yes

C4

A child care facility should be located to avoid risks to children, staff or visitors and adverse environmental conditions arising from:

·    proximity to:

-     heavy or hazardous industry, waste transfer depots or landfill sites

-     LPG tanks or service stations

-     water cooling and water warming systems - odour (and other air pollutant) generating uses and sources or sites which, due to prevailing land use zoning, may in future accommodate noise or odour generating uses

-     extractive industries, intensive agriculture, agricultural spraying activities

·    any other identified environmental hazard or risk relevant to the site and/ or existing buildings within the site.

Acceptable at present.

 

If approved, future industrial uses would have to consider the child care facility. Potential sterilisation on industrial area.

Questionable.

3.2 Local Character, streetscape and the public domain interface p11-12

C5

The proposed development should:

·    contribute to the local area by being designed in character with the locality and existing streetscape

·    reflect the predominant form of surrounding land uses, particularly in low density residential areas • recognise predominant streetscape qualities, such as building form, scale, materials and colours

·    include design and architectural treatments that respond to and integrate with the existing streetscape

·    use landscaping to positively contribute to the streetscape and neighbouring amenity

·    integrate car parking into the building and site landscaping design in residential areas.

Being a battle axe lot, the child care facility will not be visible from the street. No adverse impact on streetscape.

Yes

C6

Create a threshold with a clear transition between public and private realms, including:

·    fencing to ensure safety for children entering and leaving the facility

·    windows facing from the facility towards the public domain to provide passive surveillance to the street as a safety measure and connection between the facility and the community

·    integrating existing and proposed landscaping with fencing.

Capable of complying.

Yes

C7

On sites with multiple buildings and/or entries, pedestrian entries and spaces associated with the child care facility should be differentiated to improve legibility for visitors and children by changes in materials, plant species and colours.

Not relevant.

N/A

C8

Where development adjoins public parks, open space or bushland, the facility should provide an appealing streetscape frontage by adopting some of the following design solutions:

·    clearly defined street access, pedestrian paths and building entries

·    low fences and planting which delineate communal/ private open space from adjoining public open space

·    minimal use of blank walls and high fences.

Not relevant.

N/A

C9

Front fences and walls within the front setback should be constructed of visually permeable materials and treatments. Where the site is listed as a heritage item, adjacent to a heritage item or within a conservation area front fencing should be designed in accordance with local heritage provisions.

None proposed (battle axe lot).

N/A

C10

High solid acoustic fencing may be used when shielding the facility from noise on classified roads. The walls should be setback from the property boundary with screen landscaping of a similar height between the wall and the boundary.

Development does not front a classified road.

N/A

3.3 Building orientation, envelope and design p12-14

C11

Orient a development on a site and design the building layout to:

·    ensure visual privacy and minimise potential noise and overlooking impacts on neighbours by:

-     facing doors and windows away from private open space, living rooms and bedrooms in adjoining residential properties

-     placing play equipment away from common boundaries with residential properties

-     locating outdoor play areas away from residential dwellings and other sensitive uses

·    optimise solar access to internal and external play areas

·    avoid overshadowing of adjoining residential properties

·    minimise cut and fill

·    ensure buildings along the street frontage define the street by facing it

·    ensure that where a child care facility is located above ground level, outdoor play areas are protected from wind and other climatic conditions.

Measures such as fencing, screening, opening locations, location of play areas etc have been put in place to ensure compliance.

Yes

C12

The following matters may be considered to minimise the impacts of the proposal on local character:

·    building height should be consistent with other buildings in the locality

·    building height should respond to the scale and character of the street

·    setbacks should allow for adequate privacy for neighbours and children at the proposed child care facility

·    setbacks should provide adequate access for building maintenance • setbacks to the street should be consistent with the existing character.

Being a battle axe lot, the child care facility will not be readily visible from the street. The use, size and height of the building are also consistent with others in the locality. As a result, the development will not impact on the character of the locality.

Yes

C13

Where there are no prevailing setback controls minimum setback to a classified road should be 10 metres. On other road frontages where there are existing buildings within 50 metres, the setback should be the average of the two closest buildings. Where there are no buildings within 50 metres, the same setback is required for the predominant adjoining land use.

Not relevant to battle axe lot.

N/A

C14

On land in a residential zone, side and rear boundary setbacks should observe the prevailing setbacks required for a dwelling house.

Development exceeds requirements.

Yes

C15

The built form of the development should contribute to the character of the local area, including how it:

·    respects and responds to its physical context such as adjacent built form, neighbourhood character, streetscape quality and heritage

·    contributes to the identity of the place

·    retains and reinforces existing built form and vegetation where significant

·    considers heritage within the local neighbourhood including identified heritage items and conservation areas

·    responds to its natural environment including local landscape setting and climate

·    contributes to the identity of place.

Refer to comments on C12.

Yes

C16

Entry to the facility should be limited to one secure point which is:

·    located to allow ease of access, particularly for pedestrians

·    directly accessible from the street where possible

·    directly visible from the street frontage

·    easily monitored through natural or camera surveillance

·    not accessed through an outdoor play area.

·    in a mixed-use development, clearly defined and separate from entrances to other uses in the building.

Being a battle axe lot, the entry is not readily visible.

No

C17

Accessible design can be achieved by:

·    providing accessibility to and within the building in accordance with all relevant legislation

·    linking all key areas of the site by level or ramped pathways that are accessible to prams and wheelchairs, including between all car parking areas and the main building entry

·    providing a continuous path of travel to and within the building, including access between the street entry and car parking and main building entrance. Platform lifts should be avoided where possible

·    minimising ramping by ensuring building entries and ground floors are well located relative to the level of the footpath. NOTE: The National Construction Code, the Discrimination Disability Act 1992 and the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 set out the requirements for access to buildings for people with disabilities.

Capable of complying.

Yes

3.4 Landscaping p15

C18

Appropriate planting should be provided along the boundary integrated with fencing. Screen planting should not be included in calculations of unencumbered outdoor space. Use the existing landscape where feasible to provide a high quality landscaped area by:

·    reflecting and reinforcing the local context

·    incorporating natural features of the site, such as trees, rocky outcrops and vegetation communities into landscaping.

Capable of complying.

Yes

C19

Incorporate car parking into the landscape design of the site by:

·    planting shade trees in large car parking areas to create a cool outdoor environment and reduce summer heat radiating into buildings

·    taking into account streetscape, local character and context when siting car parking areas within the front setback

·    using low level landscaping to soften and screen parking areas.

Capable of complying.

Yes

3.5 Visual and Acoustic Privacy p15-16

C20

Open balconies in mixed use developments should not overlook facilities nor overhang outdoor play spaces.

Not applicable.

N/A

C21

Minimise direct overlooking of indoor rooms and outdoor play spaces from public areas through:

·    appropriate site and building layout

·    suitably locating pathways, windows and doors

·    permanent screening and landscape design.

Capable of complying.

Yes

C22

Minimise direct overlooking of main internal living areas and private open spaces in adjoining developments through:

·    appropriate site and building layout

·    suitable location of pathways, windows and doors

·    landscape design and screening.

Capable of complying.

Yes

C23

A new development, or development that includes alterations to more than 50 per cent of the existing floor area, and is located adjacent to residential accommodation should:

·    provide an acoustic fence along any boundary where the adjoining property contains a residential use. (An acoustic fence is one that is a solid, gap free fence).

·    ensure that mechanical plant or equipment is screened by solid, gap free material and constructed to reduce noise levels e.g. acoustic fence, building, or enclosure.

Capable of complying.

Yes

C24

A suitably qualified acoustic professional should prepare an acoustic report which will cover the following matters:

·    identify an appropriate noise level for a child care facility located in residential and other zones

·    determine an appropriate background noise level for outdoor play areas during times they are proposed to be in use

·    determine the appropriate height of any acoustic fence to enable the noise criteria to be met.

Noise report has been submitted for the proposal, reviewed by Council staff and deemed acceptable.

Yes

3.6 Noise and air pollution p17

C25

Adopt design solutions to minimise the impacts of noise, such as:

·    creating physical separation between buildings and the noise source

·    orienting the facility perpendicular to the noise source and where possible buffered by other uses

·    using landscaping to reduce the perception of noise

·    limiting the number and size of openings facing noise sources

·    using double or acoustic glazing, acoustic louvres or enclosed balconies (wintergardens)

·    using materials with mass and/or sound insulation or absorption properties, such as solid balcony balustrades, external screens and soffits

·    locating cot rooms, sleeping areas and play areas away from external noise sources.

Measures have been incorporated into the design.

Yes

C26

An acoustic report should identify appropriate noise levels for sleeping areas and other non play areas and examine impacts and noise attenuation measures where a child care facility is proposed in any of the following locations:

·    on industrial zoned land

·    where the ANEF contour is between 20 and 25, consistent with AS 2021 – 2000

·    along a railway or mass transit corridor, as defined by State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

·    on a major or busy road

·    other land that is impacted by substantial external noise.

Noise report has been submitted for the proposal, reviewed by Council staff and deemed acceptable.

Yes

C27

Locate child care facilities on sites which avoid or minimise the potential impact of external sources of air pollution such as major roads and industrial development.

Acceptable at present.

 

If approved, future industrial uses would have to consider the child care facility. Potential sterilisation on industrial area.

Questionable.

C28

A suitably qualified air quality professional should prepare an air quality assessment report to demonstrate that proposed child care facilities close to major roads or industrial developments can meet air quality standards in accordance with relevant legislation and guidelines. The air quality assessment report should evaluate design considerations to minimise air pollution such as:

·    creating an appropriate separation distance between the facility and the pollution source. The location of play areas, sleeping areas and outdoor areas should be as far as practicable from the major source of air pollution

·    using landscaping to act as a filter for air pollution generated by traffic and industry. Landscaping has the added benefit of improving aesthetics and minimising visual intrusion from an adjacent roadway

·    incorporating ventilation design into the design of the facility.

Not provided but Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the proposal. Considered acceptable at present.

Yes

3.7 Hours of operation p18

C29

Hours of operation within areas where the predominant land use is residential should be confined to the core hours of 7.00am to 7.00pm weekdays. The hours of operation of the proposed child care facility may be extended if it adjoins or is adjacent to non-residential land uses.

Proposed hours are 6:30am to 6:30pm, weekdays. A noise report has been submitted and supports the minor change.

Yes

C30

Within mixed use areas or predominantly commercial areas, the hours of operation for each child care facility should be assessed with respect to its compatibility with adjoining and co-located land uses.

Refer to above comment.

Yes

3.8 Traffic, parking and pedestrian circulation p18-19

C31

Off street car parking should be provided at the rates for child care facilities specified in a Development Control Plan that applies to the land.

Where a Development Control Plan does not specify car parking rates, off street car parking should be provided at the following rates:

Within 400 metres of a metropolitan train station:

·    1 space per 10 children

·    1 space per 2 staff. Staff parking may be stack or tandem parking with no more than 2 spaces in each tandem space.

In other areas:

·    1 space per 4 children.

A reduction in car parking rates may be considered where:

·    the proposal is an adaptive re-use of a heritage item

·    the site is in a B8 Metropolitan Zone or other high density business or residential zone

·    the site is in proximity to high frequency and well-connected public transport

·    the site is co-located or in proximity to other uses where parking is appropriately provided (for example business centres, schools, public open space, car parks)

·    there is sufficient on street parking available at appropriate times within proximity of the site.

Council’s DCP requires 1 space per 4 children. At 71 children, the centre would need 18 spaces. Proposed development provides 20 spaces.

Yes

C32

In commercial or industrial zones and mixed use developments, on street parking may only be considered where there are no conflicts with adjoining uses, that is, no high levels of vehicle movement or potential conflicts with trucks and large vehicles.

Not relevant.

N/A

C33

A Traffic and Parking Study should be prepared to support the proposal to quantify potential impacts on the surrounding land uses and demonstrate how impacts on amenity will be minimised. The study should also address any proposed variations to parking rates and demonstrate that:

·    the amenity of the surrounding area will not be affected

·    there will be no impacts on the safe operation of the surrounding road network.

A traffic impact assessment was prepared by the applicant and reviewed by Council staff. The results are discussed later in this report but show a number of deficiencies and potential conflicts. These deficiencies result in the site being considered unsuitable.

No

C34

Alternate vehicular access should be provided where child care facilities are on sites fronting:

·    a classified road

·    roads which carry freight traffic or transport dangerous goods or hazardous materials. The alternate access must have regard to:

·    the prevailing traffic conditions

·    pedestrian and vehicle safety including bicycle movements

·    the likely impact of the development on traffic.

Alternate access not available to address traffic impacts (discussed later in this report) created by the development.

No

C35

Child care facilities proposed within cul-de-sacs or narrow lanes or roads should ensure that safe access can be provided to and from the site, and to and from the wider locality in times of emergency.

The development is located in a cul de sac. Information submitted by the applicant has not sufficiently addressed safe access to the site in times of emergency.

No

C36

The following design solutions may be incorporated into a development to help provide a safe pedestrian environment:

·    separate pedestrian access from the car park to the facility

·    defined pedestrian crossings included within large car parking areas

·    separate pedestrian and vehicle entries from the street for parents, children and visitors

·    pedestrian paths that enable two prams to pass each other

·    delivery and loading areas located away from the main pedestrian access to the building and in clearly designated, separate facilities

·    in commercial or industrial zones and mixed use developments, the path of travel from the car parking to the centre entrance physically separated from any truck circulation or parking areas

·    vehicles can enter and leave the site in a forward direction.

Not all elements have been incorporated into the design. Pedestrian access does not allow sufficient width for prams to pass down the access handle.

No

C37

Mixed use developments should include:

·    driveway access, manoeuvring areas and parking areas for the facility that are separate to parking and manoeuvring areas used by trucks

·    drop off and pick up zones that are exclusively available for use during the facility’s operating hours with spaces clearly marked accordingly, close to the main entrance and preferably at the same floor level. Alternatively, direct access should avoid crossing driveways or maneuvering areas used by vehicles accessing other parts of the site

·    parking that is separate from other uses, located and grouped together and conveniently located near the entrance or access point to the facility.

Not a mixed use development.

N/A

C38

Car parking design should:

·    include a child safe fence to separate car parking areas from the building entrance and play areas

·    provide clearly marked accessible parking as close as possible to the primary entrance to the building in accordance with appropriate Australian Standards

·    include wheelchair and pram accessible parking.

Capable of complying.

Yes

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

The proposal is consistent with the LEP having regard to the following:

·    Clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R2 zone landuse table, the proposed development for a child care centre (now defined as centre based child care facility under SEPP (EECCF) 2017 is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R2 zone are as follows:

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

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

To provide for low density housing that does not compromise the environmental, scenic or landscape qualities of land.

In accordance with Clause 2.3(2), the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives having regard to the following:

The proposal is a permissible landuse.

The proposal will provide a facility to meet the day to day child care needs of residents in the area, along with people working in the nearby University, Shopping complex and medical precinct.

·    Clause 2.7, the demolition requires consent as it does not fit within the provisions of SEPP (Exempt and Complying) 2008.

·    Clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 7.6m which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

·    Clause 4.4, there is no floor space ratio applicable to the site.

·    Clause 5.9, the removal of trees has been assessed by Council’s Natural Resources Section and deemed acceptable subject to conditions.

·    Clause 5.10, the site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage items or sites of significance.

·    Clause 7.5, the site is not identified as a Koala Habitat area.

·     Clause 7.13, satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential services including water supply, electricity supply, sewer infrastructure and stormwater drainage.

1.    

2.   However, suitable road access is not available to match the scale of the development. Refer to comments on Roads and Traffic etc later in this report.

3.    

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 (SEPP (EECCF) 2017)

It should be noted that a Draft of the SEPP (EECCF) 2017 was exhibited during the assessment period of the development application. As a result, the applicant was initially advised to have regard to the Draft as per 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. However, the Draft has since been gazetted. As a result the following Schedule 5 Savings Provisions apply:

1   Savings provision

(1)  This Policy does not apply to or in respect of the determination of a development application made under Part 4 of the Act, but not finally determined before the commencement of this Policy.

(2)  Despite subclause (1), before determining a development application referred to in that subclause for development for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility, the consent authority must take into consideration the regulatory requirements and the National Quality Framework Assessment Checklist set out in Part 4 of the Child Care Planning Guideline, in relation to the proposed development.

As a result of the above, consideration the National Quality Framework Assessment Checklist set out in Part 4 of the Child Care Planning Guideline is discussed above in this report under State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 (SEPP (EECCF) 2017).

 

(iii)    any Development Control Plan in force:

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

Requirement

Proposed

Complies

2.2 Advertising and signage

The signage is primarily intended to identify the business. The signage does not project above or the side of building facades. The signage does not dominate or impact on streetscape. No illumination of signage is proposed.

 

However, refer to comments on SEPP 64 above in this report, which raises concern over sight distances being affected and subsequent safety issue.

No

2.3 Environmental Management

Cut and fill. The development proposes 1.8m of cut to construct the car park area. The cut will not impact on drainage, privacy, streetscape etc and no adverse impacts are foreseen. Conditions can be imposed to cover structural requirements.

 

The development will implement appropriate erosion and sediment control measures during the construction phase – can be conditioned.

 

Hollow bearing trees – the development will not involve the removal of hollow bearing trees.

 

Four (4) replacement trees can be required to be conditioned to offset tree loss.

Yes

2.5 Transport, Traffic Management, Access and Car parking

Parking is specified at 1 space per 4 children plus set down and pick up area. The proposed development will have a maximum of 71 child places and will require 18 spaces. 20 off-street parking spaces are proposed.

 

The requirement for a set down and pick up area are no longer considered relevant to child care centres. In particular, most child care centres now require parents to formally sign in and out their children. This means parents have to physically park their car and take the child into the centre.

 

Satisfactory landscaping, surface material, grades, stormwater control are proposed/capable for the car parking area.

 

The development fails to address 2.5.3.7 in that the access does not provide an easy safe entry for vehicles and pedestrians. As discussed later in this report, the one way entry creates a conflict point.

 

A suitable size loading/delivery area has been provided but the location conflicts with the proposed passing bays. In this regard, the loading bay has potential to also conflict with other users onsite and does not comply with 2.5.3.19.

No

2.7 Social Impact Assessment and Crime Prevention

In accordance with the Council’s Social Impact Assessment Policy, a child care centre catering for greater than 20 children and within a residential area; requires a social impact comment. A basic social impact comment has been provided within the application and is deemed acceptable.

 

No adverse crime risk potential identified with design layout of the centre. Adequate boundary fencing is provided and the centre has been designed to provide surveillance of outdoor areas.

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:

 

Demolition of buildings AS 2601:

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 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:

The site has street frontage to Kulai Place via a narrow battle axe handle.

Adjoining the site to the north is a University complex.       

Adjoining the site to the east is industrial land used predominately for storage.

Adjoining the site to the south and west are larger residential lots with single dwellings.

Further afield, the locality contains a mixture of uses including medical, commercial, seniors housing and student accommodation.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with other development in the locality.

The proposal does not have a significant adverse impact on existing view sharing.

The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

There are no significant adverse privacy impacts. Adequate building separation and screening is proposed.

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.

 

Roads

The site is located at the eastern cul-de-sac end of Kulai Place, a Council-owned and maintained Access Place with a road width of 8m within a 19m wide reserve. Both sides of Kulai Place are bordered by layback (SE) type kerb and gutter. There is no existing concrete footpath within the nature strip. Kulai Place joins with Kingfisher Road and then with John Oxley Drive (former Oxley Highway).

 

Traffic

The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) in support of the proposal. Council staff reviewed the TIA, along with submissions received and raised the following comments/issues that would need to be addressed by conditions of consent.

Parts of Kulai Place and its intersection with Kingfisher Road do not meet current standards. The safe speed for many of these locations is assessed as a maximum of 50km/h (lower on bends). The design speed (the 85th percentile speed of traffic) is assessed as likely to be 60km/h. It is expected that drivers will travel at these speeds given wide verges, low residential density, infrequent existing traffic, and the likelihood that traffic will be in a hurry during the peak daily commuter periods, having been delayed to/from the Oxley Highway and John Oxley Drive. These locations have also been referred to in submissions received during the public exhibition period. If the development is to be approved, line marking and signage are recommended to mitigate the following concerns by increasing awareness of hazards, calming traffic speed, and discouraging on-street parking near the point of conflict:

·    Inadequate sight distance at the 90 degree bend in Kulai Place;

·    Inadequate sight distance at the blind crest in Kulai Place;

·    Inadequate sight distance to/from the intersection of Kulai Place and Kingfisher Road, westwards due to the presence of low-level foliage and a mix of mature and immature Koala Food Trees. It is believed that removal of immature trees and non-significant foliage/branches under supervision of a qualified arborist will provide an acceptable level of safety in line with current standards while balancing the need to minimise environmental impacts; and

·    Inadequate sight distance to/from the intersection of Kulai Place and Kingfisher Road, eastwards to the hill crest on Kingfisher.

Regulatory signs such as ‘No Stopping’, ‘No Parking’ or timed parking are not recommended in low traffic urban areas such as residential streets so as not to undermine their effectiveness. It is considered that the Local Traffic Committee would be unlikely to approve a request for these signs to be installed within Kingfisher Road or Kulai Place at this point in time.

Council is aware of the need for a long term strategy for the John Oxley Drive corridor to manage issues at the Kingfisher Road intersection and more broadly, associated with both the commuter peaks and also school traffic. Preliminary scoping of that strategy indicates the potential for a signalised intersection at John Oxley Drive/Kingfisher being required. While this development will contribute to a very small proportion of overall delays and congestion, the works remain a Council responsibility, including equitably funding these through the receipt of s94 contributions in connection with developments in the area.

While the Kulai Place pavement is in poor repair, review of proposed traffic loads in accordance with the AUSTROADS guide has led to the conclusion that the development will not result in a significant increase in need for pavement maintenance. The existing potholes are for Council to address as part of its normal operational plans.

 

Access and Parking

Council’s DCP 2013 requires 1 onsite parking space per 4 children. For 71 children this equates to a requirement of 18 spaces. 20 spaces have been provided onsite.

The TIA acknowledges that AS/NZS 2890.1 requires the driveway access for this type of development to provide a two-way driveway. The site frontage for access does not allow for this (the access handle is only 5.40m at the narrowest point). A single vehicular access lane 3.0m wide and pedestrian pathway are proposed. In addition, to allow for passing and improve sight lines, two dedicated waiting bays are to be allocated within the site.

AS 2890.1 stipulates a total minimum of 6.1m two-way flow width (5.5m lanes plus 300mm clearance each side to fences) should be provided where 30 or more vehicle movements (in and out combined) would be likely. Furthermore, a pedestrian pathway measuring 2.1m minimum is recommended (for a wheelchair and pram to pass, although 2.5m is desirable) in accordance with AS 1428 Design for Access and Mobility to allow safe and efficient access to the site and to facilitate evacuation during an emergency. The development will exceed the 30 or more traffic movement threshold but provides a lesser standard access width for vehicles and pedestrian.

As a result of the above, it is estimated that peaks of up to six cars may be required to queue in each direction on a daily basis when attempting to enter or exit the site simultaneously. The provision of onsite turning bays at the end of the blind traffic aisle allows forwards-only circulation but there is still a significant risk of onsite grid lock, especially where cars attempting to exit parking spaces or turn around and exit the site are impeded by cars entering the site and are unable to clear the congestion. The location of the service truck bay within the main carpark and towards the front queuing area will also exacerbate the issue if deliveries arrive during peak periods.

An additional concern is that the proposed 1.8w x 1.2h advertising signage would block direct line of sight to cars waiting at either end of the access aisle, impeding efficient communication and flows. It is recommended the sign not form part of this approval.

Further to the above, the restricted nature of the one-way access handle has the potential to create conflict and be problematic in the event of an emergency on this site (evacuation/egress etc).

Based on the above, the narrow access and limited site circulation is considered to render the site unsuitable for the proposal.

 

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the development site has an existing 20mm metered water service from the 100 PVC water main on the opposite side of Kulai Place.

Final water service sizing will need to be determined by a hydraulic consultant to suit the domestic and commercial components of the development. Fire service and backflow protection requirements must be addressed in accordance with AS 2419.

Detailed plans will be required to be submitted for assessment with the S.68 application but are considered achievable.

 

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site is connected to Sewer via junction to the existing sewer line that runs along the eastern property boundary.

The proposed development must discharge sewage to an existing or proposed sewer manhole.

Details will be required to be submitted for assessment with the S.68 application but are considered achievable.

 

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the east (rear) away from the street frontage and is currently not serviced by a legal downstream drainage path or pipe infrastructure. There is an existing Easement to Drain Water benefitting the site on the downstream properties at 33 and 35 Merrigal Road within the industrial area. However, this easement on the earlier subdivision plan DP 1053173 does not touch the boundary of the site.

The applicant has obtained from the owner of 33 Merrigal Road a signed heads of agreement confirming creation of an additional easement. A condition of consent can ensure the relevant easement is created.

The legal point of discharge for the proposed development is therefore defined as a direct piped connection to the existing pipe network, by extension of a pipeline from the site to the downstream inter-allotment drainage on 35 Merrigal Road (within the easement), which subsequently drains to Council’s. The total extension distance is approximately 45m to the site boundary.

A detailed site stormwater management plan will be required to be submitted for assessment with the S.68 application but is considered achievable.

In accordance with Councils AUSPEC requirements, the following must be incorporated into the stormwater drainage plan:

·    On site stormwater detention facilities

·    Water quality controls

·    Provision of inter-allotment drainage to allow the proposed development to drain to the nominated point of discharge

 

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services can be made available to the site. The developer will engage an accredited service provider to arrange for augmentation of the existing electricity and telecommunications services if required in accordance with the utilities’ policies.

 

Other land resources

The site is within an established urban context and will not sterilise any significant mineral or agricultural resource.

 

Water cycle

The proposed development will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts on water resources and the water cycle.

 

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 and microclimate

The construction and/or operations of the proposed development will be unlikely to result in any adverse impacts on the existing air quality or result in any pollution. Standard precautionary site management condition recommended.

 

Flora and fauna

The applicant submitted an ecological assessment and arborist report, which was subsequently reviewed by Council’s Natural Resource Section. Overall, the construction of the proposed development will not require any 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. 

Appropriate replacement plantings to be conditioned.

 

Waste

Based on waste output from child care centres and for hygiene and odour reasons, waste pickup is likely to occur several times per week. The waste pick up would most likely require use of a truck-mounted hydraulic lift. For these reasons, standard kerb pick up is unlikely to be suitable for development of this type and scale. Conditions have been prepared to require the operators to maintain a private waste collection service for the life of the development.

Overall, satisfactory arrangements can be put 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 Section J of the Building Code of Australia. No adverse impacts anticipated.

 

Noise and vibration

The applicant submitted a noise report looking at noise impacts to and from the child care centre. The report was subsequently reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer and deemed acceptable subject to conditions on noise barriers, mechanical plant selection at detailed design stage and a Noise Management Plan.

Conditions also recommended to restrict construction to standard construction hours.

 

Bushfire

The site is not identified as being bushfire prone.

 

Safety, security and 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. Fencing will provide security and natural surveillance will be retained within the area.

 

Social impacts in the locality

In accordance with the Council’s Social Impact Assessment Policy, a child care centre catering for greater than 20 children and within a residential area; requires a social impact comment. A basic social impact comment has been provided within the application and is deemed acceptable. In particular, the provision of a child care centre is considered to provide positive social impacts (ie employment, important service within the community etc), especially when managed properly.

 

Economic impact in the locality

No adverse impacts. A likely positive impact is that the development will maintain employment in the construction and child care industry, which will lead to flow on impacts such as expenditure in the area.

 

 

 

Site design and internal design

The proposed development design does not satisfactorily responds to the site attributes. The narrow access is not suitable for a development of this type and scale. The impact will be traffic conflicts within and at the entry to the site.

 

Construction

No potential adverse impacts identified to neighbouring properties with the construction of the proposal. Standard conditions can be imposed to manage noise, erosion control etc.

 

Cumulative impacts

The proposed development is expected to have an adverse cumulative impact on the built environment of the locality with traffic conflicts occurring at the entry to the site.

 

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

As discussed in the Traffic and Access and Parking headings of this report, the site is considered unsuitable for a development of this type and scale.

 

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

Following two (2) exhibition periods of the application, submissions were received from nine (9) people/groups.

 

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

 

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

The development does not adequately consider the provisions of SEPP (EECCF) 2017 and Draft SEPP (EECCF).

 

Consideration would have resulted in the site being deemed unsuitable.

Council staff agree that the information provided by the applicant on compliance with the SEPP/Draft SEPP was limited. Nonetheless, Council staff carried out a review assessment, which is detailed above in this report.

 

Council staff also agree that proper consideration of the SEPP may have helped the applicant identify the site constraints discussed throughout this report.

 

Council staff have also considered the Draft SEPP (EECCF). However, given the SEPP (EECCF) 2017 was gazetted during the assessment period, changed requirements slightly and provides Savings provisions for issues to consider; the issues raised in the Savings provisions were considered more applicable – see assessment table above in this report.

The development will create traffic impacts/delays on several intersections within the area.

Council staff agree – refer to comments on Roads, Traffic, Access and Parking above in the report.

It is considered that measures could be conditioned to reduce some of these impacts if the application were to be approved.

Traffic Impact Assessment contains insufficient information.

Council staff agree - refer to comments on Roads, Traffic, Access and Parking above in the report.

The development does not attempt to address non-compliant intersections/roads.

 

Parking in the street concerns.

 

Blind spots.

Council staff agree - refer to comments on Roads, Traffic, Access and Parking above in the report.

 

The access is not suitable/compliant.

 

Neighbouring driveways will have cars reversing out near the access/potential conflict.

 

Siting in cul de sac undesirable.

 

Access creates safety issues for children/occupants and issues during emergency situations.

 

Emergency/evacuation plan not addressed properly and should be required.

Council staff agree - refer to comments on Roads, Traffic, Access and Parking, plus comments on 2.5 in the DCP 2013 assessment above in the report.

Collection of garbage should be resolved as part of the design.

A private collection is considered possible, subject to standard condition requiring private agreement.

Noise impacts from the development (ie from vehicles, building, open areas)

The applicant has submitted a noise assessment, which was reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer and deemed acceptable, subject to conditions.

Inconsistent hours between the application and noise report.

 

Validity of noise assessment.

 

Hours should be 7am to 7pm weekdays.

 

Hours not acceptable.

 

Outside noise sources impacting on children (ie industrial use, hospital helicopter).

The noise report and application have been corrected and reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer along with issues raised in submissions. The proposal and assessment were deemed acceptable, subject to conditions.

 

It should be noted that proposed hours are 6:30am to 6:30pm, weekdays. Considered that drop offs before 7am would be minimal.

Access from indoor areas to rear play area not clear. Possible ramps and stairs applied for separately.

Applicant has confirmed that access to the rear will be from the side verandahs. The site contains suitable area to install stairs/ramp from the verandahs down to ground level/rear open space area, without creating any adverse impacts.

Development does not comply with the objectives of the zone.

It is considered that the proposal does comply with the zoning – refer to comments on zoning in the LEP 2011 section of this report.

How high can fences be?

Side and rear fences should aim to be 1.8m high but can be conditioned to be higher if addressing noise/privacy concerns.

Size of the centre is excessive and not suitable for the low density residential area.

The size is considered acceptable but as discussed throughout this report, the location at the end of a cul de sac and narrow access, render the site unsuitable. In particular, a child centre of this size may still be acceptable in a low density residential area depending on the application detail and site characteristics.

The parking area is non-compliant.

 

No set down/pick up area provided.

 

Loading bay size and location unacceptable.

Council staff agree in part - refer to comments on Roads, Traffic, Access and Parking, plus comments on 2.5 in the DCP 2013 assessment above in the report.

Building height not consistent with other buildings in the area.

The building height complies with the height limit and is deemed acceptable. There are also buildings of similar height (and higher) on adjoining land to the north and east.

Site is within 200m of a brewery.

Noted. However, there is no direct pedestrian or vehicle access to the brewery within 200m. There is also fencing and structures separating the uses. In this regard, suitable separation of uses exist.

Stacked containers on adjoining industrial site creating safety issue (ie containers falling into the site).

The containers are setback over 10m from the shared boundary with vegetation (large trees) and fencing in between. The setback, trees and fencing is considered to provide suitable protection.

The development will impact on the streetscape.

The proposed development is unlikely to impact on streetscape as it is located at the end of a battle axe lot.

Outdoor play areas not defined.

 

Access to sunlight.

Noted. The assessment has considered that the whole yard is capable of being used and fencing would be conditioned in line with the noise assessment.

The outdoor areas are capable of providing a suitable mixture of light and shade.

Impact on koalas, other fauna and habitat.

 

Suitability of retained trees.

Refer to comments on SEPP 44 and Flora and Fauna above in this report. In particular, the site does not trigger SEPP 44 and is not listed as koala habitat area in Council’s LEP 2011. Furthermore, the removal and retention of trees has been assessed by Council’s Natural Resources staff and deemed acceptable subject to conditions.

Impact on character and amenity.

Noted and agree that aspects of the development are deemed not suitable and have potential to impact on the amenity of the area.

However, the proposal is not considered to be out of character with the locality when considering the mixed uses occurring within a 200m radius of the site (ie medical centres, university, student accommodation, commercial, industrial, seniors housing etc).

Market analysis required to justify need for child care centre.

This is not a matter that is required by Council to assess the application.

Who will use the facility? Out of school activities?

Development is proposed to be restricted to pre-school aged children, during the nominated hours.

Odours from industrial impacting on the site.

It is considered that there is suitable buffer and screening to the industrial area to avoid any adverse odour impacts.

Pollution impacts on neighbours from extra traffic.

Considered that the area contains sufficient open area to dissipate any pollution from the extra traffic.

Fresh air for children using the facility if rooms are closed to address noise impacts. Health issue.

The overall facility still contains suitable ventilation and measures that would allow fresh air into the facility.

Stormwater and ground water impacts.

Refer to comments on Stormwater above in this report. Capable of being managed without increasing pre-development flows onto adjoining properties.

Ground water unlikely to change.

Demolition impacts/asbestos.

A standard demolition condition can be applied to manage demolition and any asbestos removal.

Proposed fence heights not clear.

Nominated on the plans, unless varied by the noise assessment.

Proposal will restrict future development in the area.

Without knowing what future development is proposed (if any), it is difficult to determine if there will be any restriction of use.

Liability of future owners if the proposal does not meet requirements and there are safety impacts for occupants.

Issue is noted. The assessment of the application and associated determination aims to ensure key matters are considered appropriately and ensure a suitable development occurs. Any future liability issues arising with the owner would be a legal matter. 

(e)     The Public Interest:

While the proposed development does not satisfy relevant access requirements for a development of this type and scale, there is unlikely to be a negative impact on the wider public interest if the development were approved.

 

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 94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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. Due to the restricted access available to the site it is not considered capable of supporting the proposed development. It is recommended that the application be refused.

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2017 - 355.1 Plans

2View. DA2017 - 355,1 Arborist Report

3View. DA2017 - 355.1 Acoustic Assessment

4View. DA2017 - 355.1 Flora Fauna

5View. DA2017 - 355.1 Traffic Impact Assessment

6View. DA2017 - 355.1 Recommended Conditions

7View. DA2017 - 355.1 DA Submisssions

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


AGENDA                                              Development Assessment Panel      14/02/2018

 

 

Item:          06

 

Subject:     DA2017 - 553.1 - Multi Dwelling Housing And Strata Title Subdivision - Lot 2 DP 18127, 34 Chapman Street, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Clint Tink

 

 

 

Applicant:               J Gittany

Owner:                    J Gittany & A K Mak

Estimated Cost:     $1,187,000

Parcel no:               4150

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2017 – 553.1 for multi dwelling housing and strata subdivision at Lot 2, DP 18127, No. 34 Chapman Street, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a development application for multi dwelling housing and strata subdivision at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Following two (2) exhibition periods of the application, submissions were received from eight (8) people/groups.

 

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 1184m².

 

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://pmhq-v-gtx01.pmhc.nsw.gov.au/Geocortex/Essentials/GXE471/REST/TempFiles/EBP%20Layout.jpg?guid=8d1b9f33-f4ba-4cf9-ada4-6c4d37c3a110&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

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

 

http://pmhq-v-gtx01.pmhc.nsw.gov.au/Geocortex/Essentials/GXE471/REST/TempFiles/EBP%20Layout.jpg?guid=808004d6-f6a5-4afb-aff2-589a318ddd9c&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

 

 

·    Demolition of existing dwelling.

·    Erection of five (5), two (2) storey units with each comprising three (3) bedrooms and a double garage.

·    Two (2) visitor parking spaces will be provided and a turning area.

·    The units will be strata subdivided.

·    Submissions were received from eight (8) people/groups.

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    29/6/2017 – Application lodged with Council.

·    10-24/7/2017 – Notification period.

·    14/7/2017 – Council staff requested additional information on issues such as height, views, State Environmental Planning Policy 71 (SEPP 71), screening, fence detail, overshadowing, and open space.

·    18/7/2017 – Council staff emailed a neighbour regarding the development.

·    23/7/207 to 4/8/2017 – Council staff emailed a neighbour on water and sewer.

·    27/7/2017 – Council staff emailed the applicant suggesting they review submissions. Redacted copy of submissions were provided to the applicant upon request.

·    3/8/2017 – Council staff requested additional information on stormwater and engineering matters.

·    7/8/2017 – Council staff emailed a neighbour regarding the Development Assessment Panel (DAP) process and submission numbers.

·    8/8/2017 – Update on additional information provided by the applicant.

·    22-30/8/2017 – Discussion with Department of Planning Environment regarding SEPP 71 Masterplan Waiver.

·    6/9/2017 – Update from applicant.

·    18/10/2017 – Council staff provided a neighbour an update on the development.

·    18/10/2017 – Council staff requested update on additional information from the applicant.

·    19/10/2017 – Applicant submitted response to additional information issues.

·    23/10/2017 – Council staff advised the additional information provided on 19/10/2017 was not acceptable.

·    25-26/10/2017 – Discussion between Council staff and the applicant on the additional information matters to be addressed.

·    17/11/2017 – Applicant responded to additional information.

·    20/11/2017 – Council staff sought clarification on the documents provided by the applicant.

·    21-22/11/2017 – Council staff provided a neighbour an update on the development.

·    21/11/2017 – Applicant clarified the plans.

·    22/11/2017 to 6/12/2017 – Neighbours who put in a submission were notified of the changes and allowed time to put in any revised comments.

·    6/2/2018 – Updated BASIX certificate submitted to match revised plans submitted dated 20/11/2017. Plan reference changed to match BASIX.

 

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 No. 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 No.55 – Remediation of Land

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.

Standard conditions of consent will be applied to cover the removal of any asbestos in the existing dwelling during the demolition process.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 62 – Sustainable Aquaculture

Given the nature of the proposed development and proposed stormwater controls the proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impact on existing aquaculture industries.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection and Clause 5.5 of Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

The site is located within a coastal zone as defined in accordance with clause 4 of SEPP 71.

The site is further identified as being within a sensitive coastal location. In accordance with Clause 18, subdivision of sensitive coastal land within a residential zone requires a Masterplan or Masterplan waiver. As a result, the proposal was sent to the Department of Planning Environment who waived the need for a Masterplan on 30 August 2017.

In accordance with clause 5, 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)         reduced quality of the natural water bodies in the locality.

The site is located within an area zoned and already built out for residential purposes.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

A BASIX certificate has been submitted demonstrating that the proposal will comply with the requirements of the SEPP.  It is recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure that the commitments are incorporated into the development and certified at Occupation Certificate stage.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 (LEP 2011)

The proposal is consistent with the LEP having regard to the following:

·    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 multi dwelling housing and strata subdivision, 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 as it is a permissible landuse and consistent with the residential locality.

·    Clause 2.7, the proposed demolition will be covered by conditions of consent.

·    Clause 4.1, does not apply to strata lots associated with a multi dwelling housing development – see Clause 4.1A below.

·    Clause 4.1A allows an integrated housing application whereby construction and subdivision are included in the one application. When both construction and subdivision are included in the one application, Clause 4.1A allows the minimum lot size standard to be varied/reduced.

The intent of the clause is to encourage housing diversity without compromising residential amenity. This overall assessment shows that the development will have limited impact on adjoining properties. The surrounding area also contains a mixture of low and medium to high density residential development. This proposal will be consistent with such a density.

·    Clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 8.48m, which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

·    Clause 4.4, the floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.58:1.0, which complies with the maximum 1:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

·    Clause 5.9, there are several trees to be removed from the site, none of which have any significant value or need for replacement.

·    Clause 5.10, the site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage items or sites of significance.

·    Clause 7.13, satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential services.

 

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

 

None relevant to the proposal.

 

(iii)    any Development Control Plan in force:

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP 2013)

DCP 2013: Dwellings, Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses, Multi dwelling houses & Ancillary development

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

3.2.2.1

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

Water tank and drying areas are appropriately located behind the front building line.

Bin area will be screened from the street.

Yes

3.2.2.2

Articulation zone:

Min. 3m front setback

An entry feature or portico

A balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or verandah

A window box treatment

A bay window or similar feature

An awning or other feature over a window

A sun shading feature

No elements within the articulation zone.

 

 

N/A

Front setback (Residential not R5 zone):

Min. 6.0m classified road

Min. 4.5m local road or within 20% of adjoining dwelling if on corner lot

Min. 3.0m secondary road

Min. 2.0m Laneway

Front building line setback requirements are complied with. In particular, the development is setback 6.164m.

 

Yes

3.2.2.3

Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front façade.

Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided

Garage door setback requirements are complied with.

 

Yes

 

 

6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building

Garage doors do not face the street and therefore the provisions of the DCP do not apply.

Yes

Driveway crossover 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m width

While the driveway crossing width does not exceed 1/3 of the site frontage, it does exceed the 5m requirement. In particular, the driveway crossover is 5.5m. The variation is considered minor and will not create any adverse impact on the streetscape, amenity of the area or significant loss of on street parking.

No, but acceptable.

3.2.2.4

4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to site analysis and provision of private open space

The 4m rear setback requirements are complied with.

Yes

3.2.2.5

Side setbacks:

Ground floor = min. 0.9m

First floors & above = min. 3m setback or where it can be demonstrated that overshadowing not adverse = 0.9m min.

Building wall set in and out every 12m by 0.5m

The minimum side setback requirements are complied with.

The wall articulation is compliant and satisfies the objectives of the development provision.

Yes

3.2.2.6

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

Each occupancy contains 35m² open space in one area. Units 2-5 do not contain the required 4m x 4m area off a living room. However, in lieu of the 4m x 4m area, the units still contain a more than acceptable and useable 3.6m x 8m area.

No, but acceptable.

3.2.2.7

Front fences:

If solid 1.2m max height and front setback 1.0m  with landscaping

3x3m min. splay for corner sites

Fences >1.2m to be 1.8m max. height for 50% or 6.0m max. length of street frontage with 25% openings

0.9x0.9m splays adjoining driveway entrances

The proposed front fence design is considered to meet the fencing provisions and objectives of DCP 2013. No adverse impacts will occur.

 

Yes

3.2.2.8

Front fences and walls to have complimentary materials to context

No chain wire, solid timber, masonry or solid steel front fences

Fencing design complies.

Yes

3.2.2.10

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. ie. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed

Privacy screen required if floor level > 1m height, window side/rear setback (other than bedroom) is less than 3m and sill height less than 1.5m

Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandahs etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m

The development will not compromise privacy in the area due to a combination of lack of windows on side/rear boundaries, having high sill windows that face side/rear boundaries, limiting living areas that face adjoining living areas/open space, compliant separation and use of screening/fencing.

Yes

 

DCP 2013: General Provisions

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

2.7.2.2

Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline

No concealment or entrapment areas proposed. Adequate casual surveillance available. Fencing defines property boundaries.

Yes

2.3.3.1

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

There are sections where fill exceeds 1m in height. Refer to comments at the end of this assessment table for justification to the variation.

No, but acceptable.

2.3.3.2

1m max. height retaining walls along road frontage

Retaining walls facing the street do not exceed 1m in height above existing ground level.

Yes

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

Condition recommended to require engineering certification

Yes

Combination of retaining wall and front fence height max 1.8m, max length 6.0m or 30% of frontage, fence component 25% transparent, and splay at corners and adjacent to driveway

No retaining wall front fence combination proposed that exceeds 1.8m above existing ground level (street side).

Yes

2.3.3.8

Removal of hollow bearing trees

No significant hollow bearing trees proposed to be removed

Yes

2.6.3.1

Tree removal (3m or higher with 100m diameter trunk at 1m above ground level and 3m from external wall of existing dwelling)

Refer to comments on Clause 5.9 in the LEP 2011 section of this report.

Yes

2.5.3.2

New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads

No new access proposed to arterial or distribution road.

N/A

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

Driveway crossing is minimal in width and retains street parking.

Yes

2.5.3.3

Parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1.

Dwelling/dual occupancies

1 space per dwelling/occupancy (behind building line).

Multi dwelling

1 space per 1 & 2 bedroom occupancies

1.5 spaces per 3+ bedroom occupancies

0.25 spaces per occupancy for visitor parking.

Proposal involves 5 x 3 bedroom units. Therefore, 5 x 1.5 spaces + 5 x 0.25 visitor spaces = 8.75 spaces required, which rounds to 9 spaces. The development proposes double garages for each unit (ie 5 x 2 spaces = 10 spaces) and 2 visitor spaces. Total parking provided is 12 spaces, which complies.

Yes

2.5.3.11

Section 94 contributions

Contributions apply - refer to ET calc and NOP.

Yes

2.5.3.12 and 2.5.3.13

Landscaping of parking areas

Suitable landscaping areas proposed around driveway/parking locations.

Yes

2.5.3.14

Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified

Sealed driveway areas proposed.

Yes

2.5.3.15 and 2.5.3.16

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

Driveway grades capable of satisfying Council standard driveway crossover requirements. Condition recommended for section 138 Roads Act permit

Yes

2.5.3.17

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

Stormwater drainage is capable of being managed.

Yes

 

Note: Subdivision provisions of the DCP (except battleaxe handle width) are aimed at the creation of vacant lots (i.e. not lots within an integrated housing proposal such as this) and have therefore been excluded from the above assessment. Servicing requirements are discussed later in this report.

 

2.3.3.1 – Cut and fill variation

The objectives of 2.3.3.1 are as follows:

 

2.3.3.1 Objective

To ensure that design of any building or structure integrates with the topography of the land to:

·    Minimise the extent of site disturbance caused by excessive cut and fill to the site.

·    Ensure there is no damage or instability to adjoining properties caused by excavation or filling.

·    Ensure that there is no adverse alteration to the drainage of adjoining properties.

·    Ensure the privacy of adjoining dwellings and private open space are protected.

·    Ensure that adequate stormwater drainage is provided around the perimeter of buildings and that overflow paths are provided.

 

In response to the above, the applicant provided the following comments/justification:

 

The proposed cut and fill for the subject site is not considered excessive with only a small portion of the subject site requiring fill with a height greater than 1m.

There is a length of 8.265m along the southern boundary and a length of 13.813m along the eastern boundary that exceeds 1.0m. We note that the maximum height of the subject retaining walls are 1.624m in the south-eastern corner and both reduce in height in accordance with the reduction of required fill. The fill required in the south-eastern corner of the site is to enable stormwater drainage to the street.

Generally, the approach to cut and fill which has been taken seeks to minimize the level of site disturbance in the context of the nature of the development proposal. We note that the proposed fill for the dwellings and courtyards is less than 1.0m.

 

All site filling and excavation will be subject to engineering assessment and design. Accordingly, there will be no damage or instability to adjoining properties caused by the proposed excavation or filling.

 

The proposed development has been designed and will be constructed so as to comply with Councils stormwater management requirements. In this regard, the proposed development will not adversely affect the movement of water from or onto adjoining properties with the design of the proposed development providing for a continuation of predevelopment flow conditions.

 

As mentioned previously privacy issues have been reflected in the design of the proposed development with the development concept providing for compliance with the relevant requirements of DCP 2013.

 

The section within the south-eastern corner is a driveway and turning area only and will have minimal impacts on residential privacy. Refer to section below “Raised driveway and car turning area” for further details.

 

Council staff agree with the comments/justification provided by the applicant. No adverse impacts will occur from the proposed cut and fill onsite.

 

(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.

 

Demolition of buildings AS 2601:

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 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 and 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 are no adverse impacts on existing view sharing – see below.

•     There are no adverse privacy impacts.

•     There are 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.

 

View Sharing

During the public exhibition period, concern surrounding view loss was raised.

 

The overall notion of view sharing is invoked when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own enjoyment. Taking all the view away cannot be called view sharing, although it may, in some circumstances, be quite reasonable.

Using the principles of NSW Land and Environment Court case law - Tenacity Consulting v Warringah 2004 NSW LEC 140, the following comments are provided in regards to the view impacts using the 4 step process to establish whether the view sharing is acceptable.

Step 1

Assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.   

Comments: The key view corridor from adjoining properties is towards the north east and east, predominately across a side boundary (ie across the subject site). The view appears to be over built up areas of Port Macquarie with limited water and land water interface views available. The views to the east would be partially obscured by existing vegetation on adjoining properties. The view does not contain any iconic or unique features.

In light of the principles of the case, while the view offers a degree of appeal (distant town view), it is not considered to be of high value. In particular, the view is across a side boundary, is more a neighbourhood street outlook and is reliant on vegetation canopies and areas to the north east/east not growing/being developed any higher.

Step 2

Consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

Comments: The views would be predominately across the subject site. The views would be enjoyed from both standing and sitting positions from various parts of the adjoining properties.

Step 3

Assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

Comments: The extent of the impact upon the views enjoyed from surrounding dwellings are considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

-     The impacts on view will occur across a side boundary with front views being retained.

-     For the most part, the proposal complies with relevant planning controls and a greater impact on views could have occurred from an alternate compliant development.

-     Some views to the east would already be impacted by existing vegetation.

 

Step 4

Assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

Comments: The proposal contains limited variations to Council’s planning provisions and a greater impact could have occurred from a more compliant development. Furthermore, partial views will still be retained from various positions.

 

Based on the above, the proposed development is considered to achieve a suitable level of view sharing to a view that is not considered to have high value in terms of the planning principles of the court case.

 

Roads

The site has road frontage to Chapman Street, an urban ‘Local’ street owned and maintained by Council. It has a 9m wide roadway within a 27m wide reserve, a longitudinal gradient averaging about 19%, and barrier kerb (SA type) and gutter on both sides of the road. The roadway is utilised by existing residents for on-street informal parallel parking. There is no concrete footpath currently within Chapman Street and given the proposal will intensify local pedestrian traffic (comprising five units), 1.2m wide concrete footpath is to be constructed along the property frontage consistent with Council’s policies.

 

Traffic and Transport

The single dwelling on the site is likely to generate 7-9 daily vehicular trips on average per day on the local road network. This development proposes demolition of the existing and construction of five new dwellings. A low density rate of 7-9 vehicular trips per day may be expected, with medium density dwellings typically generating less than this (around 5-6 trips per day). The net increase of 28 to 36 daily trips associated with the development is unlikely to have any adverse impacts on the existing road network within the immediate locality given a recent traffic count of 3600 vehicles per day on nearby Grant Street.

 

Site Frontage & Access

Vehicle access to the site is proposed through a shared driveway. Access shall comply with Council AUSPEC and Australian Standards for two-way flow widths, and the plans indicate this will be achieved.

 

Parking and Manoeuvring

Ten parking spaces have been provided on-site within the five residential garages with two additional visitor parking spaces provided within the driveway. Parking and driveway widths on site can comply with relevant Australian Standards (AS 2890) and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

 

Due to the type of development, a dedicated turning area is required to enable vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward manner. Site plans show adequate area is available and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements. 

Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

 

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the development site has an existing 20mm metered water service. Each proposed unit requires an individual metered water service with the meters located at the road frontage. An alternate water metering strategy is to have a master water meter at the road frontage and individual internal meters located in easily accessible locations. Details are to be shown on the engineering plans.

 

Final water service sizing will need to be determined by a hydraulic consultant to suit the domestic and commercial components of the development, as well as fire service and backflow protection requirements in accordance with AS2419 and AS3500.

 

Detailed plans will be required to be submitted for assessment with the S.68 application with water supply considered achievable.

 

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site is connected to Sewer via junction to the existing sewer line that runs along the western property boundary.

 

A sewer reticulation strategy will need to be submitted to Council’s Sewer Section addressing the following requirements:

1.   The existing sewer line that runs along the western property boundary must be replaced with PVC pipe

2.   The sewer junction for adjacent Lot B must be moved clear of the building

3.   A sewer manhole must be constructed over the sewer main on the southern boundary (ie where the pipe will change material).

4.   The existing sewer manhole must be raised to the finish surface level.

 

The above detail will be required to be submitted for assessment with the S.68 application but overall sewer connection is considered achievable.

 

Stormwater

The site is located on a spur and naturally grades both to the northeast and the southeast. The proposal includes raising of the south eastern corner of the site approximately 1.5m to drain back to the north (the street frontage).

 

There is no Council stormwater drainage pipe in this section of Chapman Street or within 80m downstream of the site, with the existing and adjoining properties discharging directly to the kerb or to a point within their yards.

 

The legal point of discharge for the proposed development is defined as a direct piped connection to Council’s kerb and gutter with the use of an approved adaptor (ie one per lot only). The concept stormwater plan is consistent with this approach.

 

A detailed site stormwater management plan will be required to be submitted for assessment with the S.68 application and prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

In accordance with Councils AUSPEC requirements, the following must be incorporated into the stormwater drainage plan:

·    On site stormwater detention facilities. While there is an inconsistency between the detention tank volumes shown on the concept stormwater design, the plans sufficiently demonstrate that onsite detention can be accommodated underneath the driveway, with detailed assessment of the hydraulic details to occur under the S.68 application.

·    The existing property to the west also sits on the local topographic spur and a portion of its surface may drain through the site. To protect the proposed development from overland flows in significant events, the stormwater plan will need to provide overland flow paths through the site. This can potentially be achieved either via the southern boundary (ie over the car turning area) or northwards through the proposed overflow path which is designed to drain each rainwater tank and backyard during major events (heavy downpours). It is considered that either or both route can be achieved subject to detailing of finished surface levels at the Construction Certificate stage.

 

Overall, stormwater can be managed onsite via imposition of conditions of consent.

 

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

 

Other land resources

No adverse impacts anticipated. The site is within an established urban context and will not sterilise any significant mineral or agricultural resource.

 

Water cycle

The proposed development will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts on water resources and the water cycle.

 

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 and microclimate

The construction and/or 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 and fauna

Construction of the proposed development will not require any 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. 

 

Waste

Satisfactory arrangements are in place for proposed storage and collection of waste and recyclables. Kerbside pick appears possible based on the number of units and available kerb. 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 and vibration

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

 

Bushfire

The site is not identified as being bushfire prone.

 

Safety, security and 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.

 

A suitable level of surveillance of the area will be retained by the design.

 

Social impacts 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. Likely positive impacts can be attributed to the construction of the development and associated flow on effects (ie maintained employment and expenditure in the area).

 

Site design and internal design

The proposed development design 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. Standard conditions will be imposed to control demolition, erosion, noise etc.

 

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:

 

Multiple submissions were received from eight (8) people/groups following 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

Type of fill material to be used?

 

Impact on stormwater.

Any fill will need to be fit for purpose (ie clean, suitable compaction etc).

 

The conditioned stormwater design will be checked by Council Engineering staff to ensure there are no increased stormwater flows or concentrated flows onto adjoining properties. Refer to comments on “Stormwater” above in this report.

South eastern retaining wall material?

The retaining wall is shown as masonry block.

Side and rear fence design to be clarified.

 

Gaps between existing and proposed fencing – accumulate rubbish, difficult to maintain.

 

If one fence is removed, one owner inherits additional land/legal issue.

 

How is the 700mm screening to be attached?

 

How will the developer install retaining walls on/near existing retaining walls?

Fences and retaining walls will occur as per the attached plans and be conditioned to meet the heights shown (ie to ensure privacy).

 

Any new fencing/retaining walls or changes to fencing/retaining walls on boundaries will need to be negotiated with the relevant neighbour under the Dividing Fences Act 1991 with structural integrity of any retaining walls over 1m to be demonstrated at the construction certificate stage.

 

Gaps between fences can occur as exempt development (ie where adjoining property owners cannot agree on a fence design and build fences either side of a boundary). Council cannot control this issue.

 

In terms of the additional land issue (ie if one fence is removed), this can occur regardless of the fence. In particular, there are examples where adjoining properties don’t have a dividing fence in place. It is therefore up to owners to ensure they stay within their property.

 

There are a number of ways the 700mm screening could be attached and the applicant will need to work this out at the Construction Certificate stage to ensure it meets the outcome shown on the plans.

The southern retained area and slatted fence will allow occupants of 34 Chapman Street to look into the neighbouring yard – loss of privacy.

 

The slat fence will allow vehicle light glare. Request a 1.8m high fence and vegetation.

The southern retained area is designated as a vehicle turning area. As a result, it is unlikely to form a high use living area where significant overlooking (loss of privacy) would occur.

 

The slatted design of the fence will reduce glare and the location of the driveway does not face a key living area (ie any glare will go into a neighbouring rear yard). In terms of the height of the fence, 1.2m was proposed to reduce overshadowing, which is considered more critical.

Loss of privacy. Fixed louvers should also be provided to Units 1-3.

Over 12m separation is provided between the rumpus rooms of Units 1-3 to adjoining dwelling. Screening not required by Council’s DCP 2013 controls.

Concrete wall should be added to the raised driveway to stop a vehicle crashing through the fence.

This issue (ie vehicle crashing through a fence) exists with any residential property regardless of whether a driveway is raised or not. Furthermore. Australian Standards will govern whether any further barrier is required and there is room onsite to cater for such change.

Height of building needs to be checked.

The height has been checked by the assessing officer and is considered accurate. Conditions will also be applied to the consent to ensure compliance.

Initial objection was raised to non-compliant rear setback.

Applicant amended plans to comply.

Initial objection raised to overshadowing.

Applicant amended plans to show overshadowing, which complies with Council requirements.

Development does not comply with BASIX.

 

Solar access to yards.

Compliant BASIX certificate has been provided. Applicant will be conditioned to comply with the requirements of the Certificate.

 

Units are provided with a rear yard that receives a mixture of light and shade at various times during the day.

Development does not comply with the Floor Space Ratio of LEP 2011.

Development complies – refer to comments on Clause 4.4 in the LEP 2011 section of this report.

Open space requirements not met.

Considered acceptable – refer to comments on 3.2.2.6 in DCP 2013 section of this report.

Impact on privacy as views through the angled louvers on the rumpus rooms windows to neighbouring properties will still be achievable.

The rumpus rooms are a secondary living area (ie not the key living area). This will limit the use of such a space. In addition, angled fixed louvers are considered a suitable measure to limit overlooking of neighbouring properties. A conscious effort would need to be made to obtain the limited views available through the louvers, which Council controls are not designed to cover.

The development is not in keeping with the area, conflict between land users and social impacts.

The planning controls allow for this type of development and there are numerous examples within a 500m radius of the site, including a block of units directly to the west. The controls will also allow further transition of higher density into the area.

Trees are considered important to neighbours and local fauna.

Importance to neighbours noted. However, the trees are not considered to have any significant ecological value and are able to be removed.

Does the driveway grade comply?

The driveway is capable of complying and has been accepted by Council’s Engineering Section.

Details need to be provided how the development will cope with stormwater.

 

Erosion.

Stormwater has been assessed by Council’s Engineering Section and is considered capable of being managed – refer to comments on “Stormwater” above in the assessment report.

 

The above will ensure no erosion post development. During construction, standard site management conditions will be imposed to manage erosion.

Fences do not provide privacy or security.

 

Existing western units look down into pen space areas.

 

Loss of privacy.

The fencing shown on the plans is considered to meet Council requirements for privacy and security. For the most part, the fencing is 1.8m in height (higher in some areas), which is deemed acceptable for maintaining privacy and security. Where fences are less than 1.8m, suitable separation or lack of living areas exist.

 

In terms of the western units looking down into the proposed units, the decks on the western units are small and would provide minimal outdoor living space. Furthermore, the view from the decks is more outward rather than down. Any downward views will be partially screened by the fencing and the roofing of the proposed units.

Cut and fill exceeds 1m.

Considered acceptable - refer to comments on 2.3.3.1 in DCP 2013 section of this report.

Loss of views.

Considered acceptable - refer to comments on “View sharing” above in the assessment report.

Glare and visual appearance of solar panels.

Solar panels/hot water systems are able to be done as exempt development under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and therefore Council staff are unable to give weight to glare/visual impacts from such systems.

Impacts on sewer infrastructure.

No adverse impacts will occur – see comments on “Sewer Connection” above in the assessment report.

Tree on adjoining property not to be cut.

The applicant does not propose any tree removal on adjoining properties.

Does Council do a pre-assessment of asbestos?

 

How is asbestos managed?

Council has a standard condition that is applied to all development applications that involve demolition. The condition provides requirements on the developer in terms of removing asbestos and can be followed up from a compliance perspective.

Will compliance with pool fences on adjoining properties be compromised by the development? Expense to ensure compliance should be on the developer.

 

Can the water tanks be moved to ensure there is no climbing risk?

The developer will be responsible for ensuring the development does not compromise the swimming pool fence on the adjoining property. Condition imposed.

Initial objection about being able to provide two visitor spaces.

Applicant amended plans to comply.

Initial objection to height of fences on retaining walls only being 600mm and not providing privacy.

Applicant amended plans to comply.

Increased noise from driveway and units.

By their nature driveways and car parking turning areas are not frequently used infrastructure with any usage being infrequent and of short duration. Given the low numbers of proposed units, the usage of the driveways by vehicles and pedestrians would be expected to be minimal.

 

Furthermore, the provision of separation and screening within the design will further reduce noise impacts to that in keeping with the expected residential use and occupation of the subject site.

Tree removal not clear in the documentation.

 

Native Frangipani should be retained as it provides habitat.

The applicant has submitted further information on tree removal, which has been reviewed by Council staff and deemed acceptable. Overall, the nature of the development will not preserve any trees onsite and no trees are to be removed from adjoining properties.

 

While it is not disputed that the Frangipani would be used by a range of fauna, it would be difficult to argue a case on ecological grounds to retain the tree.

 

(e)     The Public Interest:

 

The proposed development will be in the wider public interest with provision of appropriate additional housing.

 

The proposed development satisfies relevant planning controls and is not expected 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.

 

 

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. 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. DA2017 - 553.1 Plans

2View. DA 2017 - 553.1 Recommended Conditions

3View. DA2017 - 553.1 DA Submissions

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


AGENDA                                              Development Assessment Panel      14/02/2018

 

 

Item:          07

 

Subject:     DA 2017 - 914.1  Additions To Dwelling - Lot 111, DP 246248, No. 14 Hibbard Drive, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Keith Smith

 

 

 

Applicant:               Collins w Collins

Owner:                    CJ Morton & JA Morton

Estimated Cost:     $49,992

Parcel no:               8748

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2017 – 914.1 for additions to dwelling at Lot 111, DP 246248, No. 14 Hibbard Drive, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions. 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a development application for additions to a dwelling at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Following exhibition of the application, one submission was received.

 

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 758.5m².

 

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://pmhq-v-gtx01.pmhc.nsw.gov.au/Geocortex/Essentials/GXE471/REST/TempFiles/EBP%20Layout.jpg?guid=ccf43805-2ca2-47f5-91d7-54720ea5d0d9&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

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

 

http://pmhq-v-gtx01.pmhc.nsw.gov.au/Geocortex/Essentials/GXE471/REST/TempFiles/EBP%20Layout.jpg?guid=3528b36a-d083-443f-b3b1-e20fa82e0678&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

 

 

·    Construction of a single storey addition to the rear of the existing dwelling

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    13 October 2017 - Application Lodged.

·    3 November 2017 –Site and views from applicants property at 14 Hibbard Drive inspected by Assessing Officer.

·    9 November 2017 – Additional information requested by Assessing Officer.

·    15 November 2017 – Revised plans submitted by Applicant.(dated 15/11/18)

·    21 November 2017 to 04 December 2017 – Neighbour notification of the proposal.

·    4 December 2017 – One submission received.

·    14 December 2017 – Applicant requested a copy of the submission.

·    15 December 2017- Redacted copy of submission sent to applicant via email.

·    15 January 2018 – Request from author of submission to discuss proposal from 12 Hibbard Drive.

·    17 January 2018 – Assessing Officer viewed proposal from 12 Hibbard Drive

 

3.       STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

 

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

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 No. 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 No.55 – Remediation of Land

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.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 62 – Sustainable Aquaculture

Given the nature of the proposed development and proposed stormwater controls the proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impact on existing aquaculture industries.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection and Clause 5.5 of Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

The site is located within a coastal zone as defined in accordance with clause 4 of SEPP 71.

In accordance with clause 5, 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;

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

The site is is located within an area zoned for residential purposes.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

The proposal is consistent with the LEP having regard to the following:

·        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 additions to a dwelling is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

o    To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

o    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 as it is a permissible landuse and consistent with the established residential locality.

·        Clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 5.725m which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

·        Clause 5.9, no listed trees in Development Control Plan 2013 are proposed to be removed.

·        Clause 5.10, the site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage items or sites of significance.

·        Clause 7.1, the site is mapped as potentially containing class 1 & 3 acid sulfate soils. The proposed development includes an alfresco and deck area with minimal excavation extending below the existing surface level proposed. Therefore no adverse impacts are expected to occur to the acid sulphate soils found on site.

·        Clause 7.3, the site is land within a mapped “flood planning area” (Land subject to flood discharge of 1:100 annual recurrence interval flood event (plus the applicable climate change allowance and relevant freeboard) In this regard the following comments are provided which incorporate consideration of the objectives of Clause 7.3, Council’s Flood Policy (2015); the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Lands Policy and the NSW Government’s Floodplain Development Manual (2005):

The proposal is compatible with the flood hazard of the land taking into account projected changes as a result of climate change;

The proposal will not result in a significant adverse effect on flood behaviour that would result in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties;

The proposal is not likely to significantly adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses;

The proposal is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding;

·        Clause 7.13, satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential services.

 

(a)(ii) Any proposed instrument that is or has been placed on exhibition

No draft instruments relevant to the proposal.

 

(a)(iii) Any DCP in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013:

DCP 2013: Dwellings, Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses, Multi dwelling houses & Ancillary development

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

3.2.2.4

4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to site analysis and provision of private open space

The rear setback requirements in DCP 2013 of 4m are complied with.

 

NB The 7.5m setback in the 88B instrument is also complied with.

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

3.2.2.5

Side setbacks:

Ground floor = min. 0.9m

 

 

 

The minimum side setback requirements are complied with.

2.820m to northern boundary.

1.7m to southern boundary.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.2.2.6

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

The dwelling contains 35m² open space in one area including a useable 4m x 4m space.

Yes

3.2.2.7

Front fences:

If solid 1.2m max height and front setback 1.0m  with landscaping

3x3m min. splay for corner sites

Fences >1.2m to be 1.8m max. height for 50% or 6.0m max. length of street frontage with 25% openings

0.9x0.9m splays adjoining driveway entrances

No fences proposed

 

N/A

3.2.2.10

Privacy:

Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandahs etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m

 

NB Deck height 1m and less than 3m from the northern boundary at 2.820m.

Deck height 1m and less than 3m from southern boundary at 1.7m

The proposal indicates a full height wall along the southern end of the Alfresco area.

The deck being 1m or less above existing ground level does not require a privacy screen or a full height wall.

 

NA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DCP 2013: General Provisions

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

2.7.2.2

Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline

No concealment or entrapment areas proposed. Adequate casual surveillance available.

Yes

2.3.3.1

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

NA

NA

2.3.3.2

1m max. height retaining walls along road frontage

None proposed

N/A

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

No retaining wall likely

 

Yes

Combination of retaining wall and front fence height max 1.8m, max length 6.0m or 30% of frontage, fence component 25% transparent, and splay at corners and adjacent to driveway

No retaining wall front fence combination proposed.

N/A

2.5.3.3

Parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1.

1 space per single dwelling (behind building line)

1 or capacity for more than 1 parking space behind the building line has been provided for - existing.

Yes

2.5.3.14

Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified

Sealed driveway existing

NA

2.5.3.15 and 2.5.3.16

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

NA - existing

NA

2.5.3.17

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

Single dwelling only with 1 domestic driveway. existing

NA

 

(a)(iii)(a)  Any planning agreement or draft planning agreement

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

 

(a)(iv) Any matters prescribed by the regulations

NSW Coastal Policy 1997

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

 

Demolition of buildings AS 2601 – Clause 66 (b)

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

 

(a)(v) Any Coastal Zone Management Plan

None applicable.

 

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

 

Context and setting

·    The site has a general westerly street frontage orientation to Hibbard Drive.

·    Single storey dwellings adjoin the site to the north and south. 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 compatible with other residential development in the locality and adequately addresses planning controls for the area.

·    The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

·    There are no significant adverse privacy impacts. Privacy has been adequately addressed through building design.

·    The proposal does not prevent adjoining properties from receiving 3 hours of sunlight to private open space and primary living areas on 21 June.

 

View Sharing

The public exhibition of the proposal resulted in concerns being raised in relation to loss of views from the neighbouring property to the south at No. 12 Hibbard Drive.

 

The notion of view sharing is invoked when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own enjoyment. Taking it all away cannot be called view sharing, although it may, in some circumstances, be quite reasonable.

 

Using the planning principles of NSW Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah 2004 NSW LEC 140, the following comments are provided in regard to the view impacts using the 4 step process to establish whether the view sharing is acceptable.

 

Step 1

Assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.   

 

Comments: No. 12 Hibbard Drive enjoys drainage canal views across the rear of the developed property to the north of 14 Hibbard Drive. The views include the interface of land and water. Views of the drainage canals are not considered to be iconic in the local context.

 

Step 2

Consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

Comments: The existing views from No. 12 Hibbard Drive are obtained from both sitting and standing positions on the rear patio and ground floor including kitchen and dining areas of the existing single storey dwelling. The affected views are obtained across the side property boundary. It is considered unrealistic to fully retain existing views across the side boundary in this instance.

 

Step 3

Assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

Comments: Photographs from the objector are included in the submission attached to this report showing the extent of impact on existing views from the affected property. The impact on views is summarised as follows from the relevant locations at No. 12 Hibbard Drive:

 

·    Rear patio - Main water view of drainage canal to the north-east partial loss. Water views to the south and south-east retained.

·    Rear Patio – Main water view to Hastings River lost.

·    Ground floor area including kitchen and dining areas of existing dwelling - partial water view lost to north-east.

 

Overall, the view loss is considered to be minor.

 

The majority of views from the ground floor of the existing dwelling and patio areas are expected to be retained from both sitting and standing positions

 

Partial views to the north-east from the ground floor of the existing single storey dwelling and patio area as well as private open space on 12 Hibbard Drive are expected to be lost from both sitting and standing positions where the wall and roof of proposed addition extends beyond the existing rear wall of the dwelling on 14 Hibbard Drive. Current views to the east and south east will be retained from a sitting and/or standing position.

 

Step 4

Assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

Comments: The proposal complies with the relevant planning controls for building height in the LEP 8.5m and complies with building setback controls in the DCP 2013 of 4m.

 

The design of the building has been amended to comply with the 88B requirements of 7.5m to the rear boundary in lieu of the DCP 2013 requirement of 4m. The additions are single storey and the design incorporates privacy requirements above those required in the DCP. The proposed additions minimise the extent of view loss from adjoining property.

 

Overall, the proposed development is considered to be reasonable having regard to the planning controls and the view sharing acceptable.

 

The following photos are from the objector’s perspective.

Views to the north

 

 

Views to the east

 

Views to the south

 

View to the north-east

 

Access, transport and traffic

The traffic associated with the development is unlikely to have any adverse impacts to the existing road network within the immediate locality.

 

Stormwater

Service available – details required with S.68 application. Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

 

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

 

Heritage

This site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage item or site of significance.

 

Other land resources

No adverse impacts anticipated. The site is within an established urban context and will not sterilise any significant mineral or agricultural resource.

Water cycle

The proposed development will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts on water resources and the water cycle.

 

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 and microclimate

The construction and/or 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 and fauna

Construction of the proposed development will not require any 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. 

 

Waste

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

 

Noise and vibration

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

 

Bushfire

The site is not identified as being bushfire prone.

 

Safety, security and 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 impacts 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. Likely positive impacts can be attributed to the construction of the development and associated flow on effects (ie maintained employment and expenditure in the area).

 

Site design and internal design

The proposed development design 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 flooding have been adequately addressed and appropriate conditions of consent recommended.

 

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

One written submission has been received following 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

Loss of Views from 12 Hibbard Drive.

See comments earlier in this report under ‘View Sharing’.

 

The proposed development is considered to be reasonable having regard to the applicable planning principle.

Development out of character with the surrounding area.

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

Development visually prominent

The proposed development is single storey and satisfies the height requirement for the property.

The proposal satisfies the requirements of the 88B instrument setback from the rear boundary and satisfies the DCP 2013 requirement setback from the rear boundary.

Environmental impacts from a wood fireplace with flue.

Provision under the requirements of the POEO Act 1997 exist for action in the event of non-compliance with emission requirements.

Access and Social impacts side boundary fencing plans contrary to existing site conditions.

Dividing fences are not part of the planning considerations for this application and are covered under the Dividing Fences Act 1991.

No consultation between owners of 14 Hibbard Drive and objector to the proposal.

There is no requirement for the applicant to discuss the proposal with the objector.

 

(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

 

Not applicable

 

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. 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. DA2017 - 914.1 DA Plans

2View. DA2017 - 914.1 Line of sight and setbacks to canal development

3View. DA2017 - 914.1 Recommended conditions

4View. DA2017 - 914.1 Submission - Patterson

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


AGENDA                                              Development Assessment Panel      14/02/2018

 

 

Item:          08

 

Subject:     DA2017 - 529.1 Alterations To Caravan Park - Lot 2 DP 598227, Bell Street, Dunbogan

Report Author: Chris Gardiner

 

 

 

Applicant:               Land Dynamics Australia

Owner:                    Ritchie Village Property Pty Ltd

Estimated Cost:     Nil

Parcel no:               1714

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2017 – 529.1 for Alterations to Caravan Park at Lot 2, DP 598227, Bell Street, Dunbogan, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a development application for alterations to a caravan park at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Following exhibition of the application, 25 submissions have been received.

 

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 1.649 hectares.

 

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://pmhq-v-gtx01.pmhc.nsw.gov.au/Geocortex/Essentials/GXE471/REST/TempFiles/EBP%20Layout.jpg?guid=9fe00f46-a8a8-437b-b414-2f3d0ac807d0&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

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

 

http://pmhq-v-gtx01.pmhc.nsw.gov.au/Geocortex/Essentials/GXE471/REST/TempFiles/EBP%20Layout.jpg?guid=2513cfa7-0ea3-4cbd-8de6-16a08c493d72&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

 

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

 

·    Change of 45 short-term sites within an existing caravan park to long-term sites.

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    22 June 2017 – Application lodged.

·    7 July 2017 to 20 July 2017 – Application notified to neighbours.

·    10 August 2017 – Additional information requested from Applicant.

·    18 October 2017 and 7 November 2017 – Additional information submitted by Applicant.

·    17 November 2017 to 30 November 2017 – Application re-notified with additional information.

 

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 No. 21 - Caravan Parks

8   Development consent required for caravan parks

(1)  Development for the purposes of a caravan park may be carried out only with the development consent of the Council.

(2)  Before granting development consent to the use of land for the purposes of a caravan park, a Council must determine:

(a)  the number of sites (if any) within that land that the Council considers are suitable for long-term residence, within the meaning of the Local Government (Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds) Transitional Regulation 1993, and

(b)  the number of sites (if any) within that land that the Council considers are not suitable for long-term residence, but are suitable for short-term residence, within the meaning of that Regulation.

(3)  A Council must not grant development consent to the use of land for the purposes of a caravan park unless it imposes as a condition of that consent a condition specifying the maximum number of sites (if any) within that land that may be used for long-term residence.

(4)  The holder of an approval under Part 1 of Chapter 7 of the Local Government Act 1993 to operate a caravan park or camping ground on land must not, without the development consent of the Council, allow a person to occupy a site within that land:

(a)  for a continuous period of more than 3 months, except as provided by paragraph (b), or

(b)  for a continuous period longer than the period (if any) for which the person is allowed to be accommodated within the land by an extension that has been granted under clause 19 (6) of the Local Government (Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds) Transitional Regulation 1993, if such a use of that site was not lawful under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 when this Policy commenced.

(4A)  Except as provided by subclause (4), nothing in this Policy or any other environmental planning instrument requires separate development consent to be obtained for the installation or placement of a moveable dwelling on land on which development for the purposes of a caravan park is being lawfully carried out.

(5)  This clause does not apply to any land that is authorised to be used for the purposes of a manufactured home estate by a development consent granted pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No 36—Manufactured Home Estates or dedicated or reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

 

The proposal seeks consent for 79 long-term sites and no short-term sites. The sites have been demonstrated to be suitable for long-term residence and a condition of consent is recommended specifying the maximum number of long term sites.

 

10   Matters to be considered by Councils

A Council may grant a development consent required by this Policy only after it has considered the following:

(a)  whether, because of its location or character, the land concerned is particularly suitable for use as a caravan park for tourists or for long-term residence,

 

Comment: The land concerned is already used as a caravan park for tourists and for long-term residence and has generally been acceptable for both uses during its history. The land is located within a residential area and long-term residence is considered to be more compatible with surrounding land uses than short-term tourist accommodation.

 

(b)  whether there is adequate provision for tourist accommodation in the locality of that land, and whether existing or potential tourist accommodation will be displaced by the use of sites for long-term residence,

 

Comment: The Camden Haven area has a range of caravan parks and motel/cabin style accommodation including:

·    Diamond Waters Caravan Park

·    The Haven Caravan Park

·    Laurieton Gardens Caravan Resort

·    Brigadoon Holiday Park

·    Haven Waters Motel & Apartments

·    North Coast Holiday Parks – North Haven

·    Gateway Lifestyle Jacaranda

·    Diamond Head Camping Ground

 

A number of the dwellings in the area are also offered for holiday accommodation through web-based companies such as Stayz and AirBnB.

 

There would be some loss of existing and potential tourist accommodation within the park itself with the proposed change of short-term sites to long-term sites. The Applicant has indicated that the change to long-term sites is likely to be transitional over a period of approximately 10 years. The current Section 68 approval to operate with 45 short-term sites runs until 2022.

 

(c)  whether there is adequate low-cost housing, or land available for low-cost housing, in that locality,

 

Comment: The Applicant has demonstrated that that housing and land currently available for purchase or rent in the Dunbogan/Camden Head area could not be considered affordable/low-cost having regard to the ABS data on average weekly income in the statistical area. More broadly, there is low-cost housing available within the caravan parks noted in (b) above.

 

(d)  whether necessary community facilities and services are available within the caravan park to which the development application relates or in the locality (or both), and whether those facilities and services are reasonably accessible to the occupants of the caravan park,

 

Comment: Dunbogan Caravan Park has a swimming pool, amenities and laundry block, a small BBQ area and playground equipment for residents.

 

Limited local services are available in the Dunbogan area, but there is a public transport service running weekdays on Camden Head Road that provides access to Laurieton and the wider Camden Haven where services including the following are available.

·    Supermarkets, chemists, and a range of specialty shops;

·    Clubs and a men’s shed;

·    An array of recreational activities;

·    Local doctors and dentists;

·    Community facilities including a library;

·    Several courtesy buses.

 

A connecting public transport service is also available to Port Macquarie, where higher order services are available.

 

(e)  any relevant guidelines issued by the Director, and

 

Comment: No relevant guidelines have been issued.

 

(f)  the provisions of the Local Government (Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds) Transitional Regulation 1993.

 

Comment: The below table considers the applicable provisions of the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005.

 

CLAUSE

REQUIREMENT

COMMENT/COMPLIANCE

Part 3, Division 1 Operation of caravan parks and camping grounds

71 Factors for consideration before approval is granted

(1) Council must be satisfied that the estate will be designed in accordance with Division 3; and

(2) Council must have regard to the Floodplain Development Manual.

(1) Yes- refer to comments on Division 3

 

(2) Site is flood prone. See comments under clauses 7.3 and 7.4 of LEP.

72 Matters to be specified in approval

Any approval must specify the number, size and location of the dwelling and camping sites.

Section 68 approval to operate will need to specify these matters.

73 Conditions of approval

The consent must be conditioned to ensure the design, construction, maintenance and operation of the estate is in accordance with Division 3.

Section 68 approval to operate will need to specify these matters.

Part 3, Division 3 Caravan parks and camping grounds

83 Minimum size of caravan park or camping ground

Estate must have an area of not less than 1 hectare.

Complies - site has an area of 1.683 hectares.

84 Community amenities

Minimum 10% of site area to be reserved for recreation and other communal activities

Complies - more than 10% of site area available for recreation and communal activities.

85 Size of dwelling sites and camp sites

(1)  A long-term site must have an area of at least 80 square metres.

(2)  A short-term site must have an area of at least 65 square metres.

(3)  A camp site must have an area of at least:

(a)  40 square metres, in the case of a camp site for which a separate parking space is provided within 30 metres of the camp site, or

(b)  50 square metres, in any other case.

Complies – all proposed long-term sites have an area greater than 80m2.

86 Site identification

Dwelling sites to be identified and site boundaries delineated.

Capable of complying. Would need to be in place prior to Section 68 approval to operate.

87 Dwelling sites to have road frontage

A dwelling site must have vehicular access to an access road.

All dwelling sites have existing vehicular access to an access road.

88 Setbacks of community buildings

(1)  A community building must not be located closer than 10 metres to the boundary of a caravan park or camping ground, or to the boundary of a dwelling site or camp site, unless the approval for the caravan park or camping ground so allows.

(2)  The approval for a caravan park or camping ground must not allow a lesser distance than 10 metres unless the council is satisfied that the community building has been or will be properly screened, fenced, enclosed or otherwise treated.

(3)  A community building must not in any case be located closer than 3 metres to the boundary of a caravan park or camping ground or 5 metres to the boundary of a dwelling site or camp site.

N/A. No new community buildings proposed.

89 Setbacks of dwelling sites and camp sites from road frontages

(1)  A dwelling site or camp site must not be located closer than 10 metres to a public road or 3 metres to any other boundary of the caravan park or camping ground unless the approval for the caravan park or camping ground so allows.

(2)  The approval for a caravan park or camping ground must not allow a lesser distance unless the council is satisfied that the dwelling site or camp site has been or will be properly screened, fenced, enclosed or otherwise treated.

Dwelling sites 18, 20, 28, 29, 38, and 40 located up to front boundary. However, the existing short-term sites are already approved in this location. Impacts on the streetscape are not considered to be adverse.

90 Use of buffer zones

Nothing in this Regulation prevents land within a buffer zone arising from the setbacks required by this Division from being used:

(a)  for community amenities, access roads, car parking spaces, footpaths or landscaping, or

(b)  for any similar purpose allowed by the approval for the caravan park or camping ground.

n/a

91 Separation distances

(1)  A moveable dwelling must not be installed closer to any other moveable dwelling than:

(a)  3 metres, if it is situated on a long-term site, or

(b)  2.5 metres, if it is situated on a short-term site or camp site.

(2)  This clause does not prohibit the installation of semi-detached relocatable homes on adjoining dwelling sites so long as they are separated by construction conforming to the fire safety and sound insulation provisions relating to class 1 buildings contained in Section 3.7.1 and 3.8.6 of Volume Two of the Building Code of Australia.

Some existing moveable dwellings on the proposed long-term sites would not currently comply with the minimum 3m separation required. However, the Applicant has indicated that existing moveable dwellings are likely to be removed prior to changing the sites from short-term sites to long-term sites.

 

A condition is recommended requiring all proposed long-term sites to be provided with compliant separation, or fire safety and sound insulation in accordance with the BCA, prior to the issue of an approval to operate.

92 Entrance and exit roads

(1)  A road that forms an entrance to or exit from a caravan park or camping ground must be at least 7 metres wide.

(2)  In the case of a divided road, the width of the sealed portion of the road on either side of the median strip must be at least 5 metres.

(3)  The arrangement for the width of an entrance or exit road to taper into or meet the width of the sealed portion of the access roads leading to the entrance or exit must be as specified in the approval for the caravan park or camping ground.

Site has existing approved entrance and exit roads.

93 Forecourt

A caravan park must have a forecourt, measuring at least 4 metres by 20 metres, to accommodate incoming vehicles.

Existing forecourt.

94 Width of roads

(1)  The width of an access road must be:

(a)  at least 6 metres for a two-way access road, and

(b)  at least 4 metres for a one-way access road.

(2)  The direction of travel for a one-way access road must be indicated by means of conspicuous signs.

Existing approved internal road network. The proposed long-term sites do not require a different standard of road to the existing approved short-term sites.

95 Speed limits

The speed limit applicable to an access road:

(a)  must not exceed 15 kilometres per hour, and

(b)  must be indicated by means of conspicuous signs.

Existing speed limit within the caravan park.

96 Resident parking

(1)  A caravan park or camping ground must contain at least one resident parking space for each dwelling site or camp site.

(2)  The parking space for a dwelling site or camp site may be on-site (that is, forming part of the site) or off-site (that is, not forming part of the site).

(3)  An off-site space must be marked (for example, by means of line marking, marker pegs or similar means) to identify the particular dwelling site or camp site to which it relates.

(4)  An off-site parking space for a dwelling site or camp site must be situated in the location specified in the approval for the caravan park or camping ground.

(5)  Each off-site parking space is to have, at minimum, dimensions of:

(a)  5.4 metres by 2.5 metres, in the case of angle parking, and

(b)  6.1 metres by 2.5 metres, in any other case.

One space is proposed to be retained on each of the dwelling sites, consistent with the existing arrangements.

97 Visitor parking

(1)  A caravan park or camping ground must contain no fewer visitor parking spaces than the following:

(a)  one visitor parking space for each 10 (and any remaining fraction of 10) long-term sites in the caravan park or camping ground,

(b)  one visitor parking space for each 20 (and any remaining fraction of 20) short-term sites in the caravan park or camping ground,

(c)  one visitor parking space for each 40 (and any remaining fraction of 40) camp sites in the caravan park or camping ground.

(2)  The minimum number of visitor parking spaces to be provided is 4.

The proposed change of 45 sites from short-term sites to long-term sites would require provision of an additional 2 visitor parking spaces. The additional spaces are shown on plans.

98 Visitor parking for people with disabilities

(1)  A caravan park or camping ground must contain at least one visitor parking space for people with disabilities.

(2)  A caravan park or camping ground that contains more than 100 sites must contain at least one visitor parking space for people with disabilities for each 100 sites or fraction of 100 sites.

(3)  Such parking is to be provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 Parking facilities—Off street parking.

(4)  Visitor parking spaces for people with disabilities must be clearly identified as such.

(5)  Visitor parking spaces provided under this clause may be counted for the purposes of clause 97.

One of the visitor parking spaces has been shown on the plans as an accessible space.

99 Road surfaces

All access roads, including all passing and parking bays, must have an all-weather sealed or other surface finish specified in the approval for the caravan park or camping ground, and must be adapted to the topography to allow for adequate drainage and to eliminate excessive grades.

Conditions recommended requiring sealed surface for new parking areas.

100 Lighting

All access roads must be adequately lit between sunset and sunrise.

Existing lighting of roadways. No changes proposed.

101 Water supply

(1)  A caravan park or camping ground:

(a)  must be connected to a mains water supply, or

(b)  must be provided with an alternative water supply service as specified in the approval for the caravan park or camping ground.

(2)  A dwelling site must be connected to the water supply service for the caravan park or camping ground.

(5)  The water supply service must comply with:

(a)  the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2011 and any regulations under that Act, and

(b)  the requirements of any relevant statutory body.

Connection to water service will be required for each proposed long-term site. Condition recommended requiring connection prior to the issue of a Section 68 approval to operate.

102 Sewerage

(1)  A caravan park or camping ground:

(a)  must be connected to a main sewer, or

(b)  must be provided with an alternative sewage disposal system as specified in the approval for the caravan park or camping ground.

(2)  A long-term site must be provided with a connection to the sewage disposal system for the caravan park or camping ground.

(3)  A caravan park or camping ground that includes any short-term sites or camp sites must be provided with at least one common soil waste dump point for the disposal of closet waste from caravan holding tanks and the like. The common soil waste dump point must be located so as to permit adequate access by caravans and campervans.

(4)  A short-term site must be provided with a disposal point, as specified in the approval, for the disposal of sullage (that is, domestic waste from baths, basins, showers, laundries and kitchens, including floor wastes from those sources) from any moveable dwelling installed on the site. More than one short-term site may be provided with the same disposal point.

(5)  The sewage disposal system must comply with:

(a)  the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2011 and any regulations under that Act, and

(b)  the requirements of any relevant statutory body.

Connection to sewer will be required for each new long term site. Condition recommended requiring connection prior to the issue of a Section 68 approval to operate.

103 Drainage

(1)  A caravan park or camping ground must be provided with a stormwater drainage system.

(2)  All dwelling sites and camp sites must be adequately drained.

See comments later in this report under Stormwater.

104 Electricity Supply

(1)  A dwelling site must be supplied with electricity from a reticulated electricity service.

(2)  In the case of a long-term site, the electricity must be supplied by means of an electrical circuit connected to a separate electricity meter.

Existing electricity supply. The supply would need to be demonstrated to be consistent with these requirements prior to the issue of an approval to operate the caravan park.

105 Common trenches

A common trench may be used for the installation of services in accordance with guidelines set out in AMCORD.

Noted.

106 Modification of calculations

In calculating the facilities to be provided in accordance with this Subdivision:

(a)  2 camp sites are taken to be the equivalent of one dwelling site, and

(b)  dwelling sites reserved for use by self-contained moveable dwellings, and dwelling sites provided with ensuite facilities, are to be disregarded.

Noted. See calculations below under clauses 107-109.

107 Number of showers and toilets to be provided.

Facilities to be provided in accordance with table.

N/A. The number of dwelling sites would not be increased by the proposal.

108 Facilities for people with disabilities

Minimum one facility required. Can be disregarded if all sites proposed to be designated for self-contained moveable dwellings.

The Statement of Environmental Effects indicates that all the proposed long-term sites will be designated for self-contained moveable dwellings. Therefore no facilities required in accordance with the provisions of Clause 106.

 

Condition recommended restricting use of proposed new long-term sites to self-contained moveable dwellings only.

109 Other facilities

(1)  All showers and handbasins required by this Subdivision must be supplied with hot and cold running water.

(2)  A mirror must be provided:

(a)  for each handbasin provided, or

(b)  if 2 or more handbasins are provided together, for each pair of handbasins.

(3)  Means for sanitary napkin disposal must be provided in each communal facility that contains water closets for female use and, in a facility containing 10 or more water closets, must be provided at the rate of one for each 10 (or remaining fraction of 10) water closets.

N/A

110 Construction of shower blocks and toilet blocks

(1)  Except as otherwise provided by the approval for the caravan park or camping ground, the shower and toilet facilities provided for a caravan park or camping ground must be housed in a shower block or toilet block:

(a)  that is constructed of brick or concrete masonry block, and

(b)  that has a non-slip floor of tile or other impervious material adequately drained to outlets, and

(c)  that has smooth, hard, durable and water-resistant interior finishes, and

(d)  that has shower recesses with tile or other impervious finishes to a height of at least 1.8 metres, and

(e)  that has tile or other impervious skirtings around water closet cubicle walls, and

(f)  that has tile or other impervious finish around wash basins, and

(g)  that has adequate lighting (both inside and outside) and adequate ventilation at all times, and

(h)  that has all its walls, ceilings and floors, fixtures, fittings and appliances maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times.

(2)  Subject to clause 108 (2) and (3), if male and female shower or toilet facilities are located in the same building, that building must be divided for separate use by each sex.

(3)  Water closets must be provided in individual cubicles having a minimum floor area of 1.1 square metres and a minimum width of 0.8 metre.

N/A

111 Proximity of dwelling sites to shower blocks and toilet blocks

(1)  A long-term site must not be situated more than 75 metres (measured in a straight line) from a shower block or toilet block.

(2)  A short-term site or camp site must not be situated more than 100 metres (measured in a straight line) from a shower block or toilet block.

(3)  This clause does not apply in respect of dwelling sites reserved for use by self-contained moveable dwellings and dwelling sites provided with ensuite facilities.

N/A. The Statement of Environmental Effects indicates that all the proposed long-term sites will be designated for self-contained moveable dwellings. Therefore no facilities required in accordance with the provisions of Clause 106.

 

113 Washing Machines

(1)  A caravan park or camping ground must be provided with:

(a)  at least one washing machine for each 25 (and any remaining fraction of 25 greater than 12) long-term sites, and

(b)  at least one washing machine for each 30 (and any remaining fraction of 30 greater than 15) short-term sites.

(2)  The minimum number of washing machines to be provided is 2.

Proposal would not increase the number of washing machines required.

114 Laundry Tubs

(1)  A caravan park or camping ground must be provided with:

(a)  at least one laundry tub for each 50 (and any remaining fraction of 50) long-term sites, and

(b)  at least one laundry tub for each 60 (and any remaining fraction of 60) short-term sites.

(2)  The minimum number of laundry tubs to be provided is one.

Proposal would not increase the number of laundry tubs required.

115 Clothes dryers

(1)  A caravan park or camping ground must be provided with:

(a)  at least one mechanical clothes dryer for each 60 (and any remaining fraction of 60 greater than 30) long-term sites, and

(b)  at least one mechanical clothes dryer for each 80 (and any remaining fraction of 80 greater than 40) short-term sites.

(2)  The minimum number of mechanical clothes dryers to be provided is one.

Proposal would not increase the number of mechanical clothes dryers required.

116 Drying area

(1)  A caravan park or camping ground must be provided with clothes line space at the rate of 2 metres of line for each dwelling site.

(2)  The minimum length of clothes line space to be provided is 50 metres.

No increase in number of dwelling sites proposed. Additional clothes line space not required.

117 Water supply

Washing machines and laundry tubs required by this Subdivision must be supplied with both hot and cold water.

Noted. This would need to be confirmed prior to the issue of a Section 68 approval to operate.

118 Ironing facilities

A caravan park or camping ground must be provided with ironing boards, electric irons and power points available for connection to electric irons at the rate of one for every 60 (or remaining fraction of 60) short-term sites.

None required. No short-term sites proposed.

119 Construction of laundry blocks

Except as otherwise provided by the approval for the caravan park or camping ground, the laundry facilities provided for a caravan park or camping ground must be housed in a laundry block:

(a)  that is constructed of brick or concrete masonry block, and

(b)  that has a non-slip floor of tile or other impervious material adequately drained to outlets, and

(c)  that has smooth, hard, durable and water-resistant interior finishes, and

(d)  that has adequate lighting (both inside and outside) and adequate ventilation at all times, and

(e)  that has all its walls, ceilings and floors, fixtures, fittings and appliances maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times.

N/A. Existing building.

120 Maintenance

The laundry facilities required by this Subdivision that are housed in a laundry block must be maintained in a serviceable and safe condition.

Noted. This will be a requirement of the Section 68 approval to operate.

127 Garbage removal

Arrangements specified in the approval for the caravan park or camping ground must be instituted and maintained for the removal of garbage and for the maintenance of garbage receptacles in a clean and sanitary condition.

No changes proposed to existing waste management for the premises.

128 Fire hydrants

(1)  No part of a dwelling site, camp site or community building within a caravan park or camping ground may be situated more than 90 metres from a fire hydrant.

(2)  Any fire hydrant located within a caravan park or camping ground must:

(a)  be a double-headed pillar-type fire hydrant, and

(b)  be maintained to the standard specified in the approval for the caravan park or camping ground.

No changes to existing hydrant coverage of the sites.

129 Fire hose reels

(1)  Fire hose reels must be installed so that each dwelling site or camp site in the caravan park or camping ground can be reached by a fire hose.

(2)  The fire hose reels must be constructed in accordance with AS/NZS 1221:1997, Fire hose reels and installed in accordance with AS 2441—1988, Installation of fire hose reels, as in force on 1 September 2005.

No changes to existing fire hose reel coverage of the sites.

130 Car washing bay

A caravan park must be provided with an area for use for washing vehicles.

No change to existing arrangements.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

 

With reference to clauses 6 and 7, the subject land is greater than 1 hectare (including any adjoining land under same ownership) and therefore the provisions of SEPP must be considered.

 

The Applicant has submitted a report prepared by Naturecall Environmental addressing the provisions of the SEPP. The site was identified to contain six Schedule 2 primary browse species (all Forest Red Gum) which make up 10% of the total number of canopy species. The site is therefore not potential koala habitat as defined in the SEPP and no further consideration is necessary.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

 

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.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 62 – Sustainable Aquaculture

 

Given the nature of the proposed development and proposed stormwater controls the proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impact on existing aquaculture industries.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection and Clause 5.5 of Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

 

The site is located within a coastal zone noting clause 4 of the SEPP.

 

In accordance with clause 5, this SEPP prevails over the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 in the event of any inconsistency.

 

Having regard for clauses 2, 8 and 12 to 16 of the SEPP and clause 5.5 of the PMH LEP 2011, the proposed development will not result in any of the following:

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

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

c)   any adverse impacts on flora and fauna;

d)   the development being subject to any adverse coastal processes or hazards;

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

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

g)   reduction in the quality of the natural water bodies in the locality (due to effluent & stormwater disposal, construction impacts, landuse conflicts);

h)   adverse cumulative impacts on the environment;

i)    a form of development that is unsustainable in water and energy demands;

j)    development relying on flexible zone provisions.

 

The site is predominately cleared and located within an area zoned for residential purposes.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

 

The proposal is consistent with the LEP having regard to the following:

·    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 caravan park 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 having regard to the following:

The proposal is a permissible landuse;

The development would provide a form of affordable housing to meet the needs of the community.

 

·    Clause 5.5 - Development within the coastal zone - relevant objectives of this clause are addressed by SEPP 71 section (see above). Climate Change & Coastal Hazard implications addressed under Clause 7.3 below.

·    Clause 5.9 - No listed trees in Development Control Plan 2013 are proposed to be removed.

·    Clause 5.10 – Heritage. The site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage items or sites of significance.

·    Clause 7.1, the site is mapped as potentially containing class 3 acid sulphate soils. The proposed development does not involve and excavation extending 1m below surface level, and therefore no adverse impacts are expected to occur to the acid sulphate soils found on site.

·    Clause 7.3, the site is land within a mapped “flood planning area” (land subject to flood discharge of 1:100 annual recurrence interval flood event, plus the applicable climate change allowance and relevant freeboard). In this regard the following comments are provided which incorporate consideration of the objectives of Clause 7.3, Council’s Flood Policy 2015, the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Lands Policy and the NSW Government’s Floodplain Development Manual (2005):

The proposal is compatible with the flood hazard of the land taking into account projected changes as a result of climate change;

The proposal will not result in a significant adverse affect on flood behaviour that would result in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties;

The proposal incorporates measures to minimise & manage the flood risk to life and property associated with the use of land;

The proposal is not likely to significantly adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses;

The proposal is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding;

The site is an existing caravan park with approved long and short-term sites. The proposed development would not increase the number of flood affected sites or potential for future moveable dwellings.

Conditions have been recommended requiring future moveable dwellings to have minimum floor levels and be constructed of flood compatible materials in accordance with the Flood Policy.

·    Clause 7.4 – Flood risk management – the site is land between the flood planning area and the line that is shown as the probable maximum flood level on the Flood Planning Map and the development is for a caravan park. Consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life from flood.

 

The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed development is not likely to result in any significant increase in the number of persons at the site requiring evacuation in a flood emergency. This is based on the assumption that long-term sites would be typically occupied by a maximum of 2 residents, while the existing short term sites typically have higher maximum numbers.

 

The proposal includes a formal flood evacuation plan for residents, which is considered satisfactory subject to an amendment to the muster points. Long-term residents are also expected to have a higher level of familiarity with the flood evacuation procedures that short-term visitors.

 

With the implementation of a flood evacuation plan and the controls relating to installation of new moveable dwellings noted in Clause 7.3 above, it is considered that the risk to life from flooding would be improved compared to the current situation.

 

A condition is recommended restricting the new long-term sites to a maximum of 2 permanent residents to ensure that the flood risks are consistent with what has been assessed in this application.

 

·    Clause 7.13, satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential services including water supply, electricity supply, sewer infrastructure, stormwater drainage and suitable road access to service the development.

 

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

 

No draft instruments apply to the site.

 

(iii)    Any Development Control Plan in force:

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

DCP 2013: General Provisions

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

2.7.2.2

Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline

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.

Yes

2.3.3.8

Removal of hollow bearing trees

None proposed to be removed.

Yes

2.6.3.1

Tree removal (3m or higher with 100mm diameter trunk at 1m above ground level and 3m from external wall of existing dwelling)

None proposed to be removed.

Yes

2.4.3

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

Refer to main body of report.

 

2.5.3.3

Parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1.

1 space per single dwelling (behind building line)

See comments earlier under SEPP No. 21 regarding parking requirements.

 

2.5.3.11

Section 94 contributions

Refer to main body of report.

 

 

(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. See comments earlier under SEPP No. 71 – Coastal Protection.

 

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:

 

No Coastal Zone Management Plan applies to the subject site.

 

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

 

The site has a general south-westerly street frontage orientation to Bell Street.

 

Adjoining the site is a mix of residential dwellings. A Council sewer pump station is located within the site near the north-east boundary.

 

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 compatible with other residential development in the locality and adequately addresses planning controls for the area.

 

The proposal does not have a significant adverse impact on existing view sharing.

 

The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

 

There are no significant adverse privacy impacts. Adequate building separation is achievable on the proposed lots.

 

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.

 

Roads

The site has road frontage to Bell Street.

 

Adjacent to the site, Bell Street is a sealed public road under the care and control of Council.

 

Traffic and Transport

The traffic associated with the development is unlikely to have any adverse impacts to the existing road network within the immediate locality.

 

Site Frontage & Access

Vehicle access to the site is proposed via multiple access driveways to Bell Street.  No changes to the existing access driveways are proposed.

 

Parking and Manoeuvring

The proposal includes retention of one resident parking space on each of the sites proposed to be changed from short-term sites to long-term sites. An additional two visitor parking spaces (including one disabled space) are proposed to be provided on-site in accordance with the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005.

 

Parking and driveway widths on site can comply with relevant Australian Standards (AS 2890) and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

 

Water Supply Connection

Connection to water supply will be required for each new long term site. Condition recommended requiring connection prior to the issue of a Section 68 approval to operate.

 

Sewer Connection

Connection to sewer will be required for each new long term site. Condition recommended requiring connection prior to the issue of a Section 68 approval to operate.

 

Stormwater

The proposal does not include any significant change to existing impervious areas, other than the construction of two additional off-street parking spaces, which will require appropriate drainage. As the additional impervious area is less than 40m2 it is permitted to connected to the existing drainage system.

 

Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

 

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

 

Heritage

No known items of Aboriginal or European heritage significance exist on the property. No adverse impacts anticipated.

 

Other land resources

The site is within an established urban context and will not sterilise any significant mineral or agricultural resource.

 

Water cycle

The proposed development will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts on water resources and the water cycle.

 

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 and microclimate

The construction and/or operations of the proposed development will be unlikely to result in any adverse impacts on the existing air quality or result in any pollution. Standard precautionary site management condition recommended.

 

Flora and fauna

Construction of the proposed development will not require any 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.

 

Waste

Satisfactory arrangements are in place for proposed storage and collection of waste and recyclables. No adverse impacts anticipated. Standard precautionary site management condition recommended.

 

Energy

No adverse impacts anticipated.

 

Noise and vibration

No adverse impacts anticipated. The proposed change of 45 short-term sites to long-term sites is no expected to change existing noise from the premises.

 

Condition recommended restricting construction to standard construction hours.

 

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone. In accordance with Section 100B - Rural Fires Act 1997 - the application proposes development of bushfire prone land for a Special Fire Protection Purpose.

 

The applicant has submitted a bushfire report prepared by David Pensini Building Certification and Environmental Services and dated 27 May 2017.

 

The Commissioner has assessed the development and has issued a Bushfire Safety Authority dated 17 August 2017. A condition is recommended incorporating the RFS requirements.

 

Safety, security and 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. The increase in permanent housing will improve natural surveillance within the site and to the adjoining public road.

 

Social impacts in the locality

A Social Impact Assessment has been submitted with the Application in accordance with Council’s Social Impact Assessment Policy.

 

The assessment indicates that the future residents of the long-term sites will be required to be aged 48 years or older and are expected to be people down-sizing or preparing for retirement, retirees, or those looking for an affordable lifestyle opportunity.

 

It is acknowledged that a proportion of the future residents are likely to be disadvantaged and there are a range of services accessible from the site that are likely to be required for such residents. Limited local services are available in the Dunbogan area, but there is a public transport service running weekdays on Camden Head Road that provides access to Laurieton and the wider Camden Haven where services including the following are available.

·    Supermarkets, chemists, and a range of specialty shops;

·    Clubs and a men’s shed;

·    An array of recreational activities;

·    Local doctors and dentists;

·    Community facilities including a library;

·    Several courtesy buses.

 

A connecting public transport service is also available to Port Macquarie, where higher order services are available.

 

It is noted that the caravan park has been operating for some time with 34 long-term sites, with no known significant social impacts.

 

Economic impact in the locality

The proposal is likely to result in some changes to the nature of expenditure in the local area. The existing short-term sites would likely generate seasonal peaks in expenditure during holiday period, while permanent residents would contribute to the local economy more regularly, although less extravagantly. The nature of services used by permanent residents is also expected to differ from those that tourists would utilise.

 

The loss of tourist accommodation from the site may provide opportunity for other tourism providers to enter the local market.

 

While there is expected to be some economic impact/changes in the locality, the extent of the impact is not considered to warrant the refusal of the application.

 

Site design and internal design

The proposed development design 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.

 

Natural Hazards

See comments earlier in this report regarding flooding, bushfire, and acid sulphate soils.

 

(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:

 

25 written submissions have been received following 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

Changing the sites to long-term sites will require removal of existing trees to get new buildings onto the long-term sites.

The submitted application does not proposal the removal of any existing trees and the installation of any future moveable dwellings on the long-term sites would require separate approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Manufactured homes could potentially be installed on the existing short-term sites with the same risk of damage to existing trees.

Loss of tourism income to local businesses in Dunbogan. Low income permanent residents will not contribute as much to the local economy.

See comments earlier under ‘Economic impacts in the locality’.

Lack of public transport service to support low income housing on the site.

Busways route 332 operates weekdays along Camden Head Road/The Boulevarde adjacent to the site and provides access to Laurieton and the wider Camden Haven. A connecting service is also available to Port Macquarie.

Insufficient off-street parking.

The proposal will satisfy the minimum parking requirements in the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005.

The koala population is a well-known aspect of the park and would be adversely affected by construction activities.

See comments earlier under SEPP No 44 – Koala Habitat Protection.

No employment in the area for permanent residents. Will increase the risk of crime in the locality.

The site is no more isolated from local employment that other permanent housing in the Dunbogan/Camden Head area. It is common for people to reside away from their place of employment.

The size of the proposed new long-term sites are too small.

All the proposed sites comply with the minimum area prescribed in the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005.

The caravan park already has inadequate power supply.

The development will be required to provide electricity supply to the standards required in the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005 prior to the issue of an approval to operate.

Sewer lines have been laid on the site over the years without Council approval.

This is not a matter of consideration for the Development Application.

The land is affected by flooding. To achieve the required minimum floor levels, existing trees are expected to be impacted.

The installation of any future moveable dwellings on the long-term sites would require separate approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993. Any impacts on existing trees would need to be considered as part of those applications.

The size of the proposed new long-term sites has not accounted for the location of the existing trees, which reduce the useable area of some sites.

The Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005 does not preclude trees within the dwelling sites and does not require larger sites where such constraints exist. However, the size of future moveable dwellings capable of being installed on these sites will be restricted.

Sites 28, 29, 38, 40 and 52 don’t actually go up to the front boundary as shown on the submitted plan.

It is noted that the existing buildings on these sites are not up to the front boundary, However, the approved short-term sites on the most recent approval to operate extend to the front boundary, as shown on the DA plans.

Water supply and sewerage works will be required for the development. There is currently only 1 water service per 4 sites, and 36 of the sites are not sewered. New drainage work will damage existing trees.

Water supply and sewerage services will be required to be provided to the new long-term sites in accordance with the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005.

Section 68 approval will be required for any new plumbing work and a condition is recommended confirming this requirement.

Increased traffic and on-street parking in Bell Street.

Traffic generation is not expected to be significantly greater than during peak periods of the use of the existing short-term site. However, the traffic is expected to be more constant than the seasonal peaks typically experienced for tourist accommodation.

The proposal includes adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors and is not expected to affect street parking in the locality.

The caravan park currently provides camp sites, contrary to the Statement of Environmental Effects.

The current approval to operate the caravan park does not permit any camp sites.

There is no other camp sites or short-term accommodation on the Dunbogan peninsula. Loss of tourist accommodation will adversely affect tourism business operators.

See comments earlier under ‘Economic impacts in the locality’.

Proposal will displace existing semi-permanent residents.

The implementation of the change from short-term sites to long-term sites will be a matter for the operator of the caravan park.

Current stormwater drainage is inadequate and additional work will be required for the development.

The only additional impervious area proposed for the development is two additional off-street parking spaces. Given the minor increase in impervious area the proposal is not expected to result in any significant stormwater impacts.

Stormwater management for this work would need to be addressed as part of the Section 68 application.

Development will increase water consumption at the site, compared with current tourist use.

Council’s Water Section have reviewed the proposal and are satisfied that the water supply on the area is adequate for the potential increase in consumption.

Nearby residents will be impacted by construction noise.

A standard site management condition has been recommended restricting construction hours and requiring dust management and erosion and sediment control measures during construction.

Future buildings built to the required flood levels will have an adverse visual impact.

Future buildings on the existing short-term sites would be subject to the same floor level controls and would have a similar visual impact. The proposal would not increase impacts in this regard.

Additional noise would be generated by permanent residents.

Permanent residents are generally considered to be more respectful of their neighbours than tourists.

Proposal will create a tourism monopoly for the Diamond Head Caravan Park, allowing prices to be driven up. Both caravan parks are owned by the same company.

Competition or anti-competition issues are not a relevant consideration in the assessment of a development application.

There is adequate housing supply in the area and additional low cost housing in the caravan park is not required.

The Applicant has provided an analysis of existing land and housing supply in the Dunbogan area. While there is reasonable housing supply in the area it is not considered to be low cost/affordable housing as proposed in the caravan park.

Semi-permanent residents were not informed of the proposal by the owners.

Noted.

The proposal has not demonstrated that it is consistent with the provisions of clause 10 of SEPP 21 – Caravan Parks.

·  Site is not suitable for long-term sites due to flooding hazard, limited public transport and access to essential services.

·  There will not be adequate tourist accommodation in the Dunbogan area if the short-term sites at Dunbogan Caravan Park are lost.

·  There is considered to be adequate low-cost accommodation that is located with better proximity to services in the Laurieton town centre.

·  There are inadequate community facilities within the caravan park and the locality to meet the needs of low income long-term tenants.

See comments earlier under SEPP 21.

Loss of short-term sites in the area would increase the occurrence of ‘free camping’ in nearby public reserves. If proposal is approved, signage at the intersection of Diamond Head Road/The Boulevarde should be updated to note that no short-term accommodation is available in the Dunbogan township and direct tourists to the Diamond Waters Caravan Park.

The experience of Council’s Regulatory Services staff has been that ‘free camping’ is not associated with the availability of short-term or camp sites within local caravan parks. ‘Free camping’ is occurring even where paid sites are available nearby.

Signage of the nature suggested is likely to reduce traffic safety at the intersection and would be inconsistent with SEPP 64.

The proposed development would change the caravan park into a manufactured home estate. The provisions of SEPP No. 36 – Manufactured Home Estates need to be considered.

The proposal does not meet the locational requirements of SEPP 36.

The following definitions apply:

caravan park means land (including a camping ground) on which caravans (or caravans and other moveable dwellings) are, or are to be, installed or placed.

manufactured home estate means land on which manufactured homes are, or are to be, erected.

This matter has been considered by the Land and Environment Court in Wakefield Planning Pty Limited v Yass Valley Council [2014] NSWLEC 1131 at 33-39.

In that case, the experts agreed that for the development to be characterised as a caravan park (rather than a manufactured home estate) there needed to be at least one caravan. If only manufactured homes were to be installed, the development should be characterised as a manufacture home estate.

The Applicant has proposed to provide at least one caravan site and a condition is recommended requiring caravan site/s to be identified on the plans submitted with the application for a Section 68 approval to operate.

Long term occupancy of sites would increase the permanent population of the site and therefore increase exposure of people to flood risks. Holiday makers are more likely to pack up and leave or not choose to holiday during weather conditions associated with extreme flooding.

See comments earlier under Clause 7.4 of the LEP.

Proposal is inconsistent with Clause 7.3 of the LEP and Council’s Flood Policy 2015.

See comments earlier under Clause 7.3 of the LEP.

Tree removal will be required to achieve the asset protection zone requirements recommended in the bushfire assessment. Tree removal has not been considered in relation to Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 or Council’s DCP.

The Applicant’s bushfire consultant has indicated that the required asset protection zones are achievable without removal of any of the existing trees.

A condition is recommended confirming that all existing trees are to be retained.

The proposal does not adequately address SEPP No. 44 Koala Habitat Protection.

The Applicant has subsequently provided a report addressing SEPP 44. See comments earlier in this report.

The proposal has not considered the impacts on Koala habitat having regard to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The site is not potential koala habitat, as defined under SEPP 44, and the proposed development would not involve the removal of any existing trees. Consideration of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is not considered necessary.

Proposal does not adequately address DCP provision in relation to:

·    Koala habitat;

·    Hollow bearing trees;

·    Bushfire;

·    Social impact and crime prevention.

The proposal does not affect koala habitat or hollow bearing trees.

Bushfire and social impact are considered earlier in this report.

A Social Impact Statement is required in accordance with Council’s Social Impact Assessment Policy.

A Social Impact Assessment has been submitted and is discussed earlier in this report.

The proposal will increase the extent of impervious areas as long-term sites are expected to contain larger manufactured homes and sealed driveways and parking areas. Consideration of water quality/quantity control is required, including the location of any detention/treatment facilities.

Manufactured homes could be installed on the existing short-term sites with similar impervious area to what would be achievable on the proposed long term sites. The additional two parking spaces have an area of less than 40m2 and can connect to the existing drainage system without any requirement for on-site detention or water quality treatment.

The precautionary principle should be applied as there is a lack of evidence that the development will not have serious and irreversible social and economic impacts.

The precautionary principle relates to threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage where there is a lack of full scientific certainty. It is not relevant to social and economic impacts.

 

 

 

(e)     The Public Interest:

 

A caravan park has been operating on the site for a significant period of time. The proposed development is considered to satisfy relevant planning controls and is unlikely to impact on the wider public interest. The proposal is considered to positively contribute to the range of housing options in the locality and impacts attributed to the use are considered to be manageable.

 

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

·    Development contributions will not 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 not 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.

 

 

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. 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. DA2017 - 529.1 Plans

2View. DA 2017 - 529.1 Recommended Conditions

3View. DA2017 - 529.1 Bushfire Safety Authority - NSW Rural Fire Service

4View. DA2017 - 529.1 Submissions

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


AGENDA                                              Development Assessment Panel      14/02/2018

 

 

Item:          09

 

Subject:     DA2017 - 979.1 Construction Of A New Dwelling (Including Clause 4.6 Variation To Clause 4.3 (Height Of Buildings) Of The Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, Swimming Pool And Spa at Lot 143 DP 1229250, No 62 Surfers Drive, Lake Cathie

Report Author: Deb McKenzie

 

 

 

Applicant:               Chris Jenkins Design Architects Pty Ltd

Owner:                    C & P Pinson

Estimated Cost:     $770,000

Parcel no:               66507

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2017 - 979 for the construction of a new dwelling (including clause 4.6  variation to clause 4.3 (height of buildings), of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, swimming pool and spa at Lot 143 DP 1229250, No. 62 Surfers Street, Lake Cathie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a development application for a dwelling, swimming pool and spa at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Following exhibition of the application, two (2) submissions have been received.

 

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 603.3sqm.

 

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://pmhq-v-gtx01.pmhc.nsw.gov.au/Geocortex/Essentials/GXE471/REST/TempFiles/EBP%20Layout.jpg?guid=8bdfa87d-c3ed-481a-a833-62eab74ff855&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

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

http://pmhq-v-gtx01.pmhc.nsw.gov.au/Geocortex/Essentials/GXE471/REST/TempFiles/EBP%20Layout.jpg?guid=b5755637-7d12-4bd9-84dc-9b8acddac918&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

 

 

 

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

 

·    Subject site is vacant.

·    Surrounding sites are vacant (no current DA’s pending).

·    Proposed dwelling to comprise three bedrooms, two bathrooms, media room, 4 parking spaces, swimming pool and spa

·    Dwelling to be two storeys on sloping block

·    Request to vary clause 4.3 Height of Building under HLEP 2011 is submitted with the DA.

·    Proposed variation is a maximum of 800mm (up to 9.35m above NGL); a variation of 9.4%.

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    1.11.17: DA lodged

·    4.12.17: Revised plans and information submitted

·    8.12.17 – 21.12.17: Public notification of application.

·    14.12.17: Submission received.

·    21.12.17: Copy of redacted submission sent to applicant.

·    11.01.18: Acknowledgement letter to submitter sent.

·    18.01.18 Late submission received (2 emails)

·    29.01.18 Objection – addendum to 14.01.18, 2 received.

 

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 No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

The site is less than 1ha in area therefore no further investigations are required.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

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.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection and Clause 5.5 of Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

The site is located within a coastal zone as defined in accordance with clause 4 of SEPP 71.

 

In accordance with clause 5, 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;

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

The site is cleared and located within an area zoned for residential purposes.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

A BASIX certificate has been submitted demonstrating that the proposal will comply with the requirements of the SEPP.  It is recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure that the commitments are incorporated into the development and certified at Occupation Certificate stage.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

The proposal is consistent with the LEP having regard to the following:

·     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 dwelling 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 as it is a permissible landuse and consistent with the establishing residential locality.

·     Clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 9.35m which is non-compliant with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

·     Clause 4.4, the floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.49:1 which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site. It is noted that the GFA includes the garage parking area for two of the four vehicles, equating to 38sqm.

·     Clause 4.6 – exceptions to development standards. A request to vary clause 4.3 Height of Building is submitted. Refer to below for assessment of the request.

·     Clause 5.10 – Heritage. The site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage items or sites of significance.

·     Clause 7.1 - the site is mapped as potentially containing class 5 acid sulfate soils. No requirements.

·     Clause 7.13 - satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential services.

 

Request for Clause 4.6 variation – Height Limit

Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings states:

 

4.3   Height of buildings

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)  to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality,

(b)  to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development,

(c)  to minimise the adverse impact of development on heritage conservation areas and heritage items,

(d)  to nominate heights that will provide a transition in built form and land use intensity within the area covered by this Plan.

(2)  The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.

 

The subject site has a maximum building height of 8.5m.

 

 

By written submission, the applicant has requested a variation to the maximum height limit pursuant to clause 4.6 of the LEP – Exceptions to Development Standards. Clause 4.6 provides:

 

Objectives:

(a) To provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development.

(b) To achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

 

(2)  Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

 

 

Applicant’s Submission

 

The proposed two storey building has a maximum height of 9.345 metres above existing ground level, which is a variance of 845mm or 9.9%. The proposed maximum height variance occurs in the roof parapet in the south east corner of the building. The following height plane diagrams show the location and extent of the height limit breach.

 

 

The applicant submits:

 

·     The variation in the height limit will not be readily visible from the public domain or neighbouring properties as it is only minor in nature ie. 9.9% of the maximum height limit, and only affects a small area of the roof.

·     The variance in the height of a relatively small section of the roof parapet will have no adverse impact on the amenity of any neighbouring properties as well as the public domain, including overshadowing or view loss.

·     A conscious effort has been made to keep the majority of the building below the height limit of 8.5 metres, to minimise any impact on the streetscape and other buildings in the vicinity.

·     The height of the north and west elevations of the house determine the access to (ocean) views, from the neighbouring properties to the north and west. Both of these elevations are well below the 8.5 metre height limit.

·     All roofs have a 2 degree pitch to minimise the height of the roof structure.

·     The floor to ceiling heights are not excessive, in fact the Department of Planning’s Apartment Design Guide – Part 4C -1 recommends a minimum ceiling height of 2700mm. for habitable rooms.

·     The public benefit of the standard is not compromised or eroded, by the proposed minimal variance to the standard.

·     There will be no impact on the public domain.

·     The Shadow diagrams demonstrate that the property immediately to the south of the subject property receives adequate mid-winter solar access. The proposed height variation will have negligible effect on shadows cast on the property.

·     The development is consistent in the bulk and scale with other development in the locality.

·     There a number of precedents for a variance in the height limit in the southern outskirts of Lake Cathie village.

·     Two such examples occur at 2 Middle Rock Road and 119 Chepana Street.

·     Moreover, there are at least 5 Development Applications where Council has approved a variance in the height limit during the past 2 calendar years. (see Port Macquarie Hasting Council website) and there are numerous examples of dwelling houses in the R1 – General Residential zone in the Port Macquarie Hastings LGA which exceed the 8.5 metre height limit, due to the topography of the site, like the subject site.

·   

Assessment

 

LEP Clause 4.6

 

Proposal

(3)  Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a)  that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b)  that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

1.  Written request received.

2.  The applicants’ submission (as outlined above) serves to demonstrate that in this case compliance with the 8.5m HOB development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this case. Council agrees that:

·    The variation sort is less than 10% of the maximum height limit and therefore numerically not a significant variation.

·    The extent of the roof that is non-compliant is not extensive (as shown in the height plane diagrams above)

·    There are no significant amenity or overshadowing of neighbouring properties that results solely from the height exceedence.

·    Conditions of consent are proposed to address privacy concerns along the southern boundary.

·           

(4)  Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a)  the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i)  the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

(ii)  the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(b)  the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

 

Council staff are satisfied that:

 

(a)(i) Council staff are satisfied that the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3).

(ii)  the proposed development is considered to be in the public interest as it is consistent with the objectives of clause 4.3 and the R1 General Residential zone (see below). 

4.3   Height of buildings

 

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)  to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality,

(b)  to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development,

(c)  to minimise the adverse impact of development on heritage conservation areas and heritage items,

(d)  to nominate heights that will provide a transition in built form and land use intensity within the area covered by this Plan.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the height of buildings objective as:

1.  The major of the dwelling complies with the prescribed height limit, only a small section of the south-east corner of the front façade is non-compliant.

2.  The area of the non-compliance does not result in any visual impact, disruption to view or solar access impacts directly as a result of the height exceedance.

3.  No heritage impacts.

4.  The built form of development along Surfers Drive will step down the street, providing a transition of building structure and form along the street frontage.

Zone R1   General Residential

 

1   Objectives of zone

•  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.

 

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the R1 zone objectives as:

1.  The site has been created for the purposes of residential development, contributing to meeting the housing needs of the community;

2.  The proposal is a modern, contemporary built form, adding variety to the anticipated future character of this area;

3.  Not applicable.

 

To be consistent with the future residential character of the area the dwelling does not have to be same as the current housing stock being built in the land release area. The proposal is an architect designed dwelling, customised for its owners.

·   

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

 

Nil

 

(iii)    any Development Control Plan in force:

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

 

DCP 2013: Dwellings, Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses, Multi dwelling houses & Ancillary development

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

3.2.2.2

Articulation zone:

Min. 3m front setback

An entry feature or portico

A balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or verandah

A window box treatment

A bay window or similar feature

An awning or other feature over a window

A sun shading feature

No elements within the articulation zone.

 

N/A

Front setback (Residential not R5 zone):

Min. 6.0m classified road

Min. 4.5m local road

Min. 3.0m secondary road

Min. 2.0m Laneway

Front building line setback = 4.61 to 5.2m

Yes

3.2.2.3

Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front façade.

Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided

Garage door setback is compliant with the minimum front setback requirements.

Garage door recessed.

Yes

 

 

6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building

Width of garage door = 5.8m.

Yes

Driveway crossover 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m width

Driveway width proposed = 6m at site boundary. Condition to apply limiting driveway crossover width to 5m.

To be conditioned to ensure compliance.

3.2.2.4

4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to site analysis and provision of private open space

Rear setback:

Lower & ground = 5.22m.

Upper = 9.31m

Complies.

Yes

3.2.2.5

Side setbacks:

Ground floor = min. 0.9m

First floors & above = min. 3m setback or where it can be demonstrated that overshadowing not adverse = 0.9m min.

Building wall set in and out every 12m by 0.5m

Ground floor level:

North: 2.5m to wall of front stairway; 5.95m to wall of kitchen/dining area; 4.74m to wall of laundry.

South: 5.052m to wall of garage; 1.86m to wall of Bedroom 3.

 

Upper Floor Level:

North: 2.5m to wall of stairway; 5.95m to WIR wall of Bedroom 1

NB: no overshadowing due to east-west orientation of the site.

 

South:

6.232m to wall of Bedroom 1; 5.052m to edge of Bedroom 1 terrace.

 

Building articulation:

North: façade is stepped at rear of stairwell, lift and laundry with large side setbacks creating privacy around the pool and spa area.

 

South: façade is 17m long then stepped out for Bedroom 3 at the rear. Large side setback (5m+) provides ample opportunity for substantial landscaping along southern boundary to address potential privacy concerns of the adjoining site in the future. 

Acceptable in this case, subject to conditions of consent re: landscaping.

3.2.2.6

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

The rear of the site contains an area of 4m+ x 19m.  Northern POS area is also 5m+ x 10m+ around the pool & spa.

Complies.

Yes

3.2.2.7

Front fences:

If solid 1.2m max height and front setback 1.0m  with landscaping

3x3m min. splay for corner sites

Fences >1.2m to be 1.8m max. height for 50% or 6.0m max. length of street frontage with 25% openings

0.9x0.9m splays adjoining driveway entrances

The site slopes from north to south, requiring cut and fill. Front fencing is proposed and is to be conditioned to comply with the provisions of the DCP. Concept plans submitted with the DA demonstrate that the front fencing, integrated with proposed landscaping is capable of achieving the DCP controls.

To be conditioned to comply with details provided at the CC stage.

3.2.2.8

Front fences and walls to have complimentary materials to context

No chain wire, solid timber, masonry or solid steel front fences

Concept plans show solid front and boundary fences, up to 1.8m high along the boundaries. Pool and spa fencing to comply with the relevant Australian Standard.

 Yes.

3.2.2.10

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. ie. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed

Privacy screen required if floor level > 1m height, window side/rear setback (other than bedroom) is less than 3m and sill height less than 1.5m

Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandahs etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m

The proposal has a setback of 4.06m to the southern terrace and 6.23m to the living/dining room doors and kitchen window with no privacy screening proposed. The terrace is estimated to be 2.4-2.8m above ground level and therefore elevated above typical fence height (1.8m).

 

A submission has been received regarding privacy to the southern neighbouring property.

 

The separation does not comply with Council’s control requiring 9m separation. Any new dwelling on Lot 131 (southern neighbour) may build to 900mm from their northern boundary; therefore the maximum separation is approximately 5-7m only.

 

Combined with the height of the main terrace, it is reasonable to require some form of privacy for Lot 131.

 

Either installation of moveable privacy screens along the main living southern terrace are to be installed (movable along the terrace and openable to provide transparency and 100% solid when closed) or landscaping along the southern boundary – to reach a height at maturity of at least 3m. Details to be included the Construction Certificate documentation and certified by the selected certification authority prior to issue of the CC.

No. Condition of consent requiring privacy screening along main living room southern terrace or substantial landscaping along the southern boundary. 

 

(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.

 

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:

Nil

 

(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 and setting

The proposal satisfactorily addresses the public domain.

 

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the likely future residential character of the locality.

 

Access, transport and 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.

 

Water Supply

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

 

Sewer

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

 

Stormwater

Service available – details required with S.68 application

 

 

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

 

Heritage

This site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage item or site of significance.

 

Other land resources

No adverse impacts anticipated. The site is within an established urban context and will not sterilise any significant mineral or agricultural resource.

 

Water cycle

The proposed development will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts on water resources and the water cycle.

 

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 and microclimate

The construction and/or 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 and fauna

Site is cleared.

 

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 and vibration

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

 

Bushfire

The site is not identified as being bushfire prone.

 

Safety, security and 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 impacts 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. Likely positive impacts can be attributed to the construction of the development and associated flow on effects (ie maintained employment and increased expenditure in the area).

 

Site design and internal design

The proposed development design 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 have been adequately addressed and appropriate conditions of consent recommended.

 

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

Two written submissions have been received following 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

1.  Height of building. The dwelling exceeds the LEP maximum height of building – 8.5m

Acknowledged with clause 4.6 request for variation submitted by the applicant. Refer to assessment above. Variation request accepted as reasonable in this case.

2.  Potential overshadowing of Lot 131 (southern neighbour)

Shadow diagrams submitted with DA. Lot 131 currently vacant and no current DA pending. Therefore difficult to access likely future location of living areas. However, shadows comply with front and rear of Lot 131 morning and afternoon times. Parts of the centre of the lot will be overshadowed on June 21. The height exceedence in the south-east corner of the proposed dwelling does not amplify this impact. The building is height compliant in the central section of the site and setback up to 5-6m, significantly improving shadow impacts along the southern boundary.

3.  Lack of privacy to Lot 131 & Lot 132 due to height of terraces above ground.

Agreed. The main living southern terrace is up to 2.4-2.6 above ground level. A condition of consent to be applied requiring either movable/openable privacy screens along the terrace or substantial plantings along the southern boundary (up to 3m high).

Bedroom 1 is a low traffic area and the balcony is only 1m wide. Privacy screen to this room and balcony is not required.

4.  Chimney – size (bulk & scale) and location of chimney – potential to block views from Lot 144 (northern neighbour).

This has been discussed with the submitter and its size and location clarified. Overall, it is noted that chimneys as not part of the overall height of the dwelling (by definition of building height in the LEP).

 

The location of the chimney is towards the centre/front of the dwelling and its widest side faces the street, not the neighbouring properties.

5.  The development does not comply with the purposes of Council’s DCP in relation to Lot 144 (northern neighbour) and Lot 131 (southern neighbour), particularly the following:

·   Not unduly affect the amenity of neighbours;

·   Ensure view sharing opportunities from nearby properties and vantage points are taken into account so that adverse impacts are minimised.

Subject to conditions of consent to address privacy on the southern elevation, privacy is considered to be adequately addressed.

The north-east corner of the building, while a solid construction to the full height of the stairwell, is compliant with the maximum height limit for the dwelling on the subject site.

 

(e)     The Public Interest:

The proposed development will be in the wider public interest with provision of appropriate additional housing.

 

The proposed development satisfies relevant planning controls and is not expected to impact on the wider public interest.

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

Nil

 

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. 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. DA2017 - 979.1 Plans

2View. DA2017 - 979.1 Recommended DA Conditions

3View. DA2017 - 979.1  Submission - Russo

4View. DA2017 - 979.1 Submission Davis 14122017

5View. DA2017 - 979.1 Submission Davis 30012018

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018

 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

14/02/2018