Development Assessment Panel

 

Business Paper

 

date of meeting:

 

Wednesday 10 May 2017

location:

 

Function Room

Port Macquarie-Hastings Council

17 Burrawan Street

Port Macquarie

time:

 

2:00pm

 


Development Assessment Panel

 

CHARTER

 


 

 

COMPOSITION:

 

Independent Chair (alternate, Director Development & Environment)

Manager Development Assessment (alternate, Director Development & Environment or Development Assessment Planner)

Development Engineering Coordinator (alternate, Development Engineer)

 

MISSION:

 

To assist in managing Council's development assessment function by providing independent and expert assessment of development applications

 

The Development Assessment Panel will make determinations on the basis of established criteria and practice and will not be influenced by "lobbying" and "weight of numbers" in its assessment process.

 

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:

 

1.         Pursuant to Section 377 of the Local Government Act, 1993 delegation to:

2.         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.

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

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

 

TIMETABLE:

 

The Development Assessment Panel shall generally meet on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday each month at 2.00pm.

 

VENUE:

 

The venue will be determined according to the likely number of participants.

 

BUSINESS PAPER AND MINUTES:

 

1.         The Business Paper for the meeting shall be published and distributed on the Friday prior to the meeting.

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

3.         The format of the preparation and publishing of the Business Paper and Minutes of the Development Assessment Panel meetings shall be similar to the format for Ordinary Council Meetings, except that the movers and seconders shall not be recorded and only the actual decisions are shown. Minutes shall also record how each member votes for each item before the Panel.

 

FORMAT OF THE MEETING:

 

1.         Panel meetings shall be carried out in accordance with Council's Code of Meeting Practice 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.

 

INDEPENDENT CHAIR:

 

The Chair of the Development Assessment Panel shall be an independent person appointed by the General Manager. The Independent Chair shall have experience and qualifications relevant to planning. The term of the Independent Chair shall be four (4) years.

 

QUORUM:

 

All members must be present at the Meeting to form a Quorum.

 

DECISION  MAKING:

 

Decisions are to be made by the Development Assessment Panel by "consensus". Where "consensus" is not possible, the matter is to be referred to Council.

 

All development applications involving a variation  to a development standard greater than 10% under Clause 4.6 of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 will be considered by the Panel and recommendation made to the Council for determination.

 

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

 

LOBBYING:

 

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

 

OBLIGATIONS OF PANEL MEMBERS:

 

All DAP members are required to comply with the following:

 

1.         Members must perform their Development Assessment Panel obligations faithfully and diligently and in accordance with the DAP Code.

2.         DAP members must comply with Council's Code of Conduct.

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

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

5.         DAP members must act in accordance with Council's Occupational Health and Safety Policies and Procedures

6.         DAP members shall not speak to the media on any matter before the Panel otherwise than with the express approval of the Director Development & Environment Services.


Development Assessment Panel

 

ATTENDANCE REGISTER

 

 

 

Member

22/02/17

8/3/17

22/03/17

12/04/17

10/05/17

Paul Drake

Matt Rogers (alternate)

P

P

P

P

P

Dan Croft

Patrick Galbraith-Robertson

Warren Wisemantel

(alternates)

 

P

 

P

P

P

P

David Troemel

Caroline Horan (alternate)

Bevan Crofts (alternate)

Grant Burge (alternate)

P

A

P

P

 

 

 

P

P

 

 

 

Key: P =  Present

         A  =  Absent With Apology

         =  Absent Without Apology

 

 

 


Development Assessment Panel Meeting

Wednesday 10 May 2017

 

Items of Business

 

Item       Subject                                                                                                      Page

 

01           Acknowledgement of Country............................................................................ 7

02           Apologies......................................................................................................... 7

03           Confirmation of Minutes.................................................................................... 7

04           Disclosures of Interest..................................................................................... 12

05           DA2000 - 603.4 Modification To Aged Care Facility - Lot 26 DP 878913, Lot 2 DP 1019665, 821 Ocean Drive, Port Macquarie ........................................................................... 16

06           DA2015 - 698.2 Modification To Childcare Centre - Lot 2 DP 808998, 156 Horton Street, Port Macquarie..................................................................................................... 131

07           DA2017 - 37.1 - Dwelling - Lot 72 DP 238688, No 19 Jasmine Street, Port Macquarie      173

08           DA2017 - 97.1 Additons To Existing Dwelling - Lot 24 DP 20480, No 18 Bundella Avenue Lake Cathie........................................................................................................... 226

09           DA2017 - 99.1 Alterations And Additions To Dwelling Including Clause 4.6 Objection To Clause 4.3  (Height Of Buildings) Of The Port Macquarie -Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 And Construction Of Swimming Pool - Lot 31 DP 231816, No 21 Matthew Flinders Drive, Port Macquarie..................................................................................................... 245

10           DA2017 - 181.1 Alterations And Additions To Dwelling And Boundary Fence - Lot 33 DP 1069338, No 76 The Anchorage, Port Macquarie.............................................. 266

11           DA2016 - 801.1 - Service Station And Signage - Lot 20 DP 1191370 No. 16 Sancrox Road, Sancrox........................................................................................................ 316  

12           General Business

 


AGENDA                                              Development Assessment Panel      10/05/2017

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 12 April 2017 be confirmed.

 


MINUTES                                                                                      Development Assessment

                                                                                                                           Panel Meeting

                                                                                                                                  12/04/2017

 

 

 

PRESENT

 

Members:

Paul Drake

Dan Croft

Grant Burge

 

Other Attendees:

 

Pat-Galbraith Robertson

Chris Gardiner

Fiona Tierney

 

 

 

The meeting opened at 2:00pm.

 

 

01       ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

The Acknowledgement of Country was delivered.

 

 

02       APOLOGIES

CONSENSUS:

That the apology received from David Troemel be accepted.

 

 

03       CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

CONSENSUS:

That the Minutes of the Development Assessment Panel Meeting held on 22 March 2017 be confirmed.

 

 

04      DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

 

Dan Croft declared a non-pecuniary less than significant interest in Item 8 as he has a vessel registered with the Port Macquarie Marine Rescue Group. He considered this a less than significant interest due to the minor nature of the registration fee.

 

 

05       DA2002 - 169.2 & DA2016 - 939.1 Modification To Design Of Previous Approved Residential Subdivision And 6 Additional New Lots - Lot 505 DP 1192771, Greenmeadows Drive, Port Macquarie

 

Speaker:

Tony Thorne (applicant)

 

CONSENSUS:

1.       That Section 96 modification application DA2002 - 169 for a alterations to design of residential subdivision at Lot 505, DP 1192771, Greenmeadows Drive, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended modified conditions.

2.       That DA2016 - 939 for a subdivision involving an additional 6 torrens title lots at Lot 505, DP 1192771, Greenmeadows Drive, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions and as amended below.

·         Add the words ‘,unless otherwise agreed to by Council.’ At the end of Advice F.

 

 

06       DA2016 - 942.1 Retail Premises at Lot 4 Sec A DP 975586, No. 52 Cameron Street, Wauchope Street

 

Correspondence was tabled at the meeting from Victoria Hari objecting to the proposal.

 

Correspondence was tabled at the meeting from Derek Collins being the applicant in support of the proposal.

 

Speakers:

Harry Hari (o)

David Hore (applicant)

 

CONSENSUS:

That DA 2016 - 942.1 for a Retail Premises at Lot 4, Sec A DP 975586, No. 52 Cameron Street, Wauchope, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

07       DA2016 - 984.1 Staged construction Of  Multi Dwelling Housing With Torrens Title Subdivision - Lots 10 & 11Sec F, DP 24850, No 54 Kalinda Drive, Port Macquarie

Speaker:

Michelle Love (applicant)

 

CONSENSUS:

That DA 2016 - 984 for a staged construction of multi dwelling housing with torrens title subdivision at Lot 10 & 11, DP 24850, No. 54 Kalinda Drive, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

08       DA2017 - 32.1 - Addition Of Floating Pontoon And Storage Shed For Jet Skis Associated With an emergency services facility (Marine Rescue) - Lot 1 DP 1064060, Buller Street, Port Macquarie

 

Speaker :

Graham McPherson (0)

 

The Panel was unable to reach consensus.

 

For:

Dan Croft and Grant Burge

 

Against:

Paul Drake

 

The dissenting recommendation from Paul Drake was:

 ‘DA2017- 32 for an addition of floating pontoon and storage shed for jet skis associated with an emergency services facility (Marine Rescue) at Lot 1 and 2 DP 1064060, No. 11A Buller Street, Port Macquarie, be determined by refusing consent for the following reason: That the proposal will have an adverse visual impact. The subleasing of space within the existing Marine Rescue building, which could otherwise house the jet skis, should not be used as a reason to support the proposal.’

 

 

09       DA2017 - 67.1  Additions To Dwelling - Lot 5 DP 257282, No 8 Unique Close Camden Head

Speakers:

Peter Moran (o)

Lisa Strudwick (applicant)

 

CONSENSUS:

That DA 2017 - 67.1for additions to dwelling at Lot 5, DP257282, No.8 Unique Close, Camden Head, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

10       DA2017 - 109.1 Part Use Of Existing Dwelling For Bed And Breakfast Establishment - Lot 84 DP 1063863,No 20 Admirals Circle, Lakewood

 

Correspondence was tabled at the meeting from Nigel Wilson objecting to the proposal.

 

Speaker:

Don Selway (applicant)

 

CONSENSUS:

That DA 2017 - 109 for a part use of existing dwelling for Bed and Breakfast Establishment at Lot 84, DP 1063863, No. 20 Admirals Circle, Lakewood, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

11       GENERAL BUSINESS

Nil.

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 3:05am.

 

 

 

 

 


AGENDA                                              Development Assessment Panel      10/05/2017

Item:          04

Subject:     DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Disclosures of Interest be presented

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST DECLARATION

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

 

        Pecuniary:

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

 

 

        Non-Pecuniary - Significant Interest:

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

 

        Non-Pecuniary - Less than Significant Interest:

              May participate in consideration and voting.

 

 

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

 

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

 

Name:  …………………………………………………….

 

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

 

 

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


 

Further Explanation

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

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

 

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

 

Pecuniary Interest

 

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

 

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

 

The Council official must not take part in the consideration or voting on the matter and leave and be out of sight of the meeting.  The Council official must not be present at, or  in sight of, the meeting of the Council at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed, or at any time during which the council is voting on any question in relation to the matter.  (section 451)

 

Non-Pecuniary

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Non Pecuniary – Significant Interest

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Non Pecuniary – Less than Significant Interest

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

SPECIAL DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST DECLARATION

 

 

By

[insert full name of councillor]

 

 

In the matter of

[insert name of environmental planning instrument]

 

 

Which is to be considered at a meeting of the

[insert name of meeting]

 

 

Held on

[insert date of meeting]

 

 

PECUNIARY INTEREST

 

 

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

 

 

Relationship of identified land to councillor

[Tick or cross one box.]

 

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

 

Associated person of councillor has interest in the land.

 

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

 

MATTER GIVING RISE TO PECUNIARY INTEREST

 

 

Nature of land that is subject to a change

in zone/planning control by proposed

LEP (the subject land iii

[Tick or cross one box]

 

The identified land.

 

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

Current zone/planning control

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

 

Proposed change of zone/planning control

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

 

Effect of proposed change of zone/planning control on councillor

[Tick or cross one box]

 

Appreciable financial gain.

 

Appreciable financial loss.

 

 

 

Councillor’s Name:  …………………………………………

 

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


 

 

Important Information

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

 


AGENDA                                              Development Assessment Panel      10/05/2017

 

 

Item:          05

 

Subject:     DA2000 - 603.4 Modification To Aged Care Facility - Lot 26 DP 878913, Lot 2 DP 1019665, 821 Ocean Drive, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Benjamin Roberts

 

 

 

Applicant:               King & Campbell Pty Ltd

Owner:                    RSL Lifecare Limited

Estimated Cost:     N/A

Parcel no:               32374, 36911

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the section 96 modification application to DA2000 - 603 for an aged care facility at Lot 26, DP 878913 and Lot 2 DP 1019665, No. 821 Ocean Drive, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended modified conditions.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a section 96 modification application to an approved retirement complex on the subject site. In summary the proposed modification application proposes the following changes:

·    Reduction in units numbers from 204 to 185;

·    General reduction in building heights;

·    Provide all parking spaces at grade (i.e. no basement parking) and increase parking from 222 spaces to 235 spaces.

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

 

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

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

 

The site has a total area of 7.821 hectares. The site is zoned RU1 Primary Production and E2 Environmental Conservation 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%5bpnturl1585_C0A8C986:015B7DF5F3FA:7AFB:3DB45123%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:015B7DF5F3FA:7AFB:3DB45123

 

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

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl7981_C0A8C986:01444CABE6BF:E3F0:1506F7BC%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:01444CABE6BF:E3F0:1506F7BC

 

Application History

A deferred commencement consent was issued by Council on 20 November 2000 for a retirement complex on the site. The complex comprised 204 residential aged care units and administration facilities. The approval was granted pursuant to the provisions of SEPP 5 - Housing for Older People or People with a Disability.

 

On 7 December 2001 Council confirmed that all deferred commencement conditions were satisfied and the date consent was to operate was 7 December 2001. A Construction Certificate for the intersection access works to Ocean Drive was issued by Council on 27 June 2002. Survey and land clearing works for the purposes of the intersection were undertaken and inspected by Council on 5 December 2006. It is evident that physical commencement has occurred and the consent remains active.

Council granted consent to modify the application on 26 March 2014 which in summary provided a reduction in units numbers from 204 to 171 units and reconfiguration of units, general reduction in building heights and provide all parking spaces at grade (i.e. no basement parking).

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the modification proposal include the following:

 

·    Reduction in units numbers from 204 to 185. Of the 185 units, 105 are serviced self care units and 80 assisted living units;

·    General reduction in building heights;

·    Provide all parking spaces at grade (i.e. no basement parking) and increase parking from 222 spaces to 235 spaces.

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    7 December 2016 - Application lodged.

·    16 December 2016 to 13 January 2017 - Exhibition via neighbour notification.

·    19 January 2017 - Referral to NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS).

·    27 February 2017 - Additional information request from Rural Fire Service.

·    3 March 2017 - Applicant response to RFS information request.

·    7 March 2017 - Referral of additional information to RFS.

·    16 March 2017 - Revised Bushfire Safety Authority received from RFS.

 

3.       STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

 

Is the proposal substantially the same?

Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 enables the modification of consents and categorises modification into three categories - S.96 (1) for modifications involving minor error, misdescription or miscalculation; S.96 (1A) for modifications involving minimal environmental impact; and S.96 (2) for other modifications. Each type of modification must be considered as being substantially the same to that which was originally consented to.

 

In Tyagrah Holdings Pty Limited v Byron Shire Council (2008) NSWLEC 1420, Commissioner Bly sets out a number of principles that can be utilised in determining whether a development is substantially the same:

-     ‘The word substantially means essentially or materially or having the same essence. In assessing whether the test is met a factual comparison between the approved development and the proposed modifications is required.

-     The question must be asked and answered with respect to the particular circumstances of the individual modification application
It is for the decision maker to decide the relevant range of facts to assist in determining the question.

-     Even though certain modifications of a development may be described as significant this does not mean that the modified development could not necessarily remain substantially the same as the approved development.

-     The comparison process involves an appreciation both qualitative and quantitative of the development being compared in its proper context.

-     Any planning appraisal of the modified development is not relevant to the threshold question.’

 

The subject application is being considered under the provisions of Section 96(2). The proposal is considered to be substantially the same development to that which was originally consented to. Having regard to the above principles, the proposed modifications  are not considered to alter the fundamental essence of the original development for the following reasons:

-     The intended use remains the same.

-     The reduction in the number of units from 204 to 185 represents a 9.3% change. This is considered to be relatively minor in the context of the overall development.

-     The footprint of the development has remained substantially the same with the development still comprising 4 distinct groups of buildings. When viewed holistically, the site plan illustrates the similarities in function and layout of the development to that which was originally approved.

-     The Floor space ratio of the development has only changed from 0.285:1 to 0.281:1.

-     Building setbacks to neighbouring properties are substantially the same.

-     Access to the site remains the same.

-     The landscaped areas, communal facilities and open apace areas are similar in scale and location to that which was originally approved.

-     No changes to conditions of consent are sought that would fundamentally alter the intent of the original development and consent.

-     The reduction in building height, whilst noticeable for a number of the building groups (from 2 to 1 storey) and the removal of basement parking and addition of perimeter road are obvious changes. The changes are not considered to be of such significance, when taking into account other quantitative and qualitative factors mentioned above, to result in an overall development that is radically different and not substantially the same.

 

Whilst a degree of caution needs to be taken in comparing the proposal to case law (given the varying nature and contexts of development proposals), the following examples are considered to demonstrate that S96 enables significant changes to components of a development that do not amount to such a change that results in a substantial or radical change to the overall development:

-     In Davi Developments Pty Ltd v Leichardt Council (2007) NSWLEC 106, Justice Talbot found that reducing the number of units within a residential flat building from 42 to 30, reduction in storeys from 7 to 6 and an entirely different car parking layout did not fundamentally alter the characteristics of the development and it remained substantially the same. In paragraph 57 Justice Talbot states; ‘To modify is to alter without radical transformation so that it is essentially or materially the same or having the same essence….If I had to decide the question, I would be prepared to find that the fundamental characteristics and essence of the building will remain essentially the same. Some of the qualitative and quantitative effects will be different but not to the extent that the character will be changed in a material respect.’

-     In Eastview (Australia) Pty Ltd v Ryde City Council (2005) NSWLEC 393, Commissioner Nott found that by reducing the height of 2 buildings within a 4-building mixed use development from 6 to 5 storeys (approximately 10m height reduction), removing the basement car parking from 2 of the buildings, increasing the  footprint of 2 of the buildings by 250m2 per floor, addition of a café and addition of loading dock facilities that the development remained substantially the same. In paragraph 20 of the judgment, Commissioner Nott states; ‘I am prepared to accept as a question of fact that the proposed modified development is substantially the same development as the originally approved development. There are some individual significant changes, which taken in isolation on a smaller site might have required a new development application; but in the context of the quite large proposed development, the changes may be regarded as not causing the proposed modified development to be substantially different from the development that is the subject of the original consent.’

-     In Bathla Investments Pty Limited v Blacktown City Council (2008) NSWLEC 1506, Commissioner Murrell found that for an 8 unit attached townhouse development that by increasing bedroom numbers from 3 to 4 for each dwelling, reducing double garages to single garages, increasing upper floor areas, detaching 4 of the townhouses and reducing side setbacks (up to 8 metres) that the development remained substantially the same.

 

The applicant has provided a quantitative and qualitative comparison between elements of the current and modified proposal which is considered to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposal will be substantially the same development to that which was originally consented to (refer to attachments).

 

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

 

Conditions of consent were imposed by the NSW Rural Fire Service and required modification based on the proposed changes.

 

Consultation has been undertaken with the RFS based on the proposed modifications. The RFS have provided a revised bushfire safety authority under the provisions of section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997. The updated conditions provided by RFS form part of the amended conditions attached to this report.

 

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

 

Neighbour notification has been undertaken - refer to submission summary below.

 

Any submissions made concerning the modification?

Two (2) submissions were received following completion of the required neighbour notification 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

Concern surrounding vegetative screening along the eastern boundary of the property.

Landscaping plans provide for the retention of existing vegetation and stormwater swale along the eastern boundary. This is consistent with the original consent and provides for adequate visual and acoustic separation between dwellings.

Concern surrounding location of sewer pump station.

Infrastructure construction plans under review by Council indicate a new sewer pump station to be located on the development lot adjoining the cul de sac head of Elkhorn Grove. No adverse impacts to properties within Elkhorn Grove are anticipated.

Concern surrounding vehicular access to Elkhorn Grove.

The current consent restricts construction and operational access to the entry off Ocean Drive. Emergency access only is provided via Elkhorn Grove. This application proposes no change to these access arrangements. It is considered unreasonable to prevent emergency access from being made available via Elkhorn Grove. An emergency would be a rare event and access to Elkhorn Grove in such an event would not be onerous. Such a contingency should be made available to enable swift egress.

 

It should be noted that the emergency access via Elkhorn Grove has not changed from the original consent.

Increased flooding to Elkhorn Grove properties will result from the fill and earthworks proposed.

There is no change to the fill and earthworks proposed under this modification.

 

In terms of the approved fill and earthworks original assessment by Council’s flood engineers indicate that such works would not have an adverse impact on adjoining properties. Existing dwellings in Elkhorn Grove are above the flood planning level.

Elkhorn Grove cul-de-sac will end up being a parking lot for visitors to the village.

SEPP 5 prevents Council from refusing the development if the minimum number of 121 car parking spaces are provided to service the modified development. 235 spaces are proposed.

 

It is considered that sufficient parking is provided on site to discourage any offsite parking by visitors.

 

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

(a)  the provisions of:

(i)  any environmental planning instrument, and

It is important to note that the application was assessed and consented to on 20 November 2000. For the purpose of this modification assessment needs to be given to the environmental planning instruments applicable at the time. The following relevant instruments were in force at the time.

Hastings Local Environmental Plan 1987

The land was zoned part Rural 1(a1) and part 7(a) Environment Protection ‘wetlands’ pursuant to Hastings Local Environmental Plan 1987.

The objectives of the 1(a1) zone are:

(a)  to protect and encourage utilisation of the productive potential of resources located in rural areas; and

(b)  to prevent the unnecessary, premature and sporadic fragmentation of rural land, to protect the agricultural potential of land and also to ensure that development does not create unreasonable or uneconomic demands for the provision or extension of public amenities and services; and

(c)  to enable appropriate development falling within Item 3.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 5  - Housing for Older People or People with a Disability acts so as to set aside the local planning controls such that housing for older people or people with a disability is permitted. The modified proposal is not considered to alter the original assessment in so far that it would be inconsistent with the zone objectives.

The objectives of the 7(a) zone were:

(a)  to identify and protect significant wetland areas from incompatible development which will have a significant impact on the wetland; and

(b)  to enable appropriate development falling within Item 3.

The part of the site that was zoned 7(a) lied within the larger Lake Innes/Kooloonbung Creek wetland. This wetland is protected by the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 14 - Coastal Wetlands. The modified development is to be located outside the mapped coastal wetlands, although all surface water/stormwater is to be disposed of to the wetland in accordance with the original proposal and development consent.

Clause 20: Development in proximity to a main or arterial road. This clause prohibits certain developments within 400 metres of a main or arterial road. The proposal as modified is not prohibited by the clause.

Clause 20A: Development within zone 7(a). This clause requires special assessment of the impact of works which result in landform alteration on land which is environmentally sensitive. The application indicates that works will not encroach into the wetland zone. On this site the line of wetland vegetation in the western sector of the site, is the 7(a) zone boundary. To ensure the integrity of the wetland a condition of consent was imposed to require temporary fencing around the periphery of the wetland so as to prevent any encroachment for the duration of construction. The modified layout does not encroach into the mapped SEPP 14 wetlands and the condition for temporary fencing would remain.

Clause 21: Tree preservation within zone 7(a). It is not proposed to remove vegetation within the wetland zone under the proposed modified layout.

Clause 23C: Development on land containing potential acid sulphate soils. This clause requires that Council shall not grant consent for development on land containing potential acid sulphate soils unless it has considered a preliminary acid sulphate soil assessment.

A preliminary acid sulphate soils (ASS) assessment was carried out at the site as part of the original development application and confirmed that ASS materials exist. Based on the preliminary findings a detailed ASS management plan was deemed necessary prior to commencement of any site works. Suitable consent conditions were applied. No change to these requirements are proposed as part of the modified layout.

Clause 31: Bushfire protection. This clause provides that Council shall not grant consent unless it is satisfied as to the bushfire protection measures to be incorporated into the development and the maintenance of those facilities. The applicant provided an updated bushfire risk assessment report based on the modified layout. The further changes proposed under this modification were referred to NSW RFS for comment. The NSW RFS have subsequently issued a revised Bushfire Safety Authority which will form part of any modified consent. 

 

North Coast Regional Plan

The modified proposal remains consistent with the aims and objectives of this plan.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 5 - Housing for Older People or People with a Disability

This policy was in place at the time consideration was given to the application. This policy overrides and local planning provisions and aims to encourage the provision of housing that will:

(a)  increase the supply and diversity of housing that meets the needs of older people or people with a disability, and

(b)  make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, and

(c)  be of good design.

These aims are to be achieved by:

(a) setting aside local planning controls that would prevent the development of housing for older people or people with a disability that meets the development standards specified in the Policy, and

(b) ensuring that applicants and Council’s take into consideration the level of additional demand for support services for older people or people with a disability in the Council’s area to be generated by the development when preparing and assessing development applications that are affected by the Policy, and

(c) setting out design principles that should be followed to achieve built form that responds to the characteristics of its site and location.

The application of the policy is set out in Clause 4 and Schedule 1 which specifies that the Policy applies to land:

(a)  that is zoned primarily for urban purposes, or land that adjoins land zoned primarily for urban purposes, and

Comment: The land is zoned part Rural 1(a1) and part 7(a) Environment Protection ‘wetlands’ pursuant to Hastings Local Environmental Plan 1987. The land adjoins the Elkhorn Grove residential development which is zoned Residential 2(a1). The modification remains consistent in this regard.

(b)  on which development for the purpose of any of the following is permitted:

(i)         dwelling houses

(ii)        residential flat buildings,

(iii)       hospitals

(iv)       special uses including churches, convents, educational establishments, schools and seminaries.

Comment: Hastings Local Environmental Plan 1987 prohibits the erection of a dwelling house and/or a residential flat building on the land. Hospitals and special uses such as churches and educational establishments are permissible. The modification remains consistent in this regard.

The Policy does not apply to land described in Schedule 1 (Environmentally Sensitive Land). Schedule 1 specifies that the policy shall not apply to environmentally sensitive land identified in any other environmental planning instrument by any of the following words or descriptions:

-     coastal protection

-     conservation

-     critical habitat

-     environment protection

-     open space

-     escarpment

-     floodway

-     natural hazard

-     scenic protection

-     water catchment

-     natural wetland

Comment: Hastings Local Environmental Plan 1987 and SEPP 14 identify part of the site as a wetland. It is not proposed to develop any land so identified. This remains the case with the modified layout.   

Clause 12: Matters for Consideration                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Location, facilities and support services: This clause provides that the consent authority must not consent to the development application unless satisfied that the residents of the proposed development will have reasonable access to commercial and retail facilities, community services and recreational facilities, health services, transport and where appropriate meal services, personal care/nursing, domestic assistance and communal meeting spaces.

Comment: A bus service is to operate to provide residents access to the local shopping centre at Emerald Downs and other services and facilities within the CBD and adjacent areas. A condition of consent was imposed on the original consent to ensure the service operates on a daily basis with minimal turnaround time. No change to this requirement is proposed as part of the modification.

Meal services, personal care, nursing and housekeeping services are to be provided.  The complex also includes recreational facilities such as bowling green, gym, billiard room etc.

Availability of Facilities and Services: The consent authority must also be satisfied that the services or facilities provided as part of the development are available upon occupation.

Comment: It is noted that the indicative staging of the development includes the community building, club house and recreational facilities as part of stage 1. Which means the facilities will all be available to residents upon occupation.

Water and Sewer: The consent authority must be satisfied that adequate water supply and wastewater systems can be managed for the site.

Comment: The modified scheme will be connected to Council’s reticulated water supply system. The modified scheme will also be connected to the sewer supply network. Upgrading of existing water and sewer infrastructure will be required and appropriate conditions of consent are in place.   

Clause 13 Development Standards: This clause deals with development standards notably wheelchair access and heights of buildings in residential zoned land.

Comment: The modified scheme has been designed to accommodate wheelchair access throughout the development. An accessibility review was undertaken and submitted as part of the previous modification. The height restriction imposed by the Policy applies only to development of residentially zoned land.

Clause 14 Standards which cannot be used as grounds for refusal: This clause deals with development standards which cannot be used as grounds for refusal in certain prescribed circumstances, notably height, density of development, parking and landscaping.

Comment: The modified scheme provides for a reduction in the building heights across the site. A single storey configuration has been adopted for building groups 1, 2 and 3 whilst building group 4 will comprise a two storey configuration. All buildings are less than the maximum 8m height nominated in this plan. The floor space ratio of is below the maximum 0.5:1, landscaped area of 35,000m2 is well above the minimum 5,305m2 and the 235 car parking spaces is above the minimum 121 required under the SEPP.

Having regard for the Design requirements in Part 3 of the SEPP, the modified proposal is not considered to fundamentally alter the original proposal and is consistent with the SEPP having regard for the following:

-     Site Analysis - a suitable site analysis has been provided by the applicant and the proposal adequately responds to the site. the reduction in overall fill and deletion of basement parking is considered to be an improved response to the site.

-     Neighbourhood Amenity and Streetscape - The development is suitably setback form Elkhorn Grove properties and is extensively landscaped. The buildings are articulated and of high quality finish. The proposal does not result in adverse overshadowing of neighbouring properties.

-     Visual and Acoustic Privacy - adequate separation is considered to be provided from Ocean Drive so as not to have an adverse impact on residents. Adequate separation and landscaping is considered to be afforded to properties in Elkhorn Grove so as the development will not have an adverse visual or acoustic impact on neighbours. Conditions of consent have been recommended to better manage internal acoustic impacts on bedrooms adjoining driveways (double glazing).

-     Solar Access - Adequate solar access is provided to each unit having regard for dual orientation of all self care units. Whilst individual private open space areas are relatively small, it is considered that the type of accommodation does not demand extensive areas given occupants typically seek a low maintenance area. To supplement the small private open space areas, it is noted that communal recreational spaces and facilities are extensive and well placed to maximise solar access and usability. A BASIX certificate has been completed for all self care dwellings.

-     Stormwater - a suitable total water cycle management plan has been submitted with the application and will form part of the approved documentation. The plan has been reviewed by Council’s engineers and it is considered that stormwater can be acceptably managed on site. Detailed design will be required as part of the construction certificate documentation.

-     Crime Prevention - adequate casual surveillance is provided within the complex. Access to/from Elkhorn Grove is restricted to emergency access only. The complex will be staffed.

-     Accessibility - access within the site is disabled compliant and footpaths are provided through the site to all communal facilities. Roads have been designed to facilitate a low speed environment and compatible with bicycles and buggies. An accessibility review has been submitted with the application and will form part of any approved documentation.

-     Waste Management - capable of being managed as per conditions of consent.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 14 - Coastal Wetlands

This Policy restricts development on land identified as a State gazetted wetland and provides that the land shall not be cleared, drained or filled; or a levee constructed on the land, without the consent of Council and the concurrence of the Director of Urban Affairs and Planning.  The proposed development as modified will not encroach into the wetland and a buffer will be provided to the edge of the vegetation.

It is noted stormwater will be disposed of to the wetland however a pollution control pond is proposed to be located in the buffer to strip nutrients from any drainage discharge. Details are to be provided within a Water Quality Management Plan to the satisfaction of Council. No change to these requirements are proposed as a result of the modification.

(ii)  any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Director-General has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and

The Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2001 was released in draft form when the application was being assessed. The assessment of the original application identified that the zoning of the subject land would not change and that existing planning provisions will continue to apply. In this regard the modification to the layout of the retirement complex remains consistent with the original assessment. 

(iii)  any development control plan, and

 

DCP 9 Residential and Tourist Accommodation: In accordance with the original assessment it is considered that the design criteria, and the principles and objectives of the DCP are sufficiently similar to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 5 such that separate assessment under the DCP is not warranted.

It is noted that the modified scheme provides for a reduction in the building heights across the site when compared to the original approval. A single storey configuration has been proposed for building groups 1, 2 and 3 whilst building group 4 will comprise double storey configuration, less than 8m in height.

 

DCP 14 Housing for Aged or Disabled Persons: The provisions in this DCP mirror development criteria in SEPP 5. Refer to comments under SEPP 5 heading.

 

DCP 18 Parking Code: See comments under SEPP 5 heading. The modified proposal provides for sufficient off-street parking. Conditions of consent remain in place in relation to car park design.

(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, and

No planning agreement has been offered or entered with regard to the site or development.

(iv)  the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), and

There are no relevant matters prescribed by the regulations relevant to the subject site or modified development proposal. 

(v)  any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979),

NSW Coastal Policy applies to the site. However the site is not located within either the oceanic or estuarine Coastal Zone/s identified by the Policy. No impact would result from the modification.

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

 

Flora and fauna

The modified proposal is consistent with the original approval in terms of impact on flora and fauna, with no additional disturbance to native vegetation proposed to that which was originally considered. Notwithstanding this, a revised ecological assessment prepared by SLR was submitted with the previous modification to account for changes in legislation. SLR concluded that the modified development is not likely to have a significant effect on threatened species, populations, or ecological communities, or their habitats. In this regard, Section 5A of the Act is considered to have been satisfied. It is noted that the ameliorative measures recommended in the ecological assessment will form part of the approved documentation.

To reinforce the recommendations of the ecological report a condition of consent has been proposed under this modification to require a Vegetation Management Plan to be approved by Council prior to release of any further Construction Certificate.

 

Traffic

A traffic impact assessment was prepared by GHD to support the previous modification. The assessment concluded that:

-     The modified proposal will have a lesser impact that that originally approved with a reduction in daily vehicle trips from 558 to 323.

-     The approved intersection with Ocean Drive will operate satisfactorily in peak periods based on 2012/13 conditions.

-     The approved intersection provides the minimum sight distance and the desirable sight distance as per AUSTROADS.

-     Parking provision is over and above SEPP 5 requirements.

The minor changes proposed under this modification are consistent with the findings of the traffic impact assessment.

Notwithstanding the above it is noted that as part of the S.138 Roads Act application, concurrence to the ultimate intersection design will require Roads and Maritime Service concurrence.

 

Flooding

Council’s Environmental Engineer’s reviewed the previous modified application and advised that the flood modelling for the site is now better known than in the year 2000 and a lowered 1: in 100year level (2.5m AHD) affects the site. Accounting for sea level rise and climate change a 900mm freeboard is required to be provided to habitable buildings. A revised condition of consent was applied. It is also considered that the further changes proposed will not have an adverse impact associated with the displacement of flood waters.

(c)  the suitability of the site for the development,

The modification remains consistent with the original development consent under which the site was considered suitable for a retirement complex. It is noted that a number of conditions have been imposed to minimise environmental impacts.  

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

Refer to table and comments earlier within the report.

(e)  the public interest.

The proposed development, as modified, satisfies relevant planning controls and is not expected to impact on the wider public interest.

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

·    Council Policy requires contributions for water and sewer for self contained aged care units or SEPP5 units.

·    No contributions are payable towards open space and arterial roads in accordance with Council Policy S26/1 and SEPP5.

 

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

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Issues raised during assessment and neighbour consultation of the application have been considered in the assessment of the application.

 

The site remains suitable for the modified 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 modification application be approved, subject to the recommended conditions of consent provided in the attachment section of this report.

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2000 - 603.4 Architectural Plans

2View. DA2000 - 603.4 Staging Plan

3View. DA2000 - 603.4 Landscape Plans

4View. DA2000 - 603.4 Proposed North Eastern Building Group with Boundary Setbacks

5View. DA2000 - 603.4 Proposed Section at Eastern Boundary

6View. DA2000 - 603.4 Acoustic Logic review of Condition 28

7View. DA2000 - 603.4 SoEE

8View. DA2000 - 603.4 Recommended Conditions

9View. DA 2000 - 603.4 Revised Bushfire Safety Authority conditions

10View.           DA2000 - 603.4 Revised Contribution Estimate - RSL Lifecare Limited, 821 Ocean Dr, Port Macquarie, 19-Apr-2017

11View.           DA2000 - 603.4 Submission - Capner

12View.           DA2000 - 603.4 Submission - McIlroy

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


AGENDA                                              Development Assessment Panel      10/05/2017

 

 

Item:          06

 

Subject:     DA2015 - 698.2 Modification To Childcare Centre - Lot 2 DP 808998, 156 Horton Street, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Benjamin Roberts

 

 

 

Applicant:               Love Project Management

Owner:                    Warrmara Properties Pty Ltd

Estimated Cost:     N/A

Parcel no:               9913

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the section 96 modification application to DA2015 - 698 for a childcare centre at Lot 2, DP 808998, No. 156 Horton Street, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended modified conditions.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a section 96 modification application to an approved childcare centre at the subject site. In summary the proposed modification application proposes the following changes:

-     Internal floor plan layout changes

-     Extension of roofed deck area

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

 

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

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 2038m2.

 

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density 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%5bpnturl7792_C0A8C986:0154A1EB8EEF:7FFB:710CB431%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:0154A1EB8EEF:7FFB:710CB431

 

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

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl102_C0A8C986:0154A1EB8EEF:7FFB:710CB431%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:0154A1EB8EEF:7FFB:710CB431

 

Application History

 

On 25 May 2016 Council granted consent for demolition the existing dwelling and associated structures and construction of a childcare centre to cater for 72 children on the site. The consent is still active.

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

-     Internal floor plan layout changes

-     Extension of roofed deck area to Horton Street frontage

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    9 March 2017 - Application lodged.

·    21 March to 3 April 2017 - Public exhibition via neighbour notification

 

3.       STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

 

Is the proposal substantially the same?

Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 enables the modification of consents and categorises modification into three categories - S.96 (1) for modifications involving minor error, misdescription or miscalculation; S.96 (1A) for modifications involving minimal environmental impact; and S.96 (2) for other modifications. Each type of modification must be considered as being substantially the same to that which was originally consented to.

 

The subject application is being considered under the provisions of Section 96(1A). The proposal is considered to be substantially the same development to that which was originally consented to. Having regard to the above principles, the proposed modifications  are not considered to alter the fundamental essence of the original development for the following reasons:

-     The intended use remains the same.

-     The footprint of the development remains substantially the same.

-     Building setbacks to neighbouring properties are substantially the same.

-     Access to the site remains the same.

-     No changes to conditions of consent are sought that would fundamentally alter the intent of the original development and consent.

 

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

 

Conditions of consent were imposed by the NSW Rural Fire Service. Based on the minor nature of changes proposed the RFS conditions do not require modification.

 

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

 

Neighbour notification has been undertaken - refer to submission summary below.

 

Any submissions made concerning the modification?

One (1) submission was received following completion of the required neighbour notification 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

Insufficient footpath width will be provided along the Hay Street road reserve outside the properties of 2 Hayward Street and 2 Hay Street. Who is paying for the conceded width?

It is considered that providing a suitably sized road access and pedestrian footpath to the Hay Street frontage will better serve both the development and properties to which pedestrian and vehicular access are obtained.

Noise pollution from children ‘amassed’ at the rear boundary of 4A Hayward Street.

There is no change under this modification to the approved building separation, operating hours, location of outdoor play areas or to the 2m high fencing proposed along the northern boundary. No further noise impacts would result from the modified proposal.

Potential for children to be infected by disease from the nearby fruit bat colony in Koolonbung Creek reserve.

The modified proposal will not result in any change to such health risk.

The long term proposal to close the southern end of Hay Street so as to eliminate the steep ramp like access to Gordon Street.

This is matter for Council’s future planning of the area and not relevant to the modification application.

As the address of the property is Horton Street then why isn’t all access to the development from Horton Street.

There is no change to approved access arrangements under this modification application.

The residents of 2 Hayward Street and 61 Hay Street will be constantly harassed by traffic 1.5m from their boundaries.

There is no change to approved access arrangements under this modification application.

We would like to peruse the plans Council has for the closure of Hay Street and Gordon Street so as to compare with those plans prepared for the child care centre.

This is matter for Council’s future planning of the area and not relevant to the modification application.

The risk of traffic accident with children if a vehicle falls from the access several metres to the Hay Street ramp.

There is no change to approved access arrangements under this modification application.

What town planning theory has been applied so as to allow the proposal to proceed this far.

Detailed assessment of planning considerations undertaken with original development application. As indicated within this report the modified proposal remains consistent with relevant planning considerations.

 

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

(a)  the provisions of:

(i)  any environmental planning instrument, and

The modified proposal remains consistent with the State Environmental Planning instruments in force at the time of the original assessment.

In regard to Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 the following minor changes to height and FSR are noted as follows:

-     The minor decrease in overall building height from 7.6m to 7.5m remains consistent with the maximum 10m building height applicable to the site.

-     The increase in overall floor area of 17m2 will result in a floor space ratio still well below the maximum of 1:1 applicable to the site.

 

(ii)  any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Director-General has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and

 

No draft instruments apply.

 

(iii)  any development control plan, and

 

The modified proposal remains consistent with the Development Control Plan 2013. In particular the following is noted:

 

-  The extension of the outdoor decking to the western elevation of the building is setback 13.5m from the Horton Street boundary. Complies with setback provisions. 

-  There is no change to the number of children to be catered for at the facility and therefore no additional parking demand generated.

 

(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, and

No planning agreement has been offered or entered into with regard to the site or development.

(iv)  the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), and

 

There are no relevant matters prescribed by the regulations relevant to the subject site or modified development proposal.

 

(v)  any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979),

NSW Coastal Policy applies to the site. However the site is not located within either the oceanic or estuarine Coastal Zone/s identified by the Policy. No impact would result from the modification.

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

 

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

 

There is no change to the approved operating hours of 6am to 6:30pm weekdays.

 

There is no change to the approved location of outdoor play areas and 2m high fencing proposed along the northern boundary.

 

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

 

The modified proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

 

There are no significant adverse privacy impacts from the modified proposal.  Adequate building separation is proposed/existing.

 

There is no adverse overshadowing impacts that would result from the modified proposal.

 

The modified proposal is considered to be compatible with existing development in the locality and adequately addresses planning controls for the area.

(c)  the suitability of the site for the development,

 

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

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

 

Refer to table and comments earlier within the report.

 

(e)  the public interest.

The proposed development, as modified, satisfies relevant planning controls and is not expected to impact on the wider public interest.

                                                                                                     

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

The number children to be accommodated at the facility remains unchanged. No change to contributions payable as a result of the modification.

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Issues raised during assessment and neighbour consultation of the application have been considered in the assessment of the application.

 

The site remains suitable for the modified 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 modification application be approved, subject to the recommended conditions of consent provided in the attachment section of this report.

 

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2015 - 698.2 Plans

2View. DA2015 - 698.2 SoEE

3View. DA2015 - 698.2 Recommended Conditions

4View. DA2015 - 698.2 Submission - Flanagan

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


AGENDA                                              Development Assessment Panel      10/05/2017

 

 

Item:          07

 

Subject:     DA2017 - 37.1 - Dwelling - Lot 72 DP 238688, No 19 Jasmine Street, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Patrick Galbraith-Robertson

 

 

 

Applicant:               Gonzo Practice - S Trembath

Owner:                    J Trembath and G Nicholls

Estimated Cost:     $310K

Parcel no:               10165

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2017 - 37 for a dwelling at Lot 72, DP 238688, No. 19 Jasmine Street, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a Development Application (DA) for 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(1) submission has been received.

 

The plans have been amended during the assessment of the DA. The amendments relate to a minor increase in the size of the dwelling in the rear south-east section.

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 613.4m2.

 

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%5bpnturl9031_C0A8C986:015BB154E5EC:00E5:422AB7A4%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:015BB154E5EC:00E5:422AB7A4

 

The existing subdivision pattern and location of existing development within the locality is shown in the following aerial photograph (2012):

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl2396_C0A8C986:015BB154E5EC:00E5:422AB7A4%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:015BB154E5EC:00E5:422AB7A4

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

 

 

·    Tree removal

·    Construction of dwelling-house

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    20 January 2017 - DA lodged with Council.

·    1 to 14 February 2017 - neighbour notification of proposal.

·    3 March 2017 - Additional information requested from Applicant to address submission issues and to provide an aborist report of all existing trees on-site.

·    27 April 2017 - Additional information received from Applicant.

·    27 April 2017 - Amended plans received from Applicant.

 

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:

(a)(i) Any environmental planning instrument

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

There is no Koala Plan of Management on the site. Additionally, the site is less than 1ha in area therefore no further investigations are required.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

Following an inspection of the site and a search of Council records, the subject land is not identified as being potentially contaminated and is suitable for the intended use.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 62 – Sustainable Aquaculture

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

 

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

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

In accordance with clause 5, this SEPP prevails over the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 in the event of any inconsistency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

·          Clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned R1 General Residential. In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, the dwelling (or ancillary structure to a dwelling) is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

o    To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

·          Clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 8.4m 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 0.29:1.0 which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

·          Clause 5.9 - Trees listed in Development Control Plan 2013 are proposed to be removed. Refer to comments later in report.

·          Clause 5.10 – Heritage. 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.

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

No draft instruments apply to the site.

 

(a)(iii) Any DCP in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013:

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

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

3.2.2.1

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 is appropriately located

 

Yes

3.2.2.2

Articulation zone:

Min. 3m front setback

An entry feature or portico

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

A window box treatment

A bay window or similar feature

An awning or other feature over a window

A sun shading feature

No elements within the articulation zone.

 

N/A

Front setback (Residential not R5 zone):

Min. 4.5m local road

 

Front building line setback is compliant with the minimum 4.5m front setback requirements.

Yes

3.2.2.3

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

Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided

Garage door setback is compliant with the minimum front setback requirements.

Garage door recessed.

Yes

 

 

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

Width of garage door/s are compliant with the maximum width requirements

Yes

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

Driveway crossing/s width are compliant with the maximum width requirements

Yes

3.2.2.4

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

The 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.

1.8m first floor setback on the east side and 0.95m west side setback will not result in any identifiable adverse overshadowing impacts to neighbouring properties.

The building wall articulation is compliant and/or satisfactory to address the objective intent 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

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

Yes

3.2.2.7

Front fences:

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

3x3m min. splay for corner sites

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

0.9x0.9m splays adjoining driveway entrances

No fences proposed

 

N/A

3.2.2.10

Privacy:

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

No 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.

The development will not compromise privacy 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.

No privacy screens are recommended.

 

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.

Yes

2.3.3.1

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

Cut and fill <1.0m change 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls/footprint.

Yes

2.3.3.2

1m max. height retaining walls along road frontage

None proposed

N/A

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

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.

N/A

2.3.3.8

Removal of hollow bearing trees

No trees proposed to be removed

N/A

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)

Several trees are proposed to be removed. Refer to comments later in report.

Yes - Tree removal applied for

2.4.3

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

Refer to main body of report.

 

2.5.3.2

New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads

No new access proposed to arterial or distribution road.

N/A

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

Driveway crossing minimal in width including maximising street parking

Yes

2.5.3.3

Parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1.

1 space per single dwelling (behind building line)

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

Yes

2.5.3.11

Section 94 contributions

N/A

 

2.5.3.12 and 2.5.3.13

Landscaping of parking areas

Single dwelling only with 1 domestic driveway. No specific landscaping requirements recommended.

N/A

2.5.3.14

Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified

Sealed driveway 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.

Single dwelling only with 1 domestic driveway. Stormwater drainage is capable of being managed as part of plumbing construction.

Yes

 

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

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

 

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

NSW Coastal Policy 1997

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

 

(a)(v) Any Coastal Zone Management Plan

None applicable.

 

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

 

Context and setting

•      The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts to existing adjoining properties and satisfactorily addresses the public domain particularly noting compliance with Council’s adopted Planning Controls.

•      The proposal is considered to be sufficiently 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 including no impact on what could be considered iconic views warranting further detailed assessment.

•      There are no identifiable adverse privacy impacts.

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

 

Access, transport and traffic

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

 

Water Supply

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

 

Sewer

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

 

Stormwater

The site slopes towards the street. Service available – details required with S.68 application

 

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

 

Heritage

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

 

Other land resources

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

 

Water cycle

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

 

Soils

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

 

Air and microclimate

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

 

Flora and fauna

During the assessment of the application an Aborist Assessment Report has been submitted prepared by Environmental Arbor Resources.  A copy of this report has been attached to this assessment report.

In summary, it can be confirmed that there are 9 trees within the site, 4 being Melaleuca quinquenervia (Broad-Leaved Paperbark) 1 x cheese tree, 3 cabbage palm and 1 x bottlebrush.

3 of the Paperbark trees are identified as being previously lopped and are recommended for removal due to the proximity to the proposed building works. The report makes recommendations to suggest offset planting on Council reserves for all 4 Paperbark trees. Council’s natural resource officer has advised that these Paperbarks are not considered primary or secondary browse species based on recent local research (Phillips, 2013). Furthermore, they are isolated and trimmed and provide little if any food resource for the Local Koala Population. On these grounds offset for their removal is not considered to be warranted.

1 of the cabbage palms at the rear of the site are proposed to be retained. The majority of the vegetation assessed is within the footprint of the proposed development. All vegetation within the proposed footprint is recommended for removal and any other tree with low retention value.

The Tree 1: Cheese tree is proposed to be removed due to an encroachment for the power pole being put in next to tree and lines run from power pole across the street. Retention of this tree is not recommended given it does not have any identifiable significant amenity or ecological value.

It is considered that no significant adverse impacts on biodiversity or threatened species of flora and fauna.

 

Waste

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

 

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 identified as being bushfire prone.

 

The Applicant has submitted a self assessment bushfire risk assessment which recommends a Bushfire Attack Level 12.5.

 

BAL 12.5 construction is proposed. Reference is also made to the Bushfire Risk Assessment provided by David Pensini under DA2016 - 46 for a dwelling approved on No. 25 Astronomers Terrace, Port Macquarie.

 

The vegetation classifications were identified as shown in the following image:

 

An assessment of bushfire risk having regard to section 4.3.5 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 including vegetation classification and slope concludes that a Bushfire Attack Level 12.5 (BAL) is appropriate.

Management of bushfire risk is acceptable subject to BAL construction levels being implemented and APZ being maintained. An appropriate condition is recommended.

 

Safety, security and crime prevention

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

 

Social impacts in the locality

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

 

Economic impact in the locality

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

 

Site design and internal design

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

 

 

Construction

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

 

Cumulative impacts

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

One(1) written submission has been received following public exhibition of the application. The submission has been received from the owner’s of 17 Jasmine Street.

 

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 proposal would result in a building which would significantly protrude forward of the line of existing buildings in the street.

The Applicant has provided additional details in response to the issues raised stating that:

Firstly, the proposed primary setback allowed by PMHC DCP 2013 (3.2.2.2) is 4.5m. The proposed setback is 4.75m.

Furthermore, key design intentions set out by the designer and client in the early stages of the project were:

● To minimise site disturbance by integrating into the topography of the land

● To maximise privacy for the subject site and neighbours

● To maintain westerly views of the recent third storey addition at 17 Jasmine Street

The eastern wing of the house has been designed to maximise privacy to both properties, this has been achieved primarily through layout and window placement. The proposed design has the main bedroom at the front eastern corner of the building with a shallow deck. If the building was set back as suggested above, it would result in significant privacy reduction to both parties.

Furthermore, to set the building further back would require significantly more cut and fill. The design intention is to minimise the extent of site disturbance by being sympathetic to the topography. Reducing site disturbance is a fundamental philosophy to ecologically sustainable development and is fitting within the PMHC DCP 2013 (2.3.3). To set back as suggested above would require further excavation of:

● 26m 3 to the rear of the garage

● 8m 3 to the rear of the bedrooms

The proposed design sits in a position that minimises site disturbance, while allowing 17 Jasmine to maintain all of their third storey westerly views to Rosendahl Reservoir, as well as maximising privacy for both parties.

The above response provided from the Applicant is considered to satisfactorily address the issues raised in the submission received. It is considered that there are insufficient grounds to recommend refusal of the DA on this basis.

The front setback will have an adverse impact on streetscape and western views to the reserve surrounding Rosendahl Reservoir from the living area on the first floor. Suggest proposed building be set back to align with other existing buildings in the street.

Concern with removal of 4 paperbark trees and it appears the building design has made an attempt to preserve the trees however they are proposed to be removed. 3 trees are only shown on the plans to be removed.

The Applicant has provided additional details in response to the issues raised stating that:

The owners of 19 Jasmine Street have commissioned an Arborist Assessment Report, included in

Appendix A, to identify the species of all trees on the subject property and recommend further action.

Trees that are within the footprint of the building, or of low retention value have been recommended for

removal. The three broad-leaved paperbarks mentioned above are recommended for removal due to their

proximity to the proposed building.

A survey of the site is included in Appendix B. The tree referred to as ‘Large Tree’ above is a Cheese

Tree and is situated on council land. The arborist report has recommended its removal due to a major encroachment as the proposed power line runs through it from the power pole across the street. It is also situated directly above the existing sewer line and proposed stormwater line. The PMHC DCP 2013

(2.6.6.3) states that trees on Council controlled land can be removed if they are interfering with services

on private property on the condition that written consent is provided by Council.

The arborist report has recommended contributing towards Port Macquarie Hastings ‘Koala 2 for 1

Replanting Program’. With the removal of 1 Koala food tree, 2 will be planted in a more suitable location.

There are 4 Koala food trees proposed to be removed and contributions will be made by the owners of 19

Jasmine Street towards the preservation and redevelopment of Koala habitat within the ‘Port Macquarie Hastings’ region, as stated in the PMHC DCP 2013 (2.6.3.2).

The above response provided from the Applicant is considered to satisfactorily address the issues raised in the submission received. It is considered that there are insufficient grounds to recommend refusal of the DA on this basis.

Concern with proposed removal of large tree at the boundary of 17 and 19 Jasmine Street which could be well on Council land. The removal of tree will have an adverse impact on amenity within the street.

Consider that merits of the proposed front setback within the existing streetscape should have more weight for consideration in appropriateness above the controls in the Development Control Plan. 5 Land and Environment Court cases cited.

The Land and Environment Court case law provided has been reviewed and considered to have no bearing on affecting the assessment of the subject DCP compliant proposal. The caselaw makes reference to Council’s controls where specific to have significant weight for consideration for any assessment of setbacks. With regard to view sharing impacts on merit this is considered earlier in this report as being acceptable. One of the cases provided had a circumstance where no front setback controls apply which has no relevance for the subject proposal. One other case relates to a proposal which did not comply with the planning controls and the case was the subject to the merits of a variation to Council’s development controls. There are insufficient grounds to recommend refusal to the DA on this basis.

(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

No development 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. It is recommended that the application be approved, subject to the recommended conditions of consent provided in the attachment section of this report.

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2017 - 37.1 Plans

2View. DA2017 - 37.1 Abboricultural Assessment Report

3View. DA2017 - 37.1 Recommended Conditions

4View. DA2017 - 37.1 Submission - Matabarow 23012017

5View. DA2017 - 37.1 Submission - Matabarow 23012017.2

6View. DA2017 - 37.1 Submission - Matabarow 28022017

7View. DA2017 - 37.1 Submission - Matabarow 15032017

8View. DA2017 - 37.1 Submission - Matabarow 31032017

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


AGENDA                                              Development Assessment Panel      10/05/2017

 

 

Item:          08

 

Subject:     DA2017 - 97.1 Additons To Existing Dwelling - Lot 24 DP 20480, No 18 Bundella Avenue Lake Cathie

Report Author: Stephen Ryan

 

 

 

Applicant:               R J & M V Jolly

Owner:                    R J & M V Jolly

Estimated Cost:     $40,000

Parcel no:               2924

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2017 - 97.1 for additions to existing dwelling at Lot 24, DP20480, No. 18 Bundella Avenue, Lake Cathie be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a development application for additions to an existing 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 (1) submission has been received.

 

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 663.9m2

 

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%5bpnturl7990_C0A8C986:015B5A0F519B:2B61:0EDA6992%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:015B5A0F519B:2B61:0EDA6992

 

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

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl5936_C0A8C986:015B5A0F519B:2B61:0EDA6992%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:015B5A0F519B:2B61:0EDA6992

 

 

 

 

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

 

·    Additions to dwelling comprising enclosure of part of the rear deck including roof over and extension of the front entry deck.

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    14 February 2017 - Application lodged

·    20 February 2017 - Request for additional fees (notification)

·    20 February 2017 - 8 March 2017 - Exhibition via neighbour notification

·    2 March 2017- Submission received.

·    5 April 2017 - Site inspection.

 

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:

 

Section 79C(1) Matters for Consideration

 

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

 

(a)     The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i)      any Environmental Planning Instrument:

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

There is no Koala Plan of Management on the site. Additionally, the site is less than 1ha in area therefore no further investigations are required.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

Following an inspection of the site and a search of Council records, the subject land is not identified as being potentially contaminated and is suitable for the intended use.

 

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

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

In accordance with clause 5, this SEPP prevails over the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 in the event of any inconsistency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

BASIX is not applicable (Cost Less than $50,000).

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

·     Clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned R1 General Residential. In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, the dwelling additions are 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.

a)             

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

 

·     Clause 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 6.0m 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 0.33:1.0 which complies with the maximum 1.0:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

·     Clause 7.13, existing services in place.

·     Clause 4.6 – exceptions to development standards.

·     Clause 5.6 – Architectural roof features.

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

·     Clause 5.10 – Heritage. The site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage items or sites of significance.

·     Clause 7.1, the site is mapped as potentially containing class 3 acid sulphate soils.  No adverse impacts are expected to occur to the acid sulphate soils found on site.

·     Clause 7.3, the site is not land within a mapped “flood planning area”.

·     Clause 7.5 – Koala Habitat – The land is not identified as a “Koala Habitat area” on the Koala Habitat Map.

·     Clause 7.6 – Applies to land that is shown as Coastal Erosion Risk on the Coastal Erosion Map (Lake Cathie/Town Beach). In this regard the following comments are provided which incorporate consideration of the objectives of Clause 7.6 & the Coastal Protection Act 1979, NSW Coastal Policy 1997 And any relevant Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP);

o The proposal will not significantly adversely affect coastal hazards;

o The proposal will not result in significant detrimental increases in coastal risks to other development or properties;

o The proposal will not significantly alter coastal hazards to the detriment of the environment;

o The proposal enables evacuation of coastal risk areas in an emergency;

o The proposal avoids or minimises exposure to coastal hazards and is compatible with the coastal risk (see clause below)

o The proposal is in line with the provisions of the Lake Cathie Coastal Zone Management Plan.

·     Clause 7.7 – Airspace operations- N/A

·     Clause 7.8 - Development in areas subject to aircraft noise- N/A

·     Clause 7.9 - Development subject to acoustic controls - N/A

·     Clause7.13, satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential services.

 

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

 

No draft instruments apply to the site.

 

(iii)    any Development Control Plan in force:

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

 

 

DCP 2013: 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

24 degree max. roof pitch

Not located in front setback

Front deck addition.

2.1m- Maintains existing deck height.

Single storey

9.885m² in total

Rear setback

Front setback- In excess of allowable deck setback within articulation zone.

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

 

N/A

Yes

 

Front setback (Residential not R5 zone):

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

 

 

4.5m

 

 

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

 

4.5m

-

Front deck addition

 

-

-

-

 

-

 

Yes

N/A

Yes

 

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

N/A

3.2.2.3

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

Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided

Maintains existing garage setback

Yes

 

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

Maintains existing driveway

Yes

3.2.2.4

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

12m

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

 

 

1.057m setback to northern boundary.

9m (rear addition) & 13.7m (front deck addition) setback to southern boundary

Due to the orientation of the additions overshadowing will not be adverse therefore the proposed setback is acceptable.

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

3.2.2.6

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

Available at rear

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

b)             

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

 

Rear deck is existing. Direct views from the rear deck are restricted by existing vegetation. Privacy impacts are not considered to be any greater than what already exists from the existing deck and kitchen window. The front deck addition is to the public open space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Existing deck at rear. Works at the rear are not sited within 3m of the boundary and do not require screening. The enclosing wall is to be sited 3.797m from the northern boundary. Other works to the rear deck comprise a roof addition . The front deck addition does not require a privacy screen as views are to the  public open space.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

DCP 2013: General Provisions

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

2.7.2.2

Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline

Adequate casual surveillance available

Yes

2.5.3.2

New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads

Maintains existing access

Yes

 

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

Maintains existing driveway crossover

Yes

2.5.3.3

Parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1.

1 space per single dwelling (behind building line)

No change to existing parking

Yes

2.5.3.11

Section 94 contributions

Refer to main body of report.

 

2.5.3.14

Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified

Existing sealed driveway

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 has been offered or entered into relating to the site.

 

iv)     any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

 

New South Wales Coastal Policy:

 

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

 

Demolition of buildings AS 2601:

 

N/A

 

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:

 

N/A

 

(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

Solar access-

•      The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts in regard to solar access.

Public domain-

•      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.

View sharing-

•      There are no adverse impacts on existing view sharing.

Privacy-

•      Privacy impacts from the proposed works are considered to be no greater than what already exists on the site.

 

Access, transport and traffic

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

 

Water Supply

Service available.

 

Sewer

Service available.

 

Stormwater

Service available.

 

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

 

Heritage

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

 

Other land resources

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

 

Water cycle

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

 

Soils

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

 

Air and microclimate

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

 

Flora and fauna

Construction of the proposed development will not require any removal/clearing of any significant vegetation and therefore will be unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on biodiversity or threatened species of flora and fauna.  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 and vibration

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

 

Bushfire

The site is not identified as being bushfire prone.

 

Safety, security and crime prevention

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

 

Social impacts in the locality

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

 

Economic impact in the locality

No adverse impacts. Likely positive impacts can be attributed to the construction of the development and associated flow on effects (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:

 

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

 

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

 

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

Reduction in privacy to the property at the rear.

It is not considered that there is any more significant privacy impact than already exists from the existing deck and windows sited along the northern boundary. Direct views from the rear deck are restricted by existing vegetation on the adjoining property.

 

Requirement for privacy screen as per previous consent.

Privacy screen requirements relating to a previous consent are not applicable to this Development Application.

The proposed works do not alter the function of the existing deck.

 

 

(e)     The Public Interest:

 

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

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

·    N/A

 

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2017 - 97.1 Plans

2View. DA2017 - 97.1 Recommended Conditions

3View. DA2017 - 97.1 Submission - Noble.

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


AGENDA                                              Development Assessment Panel      10/05/2017

 

 

Item:          09

 

Subject:     DA2017 - 99.1 Alterations And Additions To Dwelling Including Clause 4.6 Objection To Clause 4.3  (Height Of Buildings) Of The Port Macquarie -Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 And Construction Of Swimming Pool - Lot 31 DP 231816, No 21 Matthew Flinders Drive, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Deb McKenzie

 

 

 

Applicant:               S A Hall and M A Hall

Owner:                    S A Hall and M A Hall

Estimated Cost:     $380,000

Parcel no:               13289

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That it be recommended to Council that DA 2017 - 99.1 for alterations and additions to existing dwelling at Lot 31 DP231816, No.21 Matthew Flinders Drive, Port Macquarie be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a development application for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling and construction of swimming pool at the subject site. The application includes a request from the applicant to vary the maximum height of the dwelling pursuant to Clause 4.6 of Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011. Clause 4.3 of HLEP 2011 prescribes a maximum height of building limit for this site of 8.5m. The proposal contains a stepped roofline with the maximum height of the northern ridge of the roof of 9.52m. This equates to a variation of 12%.

Council staff and/the Development Assessment Panel do not have delegation to approve Clause 4.6 variations beyond 10% of the development standard. Therefore the application is to be referred to Ordinary Council for determination.

This report provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It concludes that the variation is reasonable in this case and the proposal is suitable for the site.

 

 

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 602.4m2.

 

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%5bpnturl4341_C0A8C986:015BADCE6E5D:99CF:2A946804%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:015BADCE6E5D:99CF:2A946804

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

 

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl4848_C0A8C986:015BADCE6E5D:99CF:2A946804%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:015BADCE6E5D:99CF:2A946804

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

 

·    Proposal seeks to make substantial alterations and additions to the dwelling, utilising the existing building envelope.

·    The dwelling is to contain 4 bedrooms, three bathrooms with upper floor master bedroom, ensuite, yoga room and family/office room with verandahs.

·    The existing double garage is retained and new subfloor storage area created at garage level.

·    A new swimming pool is to be located at the rear of the dwelling.

·    There are no neighbouring residential properties to the north or rear of the site.

·    E2 Environmental Conservation Zone is located on the northern side and at the rear of the site. This is heavily vegetated.

·    The dwelling is located within a ‘flame zone’ in terms of bushfire risk. The application was referred to the RFS for comment.

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

·    Application lodged: 14 February 2017

·    Public notification finished: 9 March 2017

·    No submissions received.

·    RFS response received: 23 March 2017.

·    Advised applicant of RFS requirements: 27 March 2017.

·    Applicant requests assessment of the application, as lodged: 4 April 2017.

 

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. 26 - Littoral Rainforest

Clause 4 states the following:

4   Application of Policy

 

(1)  This Policy applies to:

(a)  land enclosed by the outer edge of the heavy black line on the series of maps held in the Department and marked “State Environmental Planning Policy No 26—Littoral Rainforests (Amendment No 2)”, and

(b)  land not so enclosed but within a distance of 100 metres from the outer edge of that heavy black line except residential land and land to which State Environmental Planning Policy No 14—Coastal Wetlands applies.

The site is within 100m of a designated Littoral Rainforest but is residentially zoned land. On this basis, the provisions of the SEPP do not apply in this case.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

The site is less than 1ha in area therefore no further investigations are required.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

The subject land is not identified as being potentially contaminated and is suitable for the intended use.

 

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

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

In accordance with clause 5, this SEPP prevails over the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 in the event of any inconsistency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A BASIX certificate (number A269540) has been submitted demonstrating that the proposal will comply with the requirements of the SEPP.  It is recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure that the commitments are incorporated into the development and certified at Occupation Certificate stage.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

·    Clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned R1 General Residential. In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, the dwelling (or ancillary structure to a dwelling) is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

§ To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

·    Clause 2.7, the demolition requires consent as it does not fit within the provisions of SEPP (Exempt and Complying) 2008. No specific requirements.

·    Clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 9.52m which is non-compliant with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking variation of the height limit pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP.  Refer to assessment below.

·    Clause 4.4, the floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.62:1 which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

·    Clause 4.6 – exceptions to development standards. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking variation of the height limit pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP.  Refer to assessment below.

·    Clause 5.10 – Heritage. The site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage items or sites of significance.

·    Clause7.13 - satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential services.

Clause 4.6 Assessment

The applicant has submitted a clause 4.6 variation request to allow the upper ridgeline of the front of the dwelling (directly above the garage only) to be 9.52m, 1.02m higher than the permitted 8.5m.

The area of the non-compliance is contained on the northern portion of the dwelling. This area of the dwelling does not adjoin any neighbouring dwellings (only rainforest) and only applies to the roof above the upper floor office and verandah where the fall of the land steps down the site towards the front boundary. The built form steps down across the site from north to south, being only two storeys adjacent the southern property boundary.

 

The variation equates to a 12% of the development standard.

Clause 4.6(3) requires Council to be satisfied that the written request justifies the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a)  that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b)  that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

The applicant submits that:

 

·     Compliance with the development standard is will be minimal negative impact on the ‘streetscape’ proposal as the articulated roof form combined with the varied selection of wall cladding materials will transform this building into a contemporary seaside dwelling.

·     It can also be seen that there is a reduction in roof height along the southern boundary adjacent to the adjoining dwelling which will help ameliorate any perception of bulk or overbearing.

·     There will be a minimal increase in overshadowing of the adjoining site to the south caused by the lengthening of the dwelling along this boundary. However it can be seen that a conventional 1.8m boundary fence would have also have an effect along this boundary.

·     The use of highlight windows in bedrooms combined with the alfresco shutters being below the top of the fence line will ensure no loss of visual privacy and help minimise acoustic privacy. The new top floor verandahs are located over 10m to the north away from the adjoining southern boundary.

The applicant’s submission establishes that there is a case to consider the development standard as unreasonable and unnecessary for the proposal. Further, that environmental planning grounds relating to streetscape, overshadowing and overlooking are relevant.

 

Clause 4.6(4) states that development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

 

(a)  the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i)  the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

(ii)  the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

The applicant’s submission has adequately addressed the matters in clause 3 above. The development standard and zone objectives are addressed below.

The R1 Zone objectives 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.

Comment: the proposal provides for the housing in the community, it maintains its low density nature, in an area predominantly characterised by larger low density dwellings. Therefore the proposal achieves the zone objectives.

The height of building objectives are as follows:

(a)   to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the locality

Comment: Lighthouse Beach contains a variety of dwellings that have large building envelopes, located on sloping sites that predicate non-compliance with local standards. The proposal has one area of non-compliance that is result of the slope of the site towards the front boundary. If the dwelling was compliant it would not necessarily present a significantly different height, bulk and scale of development when viewed from Matthew Flinders Drive.

(b)   to minimise visual impact, disruption of views, loss of privacy and loss of solar access to existing development,

 

Comment: the design of the alterations and additions are stepped across the site from north to south. There are no neighbours on the northern side (only rainforest - zoned E2 land). The higher component is retained directly over the garage. Adjacent the southern boundary the dwelling is two storeys. The dwelling is setback 6.0m from the front boundary, thereby not imposing over the street frontage or creating significant opportunities for overlooking neighbours. There is no loss of view or shadow effect as a result of the non-compliance in this case.

(c)   to minimise the adverse impact of development on heritage conservation areas and heritage items,

Comment: Not applicable.

(d)   to nominate heights that will provide a transition in built form and land use intensity within the area covered by this Plan.

Comment: the proposal is not antipathetic to this objective.

 

Summary: the applicant has established that strict compliance with the 8.5m height limit for the dwelling is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances. This is based on:

·     The area of the non-compliance relates to one habitable room and verandah at the front of the dwelling.

·     The additional height is located over the garage, towards the northern boundary where there is no adjoining residential property.

·     The height of the dwelling adjacent the southern boundary is two storeys and complies with the development standard.

·     The dwelling does not overpower the street presentation as it is setback some 6m from the front boundary and articulated by the porch and entry stairs.

 

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

 

Nil

 

(iii)    any Development Control Plan in force:

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

 

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

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

3.2.2.2

Articulation zone:

N/A

N/A

Front setback (Residential not R5 zone):

Min. 6.0m classified road

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

Min. 3.0m secondary road

Min. 2.0m Laneway

Local road: > 4.5m

Proposal = 6m

 

Yes

3.2.2.4

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

As existing. No change.

Yes

3.2.2.5

Side setbacks:

Ground floor = min. 0.9m

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

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

Ground Floor = 0.9m

First Floor = 1.9m and no adverse overshadowing caused by the building setback

Yes

3.2.2.6

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

Alfresco area is 4.1m x 8.3m = 34.03sqm + rear setback area.

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

There are no neighbours on the northern boundary.

 

The windows on the southern boundary are highlight windows only and offset with openings in the northern elevation of the adjoining dwelling.

 

The rear alfresco area is not opened to the southern boundary and fitted with  bi-fold shutters for privacy purposes.

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.

 

iv)     any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

 

NSW Coastal Policy 1997

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

 

Demolition of buildings AS 2601 – Clause 66 (b)

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

 

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

Nil.

 

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

 

Context and setting

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

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

•           There is no adverse impact on existing view sharing.

•           There is no adverse privacy impacts.

 

Access, transport and traffic

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

 

Water, sewer, stormwater

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

 

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

 

Flora and fauna

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

 

Waste

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

 

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.

 

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone – Flame Zone. The application was referred to the RFS for their assessment. The RFS provided conditions of approval which are recommended to be included in the development consent.

 

Social and Economic impacts in the locality

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

 

Site design and internal design

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

 

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 bushfire zoning will need to be addressed in the building materials and treatment of openings, as per the RFS requirements.

 

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

No written submissions were received following public exhibition of the application.

 

(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

·    Nil.

 

5.       CONCLUSION

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2017 - 99.1 Plans

2View. DA2017 - 99.1 Recommended Conditions

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


AGENDA                                              Development Assessment Panel      10/05/2017

 

 

Item:          10

 

Subject:     DA2017 - 181.1 Alterations And Additions To Dwelling And Boundary Fence - Lot 33 DP 1069338, No 76 The Anchorage, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Robert Slater

 

 

 

Applicant:               Wayne Ellis Architect

Owner:                    R R & K M Falzon

Estimated Cost:     $14,767

Parcel no:               45332

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

1.         That DA 2017 - 181.1 for alterations and additions to dwelling and      boundary fence at Lot 33 DP 1069338 No. 76 The Anchorage, Port         Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the            recommended conditions.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report considers a development application for alterations and additions to a Dwelling and an existing masonry boundary fence at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 833.9m2.

 

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%5bpnturl6649_C0A8C986:015B1D2F9F1B:C5DB:6F546B6E%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:015B1D2F9F1B:C5DB:6F546B6E

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

 

The Anchorage precinct comprises predominately of single dwellings; which are characterised by expansive open space areas overlooking The Broadwater, South Harbour and the Hastings River. The majority of the dwellings have access to The Broadwater via jetties and boat mooring facilities. This open space area is subject to no- build restrictions, easements for maintenance and in some cases footway.

http://hq-dekho-pr1:8080/Dekho/dekhoproxy?urlparam=proxy_url_start%5bpnturl2560_C0A8C986:015B1D2F9F1B:C5DB:6F546B6E%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:015B1D2F9F1B:C5DB:6F546B6E

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

 

·    The removal of fixed glazing panels from the southern elevation of the existing alfresco area;

·    Removal of the bi-fold doors from the western elevation of the existing alfresco area;

·    A 2.6m high timber pergola partially roofed; and

·    Extensions and additions to an existing masonry wall

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    8 July 2008 - 2008/167 - Original Application for two storey dwelling and swimming pool

·    24 September 2009 - 2009/372 - Application for Boat mooring facility and boat ramp.

·    9 March 2017 - 2017/181 Application for Alterations and Additions to Dwelling and Boundary Fence.

·    16 March 2017- Notification letters sent to adjoining neighbours

·    27 March 2017- Submission received

·    31 March 2017 - Submission received

·    5 April and 10 April - site inspections

·    19 April 2017 - Amended Plans received. Applicant making minor changes to the proposed wall by reducing the height from 2.5m to 2.0m. The changes did not warrant the re-notification of the application.

 

3.       STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

 

Section 79C (1) Matters for Consideration

 

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

 

(a)     The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i)      any Environmental Planning Instrument:

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

There is no Koala Plan of Management on the site. Additionally, the site is less than 1ha in area therefore no further investigations are required.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

Following an inspection of the site and a search of Council records, the subject land is not identified as being potentially contaminated and is suitable for the intended use. The requirements of this SEPP are therefore satisfied.

 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 62 – Sustainable Aquaculture

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

 

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

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

In accordance with clause 5, this SEPP prevails over the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 in the event of any inconsistency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

A BASIX certificate is not required for the proposed development as it less than $50,000 in value. The existing energy efficient measures pertaining to the existing dwelling are considered adequate.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

·          Clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned R1 General Residential. In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, the dwelling (or ancillary structure to a dwelling) is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

o    To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

                       

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

 

·          In accordance with Clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the proposed pergola above ground level (existing) is 2.6 m which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

·          In accordance with Clause 4.4, as there is no change to the existing floor space ratio of the proposal which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

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

·          Clause 5.10 – Heritage. The site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage items or sites of significance.

·          Clause 7.1, the site is mapped as potentially containing class 3 acid sulphate soils. The proposed development includes a partially covered pergola and an extension to an existing boundary fence, which will require minimal excavation for footings, however no excavation extending 1m below the natural surface level is proposed, therefore no adverse impacts are expected to occur to the acid sulphate soils found on site.

·          Clause7.13, existing satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential services.

 

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

No draft instruments apply to the site.

 

(a)(iii) Any DCP in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013:


 

 

 

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

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

3.2.2.1

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

 

Pergola 2.6m

Brick fence extension 3.6m in length and 2.0m high

 

Pergola 17sq.m

 

Pergola flat roof

Located in the rear yard area

 

 

Yes

Merit based assessment

 

Yes

 

Yes

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

Not utilised as the proposed development is situated at the rear of the property.

 

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

 

 

 

No change to existing front setback

 

 

 

 

Yes

3.2.2.3

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

Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided

No change to existing garage

Yes

 

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

No change to width of existing garage

Yes

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

No change to existing driveway

Yes

 

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

Single occupancy no change to existing garage and driveway

Yes

3.2.2.4

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

Not a requirement on the canals

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

 

No change to existing setbacks

All development situated at ground level

 

 

 

 

No change to the buildings existing level of articulation

 

Yes

 

N/a

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

3.2.2.6

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

No change to existing POS

Area

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. i.e. 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 proposed development makes minimal changes to the existing level of visual and acoustic privacy afforded to the adjoining property (74) adjacent to the south western boundary.

 

The increase in the height of this wall to 2.0m is not essential for the

purposes of maintaining and or improving visual and acoustic privacy.

 

However the height of existing masonry wall between No’s (74) and (76) The Anchorage is currently 1730mm high, which does not comply with the statutory requirements of the Swimming Pools Act. 

The height of the existing masonry wall is required to be raised to a height of at least 1.8m (one brick and mortar joint 86mm) to comply with the regulations.

 

The existing 2.3m high masonry wall on the north eastern boundary between No’s (76) and (78) The Anchorage is also in part a swimming pool fence for the pool situated on No.78 The Anchorage.

This wall as originally approved at 1.8m, however an additional 500mm in height was required due the swimming pools water feature effectively reducing the effective height of the pool fence. It is for this reason the wall is not considered to provide a precedent in this situation.

 

 

Not applicable to the proposed development.

 

 

 

 

The proposed pergola’s floor level height is less that 1.0m above existing ground level. However the proposed pergola is to be situated less that 3.0m from the side boundary at approximately 1.8m. To ensure a reasonable level of visual privacy it is proposed to provide a 2.4m high timber screen.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/a

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DCP 2013: General Provisions

 

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

2.7.2.2

Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline

Adequate casual surveillance available

Yes

2.3.3.1

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

No cut and fill proposed

Yes

2.3.3.2

1m max. height retaining walls along road frontage

No retaining walls proposed

Yes

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

Not applicable to the application

N/a

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

Not applicable to the proposed development

N/a

2.3.3.8

Removal of hollow bearing trees

No trees 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)

No trees to be removed

Yes

2.4.3

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

Refer to main body of report.

 

2.5.3.2

New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads

No change to existing access arrangement

Yes

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

No change to the existing driveway crossing

Yes

2.5.3.3

Parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1.

1 space per single dwelling (behind building line)

No change proposed to the existing parking arrangements

yes

2.5.3.11

Section 94 contributions

Refer to main body of report.

 

2.5.3.12 and 2.5.3.13

Landscaping of parking areas

Existing landscaping arrangements satisfactory

Yes

2.5.3.14

Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified

Existing concrete driveway

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

No change to existing driveway grades

Yes

2.5.3.17

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

Existing drainage systems satisfactory

Yes

Vehicle washing facilities – grassed area etc available.

Existing grassed verge areas satisfactory

Yes

 

The proposal seeks to vary Development 3.2.2.4 which provides that a minimum rear boundary setback of 900mm applies to swimming pools, sheds and the like subject to achieving minimum required open space area. The applicant proposes to reduce the 900mm rear boundary setback requirement to 300mm at the SE pergola post and 1170mm at the SW pergola post.

 

The relevant objectives are to allow adequate natural light and ventilation between dwellings/buildings and to private open space areas and secondly 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:

 

·          The proposed reduced setbacks do not reduce the natural light and ventilation between adjoining dwellings. 

·          The proposed reduced setbacks do not impinge on the useable private open space (POS) areas of the subject property.

·          Privacy to the adjoining property is maintained via a 2.4m high timber privacy screen.

·          In this situation the rear building line is not the rear boundary of the property and there are no adjoining properties situated to the rear of the subject property. Therefore the setbacks from the rear building line are not as critical in terms of impact.

The proposal seeks to vary Development 3.2.2.5 which has an objective to reduce overbearing and perceptions of building bulk on adjoining properties and to maintain privacy and to provide for visual and acoustic privacy between buildings.

The existing 1.73m x 16.0 x 230mm masonry wall situated on the south western boundary adjoining numbers (76) and (74) The Anchorage does not comply with the statutory height requirements for swimming pool fencing. This non compliance issue has been an on-going matter between Council compliance staff and the owner.

The applicant proposes to increase the height of the existing masonry wall from its existing height of 1.73m to 2.0m over a distance of approximately 16m. Additionally it is proposed to extend the length of the existing masonry wall a further 3.6m to the rear building line. The overall length of the wall is 19.6m with a height of 2.0m. The total length of the relevant boundary is approximately 55.9m. The proposed wall represents 35% of the length of the boundary.

The proposed alteration and additions to the boundary wall would have a moderate positive impact in terms of visual and acoustic privacy. However, as noted above, satisfactory visual and acoustic privacy issues were considered to be achieved with the original development with the provision of a minimum 1.8m high boundary wall along the south-western boundary. The additional boundary wall height is not considered essential to achieve this outcome.

Further to the above assessment relating to overbearing and perceptions of building bulk, the Land and Environment Court has established a planning principle in Galea v Marrickville Council (2005) NSWLEC 113 to test whether building on the boundary in residential areas is appropriate. Comments in relation to the planning principle are provided below.

Step 1: Is the street characterised by terrace housing? Building to the boundary is likely to be appropriate in streets where the existing form of development is terrace houses or villa homes, i.e. where building to the boundary follows the existing pattern of development.

Comment: The precinct is characterised by a mixture of housing styles including harbour homes, duplex’s and single dwellings. The predominant dwelling type in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development are single dwellings which have garage walls that are built to the boundary on either side having a zero lot line and are approximately 2.5 high which numbers 78, 76, and 74 The Anchorage of the approved development are examples of this.

Step 2: What is the height and length of the wall on the boundary? Short lengths of single storey walls (such as garages) are usually acceptable on the boundary.

Comment: (74) The existing garage wall at No.74 The Anchorage has a zero lot line and is approximately 2.5m in height. The length of the existing masonry wall is approximately 16.0m in length while the overall length of the subject boundary is approximately 55.9m in length. It is proposed to add a further 3.6m in length to the wall which will result in wall having a total wall length of 19.6m and 2.0m in height. The proposed wall represents 35% of the subject boundary. The proposed wall height of 2.0m is assessed to be single storey in nature and considered to be reasonable.

Further, the terms of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 - the construction or installation of a privacy screen that is not attached to a boundary fence or retaining wall is development specified for this code if it is not constructed or installed on land in a foreshore area is permissible without consent.

The development standards specified for that development are that the development must:

Not be higher than 2.5m above ground level; and

Not be longer than 5m; and

Not be located closer than 900mm from each lot boundary; and

Be located in the rear yard.

These development standards have been used as a guide only in assessment of the suitability of the proposed development in terms of bulk and scale and reasonableness, but not limited to the document alone.

Comment: (78) no further comment required on this step of the assessment process as the proposed pergola structure is not located on the boundary.

Step 3: Has the applicant control over the adjoining site(s) or the agreement of their owners? Where the applicant has control over the development of the adjoining sites or their owners agree to a wall on the common boundary, such walls are likely to be appropriate.

Comment: (74) No arrangements are in place for the future maintenance of the wall and the owner of the adjoining land has objected to the proposal. It is noted that the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000 provides for parties to make application to the Local Court for an access order to carry out such work. However, the planning principle recommends that arrangements be considered as part of the development application to avoid future disputes. Whilst this may be desirable, this is not considered to be a determinative issue noting the structure is essentially a dividing boundary wall and has low maintenance requirement.

Comment: (78) No future arrangements for the maintenance of the pergola structure is required as the structure is situated wholly within the boundaries of the subject property and is setback of 1.8m off the boundary which is ample room for the maintenance of the structure.

Step 4: What are the impacts on the amenity and/or development potential of adjoining sites? Building to the boundary may be appropriate, even where the above tests are not answered favourably, provided it can be shown that a wall on the boundary does not diminish the amenity or the development potential of the adjoining site.

Comment: (74) The proposed height increase would result in a minor reduction in solar access in the morning, (due to the north- south orientation of the wall) but would not result in adverse overshadowing of the main private open space area nor living room windows for more than 3 hours between 9am-3pm on 21 June. The overshadowing impact is therefore be considered acceptable in the context of the Development Control Plan provisions. View impacts are discussed in detail later in this report.

Comment: (74) With regard to the perceived impacts in relation to natural light and ventilation, any impact is expected to be minimal due to the North – South orientation of the masonry wall, additionally the existing setback distance of 3.0m between the wall of the dwelling and the masonry fence provides an adequate breezeway. The prevailing north easterly and southerly breezes in summer are not impeded by the proposed development. It is therefore considered that that the adequate light and ventilation to the private open space (POS) areas and the living areas are achieved and that the objectives of Development Provision 3.2.2.4 are satisfied.

Comment: (74) The perceived visual impacts associated with the proposed masonry wall are considered to be reasonable in the setting. The development would effectively result in a 2.0m high wall on the boundary over a distance of 19.6m. The proposed wall height is significantly lower than the wall situated on the eastern boundary. A wall height not greater than 2.0m seems to be a reasonable compromise.

Comment: (74) The proposal would not adversely impact on the development potential of the adjoining property as there is an existing two storey dwelling situated on the site.

Comment :( 78) The main impact of the pergola and screening structure is view loss across the adjoining side boundary. This impact has been addressed in detail below in the report under the heading of View Sharing. Privacy concerns are addressed by the inclusion of the 2.4m high timber screen of the SE end of the pergola. The perceived impact of reduced acoustic amenity due the use of the pergola structure has been previously addressed above in the report.

Conclusion: The proposed alterations and additions to the wall and the alfresco and the proposed pergola structure are considered to be reasonable in the setting.  The proposal is considered to achieve the relevant DCP objectives of reducing overbearing and perceptions of building bulk on adjoining properties. It is recommended that the proposed variation to Development Provision 3.2.2.5 be supported for the reasons stated above.

The issues raised in the submissions and addressed above in the report are not considered to be sufficient grounds for refusal of the application.

 

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

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

 

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

No matters prescribed by the Regulations are applicable to the proposal

 

NSW Coastal Policy 1997

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

 

Demolition of buildings AS 2601 – Clause 66 (b)

Demolition / removal of the existing glazing units relating to the existing alfresco area on the site is capable of compliance with this Australian Standard and is recommended to be conditioned.

 

(a)(v) Any Coastal Zone Management Plan

No coastal zone management plan applies to the land.

 

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

 

Context & Setting

The development site has an area of 824m2. The allotments in the Anchorage precinct are characterised as having narrow street frontages (approx.15m) with elongated side boundaries (approx. 74m) and having zero-lot line building wall elements.

 

The site has a rear building line with a no-build area having the approximate dimensions of 15m x 19.4m leading down to the boat mooring and pontoon/ramp facilities on the Broadwater. The proposal is considered to be consistent with other two storey residential development in the locality, while the design adequately addresses planning controls for the area.

The proposal is likely to have an acceptable level of impact on adjoining properties and satisfactorily addresses the public domain.

 

View Sharing

During the public exhibition period concern surrounding view loss was raised by adjoining residents and a number of photographs were submitted.

 

An inspection of the subject site revealed that the proposed development had the potential to affect the adjoining properties existing view corridors. Council staff subsequently met with the owners/occupiers of (78) and (74) The Anchorage and assessed views from key areas within the subject properties. Photos from the site visit are included below in this report.

 

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 caselaw - 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: (74) The existing view corridors are enjoyed via The Broadwater to the weir situated to the north east and to South Harbour to the south and to the Hastings River situated to the south west of the subject site. Whilst not considered iconic, the views are desirable. The views are considered to be whole views as there is a visible interface between land and water. Refer to attached photos at the end of this report.

Comments: (78) The existing view corridors enjoyed from the property via The Broadwater to the weir situated to the north east and South Harbour situated to the south and to the Hastings River situated to the south west of the subject property. Whilst not considered iconic, the views are desirable. The views are considered to be whole views as there is a visible interface between land and water. Refer to the attached photos at the end of this report.

 

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: (74) The views are enjoyed from the property across its adjoining north eastern side boundary. The views are enjoyed from standing position and seated position depending on the room location. The attached photos are taken from primary living areas in the standing position (i.e. not bedrooms etc).

 

Comments: (78) The affected views are obtained from the alfresco area situated at the rear of the property across its adjoining south -west side boundary to The Broadwater and to the Hastings River. These views are available from both the standing and seating position.

 

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: (74) The views are obtained from the Kitchen/living room window while extensive views can be obtained from the alfresco room which is situated at the rear of the dwelling which has extensive views across The Broadwater to South Harbour and the Hasting River to the west and the weir situated to the east. Furthermore the views are available in the seated and standing position from the alfresco room. The raising of the existing masonry wall to 2.0m would have an impact on the current views from the kitchen and the alfresco area. However, extensive views would be retained from the alfresco room and living rooms on the ground floor to the south and southwest with partial views to the north east. The overall impact on the existing extensive views is considered to be moderate.

 

Comments: (78) The view is obtained from the alfresco room situated at the rear of the property. The view is available from the seated and standing positions. The proposed pergola and the 2.4m high timber privacy screen would have an impact on the current views from the alfresco room towards the south west towards the Hastings River. Additionally, two navigational aids are located in the view corridor which is considered to be “points of interest” in the landscape. The proposed pergola would disrupt the view to one of the navigational aids and the Hastings River beyond. The extensive views of the water to the rear of the property remain and as such the overall impact is considered to be moderate.

 

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: (74) The proposed alterations and additions to the existing masonry wall has been the subject of a merit based assessment and it is considered that a wall measuring 2.0m high x 19.6m long to be suitable in a low density residential situation. However, it is acknowledged that while the proposed new wall height has the potential to impact on existing view corridors across the adjoining side boundary extensive views would be retained. It is therefore considered that view loss is not considered to be sufficient grounds for refusal of the application.

 

Comments: (78) The proposed pergola is ancillary development and is permissible within the zone with Council consent. The location of the structure with its incorporated privacy screen is considered to be reasonable in the situation and having regard to the nature of the perceived impacts and the extent of the views that would be retained it is therefore considered that view loss in the situation is not sufficient grounds for refusal of the application.

 

Conclusion: It should be noted that views across side boundaries are more difficult to protect and the expectation to retain side views is often unrealistic. Given the particular context the view loss is considered to be acceptable given the above assessment of the view loss against the well established view sharing planning principles.

 

Access, transport and traffic

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

 

Water Supply

Existing Service available – details required with S.68 application.

 

Sewer

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

 

Stormwater

Existing Service available – details required with S.68 application

 

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

 

Heritage

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

 

Other land resources

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

 

Water cycle

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

 

Soils

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

 

 

 

Air and microclimate

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

 

Flora and fauna

Construction of the proposed development will not require any removal/clearing of any significant vegetation and therefore will be unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on biodiversity or threatened species of flora and fauna.  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 proposed works are valued less than $50,000 and therefore no additional BASIX measures are required.

 

Noise and vibration

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

 

Bushfire

The site is not identified as being bushfire prone therefore no further investigation or comment is required.

 

Safety, security and crime prevention

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

 

Social impacts in the locality

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

 

Economic impact in the locality

No adverse impacts. Likely positive impacts can be attributed to the construction of the development and associated flow on effects (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. As detailed in the report above, the precinct contains a unique mixture of development. In particular, the rear building line in conjunction with the no-building area to the rear of the properties maintains the unique character of the area and affords extensive views of The Broadwater, South Harbour and the Hastings River. The proposal is not considered to give rise to an adverse cumulative impact.

 

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

The site was considered in the original assessment of the application to be suitable for the proposed development. No aspect of the site has changed that would make it unsuitable for the proposal. While there are a number of variations proposed, it is considered that suitable justification has been provided in the case of the proposed pergola.

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

 

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

Following exhibition in accordance with DCP 2013, two submissions were received

 

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

 

Two written submissions have been received following public exhibition of the application. The key issues raised in the submissions received and comments in response to these issues are provided as follows:

 

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

Loss of Views

Refer to comments on “View Sharing” above in this report.

Shading - Loss of the morning sun to yard area.

Detailed shadow diagrams are not considered necessary to carry out an appropriate assessment of the potential overshadowing impacts. Refer to comments on “Natural light and Ventilation” above in this report.

Privacy

Refer to comments on “Privacy” above in this report.

 

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

Noise

Channelling of noise between side setbacks of buildings is a common occurrence in residential areas where it is difficult to completely build out noise. In this case, the removal of glazing from the existing alfresco area and the construction of a pergola is permissible development in the zone with and not expected to significantly impact on the acoustic amenity enjoyed by the adjoining neighbours. Further, the fact that the alfresco area situated at No.78 is fully enclosed and the existing masonry wall aid in minimising any perceived acoustic impacts. 

 

Questioning the cost of the proposal.

Building costs are not a matter for consideration under section 79C.

The development will impact on surrounding property values.

 

Property values are not a matter for consideration under section 79C. The proposal is permissible with consent in the zone and has satisfactorily responded to relevant planning controls.

Bulk and Scale of Wall

Refer to comments on “Bulk and Scale” issues above in this report.

Unacceptable impact on the amenity of our residential property and the current environment and surrounding properties

Refer to comments on “Impact on Amenity” issues above in this report.

Potential for setting a precedence

The proposal has been assessed on its merits having regard to section 79C of the Act. It is not considered that an undesirable precedent would be created with this proposal.

Privacy to pool has no valid impact at all.

Refer to comments on “Privacy” issues above in this report.

Legal issues between neighbours

Noted, however disputes between neighbours are not a matter for consideration under Section 79C, and therefore no further comment is required.

No houses in the canal precinct have a pergola and privacy screen.

The proposed pergola structure is ancillary development to the existing dwelling under the LEP.  The proposal does not give rise to an unacceptable impact.

(e) The public interest

The proposed development satisfy relevant planning controls and is not considered to be contrary to the wider public interest.

 

Development Contributions Applicable

Not applicable

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including the relevant matters for consideration under Section 79C (1).

 

Issues raised during assessment and public exhibition of the application have been considered in the assessment of the application and relevant comments provided in this report.  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. DA2017 181.1  Plans

2View. DA2017 - 181.1 Recommended Conditions

3View. DA2017 - 181.1 Site Inspection Photos

4View. DA2017 - 181.1 Submission - Black

5View. DA2017 - 181.1 Submission - Black 31032017

6View. DA2017 - 181.1 Submission - Stewart.

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


AGENDA                                              Development Assessment Panel      10/05/2017

 

 

Item:          11

 

Subject:     DA2016 - 801.1 - Service Station And Signage - Lot 20 DP 1191370 No. 16 Sancrox Road, Sancrox

Report Author: Patrick Galbraith-Robertson

 

 

 

Applicant:               K Behrens/Stevens Group Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Expressway Spares Pty Ltd

Estimated Cost:     $3.5M

Parcel no:               65951

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2016 - 801 for a service station and signage at Lot 20, DP 1191370, No. 16 Sancrox Road, Sancrox, be determined by refusing consent for the following reasons:

1.   The proposal is characterised as a highway service centre and is a prohibited land use in the IN1 general industrial zone under the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011.

2.   The proposal is likely to result in adverse traffic and safety impacts in the immediate locality.

3.   The proposal has potential to result in adverse economic impacts in terms of planning highway service centre sites within the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Government Area.

 

 

Executive Summary

This report considers a Development Application (DA) for a service station and signage at the subject site and provides an assessment of the DA in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

Key assessment issues identified in this report include landuse characterisation of the development, traffic, economic impact and issues raised in the submission received. The Applicant contends that the proposal is characterised as a ‘service station’ and not a ‘highway service centre’ as defined in the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011.

 

The Applicant has not provided a response to the additional information request during the assessment of the DA. This assessment is based upon the currently submitted information.

 

1.       BACKGROUND

 

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

 

The site has an area of 12.38 hectares.

 

The site has a development consent in place for an industrial subdivision. The proposal only relates to 2 of the approved lots within this subdivision.

 

The section of the site proposed to be developed is zoned IN1 Industrial 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%5bpnturl9701_C0A8C986:015BB154E5EC:00E5:422AB7A4%5dproxy_url_end&sessionid=C0A8C986:015BB154E5EC:00E5:422AB7A4

 

The existing subdivision pattern and location of existing development within the locality is shown in the following aerial photograph (source nearmap 2016):

 

 

The subject site is located in the established Sancrox Employment Lands precinct on the western side of the Pacific Highway.

 

The property itself encompasses 2 proposed parcels of land and combined they are generally rectangular in shape with a total area of 2.02 hectares. The subject site has a frontage of 192.13m along its northern boundary to a drainage reserve; a western side boundary of 84.74m; a southern rear boundary of 230.90m to the Sancrox Road; and an eastern side boundary to the Pacific Highway of 73.37m.

Topographically, the natural surface levels of the site fall in a south-west to north-east direction towards the Pacific Highway. The overall crossfall is approximately 0.5% and the gradient can best be described as very gentle.

 

The adjoining lands directly to the north and west are currently vacant. Abutting the site to the south (on the other side of Sancrox Road) is a number of well-established light industrial / commercial complexes including Expressway Spares.

 

To the east, on the other side of the Pacific Highway lies the Fernbank Park Employment Lands and the Cassegrain Winery.

 

Approximately 2.5 kilometres to south of the subject site, further along the Pacific Highway lies a very large well-established highway service centre (HSC) at the intersection of the Pacific and Oxley Highways. In addition to a service station, this HSC encompasses a number of fast food restaurants (McDonalds, KFC and proposed Oliver’s), food court, extensive convenience store, and day use, picnic areas and playgrounds. This HSC is specifically designed to cater for the everyday travelling needs of the general public utilising the Highway.

 

2.       DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal (as detailed in the submitted information) include the following:

·    Construction of a new Service Station with ancillary retail sales of general merchandise (GFA 298m²);

·    Heavy vehicle driver amenities;

·    Installation of three (3) x 90kL Underground Petroleum Storage Systems (UPSS) and associated infrastructure;

·    Installation of eleven (11) fuel dispensers and two (2) forecourt canopies;

·    Two (2) new vehicle crossings from Sancrox Road;

·    Associated car parking, landscaping and signage as illustrated on the proposed Architectural Drawings; and

·    The proposed hours of operation are 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A minimum of two staff members will be present on site at any one time.

 

An extract of the proposed site plan is provided as follows:

 

 

Refer to attachments at the end of this report for more detailed plans and information.

 

Application Chronology

 

·    17 October 2016 - DA lodged with Council.

·    21 October 2016 - Referral the NSW Roads and Maritime Services for comment.

·    26 October to 8 November 2016 - Neighbour notification of proposal.

·    23 November 2016 - Advice received from RMS.

·    2 December 2016 - Additional information requested - permissibility queried, traffic and safety and RMS queries

·    5 December 2016 - Applicant advised that they will provide a response.

·    15 March 2017 - Applicant requests for DA to be determined on currently submitted information.

 

 

 

3.       STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

 

Section 79C(1) Matters for Consideration

 

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

 

(a)     The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i)      any Environmental Planning Instrument:

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 33 - Hazardous and Offensive Development

The subject SEPP was introduced to clarify the definitions for hazardous and offensive industries and to apply guidelines for the assessment of industries that have the potential to create hazards or an offence.

In accordance with this SEPP, an accredited dangerous goods consultant, Myros Design Pty Ltd, has conducted a Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) report. The thresholds screening applying SEPP 33 found that the societal and environmental risks from the proposed development are negligible. Therefore, only a level one qualitative Risk Analysis was required. Accordingly, the design is acceptable for the site in accordance with SEPP 33 requirements and would be unlikely to create any significant risk.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

With reference to clauses 6 and 7, the subject land has is greater than 1 hectare (including any adjoining land under same ownership) and therefore the provisions of SEPP must be considered.

The DA has demonstrated that no habitat will be removed or modified therefore no further investigations are required.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

Following an inspection of the site, a search of Council records and based upon the information submitted, the subject land is not identified as being potentially contaminated and would be 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 would 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 business/building identification signage. The following signage is proposed:

·     Freestanding illuminated pylon sign 7.25m in height;

·     Business identification fascia sign above entrance;

·     Internally illuminated canopy fascia signs;

·     Directional signage;

·     Wall lifestyle graphics;

·     Fuel Dispenser column signs (to be located at each fuel point); and

·     Accessible parking sign and appropriate facilities signage inclusive of air and water signage.

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 signage is consistent with the objectives to not warrant refusal on its own.

Yes

Schedule 1(1) Character of the area.

The proposed signage will be unlikely to be incompatible with the desired character of the locality. However refer to comments addressing RMS’ concerns later in this report. The subject site will be visible from along the Pacific Highway to the east, but its visual impact will be minimal.

There is no identifiable theme for outdoor advertising in the area.

 

Yes

Schedule 1(2) Special areas.

The proposed signage does not detract from any areas of environmental or cultural importance. There are no such areas in direct proximity to the subject land.

Yes

Schedule 1(3) Views and vistas.

 

The proposed site signage does not obscure or compromise any important existing or potential views or view corridors.

Most of the external signage

is located on the building or fuel canopy and does not protrude above the structure on which it is located. A 7.15m free standing pylon sign is proposed adjacent to eastern boundary of the site however it does not reduce the quality of vistas or dominate the skyline.

The proposed signage will not unduly obscure any other advertising signage on any adjoining development within the precinct.

Yes

Schedule 1(4) Streetscape, setting or landscape.

 

The proposed scale,

proportion and form of

signage are appropriate for the streetscape given it directly addresses a collector road and the Pacific Highway.

The setbacks from the carriageways of both thoroughfares are proportional.

The proposed signage will

contribute to the visual interest of the area and appropriately identify the user of the site.

The proposal does not screen unsightliness, as the site is currently vacant.

The proposed signage will not significantly protrude above other signs within the locality.

Yes

Schedule 1(5) Site and building.

 

The signage satisfactorily integrates with the built form and site characteristics.

The proposed signage does not detract from important features of the site or the proposed building.

The placement of signage is

considered the most

appropriate given the building siting, access points, car parking and landscape elements. It also enhances the identity of the site and promotes the precinct.

Yes

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

The proposed signage includes elements of appropriately illuminated signage. This also comprises logos and international symbols representing facilities and services offered.

Yes

Schedule 1(7) Illumination.

 

The signage would be illuminated at appropriate LUX levels so to not result in unacceptable glare. The lighting would be designed and installed in accordance with relevant

Australian Standards. The illuminated signage will not provide a significant safety concern for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft which would warrant refusal on its own.

The proposed illuminated signage will not be directly visible from any surrounding residences. The signs would be illuminated at night during operational hours. There is no curfew in place.

Yes

Schedule 1(7) Safety.

The proposed signage will not reduce road safety.

Sightlines to and from the site will not be affected and there will be no cause of distraction for drivers.

The proposed signage will not reduce existing safety for pedestrians and cyclists. All signage is contained wholly within the site and not within the road or footpath.

The proposed signage does not obscure sightlines from public areas.

Yes

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

·     Clause 101, refers to assessment of access, traffic and parking impacts addressed later in this report. The development is of a type which is not sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions from the adjoining Pacific Highway and would be unlikely to result in smoke and dust to affect the adjoining Pacific Highway.

·     Clause 104(3)(b)(ii) and (iii), the DA has been referred to the NSW Roads and Maritime Service (RMS). The RMS’ advice and other matters requiring consideration are considered in the assessment of access, traffic and parking impacts addressed later in this report.  A copy of the RMS advice is attached to this report.

 

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

The proposal is considered inconsistent with the LEP having regard to the following:

·     Clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned IN1 general industry.

1.     

2.    The following landuses in the LEP are relevant to determine and characterise the proposed use:

3.     

service station means a building or place used for the sale by retail of fuels and lubricants for motor vehicles, whether or not the building or place is also used for any one or more of the following:

(a)  the ancillary sale by retail of spare parts and accessories for motor vehicles,

(b)  the cleaning of motor vehicles,

(c)  installation of accessories,

(d)  inspecting, repairing and servicing of motor vehicles (other than body building, panel beating, spray painting, or chassis restoration),

(e)  the ancillary retail selling or hiring of general merchandise or services or both.

 

transport depot means a building or place used for the parking or servicing of motor powered or motor drawn vehicles used in connection with a business, industry, shop or passenger or freight transport undertaking.

 

truck depot means a building or place used for the servicing and parking of trucks, earthmoving machinery and the like.

 

highway service centre means a building or place used to provide refreshments and vehicle services to highway users. It may include any one or more of the following:

(a)  a restaurant or cafe,

(b)  take away food and drink premises,

(c)  service stations and facilities for emergency vehicle towing and repairs,

(d)  parking for vehicles,

(e)  rest areas and public amenities.

4.     

5.    The Applicant has submitted that the proposal is best characterised as a ‘service station’ and contends that the new service station will result in the creation of a new business enterprise within the existing Sancrox and Fernbank Park Employment Lands precincts.

6.     

7.    Specifically, the Applicant has provided the following justification:

8.     

The predominant purpose of the proposed service station is to provide facilities for the sale of fuels, lubricants and motor accessories to the surrounding industrial developments in both the Sancrox and Fernbank Park Employment Land precincts.

Most importantly, the proposed development does not include a restaurant, fast food shop or takeaway hot food facilities. As an ancillary use, the service station will sell hot and cold drinks and prepackaged snack foods, and:

·        The service station will not be directly accessible from the Pacific Highway (a classified road);

·        The service station has not been designed to address the Pacific Highway;

·        The use of the service station is not likely to be impacted on by traffic noise and vibrations; and

·        The proposed development will not require significant excavations on adjacent to the Pacific Highway road corridor.

9.     

10.  During the assessment of the DA, the following additional information was requested however a response has unfortunately not been provided from the Applicant:

 

1.   The permissibility of the proposed heavy vehicle driver amenities including designated parking areas (which appear to be for rest area purposes) under the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 has not been addressed in the submitted information. Initial concern is raised that this use is beyond what could be considered a Service Station and could be best characterised as a highway service centre.

2.   The building and pylon signage location fronting the Pacific Highway, 24 hours operation, number of petrol bowsers and general design layout suggests intended retail focus beyond what is detailed that the predominant purpose is to provide for a service for the Sancrox and Fernbank Park Employment precincts. Details should be provided to show why the service station is unable to have an alternative design. The proposed Wildbean Café appears to also have capacity as a cafe to retail food for main meals and seating contrary to the details submitted.

11.   

12.  In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the IN1 zone landuse table, it is considered that the proposal is best characterised as a ‘highway service centre’ for the following reasons:

13.   

1.   The submitted Traffic Impact analysis anticipates that the development will primarily serve passing traffic on the Highway and not the industrial precinct.

2.   The number of petrol bowsers (6) for light vehicles/general retail suggests an intended retail focus beyond the Sancrox and Fernbank Park Employment precincts.

3.   The building and pylon signage have been sited directly adjoining the Pacific Highway and will primarily attract and serve the travelling public.

4.   The proposed hours of operation are 24 hours 7 days per week.

5.   The proposed Wildbean Café appears to have capacity as a cafe to retail food for main meals and seating contrary to the details submitted. Justification as to how this component of the service station is ancillary to the primary service station landuse has not been provided.

6.   The proposed heavy vehicle driver amenities including designated parking areas (which appear to be for rest area purposes) and separate fuelling area in addition to the service station are related to but not ancillary to the service station.

7.   There appears to be capacity on the site to expand the facility. Given the configuration of the proposed development, it is unlikely that future use of the site could be for an unrelated development.

14.           

8.   The objectives of the IN1 zone are as follows:

§ To provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses.

§ To encourage employment opportunities.

§ To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

§ To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

§ To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of workers in the area.

In accordance with Clause 2.3(2), the Applicant has stated the following with regard to the objectives of the IN1 zone:

15.   

The service station will encourage employment opportunities; will not have any noticeable adverse impacts on other developments in the precinct; will provide services and facilities that support industrial land and landuses; and will provide facilities to meet the day-to-day needs of workers in both the Sancrox and Fernbank Park Employment Lands precincts.

16.   

The Roads and Maritime Service indicated in their 2014 policy review of highway service centres along the Pacific Highway that there were sufficient services to cater for current and any growth of traffic north of Hexham to the Queensland border for the foreseeable future. There is a nominated highway service centre site in the Section 117 directions issued by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment at 1179 Oxley Highway, Sancrox on the north-bound side of the Pacific Highway and Oxley Highway interchange. Whilst this site has not yet been rezoned, there is a significant risk that the subject proposal would have a negative economic impact on this future planned facility. This would be inconsistent with the objectives of the IN1 zone and Section 117 directions.

17.   

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

·        Clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 7.4 m which complies with the standard height limit of 14.5m applying to the site.

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

·        Clause 5.10 – Heritage. The site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage items or sites of significance.

·        Clause 7.7 – The proposal would be unlikely to result in any identifiable impact on airspace operations.

·        Clause 7.8 - This proposal would be unlikely to be impacted upon by aircraft noise operations.

·        Clause 7.13, satisfactory arrangements would be in place for provision of essential services including water supply, electricity supply, sewer infrastructure, stormwater drainage and suitable road access to service the development.

 

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

No draft instruments apply to the site.

 

(iii)    any Development Control Plan in force:

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

DCP 2013: Chapter 3.5 - Industrial Development

DCP Objective

Development Provisions

Proposed

Complies

3.5.3.1

Minimum setbacks are provided as follows:

· 10m from a classified road;

· 7.6m from any other road boundary;

· 3m from any secondary road frontage.

Minimum setbacks complied with.

Yes

3.5.3.2

Elevations of building which are visible from a public road, reserve or adjacent or adjoining residential areas are to be constructed using:

· brick, masonry, pre-coloured metal cladding, or

· appropriately finished ‘tilt-slab’ concrete; or

· a combination of a number of these materials.

Elevations design and finishes acceptable.

Yes

Large unrelieved expanses of wall or building mass are not favoured, and as such should be broken up by the use of suitable building articulation, fenestration or alternative architectural enhancements.

The proposal does not have any large unrelieved expanses of walls.

N/A

3.5.3.3

Material storage/work areas and volumes to be provided with application.

Minor storage likely required.

Yes

Open work and storage areas to be located at rear of premises and screen from view by landscaping and/or fencing minimum 2m high.

Storage area located at rear of building.

Yes

3.5.3.4

Detailed landscaping plan submitted.

Detailed landscaping plan submitted.

Yes

Landscaped strip 3m wide for 2/3 of each road frontage.

Landscaped strip provided

Yes

No fencing in front setback unless for display items. High quality fencing and landscaping.

No fencing proposed

N/A

3.5.3.5

An onsite recreation area is provided for staff that:

· Includes seating, tables and rubbish bin.

· If outside, is adequately protected from the weather

· Is safely accessible to all staff.

· Is separate private from public areas.

· Is located away from noisy or odorous activities.

Staff area provided.

Yes

3.5.3.6

Provide onsite facilities for changing, showering and secure bike storage.

Staff amenities provided.

Yes

3.5.3.7

Development complies with NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

No potential adverse noise issues identified.

Yes

Building openings located to minimise noise impacts if within 400m of residential zone.

N/A

 

External plant such as generators, air conditioning plant and the like, should be enclosed to minimise noise nuisance and located away from residences.

No potential adverse noise issues identified.

Yes

External and security lighting should be directed and shielded to avoid light spillage to adjoining residential areas.

No potential light spill issues identified however the development would need to be conditioned to comply with the requirements of the Australian Standard for control of obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting if it was approved.

Yes

Driveways should be arranged or screened to avoid headlight glare on residential windows.

N/A

 

3.5.3.8

Office space ancillary to the industrial use is permissible with consent, subject to satisfaction of the following matters:

· That the office component of a proposed development is ancillary to the functions carried out in the factory, warehouse or other industrial use.

· That the office area is not leased to a separate company or entity.

· That parking facilities are adequate to cater for the size of the office development.

Ancillary staff space proposed

Yes

3.5.3.9

The site should be serviced by reticulated water (and dual reticulation where this is available), sewer and telecommunications.

Site is serviced with essential services.

Yes

3.5.3.10

Garbage storage areas are not visible from a public place.

Garbage storage areas at the rear of the building

Yes

3.5.3.11

Stormwater management strategy prepared.

Stormwater strategy submitted

Yes

Rainwater tank and dual reticulation for non-potable uses on the site.

Refer to water supply comments later in this report.

Yes

 

DCP 2013: General Provisions

DCP Objective

Development Provisions

Proposed

Complies

2.2.2.1

 

 

 

 

 

Signs primarily identifying products or services are not acceptable, even where relating to products or services available on that site.

The signage proposed

relates only to the main products sold at the site

characteristic of a service station, and does not include any non-related services, unassociated products, 3rd party promotion or additional business merchandise advertising.

Yes

On-premise signs should not project above or to the side of building facades

The signage does not project above or to the side of building facades.

Yes

2.2.2.2

Where there is potential for light spill from signage in a non residential zone adjoining or adjacent to residential development, illuminated signage is to be fitted with a time switch to dim by 50% or turn off the light by 11pm each night, depending on the nature of the development.

There is no potential light spill identified.

Yes

2.7.2.2

Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline:

· Casual surveillance and sightlines

· Land use mix and activity generators

· Definition of use and ownership

· Lighting

· Way finding

· Predictable routes and entrapment locations

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.

Appropriate external lighting can be provided.

Yes

2.3.3.1

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

Cut and fill including stormwater facilities is acceptable.

Yes

2.6.3.1

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

 

 

2.4.3

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

Refer to main body of report.

Yes

2.5.3.2

New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads. Existing accesses rationalised or removed where practical

Refer to traffic assessment details later in this report. The primary access points are proposed off a nominated sub-arterial road being a section of Sancrox Road.

No

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

Driveways limited

Yes

2.5.3.3

Off-street parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1. Reduction possible if supported by parking demand study.

Parking provision numbers comply - refer to comments later in this report addressing parking.

Yes

2.5.3.5

On-street parking permitted subject to justification.

None proposed

N/A

2.5.3.6

On-street parking includes streetscape improvements.

None proposed

N/A

2.5.3.7

Customer parking to be easily accessible.

Refer to traffic assessment details later in this report.

No

Way finding signs provided for parking areas.

Capable providing way finding signs

Yes - capable

Parking in accordance with AS 2890.1.

Parking design is capable of compliance with detailed requirements of AS 2890.1.

Yes

2.5.3.8

Aged and disabled persons and persons wheeling prams or trolleys are provided with suitable access and parking in accordance with AS 2890.1 and AS 2890.2.

Capable of compliance with access requirements

Yes

2.5.3.9

Bicycle and motorcycle parking considered and designed generally in accordance with the principles of AS 2890.3

No specific parking identified.

No. However, insufficient weight to be considered as a reason for refusal of the DA. Could be conditioned.

2.5.3.11

Section 94 contributions

Refer to main body of report.

 

2.5.3.12 and 2.5.3.13

Landscaping of parking areas

Landscaping satisfactory

Yes

2.5.3.14

Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified

Sealed driveways proposed

Yes

2.5.3.15

Driveway grades for first 6m of ‘parking area’ shall be 5% grade

(Note AS/NZS 2890.1 permits steeper grades)

Driveway grades capable of complying with Council standards

Yes

2.5.3.16

Transitional grades min. 2m length

2.5.3.17

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

Parking areas to be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface with appropriate stormwater management proposed.

Yes

Vehicle washing facilities – grassed area etc available.

N/A

 

No direct discharge to K&G or swale drain

Car parking areas proposed to be drained to swales, bio retention, rain gardens and infiltration areas.

Refer to stormwater comments later in this report.

Yes

2.5.3.18

Car parking areas drained to swales, bio retention, rain gardens and infiltration areas

2.5.3.19

Off street commercial vehicles facilities are provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.2

Off street commercial vehicles facilities are capable of being provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.2

Yes

Loading bays will be provided in accordance with the following requirements;

•  Minimum dimensions to be 3.5m wide x 6m long. (This may increase according to the size and type of vehicle).

•  Vertical clearance shall be a minimum of 5m.

•  Adequate provision shall be made on-site for the loading, unloading and manoeuvring of delivery vehicles in an area separate from any customer car parking area.

•  A limited number of ‘employee only’ car parking spaces may be combined with loading facilities.

•  Loading areas shall be designed to accommodate appropriate turning paths for the maximum design vehicle using the site.

•  Vehicles are to be capable of manoeuvring in and out of docks without causing conflict with other street or on-site traffic.

•  Vehicles are to stand wholly within the site during such operations.

The proposed development, due to its nature requires also a small-dedicated loading and unloading bay for servicing the ancillary products sold. Sufficient space has been designed and provided for behind the service station building, adjacent to the enclosed service yard to enable small rigid body trucks to access the development.

Fuel deliveries will be via an articulated vehicle that will be positioned below the truck canopy when filling takes place.

Yes

For external bays, one bay is required for 500m² of floor space or 1000m² of site area.

 

Commercial development having a floor space less than 500m² need not provide a loading bay.

 

Other commercial development shall provide one loading bay for the first 1,000m² floor space and one additional bay for each additional 2,000m².

 

2.5.3.20

The location and design of loading bays should integrate into the overall design of the building and car parking areas.

The location and design of loading bays integrate into the overall design of the building and car parking areas.

Yes

Where visible from the public domain, loading bays are located behind the building.

Loading bays are located behind the building.

Yes

Where loading bays are located close to a sensitive land use, adequate visual and acoustic screening is provided.

N/A

 

2.5.3.21

Plans to confirm vehicular access, circulation and manoeuvring in accordance with AUSTROADS and AS 2890.

Refer to comments later in this report addressing traffic and access.

No

Adequate area provided for loading/unloading and manoeuvring of B-Doubles where access is available from approved B-Double routes.

Refer to comments later in this report addressing traffic and access.

No

Ingress and egress in a forward direction.

Ingress and egress in a forward direction.

Yes

Driveways >6m from tangent point of kerb radius and >1.5m from common side boundary with another lot.

N/A

 

Driveways not located within intersection or restricted areas, and adequate sight distance available.

Refer to comments later in this report addressing traffic and access.

No

 

DCP 2011: Sancrox Employment Lands

DCP Objective

Development Provisions

Proposed

Complies

OB3

A.   Landscape plantings and street trees are to be in accordance with Council’s Street Planting List and Aus-Spec Design Specifications.

Landscape plan complies

Yes

OB4

B.   A Stormwater Management Strategy prepared by a certified practicing engineer in accordance with Council’s Aus-Spec Design Specifications and Martens Concept Water Cycle Management Strategy (Apr 2010) at Appendix 3 to the Sancrox Employment Lands LES.

A Stormwater Strategy has been submitted which is addressed later in this report.

Yes

OB6

C.   All industrial lots are to be provided with on-site rain gardens at a minimum size of 2.5% of the gross lot area. Rain gardens shall be designed and constructed as per Council’s Aus-Spec Design Specifications and Martens Concept Water Cycle Management Strategy.

Car parking areas proposed to be drained to swales, bio retention, rain gardens and infiltration areas.

Refer to stormwater comments later in this report.

Yes

OB6

D.   All industrial lots are to be provided with a minimum 10 KL rainwater tank. All roof water shall be directed to the rainwater tank and tank overflows directed to the lot rain garden.

A rain water tank is not proposed to be provided. Refer to detailed comments addressing stormwater later in this report.

No. However, insufficient weight to be considered as a reason for refusal of the DA. Could be conditioned.

OB6

E.   All site discharge, including hardstand areas and outflows from the on-site rain garden is to be directed to the on-site detention.

Car parking areas proposed to be drained to swales, bio retention, rain gardens and infiltration areas.

Refer to stormwater comments later in this report.

Yes

OB19

F.    Buildings on future lots at the Pacific Highway/ Sancrox Road intersection shall be designed by a suitably qualified architect to create a distinctive and recognisable gateway entry to the Employment Lands. Detailed design plans, including proposed colours for buildings and signage are to accompany the DA for approval.

The proposed design has adopted a variety of use of external materials, texture and colours to ensure.

The elevations of the proposed building have some architectural interest.

The proposal incorporates generous (and conforming) setbacks to Sancrox Road and the Pacific

Highway.

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:

There is a Sancrox Employment Land Road Construction Planning Agreement in place relating to the site. The obligations of the Planning Agreement are capable of being complied with and could be conditioned if the development were to be approved.

 

iv)     any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

 

N/A

 

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

No Coastal Zone Management Plan applies to the subject site.

 

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

 

Context and setting

The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse visual impacts to existing adjoining properties or the public domain.

The proposal does not adequately address the intent of the planning controls for the area in that the proposal is not a permissible landuse.

The proposal would not have significant adverse impacts on any existing view sharing.

The proposal would not have any identifiable significant adverse lighting impacts.

There are no significant adverse privacy impacts.

There are no adverse overshadowing impacts.

 

Subdivision Context

The development is proposed on the northern side of Sancrox Road west of the Pacific Highway, on proposed Lots 1 & 2 of an industrial subdivision approved as part of DA 2012/305 (within former Lot 2, DP 22740).  On 14 March 2017, Council approved a construction certificate for subdivision works to service proposed Lots 1 & 2 and to construct sewer (pump station) infrastructure required to service the development.

 

Within the area, Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is currently upgrading the Pacific Highway and has acquired part of former Lot 2, DP 22740.  Relevant acquisition plans related to the land include DP 1191370 and DP 1228060.  Currently the acquired lands are in Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) ownership.  It is understood that eventually acquired lands adjacent to the Pacific Highway will be under the care and control of the RMS, with Sancrox Road and the newly formed Orleans Avenue west of the site to be under the care and control of Council.

 

Roads

18.  The site is bounded by the Pacific Highway to the east, Sancrox Road to the south and Orleans Avenue (a newly formed and proposed industrial access road) to the west and north.  To facilitate Pacific Highway upgrades, the RMS has acquired lands along several frontages of the site including the Pacific Highway, Sancrox Road and Orleans Avenue.  Currently, acquisition lands (defined in DP 1228060) are held in RMS ownership and any proposed works over these lands to access Sancrox Road will require RMS consent. To date evidence of owner’s consent has not been provided and the RMS has requested additional information from the Applicant as discussed under the Traffic and Transport heading below.

19.   

20. 

21.  Figure: current cadastral boundaries of subject site and roads (shown orange) with indicative boundary (shown red) of proposed Lots 1 and 2 (DA 2012/305)

22.   

23.  Sancrox Road is Council owned and maintained, with an 11m wide formation currently within a 20m wide road reserve to be widened with dedication of the RMS acquired lands. The recently upgraded road formation includes barrier (SA) type kerb and gutter on both sides.

24.   

25.  Orleans Avenue is currently formed along the western boundary of the site as a 12m wide industrial road including asphalt shoulders. The road reserve has not yet been dedicated to Council. Orleans Avenue is proposed under DA 2012/305 to be extended to the northwest of the site to facilitate access to the industrial subdivision lands to the north. This DA does not currently propose direct access to or from Orleans Ave.

26.   

27. 

28.  Figure: Aerial photograph taken 26 Jul 2016 of subject site and new roads (credit Nearmap)

29.   

30.  Traffic Impact Assessment

The Applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Transport and Traffic Planning Associates (TTPA) dated October 2016. The TIA reviewed:

·          existing (2016) and future (2026) road network conditions;

·          access, servicing and circulation for the site;

·          site trip generation and distribution in the AM and PM conditions; and

·          site parking.

 

The report noted existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) provided by RMS as follows, but did not disclose the year(s) the data were taken which is important in understanding the operating condition of the intersection at the time, and in estimating the extent to which data may have increased (e.g. due to regional growth).

Anticipated future AADTs (in 2026, 10 years post-development) were calculated by RMS for the Pacific Highway Upgrade Project and presented in the TIA.

The report asserts that the proposed access location “will be a significant distance away from the offload of the highway… and there will be excellent sight distances available.” Assessing officers disagree with these statements, as discussed in the following section, as they are issues contributing to unacceptable safety impacts.

 

Swept path analysis for large trucks using the site was provided with the report and DA drawings and indicates that onsite manoeuvring envelopes have been designed consistent with AS/NZS 2890.

 

TTPA note in the report that the RMS formula of 0.04 x Site Area results in an inappropriate number because of the large area of the proposed site. This is a source of uncertainty. The Applicant instead refers to proprietary data held from a number of surveys of existing service stations located on regional highways to derive an indicative generation rate of 120-140 vtph. The validity of the Applicant’s trip generation rates of 120-140 trips cannot be verified as the source survey and calculations are not disclosed, preventing an assessment of the robustness of data or a comparison of the survey site’s characteristics with the proposed site.

 

The report continues with projected distribution of peak hour traffic generation rates in the order of 120 in the AM and 100 in the PM peaks, increasing to 160 and 140 respectively in the future scenario. Comparison with RMS data has been undertaken in the following section of the report, but here it is noted that the vast majority (90%) of movements are projected to originate directly to and from the highway on- and off-ramps. TTPA’s analysis therefore anticipates that the development will primarily serve passing traffic on the Highway and not the industrial precinct, which is an important consideration in the following section.

 

 

 

31.  Response to TIA by Road Authority

32.  Council is the local roads Authority for Sancrox Road but referral to the RMS is required by Schedule 3 of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. Details of the Development Application were referred to RMS on 21 October 2016. RMS raised comments (on 23 November 2016 in a response letter to Council) that the TIA had not adequately addressed a number of concerns, and these are numbered and summarised below along with Council comments as follows:

33.   

1.         The primary function of the interchange is the safety and efficiency of access to the Pacific Highway, and these functions are not to be compromised.

34.   

35.  Council comment: Sancrox Road serves as a primary road link to and from the Pacific Highway for the industrial precinct and land to the west. As such, Sancrox Road’s function in the vicinity of the highway off-ramp is primarily for the movement of vehicles to and from the locality, and direct access to adjoining land serves as a secondary function.

36.   

37.  Service stations in proximity to highways are high-turnover facilities. The Lot 2 access point approximately 100m west of the Pacific Highway ramps was originally envisaged for an Industrial facility, which is characterised by lower traffic volumes. The proposal is required to locate its entry / egress driveways with maximum regard for the safety and efficiency of the ramps, which drivers will be transitioning to and from at high speeds and with varying reaction times.

S101 of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 requires the consent authority not to approve development on land with frontage to a classified road (in this case a State Road / highway) unless:

·        vehicular access to the land is not provided by a road other than the classified road where practicable, and

·        “the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of the design of the vehicular access to the land…”

The proposal is likely to adversely affect the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road. The highway on- and off- ramps are considered integral to the State Road. Given the site’s frontage to Orleans Ave there is no reason, except for a marginal increase in customer travel time, that the site layout cannot be reconfigured to directly access Orleans Ave utilising the new interchange roundabout on Sancrox Drive to satisfy the above provisions. This would also confer other advantages which are discussed under point 7 below.

38.   

2.         Highway Service Centres (as distinct from Service Stations) are a prohibited use in the IN1 zone and are not consistent with the Minister’s Section 117 Direction 5.4 (except where located in accordance with that Direction).

39.   

40.  Council comment: the concern shared by RMS and Council staff is that the proposal is targeting passing trade using the highway without providing all of the necessary facilities to cater for such high volumes and mixed traffic types, which is the reason that special provisions for Highway Service Centres are assumed to have been put in place at a State level, and  not in accordance with the intent of the planning provisions in terms of permissibility and location.

41.  Highway Service Centres typically require designated interchange access points which have been purpose-designed to cater for high traffic movements and minimise conflicts. Further, they are required by RMS standards to provide large numbers of onsite parking bays for trucks (in the order of 20 dedicated B-double bays at a minimum). These facilities are not available, with a high potential for passing highway truck traffic would utilise the proposed service centre regardless, pushing the problem of onsite parking provision off-site to the public road reserve, where the primary concern is safety and efficiency of traffic accessing the highway. Highway Service Centres are prohibited in the IN1 zone under the LEP.

42.  It is incumbent on the proponent to demonstrate that the DA is consistent with a Service Station use that is targeting local traffic (i.e. supporting the industrial precinct) rather than a Highway Service Centre. The proposed site access locations and internal circulation layout suggest the focus of highway custom/trade.

43.   

3.       “The proposed hours of operation should be consistent with the proposed Service Station use and its ancillary nature to surrounding Industrial land uses.”

44.   

45.  Council comment: The surrounding industrial land uses are likely to operate in daytime hours only, 5 to 7 days per week. The facility is proposed to be operated on a 24/7 basis and its primary revenue stream would therefore likely be passing highway trade. Because the proposal seeks to operate outside of normal working hours its primary purpose is not considered to be supporting the industrial precinct. Instead it falls within the definition of a Highway Service Centre, which is prohibited as discussed under point 2 above.

46.   

4.         Proposed Lots 1 and 2 should be consolidated to enable on-site infrastructure to be located to optimise the operation of the development.

47.   

48.  Council comment: If the development were approved, both proposed Lots 1 and 2 would be integral to each other in terms of ownership, truck parking demand and onsite manoeuvring, and would need to be consolidated into one lot prior to any Occupation Certificate. As a consequence of consolidation, a more optimised access and circulation layout can be achieved to satisfy the traffic safety and efficiency concerns held by Council and the RMS.

 

5.         Heavy vehicle circulation layout is not typical. There is no heavy vehicle parking area downstream of the refuelling point. Trucks typically refuel and then park up for refreshment. Forwards-only movements and manoeuvring in accordance with AS 2890 are required.

49.   

50.  Council comment: The onsite circulation scheme in its current form has segregated truck and car movements on entry to the site which is a desirable outcome for onsite safety. However, the scheme is considered deficient for a number of reasons (which could be mitigated for minor additional cost) including:

·        Truck movements exiting the site must cross the path of cars entering and exiting the site,

·        Locations and operation of the access points. There are viable opportunities to reduce even further the number of onsite and offsite conflicting turning movements, and vastly reduce the potential for offsite queueing, by using the new Sancrox Rd / Orleans Ave roundabout. These are discussed further at point 7 below,

·        Confused paths for staff accessing parking at the rear of the building, who would be required to use the truck entrance or drive against the one-way scheme (decreasing traffic safety),

·        Confused paths for customer cars, who must first turn across exiting traffic (including trucks) to reach the refuelling point, parking and shops, and then turn around 270 degrees toward the egress driveway (decreasing traffic safety),

·        Parking spaces for 6 to 7 B-doubles are proposed before the refuelling point, rather than after it and in proximity to the shop and facilities, increasing the likelihood of trucks reversing onsite or exiting onto the public road to re-enter the site to find parking, which are poor outcomes for public safety, and

·        There are vast spaces of vacant land between circulation roadways which should be used to provide minimum facilities and reduce traffic conflicts, or provide more useable envelopes for future development.

51.   

52.  For these reasons Council staff requested the layout be revised, and the Applicant declined to address these issues.

53.   

6.         The pylon sign orientation will limit visibility to traffic travelling on Sancrox Road and should be relocated to the southern frontage and oriented east-west rather than north-south, consistent with the local service centre use. The proposal is to also comply with SEPP 64 and the Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines.

 

Council comment: the pylon sign is considered to be primarily targeting passing trade using the highway, which is consistent with the prohibited Highway Service Centre land use. The amendments recommended by the RMS would assist in demonstrating that the primary customer base is likely to be from the industrial precinct, more consistent with a local service station, as well as reducing distraction hazard for drivers using the Pacific Highway and ramps.

 

7.         The TIA by TTPA is not considered to adequately address the road safety and traffic impacts of the proposed development on the Pacific Highway and interchange. In particular:

a)      Peak hour traffic generation rates of 120-140 trips are based on unidentified surveys and the rates provided by the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments are not considered. TTPA has previously been advised by RMS that this approach is not appropriate. The rates based on Gross Floor Area (GFA) in the Guide suggest a significantly higher PM peak hour range should be adopted.

b)      The proposed access driveways to Sancrox Road will generate turning conflicts with potential on- and off-site queuing impacts on public road intersections and the highway off-ramp.

54.   

55.  Council comment:

56.  The RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (2002) and the later publication Trip Generation Surveys – Service Stations – Analysis Report (2013) provide trip generation rate guidelines for service stations as follows, noting that they vary widely depending on the site. Peak hour rates had the strongest correlation between sites and are given as a function of the total site area A(S) and convenience store floor areas A(F). Site area is calculated at 1,800 sqm excluding circulation roadways and including the building, car parking and refuelling canopies. A(F) = 30 sqm of café seating was measured from the proposed plans.

57.  The daily trip generation rate varies depending on operating hours, with the 2002 report giving factors of 17 and 19 times the peak hour rate for fuel sales and 24 hour convenience stores respectively. The 2013 report correlates total daily vehicle trips and AM peak hour trips with the number of service channels X2. The number of service channels proposed with this DA is 6 for cars (by comparison with the sites surveyed in the report) and the RMS report makes no mention of truck pump points so those have not been counted for the purposes of traffic estimation.

58.   

59.  A range of likely traffic rates are tabulated below for the purpose of comparison and understanding the sensitivity of the proposal.

60.   

61.  Table: Trip generation from RMS reports

62.  RMS Guide 2002

63.   

64.  PM peak hr trips

65.  0.04 A(S) + 0.3 A(F)

66.   

67.  Using 1,800 sqm site area

68.  0.04 x 1800 + 0.3 x 30

69.  = 81 trips PM peak hour

70.  Daily trips

71.  17x or 19x PM peak

72.  17 x 81 = 1400 trips per day

73.   

74.   

75.  RMS Surveys 2013

76.   

77.  PM peak hr trips

78.  0.0205 A(S) + 88.52

79.   

80.  Using 1,800 sqm site area

81.  0.0205 x 1800 + 88.52

82.  = 125 trips PM peak hour

83.  AM peak hr trips

84.  0.28 X22 + 14 X2 + 16.7

85.  0.28 x 36 + 14 x 6 + 16.7

86.  = 111 trips AM peak hour

87.   

88.  While the calculations given by the RMS Guide approximately accord with TTPA’s own proprietary data, the sensitivity of the RMS methods to site area may be more appropriate to denser city sites such as those the data was obtained from. For this site the assumptions taken in measurement of site area resulted in large swings in magnitude of traffic estimates.

89.   

90.  The TIA provided existing traffic counts on Sancrox Road of around 2,000 vehicles per day (vpd). Projected 2026 AADT was estimated to be approximately 1,600 vpd on the Pacific Highway northbound off-ramp (to Sancrox Road westbound), and 2,000 vpd over the highway overpass.

91.   

92.  If 1,400 daily trips are generated by the proposed service centre (as calculated above) with 50% comes from the Pacific Highway northbound traffic (as a conservative analysis), Sancrox Road would have a potential increase in traffic adjacent to the site of 700 daily trips (350 inbound and 350 outbound).  This would equate to nearly 40% overall increase over 2026 modelled Sancrox Road ramp volumes (700 / (1,653 + 87)).  Currently the TIA shows approximately 90% of development traffic coming to/from the Pacific Highway northbound traffic, creating a substantially greater impact to Sancrox Road than calculated above. 

93.   

94.  With such large change to Sancrox Road traffic, data needs to be validated to ensure development impacts do not have a detrimental effect to the safe and efficient operation of the Pacific Highway interchange.  Further detail of traffic estimates, capacity analysis and intersection operations along Sancrox Road west of Pacific Highway are required.

 

95.  Of major concern are the proposed locations of access points to the public road network. Primary car access to the site is located only 100m west of the highway ramps, creating a westbound right turn movement across traffic into site (with potential to queue within the road). This segment of road is expected to have frequent car and truck movements once the precinct is developed because it functions as a leg of the interchange allowing northbound Pacific Highway traffic to change to southbound or vice versa, using the highway overpass. Refer to the Figure below which illustrates the number of movement conflicts the proposed access arrangements would generate.

 

Figure: Illustration of conflicting traffic movements at four-way intersections as a result of development as proposed

 

i.     The total available Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) from the highway northbound off-ramp to a vehicle waiting to enter the site is estimated at 100m, which using AUSTROADS calculations is the SSD required for a truck travelling at 60kph with slow reaction time. Such a driver is transitioning from low-engagement highway driving to a congested industrial area with numerous distractions and signage, compounding the risk.

 

ii.     Of key note is the requirement for vehicles turning right into the site to yield to oncoming traffic, resulting in queuing within Sancrox Road backing up towards the off-ramp, further increasing the risk of collision by drivers exiting the highway.

 

iii.    Additionally, fixing the access location of the service station so close to the ramps compromises the RMS’ and Council’s ability to reconfigure and upgrade the interchange in future, for example in providing additional lanes or turning movements to resolve deteriorating levels of service caused by increasing traffic. Similar issues have been encountered in recent years at the interchange of the Pacific Highway and Oxley Highway.

 

iv.   One such future upgrade may include the kerbing of the median within Sancrox Road to limit right turn movements across traffic and require them to continue west to the roundabout, for safety and efficiency reasons. However, if the current access locations are approved, a future median kerb would force left-in, left-out movements for the users of the service station, with all exiting users being required to enter the Pacific Highway northbound on-ramp without the opportunity to turn around until Hastings River Drive, 3km to the north. This would be a significant disadvantage for the site and would be very difficult for the Road Authority to implement.

 

v.    A better outcome for management of the Pacific Highway interchange while reducing the risk of collisions could be achieved by utilising the new Sancrox Road / Orleans Ave roundabout for circulation to the site as illustrated in the Figure below.

 

Figure: Illustration of possible alternative access locations to minimise traffic impacts on Pacific Highway interchange, with turning movements shown in red

 

vi.   The risk of collisions presented by vehicles queuing to enter or exit the site, and vehicles turning across oncoming traffic, is therefore unacceptably high given the various options for the site to mitigate this risk by relocating the accesses to Orleans Ave.

96.   

8.       “The proposed development is not to generate an increase in discharge to the Pacific Highway stormwater drainage system.”

97.   

Council comment: This standard requirement can be addressed using on-site stormwater detention facilities. Refer to Stormwater heading below.

98.   

9.         A sewer pump station in the southeast corner of Lot 2 relies on direct access to the Pacific Highway on-ramp. Alternative access should be provided (for example by provision of a Right of Access over Lot 2).

 

Council comment: Refer to the Sewer heading below for controls to this effect.

99.   

100.       In summary, the RMS’ request for additional information is supported by Council staff due to concerns around impacts on traffic safety, efficiency and operations, particularly with regard to the high risk and importance of the Pacific Highway. Traffic and engineering comments along with the RMS letter with regard to the proposed development were sent to the Applicant and to date no response addressing these concerns has been received by the Council.

101.        

102.       Inadequate information has been provided to demonstrate that the development will not create an unsafe traffic environment on Sancrox Road and impacting the Pacific Highway due to access conflicts and queuing, and nor have appropriate traffic safety solutions been provided. An acceptable solution is considered likely to be achievable, but would require significant rework of the site layout to be undertaken by the Applicant.

 

Parking

For parking rates, the RMS Guide gives a rate of 5 spaces per 100sqm of convenience store GFA, and 15 per 100sqm of restaurant GFA. This equates to a recommended total of:

 

(5 x 320 / 100) + (15 x 30 / 100) = 16 + 5 = 21 spaces

 

Council’s DCP provides a rate of 1 per employee, plus 2 customers (minimum), plus 1 per 6 sqm of restaurant floor area. This results in a minimum of:

 

(1 x 2) + 2 + (1 x 30 / 6) = 2 + 2 + 5 = 9 spaces.

 

The Applicant has proposed 13 spaces, which meets the minimum DCP requirements.

 

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the development site has an existing sealed water service from the 300 PVC water main on the same side of Sancrox Road.

Final water service sizing would 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.

 

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site does not currently have a connection to sewer.

The proposed development must drain to an existing or proposed sewer manhole.

All-weather access to the Sewer Pump Station site must be made available to Council personal before, during and after construction.

A modified Sewer Pump Station site must be excised from this development area prior to or as part of this subdivision. In addition a five (5) metre wide Easement for Access and Services is to be provided from the pump station site across this development site to a point on Sancrox Road where access is possible to and from the pump station in both directions on Sancrox Road.

 

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the north (the rear) and is currently not serviced by piped infrastructure. Due to the low-lying position of the land within the Fernbank Creek catchment, and rural history, the parent subdivision proposal (DA 2012/305) included provision of a large swale along the western and northern boundaries of the lots. This is defined as the legal point of discharge for the development and a condition of consent, if the development was approved, would need to require construction and dedication  of this downstream system to Council from the parent subdivision (DA 2012/305) prior to any Occupation Certificate for the proposed development.

Drainage outlets from the development should be limited in number and located to minimise downstream impacts. Adequate scour protection would be a requirement and given the 2 hectare size of the combined lots may need to be extensively engineered.

A detailed site stormwater management plan would be required to be submitted for assessment with the Local Government Act S.68 application and prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate if the development was approved.

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

·        On site stormwater detention facilities. The peak outflow discharges from the development site as a result of the proposed works must not exceed the pre-development (green field) outflows. There is sufficient space within the site to accommodate these facilities and a concept design has been included with the DA.

·        Water quality controls due to the magnitude of hard surfaces at ground level and the type of development’s risk profile (vehicle trafficked, spills likely). The downstream treatment train will need to remove contaminants, impurities, nitrate and phosphate levels through progressive treatment devices to ensure the end of line site outflow meets the outcomes specified by Council’s AUS-SPEC D7.

·        As the two Lots are proposed to comprise one integral development, and stormwater drainage is likely to traverse the boundary, the lots shall be consolidated prior to Occupation Certificate to ensure no land use conflicts in future.

·        The natural topography drains through the southeast corner of the site, and with the Sancrox Road upgrade the RMS have constructed a pit and pipe drainage network in this area. Council has little information currently on these assets as handover has not yet occurred. The Applicant has shown the location of an easement on the DA plans passing to the east of the building. Any easement to drain water benefitting Council for the purpose of public road drainage shall be registered on the title prior to Occupation Certificate. If the pipes conveying flows from Sancrox Road to the swale along the northern boundary are not constructed as part of the RMS project, they will be an improvement benefitting the owner of proposed Lot 2 (by diverting surface runoff) and as such they would need to be constructed and funded by the landowner in connection with the development. Additionally, such a road drainage easement would need to be a minimum of 3m wide and designed to contain overland flows from the road during extreme storm events (those that exceed the capacity of the piped network or in case pipes become blocked). This may necessitate site regrading or widening of the easement, and no structures could be located within the site of the easement, to minimise risk of flooding damage and guarantee access by Council maintenance crews.

 

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site. Application would need to be made to the separate utility authorities to determine any specific requirements they may have in connection with the development.

 

Heritage

Following a site inspection (and a search of Council records), no known items of Aboriginal or European heritage significance exist on the property. No adverse impacts anticipated.

 

Other land resources

The site is within a developing industrial context and will not sterilise any significant mineral or agricultural resource.

 

Water cycle

At occupation stage, land can become contaminated from fuel leaks either above or below ground - fuel leak containment, loss monitoring, groundwater monitoring wells and surface bunding is required as a minimum. The forecourt area must drain (minimum 2% fall required) to dry sumps or be directed to the proposed “Pureceptor” for treatment prior to discharge to the SW system. Various special conditions recommended to ensure compliance if the development was approved.

The submitted information and plans propose to install various measures to prevent surface and ground water pollution. Compliance with the UPSS Regulation is required besides other requirements. A minimum 2% fall on the bunded under canopy forecourt areas is required. Conditions could be imposed to address specific requirements if the development was to be approved.

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 would be unlikely to result in any adverse impacts on the existing air quality or result in any pollution.

A standard precautionary site management condition could be imposed if the development was to be approved.

 

At Occupation stage it is proposed to install Stage 1 vapour recovery on the fuel lines and Stage 2 vapour recovery if required.

 

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.  Section 5A of the Act is considered to be satisfied.

The landscaping of the front setback areas comprises densely planted native groundcovers and small native shrubs in gardens beds. Around the car parking area, the landscaping comprises a number of native large trees to provide shade during the warm summer months. The perimeter landscaping of the facility will comprise corridors of buffer plantings including native trees, shrubs grasses and low maintenance groundcovers.

The tree and shrub species proposed to be used will comprise native plants endemic and/or compatible to the region.

 

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 Section J of the Building Code of Australia. No adverse impacts anticipated.

 

Noise and vibration

During construction potential exists for offensive noise to be generated but due to proximity of nearby buildings and the industrial use, any impact is expected to be minimal.

 

Noise will be generated onsite but due to the location and surrounding industrial land uses, minimal adverse impact is expected.

 

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone. In accordance with Section 79BA - EP&A Act 1979 and having regard to Section 1.1 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, the objectives of this Guideline are satisfied. There is adequate defendable space around the proposed buildings and there is safe operational access and egress for emergency vehicles if required.

 

Safety, security and crime prevention

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

 

Social and Economic impacts in the locality

The development would have an immediate impact during both the construction phase and the occupation phase of the development. The proposed investment of $3.5m in non-residential construction is estimated to create four new jobs in direct employment, and an additional 14 new jobs in flow-on effects - a total of 18 new jobs during the construction phase. Stevens Group has advised 10 FTE retail jobs will be created following occupation of the service station - REMPLAN modelling indicates these new jobs will create a further 6 jobs in flow-on effects. Overall, REMPLAN estimates indicate the development will create 34 new jobs through direct employment and flow-on effects, injecting total wages of ~$2.5m into the local economy.

The Sancrox Employment Precinct is designed to offer functionality for heavy vehicle industrial usage - a core prerequisite for occupation by employers in manufacturing, transport, warehousing and logistics is access to suitable refuelling capability. The development of a suitable service station within this industrial zone could be a catalyst for significant further employment-generating commercial activity within this precinct however concern is raised with regard to the size, location and nature of the proposal suggesting more predominant focus to travelling public as outlined under the LEP earlier in this report.

As stated earlier, the RMS indicated in their 2014 policy review of highway service centres along the Pacific Highway that there were sufficient services to cater for current and any growth of traffic north of Hexham to the Queensland border for the foreseeable future. There is a nominated highway service centre site in the Section 117 directions issued by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment at 1179 Oxley Highway on the north-bound side of the Pacific Highway and Oxley Highway interchange. Whilst this other site has not yet to be rezoned, there is a risk that this proposal will have a negative economic impact on this future planned facility. It is considered that the economic benefits mentioned above cannot outweigh the risk for potential negative economic impacts to a planned service centre site.

 

Site design and internal design

The proposed development design unsatisfactorily responds to the site attributes and will not satisfactorily fit into the locality. The Applicant has chosen not to provide additional information to address the initial assessment issues raised.

 

Construction

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

 

Cumulative impacts

The proposed development could be likely to result in adverse cumulative economic and traffic impacts. The site design appears to capable of accommodating other landuses which would reenforce its intentions to be highway service centre and or exacerbate traffic impacts. The Applicant has chosen not to provide additional information to address the initial assessment issues raised.

 

Food health

The proposal is capable of compliance with food health standards if it was approved. A standard condition for fitout to applicable Australian Standards requirements would be required.

 

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

It is considered based upon assessment made earlier in this report that the proposal will not satisfactorily fit into the locality and the site attributes are not conducive to the nature and extent of the proposed development.

 

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

One(1) written submission has been received following public exhibition of the DA. The submission is from the owner of 1179 Oxley Highway, Sancrox who is located approximately 2.5 kilometres south of the subject development site.

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 IN1 general industry zone does not permit highway service centres.

Agree.

The proposal is for a service station next to the Pacific Highway and is clearly a highway service centre.

Agree that the proposal is for a highway service centre, as defined.

The proposal includes an advertising structure which is not a permitted use or compliant with the zoning.

The signage referred to relates to pylon sign on the site which is considered to be a business identification sign which is a permissible use. Refer to more details under State Environmental Planning Policy no.64 earlier in this report.

The Mid Coast Regional strategy states

“In the future, additional highway service centres could be located at Nambucca Heads (at the northern interchange) and Port Macquarie (on the western side of the Pacific Highway at the Oxley Highway interchange)”

This strategy clearly articulates the preferred location for a Highway Service Centre at the intersection of the Oxley and Pacific Highways. The proposed development is not in line with the Mid Coast Regional Strategy.

Agree.

Clause 5.4 of the 117 Direction by the Minister For Planning requires referral for Planning Proposals for Highway Service Centres. This development application should not be altered to include a Planning Proposal because it would not comply with the objective of clause 5.4 to have Highway Service Centres only at the intersection of the Oxley and Pacific Highways.

Agree and noted.

The development of a fully compliant Highway Service Centre is extremely price sensitive. As the name implies they provide a high level of capital intensive services to improve the safety of the travelling public. The approval of developments such as that proposed that subvert this process makes it difficult to build the duly planned developments with a full range of facilities that improve the safety of the travelling public.

The Economic Impact in the DA does not address the impact on the hierarchy as planned by the Mid Coast Regional Strategy and referenced in the Hastings Urban Growth Strategy and the LEP 2011 which specifically excludes Highway Service Centres in the IN1 zoning.

Agree that there is a significant risk for the subject proposal to have a negative economic impact on this future planned facility at 1179 Oxley Highway, Sancrox.

 

The turning circle for trucks seems very tight and may restrict movement in a forward direction.

Refer to comments earlier in this report.

The development does not appear to have been well modelled and seems a likely source of congestion and potential queuing across a major intersection with the Pacific Highway.

Agree. Refer to comments earlier in this report.

The site does not seem to be modelled safely for heavy vehicles that may use it and there is potential of life safety hazard due to proximity of retail fuelling to heavy vehicles.

Refer to comments earlier in this report with regard to traffic.

 

The use for lot 1 is not identified or modelled. A use for this should be identified and correctly modelled. If it is to remain open space this should be limited by 88b instrument or caveat in favour of Minister of planning. To protect the integrity of this modelling the site should be consolidated with the land to which this DA relates.

The proposed development could result in adverse cumulative economic and traffic impacts. The Applicant has chosen not to provide additional information to attempt to respond to the initial assessment issues raised.

A condition as suggested for a restriction as to user may not be appropriate.

A condition would be required to require consolidation of the two proposed lots if the development was to be approved.

Correctly planned Highway Service Centres are saving the lives of the New South Wales community. Port Macquarie is a 4-5 hour Drive from Sydney. The recommended break time for a recreational driver is 2 hours so a Highway Service Centre on the North Bound side of the Pacific highway at this location is important.

We also note the recommended break time for a Bus driver is 5 hours. Which makes this location and important one in which to have a fully functioning and easily accessible Highway Service Centre.

Agree that a planned centre is required. The subject proposal is however inconsistent with the location for such a highway service centre.

(e)     The Public Interest:

As stated earlier in this report, there is a nominated highway service centre site in the Section 117 directions issued by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment at 1179 Oxley Highway on the north-bound side of the Pacific Highway and Oxley Highway interchange. Whilst this site has not yet to be rezoned, there is a risk that the subject proposal to have a negative economic impact on this future planned facility. The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the IN1 zone.

 

Based upon the assessment made in this report, it is considered that the proposed development is unable to satisfy relevant planning controls and would not be in the wider public interest.

 

 

4.       DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

 

If the development is approved, development contributions would be required towards augmentation of town water supply and sewerage system head works under Section 64 of the Local Government Act 1993 and under Section 94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

There is a Sancrox Employment Land Road Construction Planning Agreement in place relating to the site. The obligations of the Planning Agreement are capable of being complied with in relation to development contributions and could be conditioned if the development was to be approved.

 

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 DA.

 

The site is considered not suitable for the proposed development. It is recommended that the application be refused subject to the reasons detailed earlier in this report.

 

 

Attachments

 

1View. DA2016 - 801.1 Plans

2View. DA2016 - 801.1 Landscape Plans

3View. DA2016 - 801.1 1Service Station & Signage Sancrox Road - RMS Response

4View. DA2016  - 801.1 Submission - Hore

5View. DA2016 - 801.1 Stormwater Management Plan

 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017

 


 


 


  ATTACHMENT

Development Assessment Panel

10/05/2017