Agenda of Development Assessment Panel

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 09/08/2017

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 09/08/2017

Item: 05

Subject: DA2016 - 53.1 and PP2016 - 3.1 Planning Proposal and 2 into 5 Lot Subdivision, Lot 15 DP 1099742 And Lot 7 DP 1142473, No. 40 Reading Street, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Chris Gardiner

Applicant: R G Little

Owner: R G & A L Little, and N M Xavier

Estimated Cost: $70,000

Parcel no: 49486 and 58969

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That it be a recommendation to Council that Council:

1. Take the necessary steps under sections 58 and 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to finalise Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment No 41) as attached.

2. Enter into the Reading Street Environmental Land Planning Agreement under Section 93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 between Port Macquarie-Hastings Council and Ronald Gordon Little and Adele Lillian Little.

3. Having regard to the assessment in this report of DA2017-53, for a subdivision at Lot 7 DP 1142473 and Lot 15 DP 1099742 (No. 40) Reading Street, Port Macquarie, delegate to the General Manager the determination of the development application upon the commencement of Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment No 41).

4. Thank in writing all those who made a submission for their contribution and provide information on Council’s decision on the matter.

Executive Summary

This report considers:

· proposed amendments to the LEP 2011 mapping for Lot 7 Reading Street,

· an associated Voluntary Planning Agreement relating to the proposed dedication of environmental management land to Council, and

· an associated development application for a 2 into 5 lot subdivision at the subject site

and provides an assessment of the applications in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The proposed zonings and subdivision layout are shown on the following plan.

The proposal has been lodged as a joint Planning Proposal and Development Application in accordance with Part 3, Division 4B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The subdivision proposed in the development application can only be carried out if the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 (LEP) is amended as proposed in the Planning Proposal.

Determination of the LEP amendments and the Voluntary Planning Agreement require referral to Council, but it is proposed that the Development Assessment Panel review the development application in conjunction with those matters and provide any relevant comments with that referral.

Determination of the development application will only be possible following the commencement of the amending LEP.

Following exhibition of the Development Application, Planning Proposal, and Planning Agreement, three submissions have been received.

The key issues are:

· Protection of the current environmental lands;

· Enhancement of ecological corridors between Sea Acres National Park and Wrights Creek;

· Consequential provision of alternate land zoned R1 General Residential.

1. BACKGROUND

Existing sites features and surrounding development

The site has an area of 1.84 hectares.

The site is zoned R1 General Residential, RU6 Transition, 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:

The eastern Lot 7 is the residue of the staged subdivision of the northern section of Reading Street, Port Macquarie. It is on the upper reaches of Wrights Creek, and part of it is vulnerable to local flooding.

When residential zoning was first applied to this portion of Port Macquarie in 1980, most of what is now Lot 7 was zoned 6(b) Private Recreation. The area zoned 6(b) is now zoned E2 Environmental Conservation in Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011.

The western 20m of Lot 7 provides a bushfire asset protection zone to Lot 15 (No 40), and is cleared and zoned RU6 Transition.

The south-eastern portion of Lot 7 has some flood-free land and is zoned R1 General Residential, though it does not have easy access to facilitate residential subdivision.

To the north is the vegetated Wrights Creek corridor, and to the east is a vegetated linkage to Sea Acres National Park. The vegetation on the eastern portion of Lot 7 has additional ecological value through the provision of connectivity between these 2 areas, where at present there is land zoned R1 General Residential.

The proposal seeks to preserve the vegetation on Lot 7, other than on the western side, where three residential lots are proposed.

The combined application documents are Attachments

1 Volume 1 Main Documents, including

· Chapter 1 - LEP Amendment

· Chapter 2 - Development Application

· Chapter 3 - Voluntary Planning Agreement

· Appendix A - (LEP) Gateway Determination

2 Volume 2, containing

· Appendix B – (LEP) Consistency with applicable State Environmental Planning Policies

· Appendix C – (LEP) Consistency with applicable Section 117 Ministerial Directions

· Appendix D – Voluntary Planning Agreement document

· Appendix E – Public Authority comments

· Appendix F – (DA) Statement of Environmental Effects

3 Volume 3 Appendix G - Bush Fire Assessment

4 Volume 4 Appendix H - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment

5 Volume 4 Appendix I - Statutory Ecological Assessment

2. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN

The objectives of the LEP amendments are:

· to enhance the value of the environmental conservation land through long term protection of the ecological corridor between Sea Acres National Park and Wrights Creek, and

· to provide offset land zoned Residential.

The LEP amendments involve changes to:

· Land Zoning Map (current zoning is shown under Background, and proposed in Executive Summary)

· Lot Size Map (to align with Land Zoning Map)

· Floor Space Ratio Map (to align with Land Zoning Map).

Additional benefits are:

· a net increase in land zoned E2 Environmental Conservation of 1200m²;

· a simpler and more affordable subdivision of 3 Residential lots.

This does involve the removal of an E2 zone over 1850m² towards the western end of Lot 7, which has been raised in some submissions, though this is replaced with 3050m² of E2 zone in the southeast corner, where it is considered to enhance an ecological corridor.

The ecological assessments have given greater environmental value to the eastern area, even in a current degraded condition. This is due to its integrated location within an ecological corridor and conservation with bushland management will make the whole corridor more robust. The western area is a side offshoot of the main ecological corridor, and assessment of the species within it does not identify any grounds to favour this area over the eastern area.

3. PROPOSED VOLUNTARY PLANNING AGREEMENT

Council has received an offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) in connection with the Development Application.

The Planning Agreement provides for dedication free of cost to Council of 1.497 hectares of environmental land as a public reserve. The land is identified as Lot 5 in the proposed plan of subdivision and dedication of the land would be required to take place on registration of the first plan of subdivision for the development.

A copy of the draft Planning Agreement is attached to this report (Attachment 2 Appendix D).

Public notification of the draft Planning Agreement was carried out jointly with the Planning Proposal and Development Application between 14 June 2017 and 12 July 2017, including a notice in the local newspaper. Following exhibition three (3) submissions were received. However, the submissions related to the Planning Proposal and Development Application and did not raise any issues in relation to the Draft VPA.

It is recommended that Council proceed to enter into the Planning Agreement.

4. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· 2 into 5 lot subdivision including 4 residential lots and a proposed public reserve.

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Development Application Chronology

· 4 February 2016 – Application lodged as joint Planning Proposal and Development Application.

· 6 April 2016 – Additional information requested from Applicant.

· 10 April 2016 – Additional information submitted by Applicant.

· 19 April 2016 – Owner’s consent granted for proposed creation of easement to drain water over Lot 36 DP 246193.

· 19 October 2016 – Site inspected by assessing officers of Development Application and Planning Proposal with Office of Environment and Heritage.

· 28 November 2016 – Comments received from NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

· 7 December 2016 – Bush Fire Safety Authority issued by the NSW Rural Fire Service.

· 6 June 2017 – Aboriginal culture heritage assessment received.

· 14 June 2017 to 12 July 2017 – Public exhibition of Development Application, Planning Proposal, and Planning Agreement.

5. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 79C(1) Matters for Consideration

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

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) any Environmental Planning Instrument:

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

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

An Ecological Assessment prepared by Naturecall Environmental has been submitted with the application. The report includes consideration of SEPP 44 in Part 5.0. The author identified that only a single primary food tree listed in Schedule 2 of the SEPP (a Swamp Mahogany) was present on the site. Therefore, the land does not qualify as potential koala habitat, due to Schedule 2 food trees comprising less than 15% of canopy trees on the site.

The report notes that there was a koala reported to have been sighted on the property approximately 8 months earlier. However, further consideration of the SEPP is not required in accordance with clause 7(3)(a) despite this sighting.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

c) any adverse impacts on flora and fauna;

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

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

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

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

h) adverse cumulative impacts on the environment;

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

j) development relying on flexible zone provisions.

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

The proposal is consistent with the LEP as proposed to be amended having regard to the following:

· Clause 2.2, the subject site was zoned R1 General Residential, RU6 Transition, and E2 Environmental Conservation at the time of lodgement. The submitted proposal includes rezoning of the site to R1 on the western side to accommodate 4 residential lots, and E2 for the residue of approximately 1.497 hectares, which is intended to be dedicated to Council as a public reserve. This application cannot be determined until the amending LEP commences.

The objectives of the R1 and E2 zones are as follows:

R1 General Residential:

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.

E2 Environmental Conservation:

o To protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.

o To prevent development that could destroy, damage or otherwise have an adverse effect on those values.

o To protect coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests.

o To protect land affected by coastal processes and environmentally sensitive land.

o To prevent development that adversely affects, or would be adversely affected by, coastal processes.

o To enable development of public works and environmental facilities where such development would not have an overall detrimental impact on ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.

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

o The proposal would provide additional residential lots to meet the housing needs of the community.

o The development includes a variety of lot sizes that would provide for choice of housing type and density.

o The development would conserve and protect ecologically significant land.

o The proposal would improve long-term links with other habitat to the east of the site.

· Clause 4.1, the residential lot sizes within the proposed subdivision range from 694m² to 1096m². All proposed residential lots comply with the minimum lot sizes identified in the proposed amended Lot Size Map included with the Planning Proposal. Lot 5 in the proposed subdivision is intended to be dedicated to Council as a public reserve in accordance with a Planning Agreement. It is noted that the area of this lot (1.497 hectares) is slightly below the proposed 1.5 hectare minimum lot size shown on the proposed Lot Size Map. However, Clause 2.75(e) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 allows subdivision for the purpose of creating a public reserve to be carried out as Exempt Development without having regard to the LEP Lot Size Map.

· Clause 5.5 - Development within the coastal zone - relevant objectives of this clause are addressed by SEPP 71 section (see above). Climate Change & Coastal Hazard implications addressed under Clause 7.3 below.

· Clause 5.9 - The proposal includes removal/modification of approximately 1800m² of modified wet sclerophyll forest vegetation. See comments later in this report under Development Control Plan 2013 and Flora & Fauna sections.

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

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

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 effect 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;

The flood affected part of the site is proposed to be located within the E2 land and all the residential allotments would be located above the flood planning level.

· 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:

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment No 41)

The Planning Proposal for LEP Amendment No 41 was publicly exhibited between 14 June 2017 and 12 July 2017.

In relation to the subject site, the draft instrument proposes the following changes, as detailed in the Figures 5 - 10 of the Planning Proposal:

· Change zoning applying to Lots 1 - 4 from RU6 and E2 to R1;

· Change zoning applying to Lot 5 from E2 and R1 to E2;

· Change minimum lot size applying to Lots 1 - 4 from 1800m² to 450m²;

· Change minimum lot size applying to Lot 5 from part 1800m² and part 450m² to 1.5 hectares;

· Change maximum floor space ratio applying to Lots 1 - 4 from no maximum to 0.65:1;

· Change maximum floor space ratio applying to Lot 5 from part 0.65:1 to no maximum.

2. The submitted application is consistent with the draft LEP and relies upon the proposed amendments to zoning and the Lot Size Map. The Development Application cannot be determined until commencement of the amending LEP.

(iii) any Development Control Plan in force:

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

*DCP 2013: Chapter 3.6 - Subdivision*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
3.6.3.2	Torrens title lots minimum width of 15m when measured at a distance of 5.5m from front property boundary.	Minimum 18m width for Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5. Lot 3 is a battleaxe lot and achieves minimum 15m width at distance of 5.5m from the end of the battleaxe handle.	Yes
	Minimum width of 7m when boundaries are extended to kerb line.	Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5 achieve minimum width of 7m. Lot 3 is a battleaxe lot with a 4.55m width at the kerb line. See further comments below regarding battleaxe lot.	Yes
	Minimum depth of 25m.	Lot 4 has a minimum 23.4m depth on one side. All other lots achieve minimum depth.	No*
3.6.3.3	Council may consider permitting Torrens Title battleaxe allotments for ―infill development where it is demonstrated that; · a Torrens Title lot, that is not a battleaxe lot, cannot be achieved; and · the number of crossovers do not reduce the amenity of the street or on street parking; and · the impact of noise, dust and headlights on the land owners adjoining the driveway is addressed by the construction of an acoustic fence for the 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.	It is not considered that an alternative lot layout could avoid a battleaxe lot, give the road geometry and environmental constraints at the site. The number of future crossovers in the frontage of the residential lots is considered reasonable and unlikely to significantly impact on street parking. Adequate privacy between the front and rear lot for future dwellings in achievable. Conditions recommended regarding acoustic fencing and services along battleaxe handle.	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.	The land has minimal slope and future dwelling construction involving less than 1m of cut or fill is achievable.	Yes
	Lot sizes increased for sloping sites in accordance with Table 3.6.1.	The development complies with the minimum lot size and width requirements of slope Category A.	Yes
	Additional information provided for slope categories in accordance with Table 3.6.2.	No retaining walls proposed at subdivision stage.	Yes
3.6.3.6	Kerb and guttering, associated street drainage, pavement construction and foot paving across the street frontages should be constructed as part of the subdivision works where these do not exist (may be varied subject to criteria in this clause)	Existing kerb and gutter across street frontage. Condition recommended requiring concrete footpath for the full frontage of the residential lots.	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 currently connected to the site.	Yes
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.	Condition recommended requiring erosion and sediment control plan as part of infrastructure Construction Certificate.	Yes
3.6.3.34	All service infrastructure should be underground unless otherwise approved by Council.	Condition recommended requiring certification of satisfactory arrangements for provision of utility services.	Yes
	All service infrastructure should be installed in a common trench.
	Conduits for the main technology network system should be provided in all streets.
	Conduits are to be installed in accordance with the National Broadband Network Company Limited’s ‘Guidelines for Fibre to the Premises Underground Deployment’.
	Access pits are to be installed at appropriate intervals along all streets.
3.6.3.51	Street trees should be provided along all road frontages generally at a rate of 1 per 20m interval.	Condition recommended requiring details of landscaping (including street trees) on the construction plans.	Yes
3.6.3.51	Street trees should not affect solar access.	Street trees would be located on the southern frontage of the lots and would not affect solar access.	Yes
3.6.3.52	Street trees from Council’s list.	Condition recommended requiring details of landscaping (including street trees) on the construction plans.	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	Development would create additional residential allotments, which would contribute to passive surveillance of the street.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	None proposed.	Yes
2.3.3.6	Vegetated buffer for watercourses	The site includes first and second order streams. The streams have existing vegetated buffers, which would be preserved within the E2 zone.	Yes
2.3.3.8 onwards	Removal of hollow bearing trees (HBTs)	The ecological assessment prepared by Naturecall Environmental identifies a total of 11 HBTs on the site, 4 of which are located on or adjacent to the proposed residential lots. The remainder of the 7 trees are located on the E2 land intended to be dedicated to Council. The ecological assessment scored the 4 trees potentially affected by the development 8-12 in accordance with Council’s HBT assessment protocol. Therefore the trees may be considered for removal if management measures are ‘impractical to allow retention’ (determined by an arborist) subject to compensatory measures. The report indicates that trees H1 - H4 inclusive are intended to be retained and offsets are therefore not proposed. However, advice received from OEH during the agency consultation for the Planning Proposal, indicated that they considered the HBT assessment to be incorrect due to the location of the trees within habitat or linkages. The OEH assessment considers that trees H1-H4 should be scored between 12.5 and 14. On this basis the DCP requires that the four trees be retained and afforded a development exclusion buffer (radius 1.25 times the height of the tree) or located in environmental lands. The layout of the proposed subdivision does not provide for a development exclusion buffer and proposed Lots 3 and 4 would effectively be sterilised if such a buffer was applied. Appendix I of the Planning Proposal addresses the consistency of the proposal with objectives of this control. Variation of the development provision is considered satisfactory in this instance. It is noted that OEH have further recommended that the four HBT’s be offset in accordance with 2.3.3.9 of the DCP. A condition is recommended requiring the developer to engage an arborist to remove all hollows from existing HBT’s prior to felling the trees. The removed hollows are to be installed in suitable locations within the proposed public reserve in consultation with an ecologist and as agreed by Council.	No, but acceptable
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100m diameter trunk and 3m outside dwelling footprint	Approximately 1800m² of vegetation is proposed to be removed. None of the trees proposed to be removed are koala food trees listed in Table 2.6.1. Potential ecological impacts of the tree removal are addressed later in this report under Flora and Fauna.	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
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report.

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 3.6.3.2 in relation to the minimum lot depth.

The objectives of the provision are:

· To provide a range of lot sizes to suit a variety of dwelling and household types.

· To ensure the lot layout plan reflects the site’s opportunities and constraints.

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

· The lot is of irregular shape and essentially has two rear boundaries. The depth of the lot is variable, but it provides a minimum 15m wide section with at least 25m depth which would comply with the lot dimension requirements.

· The minor non-compliance at the side boundary alignment is not considered to compromise the suitability of the lot to accommodate a variety of dwelling types.

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:

Council has received an offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) in connection with the Development Application.

The submitted proposal is consistent with the terms of the offer and a condition is recommended confirming the requirement for the development to comply with the provisions of the Planning Agreement.

iv) any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

New South Wales Coastal Policy:

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and strategic actions of this policy. See comments earlier under SEPP No. 71 - Coastal Protection.

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

No Coastal Zone Management Plan applies to the subject site.

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

The site has a general southerly street frontage orientation to Reading Street.

Adjoining the site to the north is residential development and a public reserve. Adjoining the site to the east is a public reserve. Adjoining the site to the south and west are residential dwellings.

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

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

The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

There are no significant adverse privacy impacts. The proposed lot layout would allow for future dwellings to be constructed with adequate privacy.

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

Roads

The site has road frontage to Reading Street. Adjacent to the site, Reading Street is a sealed public road under the care and control of Council.

Traffic and Transport

This development proposes to create four residential allotments (one of which contains an existing dwelling) and is expected to generate an additional 27 daily trips. The addition in traffic associated with the development is unlikely to have any adverse impacts to the existing road network within the immediate locality.

Site Frontage & Access

Due to the type and size of development, additional works are required to include concrete footpath paving (minimum 1.2m wide) along the full frontage. Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the proposed development site has two existing metered water services from the 100mm PVC water main on the opposite side of Reading Street. The proposed servicing strategy is acceptable in principal.

A new metered water service will be required for each allotment as part of the Torrens Title Subdivision.

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site is connected to Sewer via a junction to a manhole located on the southern property boundary. The proposed servicing strategy is acceptable in principal. Detailed engineering plans are to be provided and owners consent is to be provided if applicable.

A separate sewer connection to Council’s main is required for each Torrens Title lot.

Stormwater

The part of the site proposed for residential development naturally grades towards an existing stormwater detention basin to the south-east of proposed Lot 4.

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

a) The legal point of discharge for the proposed development is defined as an interallotment drainage system.

b) The design is to be generally in accordance with the stormwater drainage concept plan on Drawing No 9830 prepared by Frank O’Rourke & Associates Pty Ltd and dated 28 January 2016.

c) All allotments must be provided with a direct point of connection to the piped drainage system. Kerb outlets are not permitted.

d) The design requires the provision of interallotment drainage in accordance with AUSPEC D5. In this regard, the proposal to divert the existing interallotment drainage system around existing landscaping within proposed Lot 2 is an inefficient solution in that the proposal results in an unnecessary extent of encumbrance within the yard of that lot and a hydraulically inefficient solution. The proposed system should be realigned such that it runs parallel to the northern property boundary of Lot 2.

e) The design shall incorporate on-site stormwater detention facilities to limit site stormwater discharge to pre development flow rates for all storm events up to and including the 100 year ARI event. Note that pre development discharge shall be calculated assuming that the site is a ‘greenfield’ development site as per AUSPEC requirements. As an alternative, where a single end of line solution is not considered feasible, on-site stormwater detention facilities may be incorporated into the design of the future dwellings to be constructed on each of the proposed allotments.

In this regard, if OSD facilities are proposed to be constructed as part of a future dwelling construction, a restriction / covenant must be placed on the title of each allotment at the time of subdivision requiring that OSD facilities be constructed as part of any future building development to achieve site specific targets that comply with the above.

In this instance the CC plans must nominate the maximum permissible site discharge for each allotment.

f) Where works are staged, a plan is to be provided which demonstrates which treatment measure/s is/are to be constructed with which civil works stage. Separate plans are required for any temporary treatment (where applicable e.g. for building phase when a staged construction methodology is adopted) and ultimate design.

g) The design is to make provision for the natural flow of stormwater runoff from uphill/upstream properties/lands. The design must include the collection of such waters and discharge to the Council drainage system.

h) The design shall provide details of any components of the existing stormwater drainage system servicing the site that are to be retained.

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 European heritage significance exist on the property.

An Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment for the land has been prepared by J P Collins of Adise Pty Ltd.

The assessment considered heritage register searches, literature review, and cultural information disclosed by the senior sites officer of Birpai Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC). On the basis of this review the study area does not contain registered or otherwise reported Aboriginal objects, nor is it known to contain or impinge upon any specific sites/places of special traditional, historic or contemporary social/cultural significance. No Aboriginal sites/objects were detected during the field survey.

The report concludes that on the basis of Aboriginal consultation, background information and the nil field survey result, it is concluded that the proposed rezoning and associated residential development on Lot 7 DP 1142473 should be allowed to proceed without further Aboriginal cultural heritage constraints, providing the following management recommendations are fully implemented.

1) As part of the pre-start induction, all personnel engaged for initial development-related earthworks (including tree clearing) on proposed lots 2, 3 and 4 should be informed of their legal obligations with respect to Aboriginal objects, including ‘stop-work’ conditions applicable in the event that any identified or suspected Aboriginal objects are discovered at any time (Recommendation 3).

2) All personnel (including volunteers) engaged to undertake vegetation rehabilitation works on proposed lot 5 should be informed of their legal obligations with respect to Aboriginal objects, including ‘stop-work’ conditions applicable in the event that any identified or suspected Aboriginal objects are discovered at any time (Recommendation 3).

3) In the event that any identified or suspected Aboriginal objects are detected at any time, all disturbance works should immediately cease within 20m of the find and temporary protective fencing erected around this ‘no-go zone’ pending further management advice from the OEH and the Birpai LALC. If the find consists of or includes human remains, the NSW Police Department and the OEH Environmental Line (ph 131 555) should also be notified as soon as practicable.

Works may not recommence within the designated ‘no-go zone’ until formal written clearance to do so has been provided by the OEH and the Birpai LALC.

Conditions are proposed to incorporate the above requirements.

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

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

Air and microclimate

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

Flora and fauna

The applicant has submitted an ecological assessment report prepared by Naturecall Environmental and dated August 2015. The report details the following impact that the proposal is likely to have:

· Loss/modification of approximately 1800m² of vegetation;

· Removal of threatened Melaleuca biconvexa;

· Direct mortality via clearing and habitat destruction;

· Erosion and sedimentation;

· Edge effects;

· Noise, vibration and anthropogenic disturbances;

· Fencing;

· Introduction of feral/introduced species.

The report addresses the requirements of the ‘7 part test’ under Section 5A of the Act. The Naturecall Environmental report concludes that the proposal is unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on flora and fauna subject to the following conditions which are recommended to form part of the consent.

· Clear identification of vegetation to be removed and protection of retained trees during construction.

· Educational signage in the APZs of proposed Lots 3 and 4 discouraging new residents from dumping garden clippings in the APZ area or public reserve.

· Restriction on access to the residual habitat including dense Lomandra planting and educational signage.

· Suitable erosion and sedimentation control measures to be implemented.

· Preparation of a Vegetation Management Plan.

· Koala proof fencing for new residential lots.

The Vegetation Management Plan recommended in the ecological assessment will not be required in this instance as the proposed public reserve would be subject to ongoing management by Council’s Bushland Management Team.

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 proposed lot layout would provide for the construction of energy efficient dwellings.

Noise and vibration

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

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

In accordance with Section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 the application proposes subdivision of bush fire prone land that could lawfully be used for residential or rural residential purposes.

The applicant has submitted a bushfire report prepared by Krisann Johnson.

The Commissioner has assessed the development and has issued a Bushfire Safety Authority dated 7 December 2016. A condition is recommended incorporating the RFS requirements.

Safety, security and crime prevention

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

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.

Natural Hazards

See comments earlier in this report regarding flooding and bushfire hazards.

(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 written submissions have been received following public exhibition of the application.

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
The loss of all biodiversity on the three created residential lots including the loss of 36% of the hollow bearing trees on the existing Lot 7. Proposed Zone R1 land contains suitable habitat for threatened species, and shouldn't be lost.	The Statutory Ecological Assessment prepared by Naturecall Environmental includes a 7 Part Test as required under Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 addressing the potential biodiversity impacts of the development. The assessment concludes that the proposal is not likely to have a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats. The loss of hollow bearing trees is considered earlier in this report under the DCP provisions. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the DCP objectives in this instance, and conditions are recommended to ensure that the loss of habitat is satisfactorily offset.
Current Zone R1 land is constrained by poor access, is partial flood liable & degraded - poor exchange for western area.	The constraints applying to the current R1 land are acknowledged. The current quality of habitat on this land is also agreed to be lower than that of the existing RU6 and E2 land on the western side of the site that is proposed to be developed. However, the higher value of the current R1 land is its connectivity to other habitat in the Sea Acres National Park to the east, which cannot be offered by the western area. The proposed public reserve is intended to be actively managed by Council’s Bushland Management Team to restore its biodiversity values. Over time the ecological value of this land would outweigh that of the land intended to be developed on the eastern side of the site.
Development of current Zone R1 land not economic to develop, so zoning change not necessary. Developer gets a free kick to realise commercial gain.	The limitations of the current R1 land for development are noted. However, the current R1 zoning also provides opportunity for other types of development with and without consent, as well as private use and vegetation management opportunities that would prevent the land from naturally regenerating or serving any long-term function as a viable habitat corridor. While it is acknowledged that there is likely to be a financial benefit to the land owner from any rezoning and development consent for subdivision of the land on the eastern side of the site, the overall public benefit of securing an important environmental corridor is also considered significant.
Loss of threatened Flora – Biconvex Paperbark (Melaleuca biconvex)	The Statutory Ecological Assessment prepared by Naturecall Environmental includes a 7 Part Test for this threatened flora as required under Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The assessment concludes that the proposed development would not adversely affect the viability of the local population or place the long-term survival of the local population at risk of extinction.
Not unusual to see koalas in the trees as they travel between habitat areas. Koala Hospital also releases koalas here. The loss of this vegetation will result in less refuge from dogs and cats.	It is understood that the Koala Hospital use the land as a release area for koalas due to its accessibility and connection to koala habitat in the Wrights Creek corridor. However, the site itself does not qualify as ‘potential koala habitat’ under SEPP 44 due to the type of vegetation present. The vegetation proposed to be removed adjoins residential land uses to the north, west, and south. It is considered that rehabilitation of the current R1 land on the eastern side of the site would provide better opportunities for koalas to take refuge from cats and dogs given the connection on two sides to other vegetation.
OEH found that the Ecological Assessment incorrectly failed to identify 4 Hollow-bearing trees that under Council's DCP should be retained in situ.	See comments under DCP section earlier in this report.
Council has not used the Biometric Assessment Tool (BET) as recommended by OEH.	Use of BET is optional, and would simply identify the amount of offset required. In this case, from experience, the area proposed to be conserved and managed by Council in perpetuity exceeds what BET would propose.
Informed when purchasing their land that the reserve would never be rezoned for building blocks.	It is not clear from the submission whether the advice was claimed to be provided by Council or a real estate agent. Zoning advice can only be provided based on existing or proposed environmental planning instruments, and it is noted that these can change over time.
Area proposed for development can be extremely damp.	See comments under Stormwater earlier in this report. The developer will be required to provide a detailed stormwater management plan as part of the Construction Certificate/Section 68 applications.
As a professional ecologist, over 12 years have undertaken detailed assessments of the importance of this Regional Corridor that represents the last remaining link between Wrights Creek Bushland Reserve and the Sea Acres National Park. (Survey data supplied) • The genetic integrity and long-term viability of both reserves is integrally linked through the eastern portion of Lot 7. The LEP amendment will complete and protect the corridor. • Can confirm 17 NSW TSC Act and/or Federally listed EPBC Act species have been recorded using the corridor.	Noted. The assessment agrees that there is significant value in securing this link.

(e) The Public Interest:

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

The Planning Agreement associated with the proposal would secure important environmental land linking the Wrights Creek corridor and the Sea Acres National Park as a public reserve, which is considered to be in the wider public interest.

6. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

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

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

7. 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 - 53.1 Recommended DA Conditions

2 View. DA2016 - 53.1 Submission - Clingeleffer

3 View. DA2016 - 53.1 Submission - Glawson

4 View. DA2016 - 53.1 Submission Peel

5 View. Combined Application Vol 1 Main Documents (Subdivision Plan on p25)

6 View. Combined Application Vol 2 Appendices B-F Assessments

7 View. Combined Application Vol 3 Bush Fire Assessment

8 View. Combined Application Vol 4 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment

9 View. Combined Application Vol 5 Statutory Ecological Assessment

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 09/08/2017

Item: 06

Subject: DA2017 - 342.1 New Dwelling Including Clause 4.6 Objection To Clause 4.3 (Height Of Buildings) (Of The Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Lot 271 DP 831575, 14 Coastlands Place, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Benjamin Roberts

Applicant: Collins W Collins

Owner: A G & K B Shipway

Estimated Cost: $639,000

Parcel no: 4742

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2017 - 342 for a dwelling including clause 4.6 objection to clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 at Lot 271, DP 831575, No. 14 Coastlands Place, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for construction of a new dwelling at the subject site with a building height variation request. The report provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

As per NSW Department of Planning and Environment Circulars PS 08-003 and 08-014, Council can assume the Director’s Concurrence for variations to height limits. Variations such as this deviating less than 10% from the standard maybe determined under delegation and will reported to full Council for notation only.

1. BACKGROUND

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

The site has an area of 683.8m².

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

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Construction of a new dwelling

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Application Chronology

· 27 April 2017 - Application lodged

· 10 - 23 May 2017 - Public exhibition via neighbour notification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 dwelling is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

o To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

o The proposal is a permissible landuse;

o Consistent with the established residential locality.

· Clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 9.3m which does not comply with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site. The applicant has lodged a clause 4.6 objection seeking a variation to the applicable building height standard.

· Clause 4.4, the floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.59:1 which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

· Clause 4.6 consent must not be granted for a proposal that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that justifies the variation by showing that the subject standard is unreasonable or unnecessary and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravening of the standard. Additionally, the proposed development must be shown to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

The applicant has submitted a written request to vary the building height standard based on the following reasons:

- The topography of the site slopes steeply from north to south requiring split level multi storey dwellings;

- There are dwellings in the immediate neighbourhood (and specifically adjoining at 16 Coastlands Place) that are comparable in terms of building height.

- The bulk and scale of the building is comparable with surrounding dwellings.

- The proposed floor space ratio of 0.59:1 is below the standard of 0.65:1.

- The building design incorporates an extended front setback, wall articulation and various building materials to external facades.

Having considered the application and clause 4.6 variation, it is agreed the proposal will have minimal impact on the environment as per the reasons identified by the applicant above. The following additional points are made to support the variation:

- The site has a particularly steep slope in the south-east corner, where the non-compliant part of the building is located. There is approximately 7m of fall across the current building envelope from north to south making strict compliance with the standard impractical.

- The proposal has incorporated a flat skillion roof design and the part of the roof that exceeds the height limit identified on the Height of Buildings Map is located at the front (south) of the building and would not contribute to any significant loss of solar access as the property adjoins Coastlands Place to the south. The non-compliant part of the building is a small proportion of the dwelling and will not impact on any privacy to adjoining dwellings.

- The locality is characterised by dwellings of similar bulk and scale due to topography. The proposal will result in a building height that is compatible with the existing character of the area. It is noted the approved building height of 16 Coastlands Place was 9.34m.

- The development would not adversely impact on existing views of adjoining properties to the north-east in Moondara Terrace. Refer to detailed comments later in the report regarding view sharing.

- The development is consistent with the zoning and height objectives of Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011 and is unlikely to have any implications on State related issues or the broader public interest.

· 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.

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

No draft instruments apply.

(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	No building elements within the articulation zone.	N/A
3.2.2.2	Front setback (Residential not R5 zone): · Min. 4.5m local road	Minimum 5.242m front setback.	Yes
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 6.498m setback and more than 1 metre behind the building line.	Yes
	6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building	5.5m wide garage door. 33% of building width.	Yes
	Driveway crossover 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m width	5m wide crossover and 27% of site frontage.	Yes
3.2.2.4	4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to site analysis and provision of private open space	Minimum 10.158m rear setback.	Yes
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.	Ground floor west = 1.088m Ground floor east = 1.046m First floor & above west = 1.088m. First floor & above east = 1.046m. The north south orientation of the lot provides for minimal overshadowing impact to adjoining properties. The shadow diagrams supporting the application demonstrate that the adjoining property primary living areas and primary open space areas will not be adversely overshadowed for more than 3hrs between 9am-3pm on 21 June. 13.990m unarticulated building wall length on north-western elevation.	Yes Yes Yes No*
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.	Dwelling will 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.	No front fencing proposed.	N/A
3.2.2.10	Privacy: · Direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. ie. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed · Privacy screen required if floor level > 1m height, window side/rear setback (other than bedroom) is less than 3m and sill height less than 1.5m · Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandas etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m	No windows at garage level. The only living area window on the first floor is the kitchen window facing south east setback 1.046m from the side boundary. It has a sill height of 900mm. No living areas proposed on top floor The first floor and top floor contain balconies on the south eastern elevations. No privacy screening is proposed to these balconies.	No* No*

*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.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	Up to 1.7m of cut.	No*
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontages	No retaining proposed along road frontage.	N/A
	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	None proposed.	N/A
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.	Yes
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 driveway crossover of suitable width 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 proposed.	Yes
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report.	N/A
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 with section 138 application.	Yes
2.5.3.16	Transitional grades min. 2m length	Capable of complying. Long section will be required with section 138 application.	Yes

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 3.2.2.5 which requires building walls to step in and out at least every 12m by a minimum of 500mm. The proposal incorporates a 13.990m wall length along the north-western elevation of the dwelling.

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

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

· The 13.90m unarticulated wall length contains a combination of bathroom and bedroom windows of varying sizes. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse overbearing or bulk impacts to the adjoining property.

· The variation is minor in nature and strict compliance with the numerical standard will provide a similar outcome.

· The 13.990m unarticulated wall length will not result in any adverse privacy impacts between dwellings.

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 3.2.2.10 which requires privacy screening for windows in a habitable room, other than a bedroom, that has a floor level of more than 1m above ground level (existing) and the wall in which the windows is located has a setback of less than 3m from a side or rear boundary and the windows has a sill height of less than 1.5m. The proposal incorporates a first floor kitchen window facing south east setback 1.046m from the side boundary with sill height of 900mm.

The relevant objectives are to protect the visual privacy of on-site and nearby residents.

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

· This kitchen window has been designed to take advantage of the view over and across the south east corner of the adjoining dwelling at 12 Coastlands Place.

· The site inspection indicated the primary living and open space areas at 12 Coastlands Place are both located at the rear (i.e. swimming pool and rear yard) and on the first floor with decks orientated south east taking advantage of the view.

· The location of the kitchen window without screening will not result in any adverse privacy impacts to adjoining residents.

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 3.2.2.10 which requires privacy screening to balconies with setback of less than 3m from a side or rear boundary, and is greater than 3m² and more than 1m above ground level. The proposal incorporates both first floor and top floor balconies greater than 3m² in area and setback 1.956m from the eastern side boundary with no privacy screening.

The relevant objectives are to protect the visual privacy of on-site and nearby residents.

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

· This balconies have been designed to take advantage of the view over and across the south east corner of the adjoining dwelling at 12 Coastlands Place.

· The location of the balconies without screening will not result in any adverse privacy impacts to adjoining residents.

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 2.3.3.1 which requires development not exceed a maximum cut of 1m and fill of 1m measured vertically above the ground level (existing) at a distance of 1m outside the perimeter of the external walls of the building. The proposal incorporates a 1.7m cut outside the building footprint in the north eastern corner of the site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· The topography of the site slopes steeply from north to south. There is approximately 7m of fall across the current building envelope.

· In providing a level usable open space area the proposed cut and retaining wall is considered necessary.

· The proposed retaining walls will be designed by a professional engineer to ensure structural stability. Suitable condition recommended.

· The cut and retaining will not result in any adverse privacy impacts to adjoining dwellings and private open space areas.

· Adequate stormwater drainage provisions will form part of the engineer details for the retaining walls.

(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 agreements has been offered or entered into relating to the site.

iv) any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

New South Wales Coastal Policy:

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

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

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 southern street frontage orientation to Coastlands Place.

Three storey dwellings adjoin the site to the 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 23 Moondara Terrace. An inspection of the site indicates that 23 Moondara terrace would be most impacted by the proposal in terms of potential view impacts. The dwelling at 21 Moondarra Terrace is higher in elevation again and would enjoy unobstructed views over the proposed dwelling. An inspection of the dwelling was undertaken at 23 Moondarra Terrace for the purpose of providing the comments below in the view impact assessment. Expansive ocean and mountain views exist from 23 Moondara Terrace to the south and south east over the currently vacant site.

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

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

Step 1

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

Comments: The property of 23 Moondara Terrace enjoy views to the south of North Brother Mountain and the sea through the currently vacant development site. The interface of land and water is not visible, but the views to North Brother Mountain are considered to be iconic in the local context.

Step 2

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

Comments: From the property at 23 Moondara Terrace views are obtained over the rear property boundary from elevated living areas. Sitting and standing views are enjoyed from the dwelling at 23 Moondara Terrace.

Step 3

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

Comments: The extent of the impact is considered to be negligible for the following reasons:

- Ground floor standing views to the south and southeast will be maintained over the existing boundary fence and roof of the new dwelling given the elevation difference between sites.

- Ground floor sitting views may be slightly compromised if at all when available over the existing boundary fence.

- The primary living areas on the first floor are at a significantly higher elevation and will maintain unobstructed views to the water and North Brother Mountain would be maintained over the roof of the proposed new dwelling from the main living area orientated south and south east.

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 includes a variation to the adopted planning controls for the height of buildings for part of the south-east corner of the building. The extent of the variation is 0.8m (9.4% of the development standard). However, the non-compliant part of the building is located at the front of the site and would not be highly visible from the affected dwellings to the north-east. The non-compliant part of the building would not contribute to any loss of significant views from adjoining properties.

The proposed development is considered to have satisfactory impacts on view sharing and the submitted proposal reasonable for the site.

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 Coastlands Place which is a public road with 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 driveway with direct frontage to Coastlands Place. Access shall comply with Council AUSPEC and Australian Standards, and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

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

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

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

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

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
The application purports that views on the lower level i.e. sight lines are from a standing position and not from a seated position.	Refer to view sharing assessment and comments provided within report.
The application does not consider the variety of additional structures the roof may hold. Such structures on the roof similar to that next door at 16 Coastlands Place will further exceed the development guidelines and impacts views from 23 Moondara Terrace.	No roof structures (i.e. solar panels, solar hot water system, antenna) are proposed under this application.
Such roof structures represent an environmental impact on the outlook and general presentation of the surrounding area.	Refer to above.
Seek that any roof structures added to the roof fall within the boxed roof structure surrounding the roof.	Refer to above.
Request that Council ensure the proposed outdoor cinema has sufficient sound deafening structures and that light from the projection will no impact on the residence at 23 Moondara Terrace or adjoining neighbours.	There is a feature wall proposed above the western side of the pool to which a projector is intended to display. The outdoor roof structures over the pool and surrounding outdoor area will obscure views to these areas and the projection wall. No adverse noise impacts are anticipated from such equipment that would warrant refusal of the application.

No details of landscaping is proposed. This is of interest due to fast growing bamboo planted on the property at 16 Coastlands Place that will impact on neighbouring properties. Such plantings would be against Council’s development provisions. It’s requested that a height limit be placed on such plantings along the rear boundary fence.

No landscaping is proposed or nominated on plans. Future plantings/landscaping will be at the land owner’s discretion. View impacts from future landscaping/vegetation is a civil matter between neighbours.

(e) The Public Interest:

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

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

· Not applicable.

5. CONCLUSION

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

Attachments

1 View. DA2017 - 342.1 Plans

2 View. DA2017 - 342.1 Recommended Conditions

3 View. DA2017 - 342.1 Submission - Eriksson

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 09/08/2017

Item: 07

Subject: DA2017 - 351.1 Alterations To Garage And Construction Of Deck - Lot 8 DP 734429 No 128 Camden Head Road, Dunbogan

Report Author: Fiona Tierney

Applicant: Land Dynamics Australia

Owner: A R Wilson

Estimated Cost: $11,000

Parcel no: 3470

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2017 - 351 for alterations to garage and construction of deck at Lot 8, DP 734429, No. 128 Camden Head Road, Dunbogan, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for continued use of alterations to existing garage and walkway (built without Council approval) and construction of a walkway and deck at the subject site. The report provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Following exhibition of the application, 8 submissions have been received.

1. BACKGROUND

Existing sites features and surrounding development

The site has an area of 2042m2.

The site is zoned R1- General Residential and E3- Environmental Management 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:

· Continued use of walkway

· Continued use of garage conversion to gym

· Construction of partial walkway and 50m2 deck

· Dune stabilisation and landscaping

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Application Chronology

· 23 March 2017- onsite meeting regarding unauthorised works and clearing on site.

· 1 May 2017- Application lodged

· 10 May 2017-23 May 2017- Neighbour notification of proposal

· 15 May 2017- Additional information request- ecological assessment

· 26 June 2017- additional information received- response to submissions and ecological opinion

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 79C(1) Matters for Consideration

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) any Environmental Planning Instrument:

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

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

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

The site is located within a coastal zone as defined in accordance with clause 4 of SEPP 71 and is further located in a Sensitive Coastal location.

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

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

a) any restricted access (or opportunities for access) to the coastal foreshore. The proposed work is on private land.

b) any identifiable adverse amenity impacts along the coastal foreshore and on the scenic qualities of the coast, noting that a condition of consent has been recommended to revegetate the disturbed area;

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

d) subject to any identifiable adverse coastal processes or hazards, noting recommended condition of consent to stabilise the disturbed area;

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

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

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

The site is has been predominately cleared and located within an area zoned for residential purposes with an E3 Environmental Management zoning located at the rear half of the property. History of the site indicates the area has been disturbed through sand mining activities and residential use. Aerial photography show the vegetation thinning and thickening through various stages and the proponent’s ecologist has identified large areas of bitou bush. To the North is reserve and to the South is another residential property that has been cleared in the past and revegetated- largely with exotic species. Further south are areas that have been cleared and have remnant banksias and a large community title subdivision.

The proposal, once completed and landscaped, will sit low in the environment when viewed form the beach and will be softened by vegetation. At present the site has been stripped bare and stands out in the landscape due to the contrasting sand that has been exposed.

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

The land is part zoned R1 General Residential and Part E3 Environmental Management under the Port Macquarie Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011. ‘Dwelling houses’ and structures ancillary to dwelling are permissible with consent in both zones.

The objectives of the R1 zone are:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

The proposed continued use of the modified garage for the purpose of a private gym are not considered to be odds with the R1 zone objectives. The works are considered to be minor and ancillary to the primary residential use of the land.

The objectives of the E3 zone are:

· To protect, manage and restore areas with special ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.

· To provide for a limited range of development that does not have an adverse effect on those values.

The bare striping of the site back to sand is a significant concern and if left in this state would be in direct conflict with the E3 zone objectives. With appropriate stabilisation and landscaping of the site, the completed development is considered capable of satisfying the E3 zone objectives. The proposed walkway and deck are set low in the landscape and will not be aesthetically/visually obtrusive once the remainder of the site is revegetated. The submitted ecological opinion has satisfactorily demonstrated that the site previously did not contain such significant ecological values that would sustain refusal of the application (notwithstanding the need to stabilise 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. The site has been disturbed from past sand mining and residential uses.

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

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

No draft instruments apply to the site.

(iii) any Development Control Plan in force:

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

*DCP 2013: Dwellings, Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses, Multi dwelling houses & Ancillary development*
	Requirements	Proposed	Complies
3.2.2.1	Ancillary development: • 4.8m max. height • Single storey • 60m2 max. area • 100m2 for lots >900m2 • 24 degree max. roof pitch • Not located in front setback	Walkway and deck located less than 1m from ground level.	Yes
3.2.2.2	Articulation zone: • Min. 3m front setback • An entry feature or portico • A balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or verandah • A window box treatment • A bay window or similar feature • An awning or other feature over a window • A sun shading feature	N/A	N/A
3.2.2.3	Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front façade. Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided	Garage is existing. Internal works to convert one of the 3 bays to a gym.	Yes
3.2.2.3	6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building	Existing	Yes
3.2.2.4	4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to site analysis and provision of private open space	Deck located 900mm form rear boundary. Adjoins beach dunes/vegetation.	Yes
3.2.2.5	Side setbacks: • Ground floor = min. 0.9m • First floors & above = min. 3m setback or where it can be demonstrated that overshadowing not adverse = 0.9m min. • Building wall set in and out every 12m by 0.5m	3.2m northern boundary 4.3m southern boundary	Yes
3.2.2.6	35m2 min. private open space area including a useable 4x4m min. area which has 5% max. grade		Yes
3.2.2.10	Privacy: • Direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. ie. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed • Privacy screen required if floor level > 1m height, window side/rear setback (other than bedroom) is less than 3m and sill height less than 1.5m • Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandahs etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m	Deck located rear yard- no specific privacy issues or direct line of sight.	Yes

*DCP 2013: General Provisions*
	Requirements	Proposed	Complies
2.7.2.2	Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline	Adequate casual surveillance available	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	Dune area has been cut. No immediate impact on adjoining properties. Applicant proposes to retain and stabilise.	No- but considered acceptable upon completion of development.
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)	Scrub and vegetation less than 100mm has been removed- no additional under this consent	Yes
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater	Refer to main body of report.

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

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

iv) any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

New South Wales Coastal Policy:

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

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 applicable.

(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

Once completed, the proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts to existing adjoining properties and satisfactorily addresses the public domain. Works will be consistent with the southern neighbour who has landscaped extensively, albeit that this proposal will have greater structural elements.

The proposal is considered to be reasonably consistent with other development in the locality and is considered a reasonable development of the site to take advantage of the natural attributes of the area.

• There is no adverse impact on existing view sharing.

• There is no adverse privacy impacts.

Access, transport and traffic

The proposal will not have any adverse impacts in terms access, transport and traffic.

Heritage

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

Other land resources

No adverse impacts anticipated. 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 current work undertaken on the site poses a significant erosion risk. Conditions of consent have been recommended to require stabilisations and landscaping of the exposed sand.

Air and microclimate

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

Flora and fauna

Work already undertaken on the site has removed all vegetation. An ecological report was requested to justify that the works undertaken did not represent a significant adverse impact on ecological values of the site. A report was submitted by JB Enviro (attached) and it was concluded:

‘The proposal has overall had only a very low impact on any threatened species directly or

indirectly as:

· No critical habitat components such as hollow-bearing trees were removed.

· The previous site vegetation was evidently disturbed, weed infested, and offered no significant foraging habitat for any potentially occurring threatened species.

· Connectivity has not been significantly degraded as the adjoining yards have exotic or maintained vegetation; and a band of about 80m wide of shrubland and tussock grassland remain to the east along the dune front.

· No littoral rainforest was impacted.

· No threatened flora or potential habitat is likely to have been removed.

· While the works have lowered the physical buffer to maritime stresses (eg. Prevailing salt-laden winds), there is no littoral rainforest or other sensitive community adjacent and at risk of degradation. The nearest littoral rainforest to the north is protected in a swale, and the next occurrence west of Camden Head Rd is buffered by the dune north of the dwelling.

· No significant erosion or sedimentation of adjacent communities has occurred. It is understood that the face of the dune to the northeast will be held with a retaining wall and planted with native species to maintain structural support.

· No new weed occurrence has been established.

The proposal to landscape the rear yard of 128 Camden Head Rd is not considered to have had any significant ecological impacts. This is primarily due to the condition and constitution of the previous vegetation ie. common pioneer natives formerly with a high weed content subject to high levels of maritime stresses and formerly high levels of weed invasion. Combined with its previous landuse for sandmining followed by a rear yard, its ecological values were limited.

While the landform has also been modified, it has not significantly altered the penetration of maritime stresses and hence is not likely to see degradation of any vegetation community, especially if structures and landscaping re-establish a similar barrier effect in the short to medium term.

Similarly, the works have not destabilised the dune system via forming a breach, only cut the end of what is reported to have been a stockpile from previous sand mining. Provision of the proposed retaining wall per the DA plus replantings including along the APZ are expected to restore stability.

The report has been has been reviewed by Council’s planning and ecological staff who have concurred with the findings. Whilst concern is raised in the manner in which the landowner has cleared the land prior to obtaining consent, this in itself is not a reason to refuse the application. The ecologist has satisfactorily demonstrated that the site did not contain ecological values of such significance that would be compromised by the proposal

Rehabilitation and revegetation of the disturbed area is required and plans are to be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of the Construction certificate.

Noise and vibration

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

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone- the deck is located greater than 10m from the existing dwelling and will not pose a significant risk to the dwelling. Bushfire impacts are considered to be capable of being managed

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.

Economic impact in the locality

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

Site design and internal design

The proposed development (when completed) satisfactorily responds to the site attributes and will fit into the locality. No adverse impacts likely.

Construction

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

Cumulative Impacts

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

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

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

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

Eight written submissions have been received following public exhibition of the application.

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
Construction of deck on E3 land that is not in residential area.	Works are permitted with consent on E3 land.
Council to enforce remediation and erosion measures.	Works are currently the subject of an ongoing investigation. Conditions of consent will require dune stabilisation and revegetation. This assessment takes into consideration what would likely be approved should consent have been obtained beforehand.
Highly visible and loss of amenity to adjoining properties has occurred.	Deck will be a low unroofed structure with vegetation to be provided that will assist with the integration of the structure within the landscape. The site is to be revegetated and landscaped.

Significant vegetation has been removed similar to adjoining Kattang Nature reserve.	An ecological opinion has been submitted and various photos and drone footage examined. The site has been highly disturbed over time by sand mining activities and residential use. Whilst some native vegetation existed on site, exotics and pest species also featured quite predominantly. On-going compliance action is being undertaken in relation to unauthorised activity.
The narrow track along the side has been cleared	Applicant has agreed to revegetate this area and a condition of consent has been applied.
When dwelling constructed at 122 no construction was permitted closer than 10m from the rear boundary.	Current DCP requirements allow ancillary structures to 900mm from boundaries.
Bushfire considerations	A condition of consent has been applied requiring compliance with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2013.
Allowing structures close to the high tide mark would create issues relating to rising sea levels and erosion.	Dune stabilisation and re- vegetation of the site is proposed and conditions of consent applied. No coastal hazard currently applies to the site.
Land within the coastal zone and therefore subject to Coastal Management Act. Does not meet the objectives.	Whilst vegetation has been removed- a large portion was vegetation that is desirable to have removed within a largely disturbed site. It is anticipated that the works will enable stabilisation of dunes and rehabilitation with appropriate vegetation in consultation of a qualified ecologist. It is considered that the objectives of the Coastal Management Act (once rehabilitation of the site has occurred) can be met.
The size of the deck is too large and should not exceed 25m2	The development is not subject to a 25m2 requirement as it is the subject of a Development Application.
DA states that no pedestrian access is proposed to the foreshore, however a stepped walkway is in place,	Applicant confirms no access is proposed and no access is approved as part of the application.

(e) The Public Interest:

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

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

Nil

5. CONCLUSION

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

It is noted that the matter is subject to a separate compliance process/investigation.

Attachments

1 View. DA2017 - 351.1 Plans and SoEE

2 View. DA2017 - 351.1 Ecology Opinion

3 View. DA2017 - 351.1 Applicants Response to Council 10042017

4 View. DA2017 - 351.1 Applicants Response to Council 26062017

5 View. DA2017 - 351.1 Recommended Conditions

6 View. DA2017 - 351.1 Submission - Baldwin

7 View. DA2017 - 351.1 Submission - Donald

8 View. DA2017 - 351.1 Submission - Frost

9 View. DA2017 - 351.1 Submission - Martin

10 View. DA2017 - 351.1 Submission - McCudden

11 View. DA2017 - 351.1 Submission - Ross & Wheeler

12 View. DA2017 - 351.1 Submission - Thompson

13 View. DA2017 - 351.1 Submission - Wilson

Member	24/05/17	14/06/17	28/06/17	12/07/17	26/07/17
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	P	A P	A P	P

MISSION:

FUNCTIONS:

TIMETABLE:

INDEPENDENT CHAIR:

QUORUM:

DECISION MAKING:

LOBBYING: