Development Assessment Panel

 

Business Paper

 

date of meeting:

 

Wednesday, 11 December 2013

location:

 

Function Room,

Port Macquarie-Hastings Council,

17 Burrawan Street,

Port Macquarie

time:

 

2.00pm


Development Assessment Panel

 

CHARTER

 


 

 

Functions:

 

1.       To review development application reports and conditions.

 

2.       To determine development applications outside of staff delegations.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Delegated Authority:

 

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

 

 

Format Of The Meeting:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Development Assessment Panel

 

ATTENDANCE REGISTER

 

 

Member

10/04/13

24/04/13

08/05/13

12/06/13

26/06/13

Paul Drake

A

P

P

P

P

Matt Rogers

P

 

 

 

P

Dan Croft

Patrick Gailbraith-Robertson (alternate)

P

P

P

P

A

 

David Fletcher

Paul Biron (alternate)

A

P

P

P

P

P

Cliff Toms

David Troemel (alternate)

P

P

A

P

 

P

P

 

 

Member

10/07/13

24/07/13

14/08/13

28/08/13

11/09/13

Paul Drake

P

P

P

P

P

Matt Rogers

 

 

 

 

 

Dan Croft

Patrick Gailbraith-Robertson (alternate)

P

P

P

P

P

David Fletcher

Paul Biron (alternate)

P

P

P

P

P

David Troemel

P

P

P

P

P

 

 

Member

25/09/13

09/10/13

23/10/13

13/11/13

27/11/13

Paul Drake

P

P

P

A

P

Matt Rogers

 

 

 

P

 

Dan Croft

Patrick Gailbraith-Robertson (alternate)

P

P

P

P

P

David Fletcher

Paul Biron (alternate)

P

P

P

P

P

David Troemel

P

P

P

P

P

 

 

Key: P =  Present

         A  =  Absent With Apology

         =  Absent Without Apology

        

 

 

 

 

 


Development Assessment Panel Meeting

Wednesday, 11 December 2013

 

Items of Business

 

Item       Subject                                                                                                      Page

 

01           Acknowledgement of Country............................................................................ 1

02           Apologies......................................................................................................... 1

03           Confirmation of Minutes.................................................................................... 1

04           Disclosures of Interest....................................................................................... 5

05           DA 2013 - 529 ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING 856 OCEAN DRIVE, BONNY HILLS LOT 77 DP 29766............................................................................................................... 9

06           DA 2013 - 0492 - ADDITIONS TO ANIMAL BOARDING ESTABLISHMENT (BILLABONG ZOO)     35

07           DA 2013 - 0497 - ADDITIONS TO DWELLING & ANCILLARY STRUCTURES........ 81  

08           General Business

 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      11/12/2013

Item:          01

Subject:     ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

 

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

 

 

Item:          02

Subject:     APOLOGIES

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the apologies received be accepted.

 

 

Item:          03

Subject:     CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Development Assessment Panel Meeting held on 27 November 2013 be confirmed.

 


pmhc_logo_VER_smallMINUTES                                                            Development Assessment Panel Meeting

                                                                                                                                  27/11/2013

 

 

 

PRESENT

 

Members:

Paul Drake

Dan Croft

David Fletcher

David Troemel

 

Other Attendees:

 

Fiona Tierney

Clinton Tink

Chris Gardiner

 

 

The meeting opened at 2.04pm.

 

 

01       ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

The Acknowledgement of Country was delivered.

 

 

02       APOLOGIES

Nil.

 

 

03       CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

CONSENSUS:

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

 

 

04      DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

 

There were no disclosures of interest presented.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Speakers:

Michelle Love (applicant)

 

CONSENSUS:

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

 

 

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

 

Speakers:

Rob Smallwood (o)

Dennis Marks (o)

Alex Pelser (applicant)

 

CONSENSUS:

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

 

 

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

CONSENSUS:

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

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 2.35pm.

 

 

 

 

 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      11/12/2013

Item:          04

Subject:     DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Disclosures of Interest be presented

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST DECLARATION

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

 

        Pecuniary:

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

 

 

        Non-Pecuniary - Significant Interest:

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

 

        Non-Pecuniary - Less than Significant Interest:

              May participate in consideration and voting.

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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


 

Further Explanation

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

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

 

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

 

Pecuniary Interest

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Non-Pecuniary

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Non Pecuniary – Significant Interest

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Non Pecuniary – Less than Significant Interest

 

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

SPECIAL DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST DECLARATION

 

 

By

[insert full name of councillor]

 

 

In the matter of

[insert name of environmental planning instrument]

 

 

Which is to be considered at a meeting of the

[insert name of meeting]

 

 

Held on

[insert date of meeting]

 

 

PECUNIARY INTEREST

 

 

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

 

 

Relationship of identified land to councillor

[Tick or cross one box.]

 

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

 

Associated person of councillor has interest in the land.

 

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

 

MATTER GIVING RISE TO PECUNIARY INTEREST

 

 

Nature of land that is subject to a change

in zone/planning control by proposed

LEP (the subject land iii

[Tick or cross one box]

 

The identified land.

 

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

Current zone/planning control

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

 

Proposed change of zone/planning control

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

 

Effect of proposed change of zone/planning control on councillor

[Tick or cross one box]

 

Appreciable financial gain.

 

Appreciable financial loss.

 

 

 

 

 

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


 

 

Important Information

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      11/12/2013

 

 

Item:          05

 

Subject:     DA 2013 - 529 ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING 856 OCEAN DRIVE, BONNY HILLS LOT 77 DP 29766

Report Author: Anthony Crane

 

 

 

Property:                 Lot 77 DP 29766, 856 Ocean Drive, Bonny Hills

Applicant:               V Tiflides

Owner:                    V Tiflides

Application Date:   25 October 2013

Estimated Cost:     $119,000

Location:                 Bonny Hills

File no:                    DA 2013 - 529

Parcel no:               15339

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2013 - 529 for additions to an existing dwelling at Lot 77, DP 29766, No. 856 Ocean Drive, Bonny Hills, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a Development Application for  additions & alterations to an existing dwelling at the subject site.

 

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

 

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

 

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing site features and Surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 619.7m2.

 

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

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl2356_C0A8C986:0142B5A77FC0:E2C5:190FC17B%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:0142B5A77FC0:E2C5:190FC17B

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

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl1496_C0A8C986:0142B5A77FC0:E2C5:190FC17B%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:0142B5A77FC0:E2C5:190FC17B

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the application proposal include the following:

 

 

·    The conversion of the existing attached garage to a bedroom with ensuite and the addition of two bedrooms, each with ensuite, detached from the main dwelling and connected by a covered deck. The existing verandah to the dwelling is to be enclosed to provide increased living area to the dwelling.

·    The proposed addition has been designed to retain the existing trees.

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    Application lodged 25/10/2013.

·    Neighbour notification from 05/11/2013 to 19/11/2013.

·    Submission received 06/11/2013 from neighbours immediately to the south.

·    Amended plans submitted showing reduction in overall height by 0.69m submitted.

 

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 State Environmental Planning Policy:

(a)   

 

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

 

A BASIX certificate - No. A173523, has been submitted with the application, demonstrating that the proposal will comply with the requirements of this SEPP. It is recommended that a condition be applied to ensure that the commitments are incorporated into the development and certified prior to the issuing of Occupation Certificate.

 

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

 

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

In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, the proposed development for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling is a permissible landuse with consent.

 

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

 

·        To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

 

In accordance with clause 2.3(2), the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives, particularly as the proposal is a permissible landuse and is consistent with the established residential locality.

In accordance with clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the proposal from ground level (existing) is 6.36m which complies with standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

In accordance with clause 4.4, the floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.34:1 which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

In accordance with clause 5.9, no listed trees in Development Control Plan 2011 are proposed to be removed.

In accordance with clause 7.1, the site has no potential acid sulphate soils.

 

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

 

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

 

The requirements of this LEP are therefore satisfied.

 

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

 

No draft instruments apply to the site.

 

(iii)    any Development Control Plan in:

 

Port Macquarie Hastings Development Control Plan 2011

 

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

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

DP1.1

Ancillary development:

• 4.8m max. height

• Single storey

• 60m2 max. area

• 100m2 for lots >900m2

• 24 degree max. roof pitch

• Not located in front setback

N/A

 

DP2.1

Articulation zone:

• Min. 3m front setback

• 25% max. width of dwelling

N/A

 

DP2.2

 

DP 3.1

 

 

 

 

 

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

• Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front faηade

N/A

 

DP3.1

Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided

N/A

 

DP3.2

 

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

N/A

 

DP3.3

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

30% of frontage

5.0m wide

Y

Y

DP3.4

Garage and driveway provided on each frontage for dual occupancy on corner lot

N/A

 

DP4.1

DP4.2

4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to DP 4.2.

8.41m

Y

DP5.1

DP5.2

DP5.3

 

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

 

0.98m

1.5m

 

 

 

 

Y

 

Y

Y

 

 

 

 

Y

DP6.1

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

>35m2

Y

DP7.1

DP8.1

DP8.2

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

• Front fences and walls to have complimentary materials to context

• No chain wire, solid timber, masonry or solid steel

N/A

 

DP10.1

DP10.2

DP10.3

DP10.4

Privacy:

• Direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. 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

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still height 1.5m min

 

 

 

 

4.02m to bdry

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y

 

 

 

 

Y

DP11.1

Roof terraces

N/A

 

DP12.1

Jetties and boat ramps

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

DCP 2011: General Provisions

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

DP1.1

Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline

Adequate casual surveillance available

Y

DP5.1

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

N/A

 

DP6.1

0.8max height retaining walls along road frontage

N/A

 

DP6.2

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

N/A

 

DP6.3

Combination of retaining wall and front fence height

N/A

 

DP11.1 onwards

Removal of hollow bearing trees

N/A

 

DP1.1

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

N/A

 

 

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

Refer to main body of report.

 

DP2.1

New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads

N/A

Y

DP8.1

Parking in accordance with AS 2890.1

N/A

 

DP11.1

Section 94 contributions

Refer to main body of report.

 

DP12.1 onwards

Landscaping of parking areas

N/A

 

DP14.1

Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified

Y

Y

DP15.1

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

Y

Y

DP17.1

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

Y

Y

DP17.2

Vehicle washing facilities – grassed area etc available.

Y

Y

DP3.1

Off-street Parking spaces:

•  1 space = single dwelling (behind building line)

2 spaces behind the bldg line

Y

 

The proposal does not seek to vary any Development Provisions.

 

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.

 

(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 is no adverse privacy impacts.

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

 

(b)          View Impact

(c)          There is not considered to be any adverse impacts on views as a result of the proposal.  However, one of the concerns of the neighbouring residents to the south was “the loss of some 50% of our coastal view”. This view is enjoyed from their main living area.

(d)           

These residents have lived at the current location for over 40 years and have had a large degree of their view eroded over that time by the subsequent erection of  nearby dwellings, and the vegetation (a large number of palm trees) on the adjoining property growing to a height where they now impinge on the view to the north/north-east.

 

Glimpses of water views and the Port Macquarie headland can be seen through these palm trees. The proposed development will further restrict this as well as some of the view to the north-east. Water views are still available to the north-east and east.

 

The notion of view sharing is invoked when a property enjoys existing views and a  proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own enjoyment. It is noted that the proposed development has a floor level much lower than the affected property and would only have minimal impact on views, if any. The principles of view sharing are considered to be maintained.

 

Using the principals of NSW Land and Environment Court caselaw - Tenacity Consulting v Waringah 2004 NSW LEC 140, the following comments are provided in regard to the view impact on 854 Ocean Drive:

 

Step 1

 

Assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg 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, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

Iconic views are not available from the affected residence. Horizon views of the water are still available to the north-east and east. As previously mentioned, existing buildings and vegetation have reduced the available views to the north, and to a lesser degree to the north-east, over the years. The northern boundary is a side boundary.

The existing vegetation (palm trees) which now obscures the view to the north will not be removed by the erection of the proposed development. The proposed building will further obscure the glimpses of water through the palm trees, but will not affect the views to the north-east and east.

 

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.

 

The proposed development is across the side boundary. This aspect is already greatly obscured by advanced vegetation and nearby buildings.

 

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 of 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.

 

The extent of impact on views is considered minor to moderate. There will be partial loss of view to the north-east, but there will still be water views to the east/north-east.

As previously mentioned, the views to the north are already greatly affected.

The quality of impact is considered minor.

 

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, the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

The proposal complies with the LEP and Council’s DCP for single dwellings.

The proposal is across the side boundary to the affected residence. The initial proposed height has been lowered, and as all planning controls have been complied with, the proposed development is considered to be reasonable.

 

 

 

 

Access, Transport & Traffic

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

 

Stormwater

Service available - details required with S.68 application.

 

Water

Service available - details required with S.68 application.

 

Sewer

Service available - details required with S.68 application.

 

Soils

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

 

Air & Micro-climate

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

 

Flora & Fauna

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

 

Waste

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

 

Energy

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

 

Noise & Vibration

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

 

Natural Hazards

The site is not affected by flooding, bushfire, acid sulphate soils or any other known natural hazards.

 

Safety, Security & Crime Prevention

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

 

Social Impact in the Locality

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

 

Economic Impact in the Locality

No adverse impacts. Likely positive impacts can be attributed to the construction of the development and associated flow on effects (ie increased expenditure in the area).

 

Site Design and Internal Design

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

 

Construction

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

 

Cumulative Impacts

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

1)   Proposal will cut off summer breezes and winter sun

Low roof pitch of proposal will minimise effect on breezes. Solar access complies with DCP.  Adequate building separation available.

2)   Roof pitch considered too high causing glare & heat problem. Flat roof would be preferred.

Roof pitch 15 degrees and facing south. Would have high visual impact from balcony/living area of affected residence. Flatter pitch would lessen  impact.

3)   Proposal unreasonably high. Will cast shadow on rear yard & drying area.

Proposal is lower than existing trees and is below maximum height limit prescribed by the LEP. Design was amended through the assessment process to lower height to 6.3m. Morning sun not considered to be  affected to significant degree.

4)   Existing palm trees shed dead vegetation into guttering. Would consider removal of palm trees as trade off for withdrawal of submission.

Removal of trees from private property considered to be a civil matter and not a necessity for the proposal.

5)   Provision of 2 off street parking spaces suggests possible intention of B&B business or similar.

Off street parking spaces behind building line required in lieu of garage conversion. The application does not include a B&B component and any future intention to do so would need to obtain any necessary approvals.

6)   Loss of approx. 50% of coastal view which will lower property value.

Refer to comments under ‘View Impact’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(e)     The Public Interest:

 

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

 

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

 No contributions are applicable.

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2013 - 529 Plans

2View. DA2013 - 529 Submission - Latham

3View. DA2013 - 529 Recommended Conditions

 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013


 


 


 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      11/12/2013

 

 

Item:          06

 

Subject:     DA 2013 - 0492 - ADDITIONS TO ANIMAL BOARDING ESTABLISHMENT (BILLABONG ZOO)

Report Author: Benjamin Roberts

 

 

 

Property:                 LOT 2 DP231760, 61 BILLABONG DRIVE, PORT MACQUARIE

Applicant:               MARK STONE

Owner:                    M J & D N STONE

Application Date:   2 SEPTEMBER 2013

Estimated Cost:     $75,000

Location:                 PORT MACQUARIE

File no:                    DA 2013/0492

Parcel no:               35398

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2013/0492 for additions to animal boarding establishment at Lot 2, DP 231760, No. 61 Billabong Drive, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a Development Application for additions to animal boarding establishment at the subject site.

 

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

 

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

 

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

 

The site has an area of approximately 4,400m2.

 

The site is zoned RU1 Primary Production in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, as shown in the following zoning plan:

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl9388_C0A8C986:01429CA7568F:4009:704BB206%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:01429CA7568F:4009:704BB206

 

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

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl1706_C0A8C986:01429CA7568F:4009:704BB206%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:01429CA7568F:4009:704BB206

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the application proposal include the following:

 

·    Addition of a new animal enclosure to the existing animal boarding establishment (Billabong Zoo)

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    2 September 2013 - Application lodged

·    12 - 26 September 2013 - Public exhibition via neighbour notification

·    15 October 2013 - Site inspection

·    17 October 2013 - Request for additional information (Noise Report)

·    12 November 2013 - Noise report provided

 

3.       STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

 

Section 79C(1) Matters for Consideration

 

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

 

(a)     The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i)      any Environmental Planning Instrument:

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

The site is less than 1 hectare in size and the application has demonstrated that no significant tree removal is proposed as part of the development.

 

The provisions of this policy are not considered applicable.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

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

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage

No signage is proposed as part of this development application.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

In accordance with clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned RU1 Primary Production.

In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the RU1 zone landuse table, the proposed development for an additional animal enclosure is considered to be ancillary to the existing animal boarding establishment located on the site. The additions are considered to be a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the RU1 Primary Production zone are as follows:

•  To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

•  To encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area.

•  To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.

•  To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

 

In accordance with clause 2.3(2), the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives, particularly as the proposal is a permissible landuse and is consistent with the existing use of the site.

In accordance with clause 5.9 there is no significant tree removal proposed as part of the development proposal.

In accordance with clause 5.9 the site does not contain or adjoin any items of heritage significance.

In accordance with clause 7.1, the site has class 3 potential acid sulfate soils. The proposed development will not include excavation 

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

The requirements of this LEP are therefore satisfied.

 

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

 

No draft instruments apply to the site.

 

(iii)    any Development Control Plan in:

 

Port Macquarie Hastings Development Control Plan 2011

The proposed development is quite unique in nature and no specific building related controls of this plan apply to the development.

 

The following table addresses the relevant general provisions of this plan:

 

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

DP1.1

Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline

Adequate casual surveillance available

Yes

 

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

Refer to main body of report.

Yes

DP7.1

Visitor parking to be easily accessible

No change to existing parking arrangements.

Yes

DP8.1

Parking in accordance with AS 2890.1

Existing.

N/A

DP9.1

Bicycle and motorcycle parking considered

Existing.

N/A

DP11.1

Section 94 contributions

Refer to main body of report.

Yes

DP12.1 onwards

Landscaping of parking areas

Existing.

N/A

DP14.1

Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified

Existing.

N/A

DP15.1

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

Existing.

N/A

DP17.1

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

Existing.

N/A

DP17.2

Vehicle washing facilities – grassed area etc available.

Existing.

N/A

DP3.1

Off-street Parking

Existing visitor parking arrangements to remain unchanged. Given the nature of the use and the extensive parking area available on site no further parking is considered necessary.

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:

 

No planning agreement offered or entered into regarding the site.

 

iv)     any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

 

No matters prescribed by the regulations apply.

 

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

 

No coastal zone management plan applies to the site.

 

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

 

Context & Setting

The site is located at 61 Billabong Drive, Port Macquarie which adjoins the Pacific Highway. The surrounding land uses are primarily rural in nature with a number of rural residential style allotments containing single dwellings surrounding the site.

 

Access, Transport & Traffic

The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts in terms access, transport

and traffic. The existing road network will satisfactorily cater for any increase in traffic

generation as a result of the development.

 

Utilities

The site is serviced by existing utilities.

 

Stormwater

Stormwater from the additional hardstand area can be adequately managed via suitably sized rubble drains on site.

 

Water

Council records show that the development site currently has a 25mm water service from the 300mm DICL water main on the same side of Billabong Drive.

The existing and proposed buildings and enclosure areas straddle a water main easement. Fortunately, the water main is located outside the easement and building areas, but could be in or near the proposed enclosure.

The water main location is to be confirmed by the applicant prior to issue of any Construction Certificate. Council arranged to locate the water main adjacent to the existing snow leopard enclosure towards the northern end of Lot 21. The proponent is to arrange with Council for locating the water main in accordance with the above criteria for the proposed lion/cheetah enclosure.

Should any of the proposed building be located over the water main it shall be relocated clear of the water main. This is to enable satisfactory access arrangements for maintenance works. It would be considered reasonable to allow any of the fenced area of the enclosure to be located over the water main as this would still allow for maintenance.

Given the nature of the development the need for backflow prevention devices is to be assessed by a hydraulic consultant. 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. Minimum backflow protection for this type of facility is an RPZD at the property boundary. Individual and zone backflow protection device requirements are to be assessed by the hydraulic consultant.

Suitable conditions of consent have been recommended detailing the above requirements.

 

Soils

The proposed development will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts on soils in

terms of quality, erosion, stability and/or productivity subject to a standard condition

requiring erosion and sediment controls to be in place prior to and during

construction.

 

Air & Micro-climate

The operations of the proposed development will be unlikely to result in any adverse

impacts on the existing air quality or result in any pollution.

 

Flora & Fauna

Construction of the proposed development will not require removal/clearing of any

significant vegetation and therefore will be unlikely to have any significant adverse

impacts on biodiversity or threatened species of flora and fauna. Section 5A of the

Act is considered to be satisfied.

 

Waste

Satisfactory arrangements are in place for proposed storage and collection of waste

and recyclables. No adverse impacts anticipated.

 

Energy

No adverse impacts identified.

 

Noise & Vibration

Having regard to the nature of the animals (lions) proposed within the enclosure and proximity to nearby residential receivers the applicant was requested to undertake a noise impact assessment.

 

The noise impact assessment was undertaken by SLR dated 8 November 2013. The noise report undertook noise modelling based on the roar of three (3) lions within the enclosure. The results predict that noise levels from the lion enclosure will be below the project specific noise criteria at the nearest residential receivers.

 

Having regard to the findings of the report it is considered that the enclosure when housing three lions will not have any adverse noise impacts upon the nearby residences. It is considered relevant to apply a condition to any consent issued limiting the number of lions within the enclosure to a maximum of three (3).    

 

Natural Hazards

The site is not identified as being bushfire prone land.

 

Safety, Security & Crime Prevention

The proposed development will be unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment

areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of

security in the immediate area.

 

It should be noted that the design of the enclosure is to meet the requirements of the relevant Department of Primary industry standards with regard to dangerous species.

 

Social Impact in the Locality

Given the nature of the proposed development and its location the proposal is

unlikely to result in any adverse social impacts.

 

 

Economic Impact in the Locality

No adverse impacts. Positive economic benefit to the community from the additional animal attraction.

 

Site Design and Internal Design

The proposed development design is satisfactorily responds to the site attributes and

will fit into the locality. No adverse impacts likely.

 

Construction

No potential adverse impacts identified to neighbouring properties with the

construction of the proposal.

 

Cumulative Impacts

The proposed development is not expected to have any adverse cumulative impacts

on the natural or built environment or the social and economic attributes of the

locality.

 

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

 

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

proposed development.

 

Site constraints of have been adequately addressed and appropriate conditions of

consent recommended.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

The enclosure and display of large wild carnivorous animals in unnatural habitats should not be approved.

Opinion acknowledged however this is considered to be an ethical issue and not a matter for consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment act, 1979.

The safety issues of the general public have not been assessed.

The building enclosure will be required to meet Building Code of Australia standards. The design of the enclosure will also need to satisfy the requirements of the Department of Primary Industries (DPI). From discussion with staff of DPI the safety of the public, trainers and animals are incorporated into the General Standards for Exhibiting Animals in NSW. There is a separate approvals process to be undertaken through DPI.

The application does not show that a licensed builder is constructing the development.

At the development application stage it is not uncommon for the builder to be unknown. Details of the person/s responsible for the construction will be provided in the Construction Certificate application.

Not enough details have been provided within the supporting documentation. i.e. perimeter fence material and height.

The perimeter fencing will need to meet the DPI standards referred to above.

Nuisance issues like noise and smell have not been addressed.

Refer to comments under noise heading within the report. Odour issues are considered to be managed by regular cleaning of the enclosure. Similar to that of existing enclosures within the park.

The Snow Leopard enclosure was built without development consent and it would appear that other enclosures have and are being erected without approval. The ongoing building activities without approval is inappropriate.  It is requested that Council investigate the legality of all the recently constructed exhibits.

Acknowledged. Recent development activity and its legality is currently under investigation by Councils compliance section.

The proposal is for an animal display and not additions to an animal boarding establishment.

Noted. For planning purposes and consistency with Port Macquarie Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 land use definitions the existing Billabong Wildlife Park is considered to be an animal boarding and training establishment. The proposed enclosure is considered to be an addition to this establishment.

The application should be refused and the matters raised be investigated by Council.

Noted.

 

 

 

(e)     The Public Interest:

 

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

 

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

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

 

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

 

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2013 - 492 Plans

2View. DA2013 - 492 Noise Report

3View. DA2013 - 492 Development Contributions Calculation

4View. DA2013 - 492 Submission - Hazenveld

5View. DA2013 - 492 Recommended Conditions

 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013


 


 


AGENDA                                              Description: Governance Strap.jpgDevelopment Assessment Panel      11/12/2013

 

 

Item:          07

 

Subject:     DA 2013 - 0497 - ADDITIONS TO DWELLING & ANCILLARY STRUCTURES

Report Author: Benjamin Roberts

 

 

 

Property:                 LOT 38 DP 261990, 4 JUBAEA LANE, PORT MACQUARIE

Applicant:               SCOTT STRAHORN

Owner:                    K F STRAHORN

Application Date:   29 AUGUST 2013

Estimated Cost:     $84,400

Location:                 PORT MACQUARIE

File no:                    DA 2013/0497

Parcel no:               9742

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2013/0497 for additions to dwelling and ancillary structures at Lot 38, DP 261990, No. 4 Jubaea Lane, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a Development Application for additions to dwelling and ancillary structures at the subject site.

 

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

 

Subsequent to exhibition of the application, two (2) submissions have been received.

 

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 866m2.

 

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

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl3402_C0A8C986:0142B519A86A:D7FE:4EAEF5E3%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:0142B519A86A:D7FE:4EAEF5E3

 

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

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl9044_C0A8C986:0142B519A86A:D7FE:4EAEF5E3%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:0142B519A86A:D7FE:4EAEF5E3

 

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the application proposal include the following:

 

·    Additions to the existing dwelling and ancillary retaining walls

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    29 August 2013 - Application lodged.

·    11 -25 September 2013 - Public exhibition via neighbour notification.

·    17 October 2013 - Request for view sharing analysis, elevation and section plans.

·    29 October 2013 - View sharing analysis provided.

·    6 November 2013 - Revised plans including elevations and section provided.

·    8 November 2013 - Revised plans provided to objectors for further comment.

 

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 55 – Remediation of Land

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

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

and is suitable for the intended use.

 

The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 71 – Coastal Protection

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

SEPP 71. In accordance with clause 7, this SEPP prevails over the Port Macquarie-

Hastings LEP 2011 in the event of any inconsistency.

 

Having regard to clauses 8 and 12 to 16 of SEPP 71 and clause 5.5 of Hastings LEP

2011 inclusive the proposed development will not result in any of the following:

 

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

b) any identifiable adverse amenity impacts along the coastal foreshore and on

the scenic qualities of the coast;

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

environment);

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

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

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

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

 

In particular, the site is located within an area zoned for residential purposes. The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

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

In accordance with clause 6, a BASIX (certificate number A170236) 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

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

In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, the proposed development for additions to a single dwelling house is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

-  To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

In accordance with clause 2.3(2), the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives, particularly as the proposal is a permissible landuse and is consistent with the established residential locality.

In accordance with Clause 2.6AA, the part demolition requires consent as it does not fit within the provisions of SEPP (Exempt and Complying) 2008.

 

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

above ground level (existing) is approximately 6.6m (from scaled section plan) which complies with the maximum height limit of 8.5m applicable to the site.

 

In accordance with clause 4.4, the floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.36:1.0 which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applicable to the site.

 

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

of essential public utility infrastructure.

 

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

 

No draft instruments apply to the site.

 

(iii)    any Development Control Plan in:

 

Port Macquarie Hastings Development Control Plan 2011

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

DP1.1

Ancillary development:

·    4.8m max. height

·    Single storey

·    60m2 max. area

·    100m2 for lots >900m2

·    24 degree max. roof pitch

·    Not located in front setback

No ancillary out buildings proposed.

N/A

DP 2.1

Articulation zone:

·    Min. 3m front setback

·    25% max. width of dwelling

No building elements proposed within the articulation zone.

N/A

DP2.2

 

DP3.1

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

·    Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front facade

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.485m setback to front retaining wall. Noting that lot boundary extends to middle of the private lane.

 

Garage setback over 25m and 6m behind the building line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

DP3.1

Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided

Garage 6m behind building line.

Yes

DP3.2

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

5.2m double garage width.

Yes

DP3.3

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

Existing crossover onto private lane.

N/A

DP4.1

DP4.2

4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to DP 4.2.

1.5m rear setback.

No*

DP5.1

DP5.2

DP5.3

 

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

 

 

North side ground floor setback = 1.5m.

North side first floor setback = 1.7m.

 

South side ground floor setback = 0m for garage wall.

South side first floor setback = 5.3m.

Adequate building articulation provided.

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

No*

 

Yes

 

Yes

DP6.1

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

Adequate private open >35m2 available directly accessible from living area.

Yes

DP7.1

DP8.1

DP8.2

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

·    Front fences and walls to have complimentary materials to context

·    No chain wire, solid timber, masonry or solid steel

 

1m high fence above retaining wall. Materials not nominated.

 

Yes

DP10.1

DP10.2

DP10.3

DP10.4

Privacy:

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

 

No adverse privacy impacts identified for additions. The first floor west facing windows are highlight windows with sill height of 1.5m. Adequate building separation and dividing fence provided between adjoining dwellings to the west.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessment Checklist for DCP 2011 – General Provisions

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

DP1.1

Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline

Adequate casual surveillance available

Yes

DP5.1

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

Cut greater than 1m for garage. No adverse impacts anticipated.

Yes

DP6.1

0.8m max. height retaining walls along road frontage

Retaining walls fronting Jubaea Lane range from 2m to 2.7m in height. It is noted that Jubaea Lane is a private road. Planter boxes proposed on boundary to improve visual amenity. 

No*

DP6.2

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

Retaining walls up to 2.7m in height. Suitable condition applied.

Yes

 

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

Refer to main body of report.

N/A

DP2.1

New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads

Existing access to remain.

Yes

DP2.3

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

Single existing crossover.

Yes

DP8.1

Parking in accordance with AS 2890.1

Sufficient provided in form of double garage proposed.

Yes

DP11.1

Section 94 contributions

Refer to main body of report.

N/A

DP12.1 onwards

Landscaping of parking areas

Sufficient landscaping proposed.

Yes

DP14.1

Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified

Driveway to be sealed.

Yes

DP15.1

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

Driveway is existing. New section in front of garage within private property.

Yes

DP17.1

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

Hardstand and driveway area capable of managing stormwater.

Yes

DP17.2

Vehicle washing facilities – grassed area etc available.

Grassed area available.

Yes

DP3.1

Off-street Parking spaces:

·    1 space = single dwelling (behind building line)

Double garage provided.

Yes

 

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 4.1 requiring a minimum rear setback of 4m. The proposal seeks a rear setback of 1.5m from the rear boundary.

 

The relevant objectives are to allow natural light and ventilation between dwellings/buildings and to private open space areas and to provide useable yard areas and open space.

 

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

·    No adverse impacts on solar access would result to adjoining dwellings.

·    The 1.5m setback is restricted to a 8.5m length. The remainder of the block width is available for open space well in excess of the private open space area requirements of this plan.

·    In addition there is ample useable front yard area available for open space.

 

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 5.1 requiring ground floors to be setback a minimum of 900mm from side boundaries. The proposal seeks a zero side setback for the south facing garage wall.

 

The relevant objectives are to reduce overbearing and perceptions of building bulk on adjoining properties and to maintain privacy and to provide visual and acoustic privacy between dwellings.

 

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

 

·    The length of the garage wall proposed on the boundary is 7.835m. This side boundary is 40m in length. The garage is single storey.

·    The garage wall on the boundary for the specified length will not result in overbearing or a perception of excessive building bulk from adjoining properties. The dominant view lines are orientated to the south east from the adjoining dwelling to the south being 6 Jubaea Lane.

·    The garage wall will be of sufficient width and construction standards to meet BCA requirements. No adverse visual or acoustic impacts indentified.   

 

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 6.1 requiring the maximum height of a retaining wall along all road frontages to be 800mm. The proposal seeks retaining walls fronting Jubaea Lane (Private Road) ranging from 2m to 2.7m in height. Technically the site has no road frontage.

 

The relevant objectives are to ensure retaining walls are functional, safe and positively contribute to the development and/or the streetscape.

 

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

 

·    Jubaea Lane is a private road and technically the site has no public road frontage.

·    The proposal incorporates planter boxes in front of the retaining wall to soften the streetscape appearance.

·    The retaining walls will not create any adverse safety impacts to road users or pedestrians. 

 

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

 

No planning agreement has been offered or entered into.

 

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

The part demolition of existing parts of the dwelling are capable of being managed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard. Suitable condition applied.

 

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

No Coastal Zone Management Plan applies to the site.

 

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

 

Context & Setting

The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts to existing adjoining properties and satisfactorily addresses Jubaea Lane.

 

The proposal is not considered to be incompatible with other residential development in the locality and adequately addresses planning controls for the area - as justified through this report.

There is no identifiable adverse privacy impacts.

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

 

View sharing

During the public exhibition period concerns surrounding view loss were raised by the residents of both 6 and 8 Ocean View Terrace. The applicant submitted a view sharing analysis of the proposal addressing view sharing impacts of the proposal.

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

Using the principles of NSW Land and Environment Court caselaw - Tenacity Consulting v Waringah 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. For the purposes of the assessment a site inspection of both residences at 4 and 6 Ocean View Terrace, the lighthouse and the development site were undertaken.

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 view corridor from both affected residents is orientated south east toward the lighthouse. Both affected dwellings enjoy water views of the Pacific Ocean. The dwelling at number 8 Ocean View Terrace enjoys a direct view of Tacking Point lighthouse. The view of the lighthouse is considered to be an iconic view. The dwelling at 6 Ocean View Terrace enjoys an obscured partial view (through vegetation) of the lighthouse. Lighthouse Beach and its direct interface with the ocean is not visible from either of the dwellings however both dwellings enjoy a view of the vegetation in the foreground and its subsequent interface with the ocean.

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 of the lighthouse and ocean are enjoyed from both affected residences across a  rear boundary. The views are enjoyed from both standing and sitting positions from various parts of both residences.

 

6 Ocean View Terrace enjoys an obscured view (through vegetation in the foreground) of the lighthouse from the first floor living areas. Both standing and sitting views of the ocean and land interface are enjoyed from both the first floor kitchen and balcony over the roofline of 4 Jubaea Lane. The objector has also indicated that breaking waves are also visible close to the interface with ocean and vegetation from the kitchen and first floor balcony. There is also a partial view of the ocean from a standing position on the ground floor over the roof line of the existing dwelling.

 

8 Ocean View Terrace enjoys direct views of the lighthouse, ocean and rainforest from the first floor lounge room, rear balcony and bedroom. The views are enjoyed from both sitting and standing positions in these locations over the roofline of 4 Jubaea Lane. The objector has also indicated that a view of the lighthouse and ocean are enjoyed from a standing position on the ground floor.

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 6 Ocean View Terrace is considered to be minor for the following reasons:

-  The obscured view of the lighthouse from living areas will be unaffected by the proposal as it is enjoyed over the northern portion of the existing roofline of the dwelling which is to remain unchanged.

-  The section of the ocean and land interface view lost by the proposal is considered minimal in the context of the actual ocean and land interface view that will be retained from the first floor living areas.

-  The ocean view from a  standing position on the ground floor above the roofline of the dwelling will be lost. However it is considered unreasonable to expect retention of this ocean view given the building heights set for the area and those views enjoyed from the first floor.

 

The extent of the impact upon the views enjoyed from 8 Ocean View Terrace is considered to be severe for the following reasons:

-  Sitting and standing views of the lighthouse from sections of both the first floor lounge room and rear balcony will be impacted. The extent of the standing view impacts are difficult to ascertain without the benefit of height poles. 

-  The views enjoyed of the lighthouse are considered to be iconic.

-  A sitting and standing view of the lighthouse will be maintained from a southern portion of the rear balcony. This will be achieved above the roof line of the garage for a width of approximately 5.5m were it remains unchanged.

-  A sitting and standing view of the lighthouse, although slightly obscured in places from palm trees located at 6 Jubaea Lane, will be maintained from the lounge room as the roof line above the garage for a width of approximately 5.5m will remain unchanged.

-  The section of the ocean and land interface view lost by the proposal is considered minimal in the context of the actual ocean and land interface view that will be retained from the first floor living areas.

-  The lighthouse and ocean view from a  standing position on the ground floor above the roofline of the dwelling will partially maintained as a view corridor will be available above the garage roofline. It would be considered unreasonable to expect this ground floor view to be retained in its entirety given the building heights for the area and views enjoyed from the first floor.

Step 4

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

 

Comments: The proposal complies with the maximum building height of 8.5m set for the area. The height of the ridge line for the first floor addition is approximately 6.6m. The section plan (sheet 7) provides a comparison of the proposed addition in relation to the maximum building height of 8.5m. There are three non compliances with the provisions of DCP 2011 however none relate to view sharing impacts.

 

Having consideration to the maximum building height the design of the proposal is considered to be sympathetic to the views enjoyed from the adjoining residences. The proposal is for an additional section of first floor measuring approximately 8m in width. The width of the whole dwelling is approximately 23m. The retention of the single storey element of the garage provides for a view corridor above the roofline for 8 Ocean View Terrace.

 

Having regard to the above it is considered that the development is a complying proposal and the design is a reasonable response to the site conditions and sympathetic to the view of the neighbours at 6 and 8 Ocean View Terrace.

 

It should be noted that while this application is being considered through the development application process a complying development through the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 would allow for a first floor addition to a height of 8.5m for the width of the block minus the side setback requirements. This would result in more considerable view loss to the affected neighbours with no avenue for neighbour consultation.   

 

Access, Transport & Traffic

The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts in terms of access, transport and traffic. The site is accessed from a private laneway and no new driveway crossover is proposed.

 

Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity serves are existing.

 

Stormwater

Capable of being managed on the site. Details required with section 68 application.

 

Water

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

 

Sewer

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

 

Soils

The proposed development will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts on soils in terms of quality, erosion, stability and/or productivity.

 

Flora & Fauna

Construction of the proposed development will not require any removal/clearing of vegetation.

 

Waste

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

 

Energy

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

 

Noise & Vibration

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

 

Natural Hazards

The site is not mapped as bushfire prone land.

 

Safety, Security & Crime Prevention

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

 

Social Impact in the Locality

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

 

Economic Impact in the Locality

No adverse impacts. Likely positive impacts can be attributed to the construction of the development and associated flow on effects (i.e. increased expenditure in the area).

 

Site Design and Internal Design

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

 

Construction

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

 

Cumulative Impacts

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Two (2) written submissions have been received following completion of the required public exhibition of the application.

 

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

 

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

Addition of a second storey will have a devastating effect on lighthouse, rainforest and ocean views enjoyed from living areas of 6 Ocean View Terrace.

See comments provided under view sharing heading within the report.

The development will result in significant view taking rather than view sharing.

Refer to view sharing comments.

Alternative designs would achieve better outcomes for both properties. The application not be approved and alternate designs be investigated.

The design is considered to be sympathetic to the site and view sharing principles. Refer to view sharing section. The applicant provides that alternative design options were investigated and discussed with the affected neighbours.

The second storey addition will result in a devastating loss of iconic views of the lighthouse, ocean and rainforest from living areas of 8 Ocean View Terrace.

Refer to view sharing section within the report.

The second storey west facing windows will overlook the primary living areas and rear yard of 8 Ocean View Terrace resulting in unacceptable privacy impacts.

Refer to comments within DCP assessment table. In summary the first floor west facing windows are highlight windows with sill height of 1.5m. In addition the first floor west facing wall is setback approximately 6.5m from the boundary and the rear wall of 8 Ocean View Terrace is setback approximately 13m from the boundary. No adverse privacy impacts are identified.

The floor to roof height of 3.45m is excessive. A better design incorporating the minimum floor to ceiling height would provide an improved outcome.

The section plan indicates a 2.43m floor to ceiling height. This is reflective of the minimum floor to ceiling height under the BCA of 2.4m. The pitched roof adds a further 1m to the building height.

The plans show inadequate measurements and are not to scale.

The additional plans provided are to scale and provide accurate measurements.

The pictures in the applicants recent submissions are inaccurate.

Photos and pictures provided by both parties are considered to be indicative only. The site inspection from all positions referenced has been undertaken to ascertain the impacts. 

(e)     The Public Interest:

 

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

 

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

No contributions applicable.

 

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2013 - 497 Plans

2View. DA2013 - 497 Submission - Stewart 1

3View. DA2013 - 497 Submission - Stewart 2

4View. DA2013 - Submission - Wallace 1

5View. DA2013 - Submission - Wallace 2

6View. DA2013 - Submission - Wallace 2 Attachment

7View. DA2013 - 497 View Sharing Analysis - Strahorn

8View. DA2013 - 497 Response to Submissions - Strahorn

9View. DA2013 - 497 Recommended Conditions

 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013


 


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

11/12/2013