Agenda of Development Assessment Panel

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 24/05/2017

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

(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

[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 landⁱⁱⁱ

[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 relative^iv 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 24/05/2017

Item: 05

Subject: DA2016 - 0700.1 - Eco Tourist Facility At Lot 101 DP 754444, 743 Ocean Drive, Grants Beach

Report Author: Clint Tink

Applicant: P S Manfield

Owner: P S Manfield

Estimated Cost: $285,000

Parcel no: 18680

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Koala Plan of Management prepared by Naturecall Environmental dated 28 February 2017 be adopted.

2. That DA 2016 - 0700.1 for an eco tourist facility at Lot 101, DP 754444, No. 743 Ocean Drive, Grants Beach, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for an eco tourist facility 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, no submissions were received.

1. BACKGROUND

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

The site has an area of 171.1ha. The applicant also owns the adjoining Lot 100 DP 754444 at 72.73ha. However, Lot 101 does not form part of the application.

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:

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· The eco tourist facility will provide a bunkhouse comprising 10 bedrooms for accommodation and 1 bedroom for a managers residence.

· A recreation hall/living area incorporating cooking facilities, bbq area, toilets, showers etc is also proposed.

· There are a number of storage containers proposed to hold laundry facilities, batteries and storage.

· A swimming pool is proposed.

· Activities for guests onsite include walking trails, quad bike riding, bird watching, enjoying the natural setting/views and utilising the onsite facilities (ie recreation hall, swimming pool etc). In addition to onsite activities, the site is located in close proximity to beaches, lakes, walking trails and other local facilities.

· No functions will be held onsite, except those amongst guests using the accommodation.

· The building will be off grid utilising onsite water, sewer and electricity.

· The site has legal access via existing right of carriageways.

· A management plan forms part of the application to manage, monitor and make improvements/changes to ensure the facility creates no adverse impacts on the environment.

· A number of the structures have been completed without consent. While this consent is to allow their continued use as an eco tourist facility, a building certificate will also be conditioned to be obtained before occupation.

· Council’s Environmental Health Officer has applied conditions to deal with the commercial kitchen, swimming pool and drinking water aspects of the proposal.

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Application Chronology

· 12/4/2016 - Proposal was present to Council’s Pre-lodgement Meeting.

· 11/8/2016 - Approval was issued for a farm building shed.

· 7/9/2016 - DA2016 - 0700.1 lodged with Council.

· 12/9/2016 - Council staff requested additional fees.

· 14/9/2016 - Applicant paid outstanding fees.

· 15 to 28/9/2016 - Notification period.

· 23/9/2016 - Council staff requested additional information on the Statement of Environmental Effects (SOEE), management, BASIX, walking trails, activities, functions, management strategy, elevations, view sharing and room uses.

· 26/9/2016 - Applicant provided partial response to Council’s email dated 23/9/2016.

· 4/10/2016 - Having reviewed the applicant’s response on 26/9/2016, Council staff requested clarification on sitting rooms, onsite management, elevations and view sharing.

· 4 to 12/10/2016 - Discussion with applicant on management strategy requirements of Clause 5.13.

· 7/10/2016 - Response from applicant to sitting room and management issues raised by Council on 4/10/2016.

· 12/10/2016 - Excluding elevations, the applicant responded to outstanding items raised by Council on 4/10/2016.

· 25/10/2016 - NSW RFS requested additional information on bushfire matters. Request forwarded to applicant on 27/10/2016.

· 26/10/2016 - Applicant provided elevations in response to Council’s request on 4/10/2016.

· 28/10/2016 - Site inspected.

· 4/11/2016 - Council staff requested additional information on driveways and parking. Discussion on the driveway issue with the applicant continued until 7/11/2016.

· 8/11/2016 - Applicant responded to NSW RFS’s letter dated 25/10/2016. Council staff forwarded the information onto the NSW RFS on 9/11/2016.

· 9/11/2016 - Applicant provided parking area in response to Council’s request dated 4/11/2016.

· 9 to 10/11/2016 - Discussion on driveway requirements.

· 14/11/2016 - Owners consent provided to seal section of driveway/right of carriageway. NSW RFS also requested additional information, which was passed onto the applicant.

· 18/11/2016 - Discussion between the applicant and Council staff regarding clearing for Asset Protection Zones (APZs) and ecological assessment requirements.

· 15/12/2016 - Applicant submitted ecological report addressing APZ clearing works.

· 19/12/2016 - Revised APZs referred to NSW RFS.

· 16-17/1/2016 - Council’s Natural Resources Officer inspected the property, provided feedback on the ecological report and requested additional information, including need for Koala Plan of Management (KPOM).

· 2/2/2017 - NSW RFS provided Bushfire Safety Authority.

· 21/2/2017 - Council staff sent follow up email requesting response to Natural Resource Officer’s concerns. Applicant confirmed KPOM being done.

· 23/2/2017 - Applicant submitted revised ecological report and KPOM.

· 28/2/2017 to 6/3/2017 - Council staff discussed KPOM details with the applicant.

· 6/3/2017 - KPOM sent to Department of Planning.

· 11/4/2017 - Update provided on KPOM.

· 4/5/2017 - Discussion with applicant on draft conditions.

· 10/5/2017 - KPOM approved by Department of Planning.

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. 14 - Coastal Wetlands

The property contains SEPP 14 Coastal Wetland areas in the lower sections of the property. However, the application has demonstrated that no development is proposed to or near the SEPP 14 affected area. In this regard, further consideration of the SEPP does not apply in this case.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

In accordance with clauses 6 and 7, the subject land has an area of more than one (1) hectare in size and therefore the provisions of the SEPP must be considered.

The applicant commissioned an ecological assessment to be carried out on the property by Naturecall Environmental. The results of the assessment (along with Council Data) showed that the site contained core koala habitat.

A Koala Plan of Management (KPOM) was subsequently prepared by the consultant in accordance with the SEPP and forwarded to the Department of Planning (DoP) for approval. The DoP subsequently granted approval to the KPOM on 10 May 2017. A copy of the KPoM and the DoP approval are attached at the end of this report.

In accordance with Clause 13 of SEPP 44, the Development Assessment Panel (DAP) as a delegate of Council is also required to approve the KPOM. In considering whether to give approval, Circular B35 relating to SEPP 44 is to be taken into consideration. An assessment of the relevant criteria is provided below:

SEPP 44 Criteria listed in Circular B35	Assessment/Compliance
(i) an estimate of population size	1-3 koalas within the property.
(ii) Identification of preferred feed tree species for the locality and extent of resource available	Nominated -Tallowwood and Swamp Mahogany dominant preferred trees species onsite. Approximately 22 Tallowwoods require removal and are proposed to be replaced at a rate of 4:1.
(iii) An assessment of the regional distribution of koalas and the extent of alternative habitat available to compensate for that affected by the actions	Comment provided. Site is important component of both local and regional koala habitat.
(iv) Identification of linkages of core koala habitat to other areas of habitat and movement of koalas between areas of habitat. Provision of strategies to enhance and manage these corridors.	Linkage importance nominated, will be preserved and enhanced. Site assists linking key east, north and south habitat areas.
(v) Identification of major threatening processes such as disease, clearance of habitat, road kill and dog attack which impact on the population. Provisions of methods for reducing these impacts.	Management plan provided identifying threatening processes (i.e. tree loss, road kill, dogs etc) and strategies for ongoing management.
(vi) Provision of detailed proposals for the amelioration of impacts on koala populations from any anticipated development within zones of core koala habitat.	Criteria provided. Habitat protection and enhancement provided outside building areas, dog management etc.
(vii) Identification of any opportunities to increase size or improve condition of existing core habitat, this should include lands adjacent to areas of identified core koala habitat.	KPOM largely nominates strengthening of habitat through compensatory planting.
(viii) The plan should state clearly what it aims to achieve (for example, maintaining or expanding the current population size or habitat area)	Objectives stated.
(ix) The plan should state the criteria against which achievement of these objectives is to be measured (for example, a specified population size in a specific time frame or the abatement of threats to the population)	Suitable implementation schedule provided for DA,CC and operational phases.
(x) The plan should also have provisions for continuing monitoring, review and reporting. This should include an identification of who will undertake further work and how it will be funded.	Annual monitoring proposed by the developer.

The KPOM has also been reviewed and accepted by Council’s Natural Resource section.

Based on the above, the development addresses SEPP 44 and associated KPOM requirements. The submitted KPOM provides a mechanism to protect and enhance key koala habitat onsite and associated linkages.

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, setbacks to waterways and proposed stormwater controls; the proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impact on existing aquaculture industries.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

No signage proposed.

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

The site is located within a coastal zone noting clause 4 of the SEPP.

The site is further identified as being within a sensitive coastal location but does not trigger the need for a masterplan under Clause 18 of the SEPP.

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

Having regard for clauses 2, 8 and 12 to 16 of the SEPP and clause 5.5 of the PMH LEP 2011, the proposed development will not result in any of the following:

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

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

c) any adverse impacts on flora and fauna;

d) the development being subject to any adverse coastal processes or hazards;

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

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

g) reduction in the quality of the natural water bodies in the locality (due to effluent & stormwater disposal, construction impacts, landuse conflicts);

h) adverse cumulative impacts on the environment;

i) a form of development that is unsustainable in water and energy demands;

j) development relying on flexible zone provisions.

The site is predominately cleared but still located within an area well separated by distance and screened (via vegetation) from surrounding coastal areas. No change to access to and from coastal areas proposed.

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

A BASIX certificate (number 750144S) 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.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Whilst the development gains access from Ocean Drive (classified road), the access is existing with no major changes proposed or required. A 3m seal section has been required by Council Engineers, which is considered an improvement on the current gravel situation.

The development is also setback over a kilometre from Ocean Drive and will therefore not be impacted by any road noise or vibration.

Based on the above, the proposed development complies with the requirements of the SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and extractive Industries) 2007

As per Clause 13, before determining an application, the consent authority must:

(a) consider:

(i) the existing uses and approved uses of land in the vicinity of the development, and

(ii) whether or not the development is likely to have a significant impact on current or future extraction or recovery of minerals, petroleum or extractive materials (including by limiting access to, or impeding assessment of, those resources), and

(iii) any ways in which the development may be incompatible with any of those existing or approved uses or that current or future extraction or recovery, and

(b) evaluate and compare the respective public benefits of the development and the uses, extraction and recovery referred to in paragraph (a) (i) and (ii), and

(c) evaluate any measures proposed by the applicant to avoid or minimise any incompatibility, as referred to in paragraph (a) (iii).

Having considered the above, the proposed development adjoins the existing Hurd’s quarry located 1.5km north east of the site. The applicant submitted a noise report that concluded there would be no adverse noise impacts from the quarry on the eco tourist facility. Furthermore, the distance/separation and existing vegetation screening will ensure no adverse conflict or loss of future quarry land/operations.

Based on the above, the provisions of the SEPP will not be compromised.

State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011

The proposed development does not trigger any of the clauses or thresholds in the SEPP pertaining to tourist or eco tourist facilities.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008

SEPP requirement	Comment	Complies
Objectives
2(a) to facilitate the orderly and economic use and development of rural lands for rural and related purposes,	The proposed site is isolated from other agricultural land, being bound by heavily timbered or ecological zoned land. This will limit conflict with any adjoining rural zoned land. The area on the property being developed is confined to one area. This reduces the overall footprint and potential loss of agricultural land. Overall, the development is seen as complimenting the rural zoned land and will create no adverse conflicts. Through some minor modifications, the structures could continue to be used as a residence (ie should the venture fail).	Yes
2(b) to identify the Rural Planning Principles and the Rural Subdivision Principles so as to assist in the proper management, development and protection of rural lands for the purpose of promoting the social, economic and environmental welfare of the State,	Principles have been considered and the proposal deemed satisfactory.	Yes
2(c) to implement measures designed to reduce land use conflicts,	The location of the development, separation from lot boundaries and existing vegetation screening; will ensure no adverse conflict with surrounding uses.	Yes
2(d) to identify State significant agricultural land for the purpose of ensuring the ongoing viability of agriculture on that land, having regard to social, economic and environmental considerations,	The site does not comprise State significant agricultural land.	N/A
2(e) to amend provisions of other environmental planning instruments relating to concessional lots in rural subdivisions.	Not relevant.	N/A
Rural Planning Principles
7(a) the promotion and protection of opportunities for current and potential productive and sustainable economic activities in rural areas,	The development provides an opportunity for rural lands to not be impacted but rather supplemented/continued by a compatible use.	Yes
7(b) recognition of the importance of rural lands and agriculture and the changing nature of agriculture and of trends, demands and issues in agriculture in the area, region or State,	Refer to above comment.	Yes
7(c) recognition of the significance of rural land uses to the State and rural communities, including the social and economic benefits of rural land use and development,	Rural land and future viability will be retained/not compromised.	Yes
7(d) in planning for rural lands, to balance the social, economic and environmental interests of the community,	Rural land already exists and will not be impacted.	Yes
7(e) the identification and protection of natural resources, having regard to maintaining biodiversity, the protection of native vegetation, the importance of water resources and avoiding constrained land,	The development is located predominately within existing cleared areas. A plan of management will also be implemented to ensure the tourist use does not degrade any of the existing native vegetation, biodiversity etc.	Yes
7(f) the provision of opportunities for rural lifestyle, settlement and housing that contribute to the social and economic welfare of rural communities,	The tourist use will compliment settlement within the area and can be converted to a residence, should the venture fail.	Yes
7(g) the consideration of impacts on services and infrastructure and appropriate location when providing for rural housing,	The site is located within close proximity to services and facilities and being off grid, will require minimal expansion or burden on such services/facilities.	Yes
7(h) ensuring consistency with any applicable regional strategy of the Department of Planning or any applicable local strategy endorsed by the Director-General.	The proposed development will not compromise any strategy.	Yes
Rural Subdivision Principles	No subdivision proposed.	N/A
Matters to be considered in determining development applications for rural subdivisions or rural dwellings
10(1) This clause applies to land in a rural zone, a rural residential zone or an environment protection zone. 10(2) A consent authority must take into account the matters specified in subclause (3) when considering whether to grant consent to development on land to which this clause applies for any of the following purposes: (a) subdivision of land proposed to be used for the purposes of a dwelling, (b) erection of a dwelling. 10(3) The following matters are to be taken into account: (a) the existing uses and approved uses of land in the vicinity of the development, (b) whether or not the development is likely to have a significant impact on land uses that, in the opinion of the consent authority, are likely to be preferred and the predominant land uses in the vicinity of the development, (c) whether or not the development is likely to be incompatible with a use referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), (d) if the land is not situated within a rural residential zone, whether or not the development is likely to be incompatible with a use on land within an adjoining rural residential zone, (e) any measures proposed by the applicant to avoid or minimise any incompatibility referred to in paragraph (c) or (d).	Refer to comments above in this SEPP assessment, which demonstrate the proposed development is compatible with the area and will create no adverse conflict.	Yes

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

· Clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned RU1 Primary Production and E2 Environmental Conservation. For the purposes of this assessment report, the application will only consider the provisions relevant to the RU1 zone as no work is proposed within the E2 zoned area. In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the RU1 zone landuse table, the proposed development for a eco tourist facility is a permissible landuse with consent. It is considered that the site contains and adjoins special ecological features such as Queens Lake and surrounding vegetated areas, local beaches, North Brother mountain etc.

The objectives of the RU1 zone are as follows:

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

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

o To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.

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

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

o The proposal is a permissible landuse.

o The proposal does not impact on the natural resource base (development is reversible and located within one area - similar to a rural dwelling).

o The development diversifies uses onsite without creating conflict.

o The development does not fragment the land.

o The development will not create any conflict - refer to comments on SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008.

· Clause 4.2A, while technically no dwelling is proposed (ie eco tourist facility and ancillary managers residence proposed), the site has a dwelling entitlement by virtue of the lot meeting the 40ha minimum lot size standard.

· Clause 4.3 & 4.4, there is no height or FSR standard applicable to the site. However, it is considered that the buildings are consistent with a rural setting.

· Clause 5.9, tree removal has been considered in the ecological report and deemed to create no adverse impacts.

· Clause 5.10, the site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage items or sites of significance. The area being developed is also disturbed from past activities. Furthermore, the applicant performed an AHIM’s search that did not identify any sites/items.

· Clause 5.13, specifies matters to be considered in assessing development for eco-tourist facilities. Having considered the Clause, the development achieves compliance as follows:

o There is a demonstrated connection between the development and the ecology/environment on site. The development is positioned to take advantage of key views from the site and contains low impact walking tracks and areas to enjoy the ecology. There are no cultural values specific to the site.

o The site will utilise predominately cleared areas for access and infrastructure. This limits the impact on the environment. A Plan of Management (POM) is also to be implemented to further protect and conserve the site.

o The development is well positioned to take advantage of surrounding towns, beaches and other tourists area/environments.

o The development will promote an appreciation of the surrounding environment via facilities onsite. The POM will further ensure protection and future maintenance of the site/environment.

o The POM will deal with waste during operation. Standard waste controls will apply during construction.

o The applicant has provided a view analysis, which demonstrates that the development (for the most part) will not be visible from surrounding areas. Furthermore, the development will create no more an impact than sheds etc that could occur in a rural area under exempt development.

o Infrastructure is either existing or will create no adverse impact on the environment. Applicant is looking to utilise off the grid infrastructure where possible.

o The development will not impact on the rural use of the property or surrounding area - refer to comments on SEPP (Rural Lands ) 2008.

o A management plan has been submitted addressing impacts, ways to reduce/manage impacts, maintenance/protection of habitat onsite, review processes and quality control.

2. Based on the above, the proposed development is consistent with the requirements of Clause 5.13 and will create no adverse impacts.

· Clause 7.1, parts of the property are mapped as potentially containing acid sulfate soils. However, the mapped areas are on the lower sections of the property, which are not to be disturbed.

· Clause 7.3, parts of the property are mapped “flood planning area”. However, the mapped areas are on the lower sections of the property, which are not being developed. Furthermore, the access/egress from the site is flood free. In this regard the following comments are provided which incorporate consideration of the objectives of Clause 7.3, Council’s Flood Policy 2015, the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Lands Policy and the NSW Government’s Floodplain Development Manual (2005):

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

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

o The proposal incorporates measures to minimise & manage the flood risk to life and property associated with the use of land;

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

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

· Clause 7.4, parts of the property are mapped as flood risk management. The same comments above in 7.3 apply to 7.4. No adverse impacts.

· Clause 7.13, satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential services including water supply, electricity supply, on-site sewage management, stormwater drainage and suitable road access to service the development.

· Clause 7.14, applies additional provisions applicable to eco-tourist facilities. The proposed development complies with the provisions as follows:

o Development for the purposes of a dwelling or dual occupancy (attached) are permitted in the RU1 zone under Clause 4.2A of LEP 2011.

o The gross floor area of the eco-tourist facility and any ancillary accommodation does not exceed 1,000m². Including all structures, shipping containers, rural shed (DA2016-411) etc; the development equates to approximately 980m². However, 500m² of this figure is the rural shed (DA2016-411), which in reality is not linked to the eco-tourist facility development and can exist onsite independently.

o The proposed development does not cause unfunded demand for infrastructure. Internal roads will be privately maintained and connect direct to the existing Ocean Drive. Occupant numbers are not expected to be excessive due to the boutique nature of the development. Furthermore, applicant proposes to utilise a number of off the grid services (ie rain water and onsite waste management system) to enable the development to operate. This reduces the burden on local infrastructure.

o The development will not compromise the future extractive industry development. As mentioned previously in this assessment, the proposal is well separated and screened from Hurds Quarry.

4. Based on the above, the proposed development complies with Clause 7.14.

(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

There is no section in the DCP specific to eco-tourist facilities. Only the General Provisions below apply.

*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 from rooms. A managers residence will also be provided to watch over the site and occupants. CCTV cameras and lighting can be installed retrospectively if required.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	1m high retaining walls exist/proposed. The retaining walls create no adverse impacts.	Yes
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontage	Not relevant. Site is over 1km from the nearest public road.	N/A
	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structure engineer	To be conditioned.	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 front fence retaining wall combination proposed.	N/A
2.3.3.8	Removal of hollow bearing trees	Tree removal considered in ecological report and accepted by Council’s Natural Resources Section	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)	Tree removal considered in ecological report and accepted by Council’s Natural Resources Section	Yes
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater	Refer to main body of report.	Noted
2.5.3.2	New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads	No new access proposed to Ocean Drive (classified road). The existing access will be improved with 3m seal.	Yes
2.5.3.2	Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking	Existing crossover to be utilised.	Yes
2.5.3.3	Parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1. 1.1 spaces per unit, 1 per 2 employees and 1 for onsite manager	10 units proposed and 1 managers residence. There will only ever be the onsite manager and an occasional cleaner employed onsite. Therefore, 10 units x 1.1 + 1 space for manager/cleaner = 12 spaces. Being a large rural property, there is sufficient area to create a car park to cover the required spaces. The applicant has nominated an area comprising 16 spaces to the rear of the units, including a disabled parking space.	Yes
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report. Contributions apply.	Yes
2.5.3.12 and 2.5.3.13	Landscaping of parking areas	Capable of being provided although not critical to a large rural property surrounded by vegetation.	Yes
2.5.3.14	Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified	Council engineers have assessed the existing two wheel drive gravel road into the property and deemed it acceptable for the use.	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	Refer to above comment.	Yes
2.5.3.17	Parking areas to be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.	Capable of complying.	Yes
2.5.3.17	Vehicle washing facilities – grassed area etc available.	Site contains grassed areas for vehicle washing.	Yes

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

None relevant.

iv) any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

NSW Coastal Policy 1997

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

Fire Safety

The application has been assessed by one of Council’s Building Surveyors and compliance with fire safety is considered possible subject to conditions.

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

None relevant.

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

Context and Setting

The site has distant frontage to Ocean Drive to the east.

Adjoining the site is predominately timbered rural and environmental zoned land. A quarry exists approximately 1.5km to the north east.

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 an acceptable fit within the locality and adequately addresses planning controls for the area.

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

Roads

Adjacent to the site, Ocean Drive is a Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) ‘classified’ road owned by Council. Council will have to refer any applications for works within the road reserve (i.e. Section 138) to the RMS for concurrence.

Traffic and Transport

It is estimated that the proposal would generate the following:

· Daily Vehicle Trips – 3 per unit (36); and

· Evening peak hour vehicle trips – 0.4 per unit (4.8).

Whilst no formal traffic assessment has been carried out for that part of Ocean Drive between Bonny Hills and North Haven, it is considered that the above vehicle trips would not have any adverse impacts on the existing sub-arterial road network.

Site Frontage & Access

Vehicle access to the site is proposed via a right of carriageway 20m wide over Lot 1 in DP1097395 and Lot 208 in DP754444. Access shall comply with Council AUSPEC and Australian Standards and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

Parking and Manoeuvring

A total of 16 parking spaces have been provided on-site within a designated parking area available within the driveway. Parking and driveway widths on site can comply with relevant Australian Standards (AS 2890) and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

Water Supply Connection

Onsite water supply to be utilised.

Sewer Connection

Onsite waste management system to be utilised. The site contains sufficient area to accommodate a compliant system.

Stormwater

Stormwater from the proposed development is planned to be collected in rainwater tanks for re-use on site with overflow to be directed into an existing highly vegetated gully. Surface water and water from hard stand areas is proposed to flow overland (through vegetated areas) to the existing highly vegetated gully. It is therefore submitted that this meets the requirements to not detrimentally impact on upstream or downstream properties, provides an effective outlet to an existing gully and ensures that flows are generally restricted to natural drainage lines and located downstream of the existing access road to allow for the safe passage of vehicles.

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

Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services can be made available to the site at applicant’s expense. Applicant does propose to utilise off grid electricity.

Heritage

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

Other land resources

The development will not sterilise any significant mineral or agricultural resource.

Water cycle

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

Soils

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

Air and microclimate

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

Flora and fauna

The applicant has submitted a flora and fauna impact assessment report prepared by Naturecall Environmental dated February 2017.

The report concluded the following;

- No threatened flora species were recorded or found to have potential occurrence within the study area.

- No EECs are present within the study area.

- Development will see the thinning/under scrubbing of around 1.2ha of dry sclerophyll forest.

- The site and parts of the larger property qualify as Core Koala Habitat under SEPP 44.

- No threatened fauna species were recorded during the survey, however the Koala was recorded during a subsequent site inspection.

- A total of 17 threatened fauna species and several migratory birds were found to have at least a low potential to occur within the study area.

- Assessment under the Seven Part Tests and EPBC MNES determined the impact, while a generic negative effect in terms of incremental loss of habitat, is unlikely to be of sufficient order of magnitude to have a significant impact. Hence a Species Impact Statement is not considered required.

- Assessment under the EPBCA – Matters of National Environmental Significance determined the cumulative impact, while negative, was unlikely to be significant. Hence referral to DEE for approval is not considered required.

- The proposal can comply the with the PMHC DCP 2013 via retaining hollow-bearing trees and planting of offset Koala food trees on the property.

Overall, the report addresses the requirements of the ‘7 part test’ under Section 5A of the Act and has been reviewed by Council’s Natural Resources Section as being acceptable. Conditions will be applied to the consent to reinforce the requirements of the ecological report.

Waste

Satisfactory arrangements are in place for proposed storage and collection of waste and recyclables. No adverse impacts anticipated. Standard precautionary site management condition recommended.

Energy

The proposal includes measures to address energy efficiency and will be required to comply with the requirements of BASIX. No adverse impacts anticipated.

Noise and vibration

Council’s Environmental Health Officer assessed the application and provided the following comment:

From the information provided in the Grants Head Quarry modification NIA Report prepared by ERM dated April 2012 for Hy-Tec and the location of the facility, it’s not expected that quarry operational noise and/or road traffic noise from Ocean Drive some 1200m away will adversely impact on occupants of the tourist facility. No other significant noise source have been identified in the vicinity. No occupants of the tourist facility have lodged noise complaints with council.

Based on the above, no adverse impacts anticipated subject to conditions.

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

A tourist facility is considered a Special Fire Purpose under S100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997. The application triggers integrated development and requires a Bushfire Safety Authority from the NSW Rural Fire Service. The applicant submitted a bushfire report prepared by a Certified Consultant, which along with the development application, were forwarded to the NSW Rural Fire Service. The NSW Rural Fire service have subsequently issued a Bushfire Safety Authority, which will form part of the development consent/approval.

Safety, security and crime prevention

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. Positive social impacts will be the creation of a unique eco tourist facility for the area.

Economic impact in the locality

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

Site design and internal design

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

Construction

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

Cumulative Impacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

(e) The Public Interest:

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

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

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

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

5. CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Attachments

1 View. DA2016 - 700.1 Plans

2 View. DA2016 - 700.1 Revised KPOM

3 View. DA2016 - 700.1 DOP KPOM Approval

4 View. DA2016 - 700.1 Recommended Conditions

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 24/05/2017

Item: 06

Subject: DA2016 - 1006.1 Dual Occupancy and Torrens Title Subdivision at Lot 301 DP 831575, No. 12 Beacon Court, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Chris Gardiner

Applicant: S Waldow & W C Waldow

Owner: Wilshadow Super Pty Ltd

Estimated Cost: $619,400

Parcel no: 1472

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2016 - 1006.1 for a Dual Occupancy and Torrens Title Subdivision at Lot 301, DP 831575, No. 12 Beacon Court, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a dual occupancy and Torrens tile subdivision at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

1. BACKGROUND

Existing sites features and surrounding development

The site has an area of 933m².

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

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Subdivision of the land into two Torrens title lots;

· Construction of a two storey dwelling on each lot.

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Application Chronology

· 22 December 2016 - Application lodged.

· 12 January 2017 to 25 January 2017 - Neighbour notification of the proposal.

· 17 March 2017 - Site and views from neighbouring property at No. 14 Beacon Court inspected by assessing officer.

· 21 March 2017 - Additional information requested from Applicant.

· 11 April 2017 - Additional information and amended plans submitted by Applicant.

· 19 April 2017 - Copy of amended plans forwarded to objector.

· 1 May 2017 - No. 14 Beacon Court re-inspected for view impacts.

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 79C(1) Matters for Consideration

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) any Environmental Planning Instrument:

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 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 (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

BASIX certificates (number 785312S and 785323S) have 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 proposed development for a dual occupancy (detached) 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 having regard to the following:

o The proposal is a permissible landuse;

o The development would provide for a variety of housing types and densities to meet the housing needs of the community.

· Clause 4.1A – The minimum lot size does not apply as the development includes subdivision into two lots and the construction of a dwelling on each lot.

· Clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 7.813m 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 0.47:1 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 7.13, satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential services including water supply, electricity supply, sewer infrastructure, stormwater drainage and suitable road access to service the development. Provision of electricity will be subject to obtaining satisfactory arrangements certification prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate as recommended by a condition of consent.

(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*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
3.2.2.2	Articulation zone: • Min. 3m front setback • An entry feature or portico • A balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or verandah • A window box treatment • A bay window or similar feature • An awning or other feature over a window • A sun shading feature	Unit 1 patio at 3.94m	Yes
3.2.2.2	Front setback (Residential not R5 zone): · Min. 4.5m local road	Minimum 3.959m front setback to local road.	No*
3.2.2.3	Garage minimum 5.5m front setback and garage door recessed behind building line at least 1m or eaves/overhangs provided	Minimum 6.65m setback and more than 1 metre behind the building line.	Yes
	6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building	Unit 1: 5.0m wide and 34% of building width. Unit 2: 5.0m wide and 34% of building width.	Yes
	Driveway crossover 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m width	5.0m wide and 25% of site frontage.	Yes
3.2.2.4	4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to site analysis and provision of private open space	Minimum 3.723m rear setback for Unit 2.	No*
3.2.2.5	Side setbacks: · Ground floor min. 0.9m · First floors & above min. 3m setback, unless demonstrated that adjoining property primary living areas & POS unaffected. · Building wall set in and out every 12m by 0.5m.	Minimum 1.89m first floor side setback to south east boundary. The Applicant has submitted shadow diagrams demonstrating that the development would not adversely overshadow neighbouring primary living areas and private open space for more than 3 hours on 21 June. Therefore, a minimum 0.9m first floor side setback is acceptable. Building wall articulation satisfactory.	Yes
3.2.2.6	35m² min. private open space area including a useable 4x4m min. area which has 5% max. grade and is directly accessible from a ground floor living area.	Both dwellings have minimum 35m² private open space including 4m x4m area accessible from living room.	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 (Fig 3.3 of AS2890.1 2004 overrides this standard by requiring a min 2.5x2m splay for driveway entrances) See David Troemel for info.	1.5m high timber fence fence on top of 1.0m high retaining wall. The fence is less than 50% of the site frontage and is proposed to be setback 1m behind the top of the retaining wall with landscaping between the fence and the top of the retaining wall. Condition recommended requiring fence to be minimum 25% transparent in accordance with DCP provisions.	Yes, subject to condition.
3.2.2.8	· Front fences and walls to have complimentary materials to context · No chain wire, solid timber, masonry or solid steel	Fencing material considered generally satisfactory.	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/verandas etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m	The rumpus and dining room windows of Unit 2 are located within 3m of the side boundary and have a floor level exceeding 1m above ground level. Privacy screening is encouraged by the DCP in such circumstances. However, in this instance the location of the windows is to the rear of the existing dwelling at No. 10 Beacon Court and is adequately separated the private open space and living room windows of that dwelling. Privacy is otherwise addressed through building design, separation distance, and fencing/screening.	Yes

*DCP 2013: General Provisions*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
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. The increase in housing density will improve natural surveillance within the locality and openings from each dwelling overlook common and private areas.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	Up to 1.8m of cut.	No*
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontages	Maximum 1m retaining wall along road frontage.	Yes
	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structural engineer	Condition recommended requiring certification of retaining walls.	Yes
	Combination of retaining wall and front fence height	Maximum 1m retaining wall along road frontage with 1.5m fence setback 1m behind the top of the retaining wall.	Yes
2.3.3.8 onwards	Removal of hollow bearing trees	None proposed to be removed.	Yes
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100mm diameter trunk and 3m outside dwelling footprint	None proposed to be removed.	Yes
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.2	New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads. Existing accesses rationalised or removed where practical	Access from local road.	Yes
2.5.3.2	Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking	Single shared driveway 5.0m wide proposed.	Yes
2.5.3.3	Off-street parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1: · 1 space = single dwelling (behind building line) and dual occupancy · Medium density – 1 per 1 or 2 bed dwelling or 1.5 per 3-4 bed dwelling + 1 visitor/4 dwellings	Double garage for each dwelling.	Yes
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.14	Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified	Concrete.	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)	Capable of complying. Long section will be required prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.	Yes
2.5.3.16	Transitional grades min. 2m length	Capable of complying. Long section will be required prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.	Yes

*DCP 2013: Chapter 3.6 - Subdivision*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
3.6.3.2	Subdivision of dual occupancy development or multi dwelling housing where permissible in the LEP may create allotments smaller than 450m² if: · Each lot to be created is part of a community or strata title scheme, or · Is part of an integrated Torrens title housing development.	Proposal is an integrated Torrens title housing development and includes creation of one lot smaller than 450m².
3.6.3.3	Council may consider permitting Torrens Title battleaxe allotments for ―infill development where it is demonstrated that; · 5 full length of the driveway; and · addresses privacy between the rear lot and the rear open space of the front lot by the provision of adequate screening, larger lot size and setbacks; and · extends utilities to the end of the axe handle; and · there is sufficient space for garbage collection on the frontage.	Having regard to the lot width and slope, a Torrens title lot that is not battleaxe is not considered achievable. A single shared crossover is proposed that would not affect the amenity of the street or street parking. Privacy between the lots has been adequately addressed in the design. Condition recommended requiring utilities to the end of the battleaxe handle. Condition also recommended requiring acoustic fencing between the common driveway and proposed Unit 1.	Yes
3.6.3.4	Lots are to be designed to allow the construction of a dwelling, which does not involve more than 1m cut, or fill, measured from natural ground level, outside the dwellings external walls.	Proposal includes construction of dwelling on each lot and has detailed the extent of cut and fill.	Yes
3.6.3.20	Water supply to meet Council’s design specifications.	See comments later in this report under Water Supply Connection.	Yes
3.6.3.21	All lots connected to reclaimed water if available.	Reclaimed water not available.	n/a
3.6.3.24	Separate sewer junction provided for each lot.	See comments later in this report under Sewer Connection.	Yes
3.6.3.27	Erosion and sediment control plan to be provided.	Standard condition recommended confirming this requirement.	Yes
3.6.3.34	All service infrastructure should be underground unless otherwise approved by Council.	Condition recommended requiring satisfactory arrangements certification from electricity and telecommunications authorities.	Yes

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 3.2.2.2 in relation to the minimum front setback of Unit 1.

The relevant objective is that front setbacks should support an attractive streetscape.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the provision for the following reasons:

· The site has an angular frontage to the street and it would be difficult to orient a building parallel to the street frontage.

· Setbacks within the locality are variable due to the slope of the land and siting of buildings to take advantage of available views.

· The encroachment is minor (0.54m) and relates to the corner of the ground floor living room only.

· The building is articulated and the variation would not adversely impact the streetscape.

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 3.2.2.4 in relation to the minimum rear setback of Unit 2.

The relevant objectives are:

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

· To provide useable yard areas and open space.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the provision for the following reasons:

· The encroachment into the rear setback is minor (0.28m) and relates to a small part of a ground floor bedroom. The average setback of the wall to the rear boundary exceeds 4m.

· The adjoining property to the north is at a higher elevation and the reduced setback would not adversely affect natural light and ventilation between the dwellings.

· A useable yard area would be retained between the dwelling and the rear boundary.

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 2.3.3.1 in relation to the extent of cut proposed more than 1m from the wall of the building.

The relevant objective is to ensure that the design of any building or structure integrates with the topography of the land to:

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

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

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

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

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

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the provision for the following reasons:

· The site is particularly steep and the extent of excavation is considered to be necessary to create useable spaces.

· The retaining walls will be required to be designed and certified by a structural engineer to ensure that the stability of adjoining property is maintained.

· The proposed excavation would not alter drainage patterns for adjoining properties or overland flow paths around the perimeter of the building.

· The areas with cut exceeding 1m are service areas and the extent of cut (combined with boundary fencing) would improve privacy between the development and adjoining property.

Based on the above assessment, the variations proposed to the provisions of the DCP are considered acceptable and the relevant objectives have been satisfied. Cumulatively, the variations do not amount to an adverse impact or a significance that would justify refusal of the application.

(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:

No provisions of the regulations are applicable to the proposal.

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

No Coastal Zone Management Plan applies to the subject site.

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

The site has a general south-westerly street frontage orientation to Beacon Court.

Two storey dwellings adjoin the site to the north, east, and west. The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts to existing adjoining properties and satisfactorily addresses the public domain.

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

The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

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

View Sharing

The public exhibition of the proposal resulted in concerns being raised in relation to loss of views from neighbouring property to the west at No. 14 Beacon Court, and neighbouring property to the north at No. 30 Ocean Ridge Terrace.

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

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

The below assessment has been carried out with the benefit of an inspection of No. 14 Beacon Court while height poles for Unit 2 were in place. The owners of No. 30 Ocean Ridge Terrace were contacted to arrange a similar inspection, but did not allow access for the relevant assessment to take place. A desktop assessment of view impacts on No. 30 Ocean Ridge Terrace is therefore provided.

Step 1

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

Comments: No. 14 Beacon Court and No. 30 Ocean Ridge Terrace enjoy ocean views to the south and south-east across the currently vacant site and adjacent properties, and distant views to North Brother Mountain to the south. The views do not include the interface of land and water. Views of North Brother Mountain are considered to be iconic in the local context. The current views are overall considered to be of high value.

Step 2

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

Comments: The existing views from No. 14 Beacon Court are obtained from both sitting and standing positions on the rear deck/patio, kitchen, dining room, living room, and elevated front deck. The affected views are obtained across the side property boundary. It is considered unrealistic to fully retain existing views across the side boundary in this instance.

The existing views from No. 30 Ocean Ridge Terrace would be obtained from both sitting and standing positions in a ground floor lounge room and private open space area and first floor kitchen, dining, lounge room, and deck. The affected views are obtained across the rear property boundary.

Step 3

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

Comments: Photographs are included in the attachments to this report showing the extent of impact on existing views from affected properties. The height poles represent the front corners of the Unit 2 upper floor patio. The impact on views is summarised as follows from the relevant locations at No. 14 Beacon Court:

· Rear deck and patio - Main water view to the south-east lost. Water glimpse further to the south retained.

· Kitchen window - Approximately 60-70% of existing water view lost. Partial water view retained.

· Dining room window - Approximately 30-40% of existing water view lost. Partial water view retained.

· Living room windows - Existing water views retained and not impacted by the development.

· Front deck - Existing water views and views to North Brother Mountain retained and not impacted by the development.

Overall, the view loss is considered to be moderate.

According to the approved plans in Council’s records, the existing dwelling at No. 30 Ocean Ridge Terrace has a finished ground floor level of 37.90m AHD and a first floor level of 40.90m AHD. Unit 2 in the proposed development has a roof ridge height of 39.61m AHD at the highest point, and a roof ridge height of 38.90m AHD over Bed 3.

Views from the first floor kitchen, dining, lounge room, and deck are therefore expected to be retained from both sitting and standing positions as the floor level of these rooms is 1.29m above the highest point of the proposed building.

Views to the south from the ground floor lounge room and private open space area at No. 30 Ocean Ridge Terrace are expected to be lost from both sitting and standing positions where the roof of proposed Unit 2 is at its highest. Partial views are expected to be retained over the roof of Bed 3 from a standing position

Step 4

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

Comments: The proposal complies with the relevant planning controls for building height and floor space ratio in the LEP, and generally complies with building setback controls in the DCP. Minor variations proposed to the front and rear setback controls would not contribute to any view loss from the development.

The design of the building has been amended to reduce the overall height and change the roof form of proposed Unit 2 to reduce the extent of view loss from adjoining property.

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

Overshadowing

There are no adverse overshadowing impacts. The Applicant has submitted shadow diagrams demonstrating that the proposal does not prevent adjoining properties from receiving 3 hours of sunlight to private open space and primary living areas on 21 June.

Roads

The site has road frontage to Beacon Court which is a public road with an AC sealed pavement, a layback kerb and gutter, under the care and control of Council.

Traffic and Transport

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

Site Frontage & Access

Vehicle access to the site is proposed though a shared driveway with direct frontage to Beacon Court. Access shall comply with Council AUSPEC and Australian Standards, and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

Parking and Manoeuvring

A total of 4 parking spaces have been provided on-site within garages with additional parking provided available within the driveway. Parking and driveway widths on site can comply with relevant Australian Standards (AS 2890) and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

Due to the type of development, a turning bay is required to enable vehicles associated with proposed Unit 2 to enter and exit the site in a forward manner. Site plans show adequate area is available and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the development site has existing service from the 100mm diameter water mains on the opposite side of Beacon Court. This service can be utilized by proposed Lot 1. An additional water service shall be required for Lot 2. Engineering plans are required to show all existing and proposed water services to the lot.

Detailed plans will be required to be submitted for assessment with the Section 68 application.

Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site is connected to Sewer via junction which can be adopted for use for Lot 1. An additional sewer main junction is required for Lot 2. Details shall be provided as part of the Section 68 application process.

Detailed plans will be required to be submitted for assessment with the Section 68 application.

Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the street frontage.

The legal point of discharge for the proposed development is defined as a direct connection to Council’s stormwater pit within Beacon Court.

Stormwater from the proposed development is planned to be disposed via interallotment drainage and direct connection to the KIP, which is consistent with the above requirements.

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

Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Evidence of satisfactory arrangements with the relevant utility authorities for provision to each proposed lot will be required prior to Subdivision Certificate approval.

Heritage

No known items of Aboriginal or European heritage significance exist on the property. No adverse impacts anticipated.

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

Air and microclimate

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. Standard precautionary site management condition recommended.

Energy

The proposal includes measures to address energy efficiency and will be required to comply with the requirements of BASIX. No adverse impacts anticipated.

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.

Safety, security and crime prevention

The proposed development will be unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area. The increase in housing density will improve natural surveillance within the locality and openings from each dwelling overlook common and private areas.

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. A likely positive impact is that the development will maintain employment in the construction industry, which will lead to flow impacts such as expenditure in the area.

Site design and internal design

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

Construction

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

Cumulative impacts

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

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

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

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

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

One written submission has been received following 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
Loss of views from No. 14 Beacon Court.	See comments earlier in this report under ‘View Sharing’. The proposed development is considered to be reasonable having regard to the applicable planning principle.
The height poles erected were insufficient to understand the full width of the building heights when viewed from No. 30 Ocean Ridge Terrace. A third height pole at the edge of the Bed 3 roof is required to assess the impacts.	The height poles, in conjunction with the plans, provide the assessing officer with sufficient information to assess the relative height of the building. A desktop analysis of the view impact has been provided earlier in this report under ‘View Sharing’, noting the adjoining property owner did not allow access for the purpose of view assessment.
Opposed to Council accepting plans that don’t show elevations of the two buildings together on the site.	The submitted plans include an overall site plan and separate elevations of the two dwellings proposed. There is considered to be sufficient information on the submitted plans, including existing and proposed levels, to understand how the two building will sit on the site.

(e) The Public Interest:

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

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

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

5. CONCLUSION

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

Attachments

1 View. DA2016 - 1006.1 Plans

2 View. DA2016 - 1006.1 Recommended Conditions

3 View. DA2016 - 1006.1 Submission - Ascott-Evans

4 View. DA2016 - 1006.1 Submission - Somerville

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 24/05/2017

Item: 07

Subject: DA2016 - 932 - Alterations And Additions To Waste Management Facility And Koala Plan Of Management - Lot 12 DP 1027602, Lot 11 DP875998, Lot 9 DP 876001 And Lot 1 DP 1120786 Kingfisher Road, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Patrick Galbraith-Robertson

Applicant: Port Macquarie-Hastings Council

Owner: Port Macquarie-Hastings Council

Estimated Cost: $2.5M

Parcel no: 34887,32656,32165,54886

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That the Development Assessment Panel recommend to Council that:

1. The Koala of Management - Kingfisher Road Waste Transfer Station be approved.

2. DA 2016 - 932 for alterations and additions to waste management facility at Lot 12 DP 1027602, Lot 11 DP875998, Lot 9 DP 876001 and Lot 1 DP 1120786, Kingfisher Road, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a Development Application (DA) for alterations and additions to an existing waste management facility 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, three(3) submissions have been received.

In accordance with Council’s Development Applications Conflict of Interest Policy, this DA is required to be determined by full Council as the Applicant and Owner is Council and submissions have been received objecting to the proposal.

1. BACKGROUND

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

The Kingfisher Waste Transfer Station (WTS) is located in Port Macquarie and access to the site is via Kingfisher Road. The site has been operating as a WTS since 1996. The site was also operated as a landfill for many years until Cairncross WMF opened in 2001. The site contains; a former landfill, ancillary waste stockpile areas (i.e. scrap metal and green waste), a concrete crushing and processing plant, a liquid waste facility, a waste oil processing facility, various ancillary sheds and a Waste Transfer Station.

The site is bounded by the Lake Innes Nature Reserve to the east, St Columba

Anglican School to the south, the Charles Sturt University (CSU) campus to the west and a boarding house facility being constructed to the northwest (approved under DA2015 - 95.1).

The site has an irregular shape with a total area of 19.16 hectares.

The site is managed by the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council and is classified as operational land.

The site is zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Waste or Resource Management Facility), R2 Low Density Residential and E2 - Environmental Conservation under Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environment Plan 2011, as shown in the following zoning plan:

The nearest existing neighbour is located approximately 76m to the north of the site (residential dwelling on Kingfisher Road).

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

The site has been subject to numerous approvals in the past. The WTS shed and operation of the transfer facility (including green waste and building waste processing etc) on site was approved under DA1996 - 59. This DA involved the construction of the WTS shed a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) shed (no longer in use), various sheds and facilities associated with the used of the site as a depot for JR Richards waste operations (no longer operational from the site) and the operation of the green waste, scrap metal and construction and demolition stockpile and processing areas.

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Alterations and additions to the WTS.

· Relocation of the existing weighbridge to a new location alongside a new additional weighbridge so that vehicle weights can be recorded into and out of the site.

· The extension of the WTS shed will allow for a ‘push pit’ waste compactor arrangement.

· Additional designated recycling facilities will also be provided along with a new office/amenities and ‘tip shop’ building which will sit within the WTS shed.

· The ‘tip shop’ area would be designated for objects that could be sold (e.g. furniture and tools in good condition.

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Designated Development

The Proposal does not meet the requirements under the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulations for designated development or state significant development (SSD).

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (PoEO Act) sets out procedures and requirements for waste, air, water and noise pollution control.

Schedule 1 of the PoEO Act establishes that an environment protection licence (EPL) must be obtained for a scheduled activity (i.e. activities listed in Schedule 1 of the

PoEO Act).

Schedule 1 of the PoEO Act outlines a number of waste storage, waste transfer, resource recovery or processing facilities that require an EPL. Schedule 1 stipulates that if the premises stores more than 1,000 tonnes of waste at any one time or processes more than 6,000 tonnes of waste per year it is required to obtain an EPL from the EPA. As the facility will store or receive more than 1,000 tonnes and 6,000 tonnes of waste per year respectively the development is required to obtain an EPL from the EPA. EPL 20698 is in force on the site and was issued to PMHC on 4th July 2016.

Should consent be granted for the proposed development the Council will be required to vary the EPL to cover the revised development and site operations ( i.e. an application will be made to the EPA to vary the EPL at or before Construction Certificate stage).

Application Chronology

· 2 December 2016 - DA lodged with Council.

· 7 December 2016 - Referral to NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

· 12 December 2016 to 13 January 2017 - Neighbour notification of proposal

· 21 December 2016 - Advice received from RMS.

· 9 February 2017 - Additional information requested from Applicant - submission issues and access and traffic impacts.

· 15 March 2017 - Meeting with Applicant to discuss assessment issues.

· 21 March 2017 - Advice received from Department of Planning and Environment that the proposed Koala Plan of Management is approved.

· 5 May 2017 - Additional information received from Applicant - response to submission issues and suggested consent conditions to address access and traffic impacts.

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 79C(1) Matters for Consideration

In determining the DA, 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. 14 - Coastal Wetlands

The site is identified as being partially within mapped SEPP 14 wetlands. The site also adjoins the Lake Innes Nature Reserve (managed by National Parks & Wildlife

Service - NPWS), which is wholly identified as containing SEPP 14 wetlands (near

the subject site).

The development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the SEPP and does not contravene any of the restrictions listed under clause (7)(1) of the SEPP. Namely the development does not involve any clearing, levying, draining or filling of the SEPP 14 wetlands.

It is considered that no adverse impacts would be expected on the nearby SEPP 14 wetlands as a result of the development subject to the imposition of standard erosion and sediment control measures being imposed on the development consent. A specific condition is recommended in relation to stormwater quality treatment to be satisfied prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.33 - Hazardous and Offensive Development

SEPP 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development links the permissibility of an industrial development proposal to its safety and environmental performance. Certain activities may involve handling, storing or processing a range of materials, which, in the absence of controls, may create risk outside of operational borders to people, property or the environment. Such activities would be defined by SEPP 33 as a 'potentially hazardous industry' or 'potentially offensive industry'. SEPP 33 applies to any industrial development proposals which fall within these definitions.

The Proposal does not fall within the definition of a “potentially hazardous industry” or “potentially offensive industry” under the SEPP 33, due to the existing nature of the site. The Proposal is modifying and improving operations on site.

Existing small quantities of domestic hazardous wastes (i.e. paints etc) are removed quarterly by a licence contractor. The installation of a compacter bin system will also reduce odours.

It is considered that the proposal has minimal potential for impacts to human and environmental health. Given this, it is considered that the impacts associated with the proposal are unlikely to be ‘offensive’ or ‘hazardous’. Further hazard analysis is therefore not required.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

With reference to clauses 6 and 7, the subject land is greater than 1 hectare (including any adjoining land under same ownership) and therefore the provisions of SEPP must be considered.

This SEPP aims to provide protection of areas of natural vegetation that provides habitat for koalas. It restricts a local Council from granting development consent for proposals on land identified as core koala habitat without preparation of a Koala Plan of Management (KPoM).

A KPoM has been completed for the proposed development and proposes to compensate for the removal of up to 17 trees for the upgrade of the WTS. The KPoM prescribes a number of measures to ensure no net loss of Koala habitat and that opportunities for Koala movement are enhanced. To this effect, compensation plantings over an area of 0.7 ha shall be completed and Koala stiles installed at strategic locations to enable dispersing Koalas to traverse security fencing which surrounds much of the site. Additionally, monitoring of Koalas and the compensation planting shall occur in perpetuity and be completed by Council staff or appropriately experienced ecological contractors.

The KPoM has been referred to and approved by the Department of Planning and Environment. The KPoM is considered to be appropriate particularly noting the offset compensatory trees proposed for the proposal. It is recommended that the KPoM be approved.

Issues raised by neighbouring properties in relation to the KPoM are addressed later in this report. A copy of the KPoM is attached to this report.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

The objective of SEPP 55 is to provide for a coordinated state-wide planning approach for the remediation of contaminated land. SEPP 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land with the objective of reducing the risk of harm to human health or other aspects of the environment. Clause 7 of SEPP 55 imposes an obligation on the approval authority to have regard to certain matters before granting approval.

These matters include:

- Whether the land is contaminated

- Whether the land is, or will be, suitable for the purpose for which development is to be carried out

- If remediation is required for the land to be suitable for the proposed purpose, whether the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

SEPP 55 also imposes obligations to carry out any remediation work in accordance with relevant guidelines, developed under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1995 and to notify the relevant council of certain matters in relation to any remediation work.

The WTS site is located adjacent to the former landfill area which has been classified as Class A contaminated land. It is not proposed to disturb the former landfill area, however the Applicant has advised that in the event that contaminated soil was disturbed, remediation would be undertaken as necessary.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 62 – Sustainable Aquaculture

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

The Proposal does not involve any additional signage which requires consent.

Signage changes will be required to reflect the revised traffic arrangements which will result from the amended site layout, however as this is road signage, it is not required to meet the provisions of SEPP 64.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The development meets the applicable provisions of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007, namely Division 23 - waste or resource management facilities.

The development may be carried out with consent within the prescribed SP2 zone.

This includes the ‘business premises or retail premises’ being the ‘Tip Shop’ which is proposed to be located within the expanded WTS shed.

Section 121 of the ISEPP facilitates the development for the purposes of waste or resource management facilities to be undertaken, with development consent within a ‘prescribed zone’ which includes rural zones (RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape, IN1 General Industrial, IN3 Heavy Industrial, SP1 Special Activities and SP2 Infrastructure). The WTS site is zoned SP2 under the Port Macquarie–Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 (PMH LEP), which is considered to be a ‘prescribed zone’. Therefore, development of a waste or resource management facilities is permissible with consent on the site.

Referral to the Roads & Maritime Service (RMS) has been made as the development meets the requirements of Clause 104 of Schedule 3 of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007.

In accordance with Clause 104 (3)(b) PMHC must take into consideration any comment from RMS. Refer to comments later in this report.

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 SP2 - Infrastructure (Waste or Resource

Management Facility), R2 - Low Density Residential (existing weighbridge site and vacant site) and E2 - Environmental Conservation (small strip in north eastern corner of site). In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the SP2 zone landuse table, the

proposed development for alterations to the Waste Transfer Station (WTS) is a permissible landuse with consent in the SP2 zone.

The objectives of the SP2 zone are as follows:

· To provide for infrastructure and related uses.

· To prevent development that is not compatible with or that may detract from

b) the provision of infrastructure.

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

o the proposal is a permissible landuse.

o the proposal is for alterations to an existing established waste facility and will cater for the increasing population of Port Macquarie .

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

· Clause 4.1, the development does not propose any subdivision, therefore the minimum lot sizes will not be affected by the development proposal.

· Clause 5.9 - several listed trees in Development Control Plan 2013 are proposed to be removed. Refer to SEPP44 and flora and fauna assessment sections of this report.

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

· Clause 7.1, the proposal site is mapped as potentially containing class 2 and 3 acid sulphate soils (PASS). The proposed development includes excavation and earthworks, however no excavation extending 1.0m below the natural surface level is proposed. Further to this all proposed earthworks will be located on previously disturbed land and all earthworks are proposed on land which is outside of the mapped PASS area. Therefore no adverse impacts are expected to occur to the acid sulphate soils found on site.

· Clause 7.3, the site is land within a mapped “flood planning area” (Land subject to flood discharge of 1:100 annual recurrence interval flood event (plus 0.9m East of the Pacific Highway). However the proposed works are located above the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), therefore no adverse impacts will occur in relation to flood impacts.

· Clause 7.5 – the Proposal site is not land that is shown as “Koala Habitat area” on the Koala Habitat Map. However SEPP 44 is applicable to the subject development. Refer to SEPP 44 requirements and Appendix E for further details on Koala management.

(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 objective	Requirement	Proposed	Complies
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1.0m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	Cut and fill exceeding 1.0m will be required for the new access road. However the works are located well within the boundaries of the site, therefore this will ensure there is no damage or instability to adjoining properties caused by excavation or filling, nor will there be any adverse alteration to the drainage of adjoining dwellings and private open space. The development will also ensure that adequate stormwater drainage is provided around the perimeter of buildings and roads and that both overland and piped flow paths are provided.	No - variation justified
2.3.3.2	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structural engineer	If required, engineering certification will be provided for any retaining walls required which are over 1.0m.	Yes
2.3.3.8 onwards	Removal of hollow bearing trees	No hollow bearing trees are proposed to be removed.	N/A
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3.0m or higher with 100m diameter trunk and 3.0m outside dwelling footprint	17 trees proposed to be removed.	Yes - satisfactorily addressed
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater	Refer to main body of report.	Yes
2.5.3.3	Off-street parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1:	See ‘parking and manoeuvring section’ below.	Yes
2.5.3.7	Parking in accordance with AS 2890.1	Capable of being provided.
2.5.3.11	Development contributions	Refer to main body of report	Yes
2.5.3.12 and 2.5.3.13	Landscaping of parking areas	Landscaping is proposed.	Yes
2.5.3.14	Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified	All access ways will be sealed	Yes
2.5.3.15	Driveway grades for first 6.0m of ‘parking area’ shall be 5% grade (Note AS/NZS 2890.1 permits steeper grades)	N/A, however all internal roads to meet road design guidelines.	N/A
2.5.3.16	Transitional grades min. 2.0m length	See above	Yes
2.5.3.17	Parking areas to be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.	All internal roads to meet road design guidelines.	Yes
2.5.3.18	Car parking areas drained to swales, bio retention, rain gardens and infiltration areas	All car parking areas will drain to the existing Stormwater management facility in the north eastern corner of the Kingfisher WMF site. All drainage water will be transferred via both the overland and piped system.	Yes
2.7.2.2	Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design.	The site is under camera surveillance and has security lighting. Further the site is patrolled by a security team on a regular basis.	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:

Demolition of buildings AS 2601 – Clause 92

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:

· 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

North: Low density residential and vacant residentially zoned land

The closest dwelling to the site is located 76m to the north of the site on Lot 27,

DP1145906.

East: Nature Reserve

The Lake Innes Nature Reserve directly abuts the eastern edge of the subject site.

The former landfill separates the WTS shed from the Nature Reserve. The

Nature Reserve is located approximately 230m from the WTS shed.

South: School

To the south of the site is St Columba Anglican School, which directly abuts the southern extremity of the former landfill of the site. The School is located approximately 300m from the WTS shed.

West: Vacant rural land

To the west of the site is the currently vacant rural land which is owned by Charles Sturt University. Any future development on this site will be located a minimum distance of 180m from the WTS shed.

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

The proposal is considered to be compatible with surrounding land uses given the separation to the WTS facilities.

There are no identifiable adverse view sharing, privacy or overshadowing impacts.

The proposal will be unlikely to result in any adverse lighting impacts.

Roads

The site has road frontage to Kingfisher road, which is designated as a local road (using the AUS-SPEC classification system).

Kingfisher Road is a sealed public road with a formation width of 11 metres for the majority of the road with a section of variable width at the eastern end within a 20 metre road reserve. The road has a combination SA and SE kerb and gutter, with no footpaths currently constructed on either side of the road.

Traffic and Transport

The proposal is anticipated to generate 145 daily trips. However, this does not represent an increase in vehicle movements compared to the existing operation. This is because the proposal will result in a decrease in heavy vehicle movements from 1078 movements per year to 468 movements per year, which equates to a 43% decrease in heavy vehicles. This reduction is due to the compaction of the waste which needs to be removed from the site which will reduce the volume by 66%.

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

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

Consistent with RMS requirements, the proposal was referred to the RMS on 7/12/2016. RMS’ review of the proposal determined:

Council was advised to be satisfied that the intersection of Kingfisher Road and John Oxley Drive is appropriately designed and delineated to accommodate peak heavy and light vehicle movements generated by the proposed development.

In this regard, as there is no increase to traffic movements, it is considered satisfactory that the intersection will remain unchanged.

Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that Council’s longer term planning for John Oxley Dr corridor is proposing to include upgrades to the Kingfisher and John Oxley Dr. Current approved concept plans includes traffic signals for the John Oxley Dr and Kingfisher Rd intersection. Detailed design of the corridor is scheduled to be undertaken in the next 2 years and the upgrade works are currently planned for in the 10 year forward planning works program.

Site Frontage & Access

Vehicle access to the site is proposed though one access driveway to Kingfisher Road. All accesses shall comply with Council AUSPEC and Australian Standards, and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

Due to the type and size of development, additional works are required to include:

· Road construction from the end of the existing constructed and approved pavement to the proposed development.

· Rehabilitation of the existing road pavement being undertaken with in 5 years of the development consent for that section of Kingfisher Road from John Oxley Drive to the Student Housing/Boarding House DA reconstruction.

Parking and Manoeuvring

The proposal includes onsite parking to be provided within the waste transfer station shed. Parking will be provided for staff and customers, and be located adjacent to these facilities. These parking spaces will be line marked and designated as parking spaces for staff and WTS customers.

Due to the type of development, car park circulation is required to enable vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward manner. Site plans show adequate area is available and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements. All manoeuvring and parking will be required to comply with AS2890.

Water Supply Connection

Records indicate that the proposed development site has a 100mm metered water service from the 150mm PVC water main in Kingfisher Road. Final water service sizing will need to be determined by a hydraulic consultant to suit the domestic, commercial and industrial components as well as addressing fire service and backflow protection requirements. Details are to be provided on the engineering plans.

Sewer Connection

Records indicate that the site has an existing private sewer pump station and private sewer rising main to the vicinity of Pump Station No. 61 in Geebung Road. Sewer upgrade design details (if applicable) will need to be determined by a hydraulic consultant. Details are to be provided on the engineering plans for the required construction certificate (CC).

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the south-east and is currently serviced via an existing sediment basin located on the eastern side of the site. This stormwater pond also contains a gross pollutant trap (GPT) and sediment capture system.

The point of discharge for the proposed development is defined as the existing sediment basin spillway to the adjoin Kooloonbung Nature Reserve.

Stormwater from the proposed development is planned to be disposed via the existing GPT and sediment basin to Kooloonbung Reserve which is consistent with the above requirements.

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

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

Following a site inspection (and a search of Council records), no known items of Aboriginal or European heritage significance exist on the property.

Due to the high level of past disturbance evident throughout the site, it is extremely unlikely that that any in-situ artefacts would be present in the area. As such, the proposal is unlikely to impact on any aboriginal places, objects and features of significance.

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

Air and microclimate

Flora and fauna

Construction of the proposed access road and weighbridges will require the removal of seventeen (17) native trees from the subject site. However, it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on flora and fauna subject to appropriate conditions including compliance with the proposed Koala Plan of Management.

The proposal 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

The proposal will provide the Port Macquarie urban area with an improved regional waste management facility to deposit general and other waste.

The impacts of the Proposal include construction and operational impacts. Construction impacts relate to the waste streams which would be generated by the construction process. Operational impacts relate to the management of waste stream at the facility and compliance with government strategies and policies.

Operational impacts

Waste streams currently received at the WTS will include general mixed waste, cardboard, e-waste, mattresses, oil, co-mingled recycling, greenwaste, oil, hazardous waste, batteries, tyres, metal and bricks and concrete. General mixed waste is expected to continue to contribute the largest volumes of waste to be managed at the facility. The intention of the WTS is to provide a improved drop-off services for household quantities of waste (eg. trailers / utes). Small scale commercial enterprises (i.e. green waste) utilise the WTS on occasion, however commercial and bulk wastes will continue to be directed to the Cairncross WMF.

The WTS has been designed to maximise resource recovery.

Customers are required to pass resource recovery stations prior to reaching the mixed residual waste drop-off area. In addition the WTS site layout allows for surveillance of all drop-off areas by operational staff. This will increase the likelihood of customers depositing waste in the appropriate locations.

Mitigation measures

Many of the impacts of the proposal have a positive effect on waste management.

However, to ensure that waste management operations associated with the Proposal

(i.e. the push pit and compactor system) do not negatively impact the surrounding environment, the existing Port Macquarie Waste Management Centre, Kingfisher

Road, Operational Environment Management Plan (2007) will be updated.

Energy

The proposal includes measures to address energy efficiency and will be required to comply with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia. No adverse impacts anticipated.

Noise and vibration

No adverse impacts anticipated given the nature of the development. Standard noise conditions are recommended including requirements to not generate offensive noise.

Condition recommended to restrict construction to standard construction hours.

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

The adjoining vacant land and the development site contains managed forest Vegetation.

Bushfire Prone Land Map as Category 1 Bushfire Prone Vegetation and therefore the proposed development could be subject to the impact from future bushfires that occur in this vegetation.

Section 79BA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires the consent authority, when considering development within a bushfire prone area, to confirm that the development complies with the requirements of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006.

Bushfire protection has been considered for the additions to the Kingfisher WTS. A

20m minimum width from managed vegetation on the land to the north of the WTS buildings exists. This 20m protection zone is considered appropriate.

It is considered that the proposal satisfies the objectives of PBP 2006 and the bushfire risk is acceptable subject to the APZ being maintained.

Safety, security and crime prevention

The proposed development is unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment areas

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

security in the immediate area.

The Proposal already includes a number of onsite security measures to ensure the

protection and safety of the WTS site, its employees and retail customers. Security at

the WTS site includes:

- Fencing to prevent unauthorised entry.

- Controlled circuit television (CCTV) security system at key locations, including the main entrance, WTS shed, and at other strategic locations throughout the site.

- A telecommunications system with connection to the WTS site office and other buildings.

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. A likely positive impact is that the development will maintain employment in the construction industry, which will lead to flow impacts such as expenditure in the area.

Site design and internal design

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

Construction

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

Cumulative impacts

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

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

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

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

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

Three (3) written submissions have been received following neighbour notification 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

Objection to the use of neighbouring land for the use of fauna corridors (Koala Stiles) across boundary fences.

The proposed Koala Stile locations are indicative only, however have been identified by specialist Koala ecologists. Council ecology staff and the Department of Planning KPOM have raised no objection to the indicative koala stile locations. Final locations will be subject to review at construction stage and agreement with respective neighbouring landowners.

A section of boundary fence between the sites had been noted in the ecological assessment as being open, however this has been repaired.

The repair to the boundary fencing is noted.

Lack of consultation regarding the Ecological Assessment and proposed fauna crossings (Koala Stiles).

Council staff attempted to contact the owners of neighbouring properties which were earmarked for potential Koala Stile locations via email. It should be noted that if the locations are not acceptable by the landowner there is sufficient flexibility n the KPoM to utilise other locations.

The inclusion of a rejected DA on neighbouring land in the SOEE is unnecessary.

Noted, it is agreed this is not relevant and does not have a bearing on the subject application.

Concerned about the continual upgrading of the Waste Management Facility without utilising the alternative access road via the Port Macquarie Industrial Estate (i.e. via Geebung Drive)

The proponent has advised that construction of the alternate access road is cost prohibitive due to steep grades, large cuts and significant tree removal.

It is considered that the proposed access arrangement should be assessed on merit. It is anticipated that the heavy vehicle movements will decrease from 1,078 heavy vehicle movements per year to 468 heavy vehicle movements per year (Hyder, 2015). This represents a 43% decrease in heavy vehicle movements along Kingfisher Road. These new arrangements will have a net beneficial impact on the existing road network within the immediate locality. A reduction in maintenance requirements and adverse noise and vibration to neighbouring residents along Kingfisher Road can be expected with fewer heavy vehicle movements.

An alternative access road via Geebung Drive is considered unnecessary.

Council should close the entrance/exit to the waste facility from Kingfisher Road and relocate it to the industrial area. This would be a safer, cost effective design solution and would remove the large trucks and additional traffic being used for the waste facility from a residential area.

The development will increase the travel flow along Kingfisher Road which is not presently built for the type of traffic that uses the road. The road is narrow, has sight restrictions at hill crests and is suitable for residential traffic only. In places the road is only 6m wide.

Refer to above comments regarding decrease in heavy vehicle movement.

The development was referred to the RMS as it was deemed to be a ‘traffic generating development’. The RMS did not have any concerns with the proposed works, nor did they raise any concerns with the use of the existing road access (i.e. Kingfisher Road). The road width is deemed appropriate for the development and no changes to the road alignment/width is required as a result of this development.

A condition is however recommended to rehabilitate Kingfisher Road from John Oxley Drive to the Boarding House/Student Accommodation site as offered by the Applicant which is to occur within 5 years of the consent being issued.

Traffic speed along Kingfisher Road is concerning for pedestrians and cars entering Kingfisher Road from Lyrebird Place. Cars are also regularly parked on the road restricting the road width. There are no footpaths available along the entire length of Kingfisher Road.

Regulating traffic speeds is a matter for the police. The road width is appropriate for the development and no changes to the road alignment/width is required as a result of this development.

The intersection of Kingfisher Road & John Oxley Drive needs upgrading due to the increased use as a result of the additional heavy vehicle movements.

Refer to above comments regarding decrease in heavy vehicle movement.

The intersection is not considered to require an upgrade as a result of the development.

The 592 bed student accommodation facility proposed for Kingfisher Road will place additional stress on Kingfisher Road & additional heavy vehicle movements will add to this.

Refer to above comments.

The proposal does not accommodate for a pedestrian link from the end of Kingfisher Road to the Googik Track as proposed under the 2015 PMH Bike Plan.

The concept alignment for the bike track link is considered capable of being provided when required. The link is indicatively shown crossing Kingfisher Road at or near the entrance to the site. Appropriate road crossing treatments (concrete blisters, signposting) etc are capable of being incorporated to the road design. The link through the site is also capable of being provided.

Council should contribute to the upgrade/resealing of Kingfisher Road and the intersection with John Oxley Drive and should provide a footpath along the length of Kingfisher Road to make it safer for pedestrians.

Rehabilitation of Kingfisher Road will be undertaken in conjunction with the development which is to occur within 5 years of the consent being issued.

As the proposed development does not generate any pedestrian movements it is not directly required to provide any footpath upgrades. Nevertheless, it is expected that any future rehabilitation of Kingfisher Road would consider a footpath.

(e) The Public Interest:

The Proposal will provide the Port Macquarie urban area with an improved regional waste management facility to deposit general and other waste.

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

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

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

· Development contributions will be required under Section 94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are not required with the proposed conditions for upgrade and rehabilitation works.

5. CONCLUSION

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

Attachments

1 View. DA2016 - 932.1 Plans

2 View. DA2016 - 932.1 KPOM

3 View. DA2016 - 932.1 Recommended Conditions

4 View. DA2016 - 932.1 Submission - Mifsud

5 View. DA2016 - 932.1 Submission - Pirlo

6 View. DA2016 - 932.1 Submission - Schaffar

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

MISSION:

FUNCTIONS:

TIMETABLE:

INDEPENDENT CHAIR:

QUORUM:

DECISION MAKING:

LOBBYING: