Agenda of Development Assessment Panel

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:

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

Aerial Photo 2012

Aerial Photos 2017

2018_02_05_08_49_20_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:

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

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

o 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:

o The proposal is a permissible landuse.

o 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.

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.

(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.

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 85^th 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

1 View. DA2017 - 355.1 Plans

2 View. DA2017 - 355,1 Arborist Report

3 View. DA2017 - 355.1 Acoustic Assessment

4 View. DA2017 - 355.1 Flora Fauna

5 View. DA2017 - 355.1 Traffic Impact Assessment

6 View. DA2017 - 355.1 Recommended Conditions

7 View. DA2017 - 355.1 DA Submisssions

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:

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

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

(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:

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 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
3.2.2.2	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
2.5.3.2	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

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

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

1 View. DA2017 - 553.1 Plans

2 View. DA 2017 - 553.1 Recommended Conditions

3 View. DA2017 - 553.1 DA Submissions

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:

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

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

(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.