Agenda of Development Assessment Panel

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 13/09/2017

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 13/09/2017

Item: 05

Subject: DA2017 - 326.1 Change Of Use - Dwelling To Short Term Tourist And Visitor Accommodation, Lot 44 DP 1040148, 3 The Peninsula, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Chris Gardiner

Applicant: Bkerkacha Gardens Pty Ltd

Owner: Bkerkacha Gardens Pty Ltd

Estimated Cost: Nil

Parcel no: 38749

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2017 – 326.1 for a Change of Use – Dwelling to Short Term Tourist and Visitor Accommodation at Lot 44, DP 1040148, No. 3 The Peninsula, Port Macquarie, be determined by refusing consent for the following reasons:

1. The development is inconsistent with the objectives of the R1 General Residential zone under the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011.

2. The siting and design of the building is inconsistent with the development provisions and objectives of the Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013.

3. The application has not demonstrated that noise and anti-social behaviour can be effectively managed to prevent adverse impacts on the amenity of the locality.

4. Having regard to the residential character of the area, the site has not been demonstrated to be suitable for the proposed use.

5. The development will have adverse social impacts in the locality.

6. The fire protection and structural capacity of the building are not appropriate for the building’s proposed use.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a change of use from a dwelling to short-term tourist and visitor accommodation at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Following exhibition of the application, 49 submissions have been received.

1. BACKGROUND

Previous unlawful use of the premises for tourist and visitor accommodation

Since late 2016, the premises is understood to have been advertised on Stayz as tourist and visitor accommodation. Development consent was not in place for this use and Council’s Regulatory Services Section investigated the matter in response to numerous complaints about the impacts being caused by large groups staying at the site.

The investigations resulted in an Order being issued under Section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, requiring the owners to cease the use of the premises for tourist and visitor accommodation. The Order took effect on 12 May 2017 and required compliance within 28 days (by 9 June 2017).

Breaches of this Order have been reported to Council and further compliance action in this regard is currently on hold pending determination of this development application.

Short-term holiday letting in NSW

There has been rapid growth in short-term holiday (STHL) letting in NSW with the emergence on online booking services. STHL is estimated to be worth $31.3 billion nationally, with NSW constituting approximately 50% of the national total.

In 2016, the NSW Legislative Assembly Committee on Environment and Planning conducted an enquiry into the adequacy of regulation for STHL in NSW. The NSW Government generally supports the findings and recommendation of the Parliamentary Inquiry and considers that STHL is generally acceptable in a residence. However, there is a point where STHL becomes a more intensive commercial type of use.

The NSW Department of Planning and Environment have released the Short-term Holiday Letting in NSW – Options Paper (July 2017), which is currently on public exhibition. The paper discusses options for managing STHL through improved self-regulation, planning regulations, changes to strata laws, and/or introduction of a licensing system.

There is no firm Government position on how STHL is to be managed through the planning system at this stage. However, using the principle of the Land and Environment Court in Dobrohotoff v Bennic [2013] NSWLEC 61 the proposed development could not be considered to be development for the purpose of a dwelling house. Development consent is therefore required for a change of use from a dwelling to tourist and visitor accommodation.

Existing sites features and surrounding development

The site has an area of 1365m².

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:

· Change of use of the existing dwelling to short term tourist and visitor accommodation.

· The building is intended to be made available through an on-line accommodation agency (eg Stayz) for a maximum of 12 guests.

· Minimum length of stays will be 2 days.

· No on-site management of the accommodation is proposed.

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Application Chronology

· 24 April 2017 – Application lodged.

· 9 May 2017 to 29 May 2017 – Application notified.

· 8 June 2017 – Site inspected by assessing officer.

· 13 June 2017 – Additional information requested from Applicant.

· 10 July 2017 – Applicant requested to provide update on progress of additional information requested. It was indicated that the information could be provided within 14-21 days.

· 2 August 2017 – Applicant requested to provide further update on progress of additional information. Applicant advised that matter will be reported to Development Assessment Panel and deadline provided for submitting information.

· 29 August 2017 – Additional information submitted by Applicant.

· 1 September 2017 – Further additional information submitted by the Applicant.

· 4 September 2017 – Further additional information submitted by the Applicant.

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 79C(1) Matters for Consideration

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

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) any Environmental Planning Instrument:

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 62 – Sustainable Aquaculture

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

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

The site is located within a coastal zone 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. The land has access along the foreshore of an artificial watercourse, which is not the coastal foreshore, as defined in the SEPP.

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

c) any adverse impacts on flora and fauna;

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

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

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

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

h) adverse cumulative impacts on the environment;

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

j) development relying on flexible zone provisions.

The site is cleared and located within an established residential area.

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

Relevant clauses of the LEP are as follows:

· 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 is best characterised as tourist and visitor accommodation, which is permissible in the zone.

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 considered to be inconsistent with the zone objectives having regard to the following:

o The development would result in a loss of existing housing stock. The existing dwelling is proposed to become short-term tourist and visitor accommodation.

o The proposal is not a facility or service intended to meet the day to day needs of residents. The development will provide accommodation for tourists and visitors and not for residents.

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

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

· Clause 7.1, the site is mapped as potentially containing class 3 acid sulphate soils. The proposed development does not include any excavation and therefore no adverse impacts are expected to occur to the acid sulphate soils found on site.

· Clause 7.3, the site is land within a mapped “flood planning area” (Land subject to flood discharge of 1:100 annual recurrence interval flood event (plus 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;

· Clause 7.4 – Flood risk management – the site is land between the flood planning area and the line that is shown as the probable maximum flood level on the Flood Planning Map and/or land surrounded by the flood planning area and the development is for tourist & visitor accommodation. The existing dwelling on the site has been constructed having regard to the potential flood hazards. Additionally, the site has adequate warning time and an evacuation route above the flood planning level.

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

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2016

The Draft SEPP was publicly exhibited between 11 November 2016 and 20 January 2017 and is intended to consolidate and replace SEPP 14 (Coastal Wetlands), SEPP 26 (Littoral Rainforests) and SEPP 71 (Coastal Protection).

The site is within the coastal zone in the mapping for the draft SEPP. The assessment table below considers the relevant provisions of the Draft SEPP.

Clause	Provision	Proposed	Complies
15(a)(i)	If near a foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform—maintains or, where practicable, improves existing, safe public access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform.	The site is located adjacent to the foreshore of the canal and has an existing canal providing access along the foreshore. The proposal would maintain this access.	n/a
15(a)(ii)	Minimises overshadowing, wind funnelling and the loss of views from public places to foreshores.	No new building work proposed.	n/a
15(a)(iii)	Will not adversely impact on the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands.	The site is not visible from the coast or off-shore.	Yes
15(a)(iv)	Will not adversely impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage and places	No known items of Aboriginal or European heritage significance exist on the property. No adverse impacts anticipated.	Yes
15(a)(v)	Will not adversely impact on use of the surf zone.	Proposal would not affect the surf zone.	Yes
15(b)	Has taken into account the type and location of the proposed development, and the bulk, scale and size of the proposed development.	These matters have been considered and are discussed elsewhere in this report.
16(1)	Development consent must not be granted to development on land within the coastal zone (other than land to which clause 13 applies) unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development is not likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on that land or other land.	Having regard to the site location, the proposed development is not considered likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards.	Yes
17	Development consent must not be granted to development on land within the coastal zone unless the consent authority has taken into consideration the relevant provisions of the following: (a) a coastal management program that applies to the land, (b) a coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979) that applies to the land that continues to have effect under clause 4 of Schedule 3 to the Coastal Management Act 2016.	No coastal zone management program or plan applies to the land.	n/a
23	Flexible zone provisions not applicable to land to which the SEPP applies.	The proposal does not rely upon flexible zone provisions.	Yes

(iii) any Development Control Plan in force:

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

*DCP 2013: Residential Flat Development, Tourist and Visitor Accommodation and Mixed Use Development*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
3.3.2.2	Satisfactory site analysis plan submitted.	Adequate site analysis plan submitted.	Yes
3.3.2.3	Statement addressing site attributes and constraints submitted.	Adequate site analysis submitted.	Yes
3.3.2.4	Streetscape and front setback: · Within 20% of the average setback of the adjoining buildings. · 3m setback to all frontages if no adjoining development. · 2m setback to secondary frontages. · Max. 9m setback for tourist development to allow for swimming pool.	Existing building. However, front setback is compatible with adjoining development.	Yes
3.3.2.6	Side setbacks comply with Figure 3.3-1: · Min. Side setback 1.5m for 75% of building depth. · Windows on side walls min. 3m from side boundary. · 3m minimum where adjacent to existing strata titled building.	Bedroom, bathroom and games room windows within 3m of southern boundary. It has not been demonstrated that satisfactory acoustic impacts would be maintained in accordance with the objectives of the control with a reduced setback.	No
3.3.2.6	Min. 6m rear setback (including sub basements)	Greater than 6m rear setback.	Yes
3.3.2.11	Deep soil zones: · Extend the width of the site and have minimum depth of 6m. · Are contiguous across sites and within sites (see Fig 3.3-4).	Adequate deep soil zone existing.	Yes
3.3.2.16	Landscape plan provided including: · 35% soft landscaping with minimum width of 3m. · Existing vegetation and proposed treatment. · Details of hard landscaping. · Location of communal recreational facilities. · Species not to obscure doors, paths, etc. · Street trees in accordance with Council’s list.	Existing development includes adequate soft landscaping.	Yes
3.3.2.22	Fencing or landscaping defines public/communal and private open space.	Existing fencing and landscaping define private and public space.	Yes
3.3.2.26	Building to be designed so that: · Busy, noisy areas face the street. · Quiet areas face the side or rear of the lot. · Bedrooms have line of site separation of at least 3m from parking areas, streets and shared driveways.	Noisy areas face the rear.	No
3.3.2.26	Openings of adjacent dwellings separated by at least 6m.	Site analysis confirms that 6m separation from openings in adjacent dwellings is achieved.	Yes
3.3.2.28	Development complies with AS/NZS2107:2000 Acoustic – Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors for residential development.	The letter from Acoustic Logic dated 31 August 2017 confirms that the existing construction will achieve compliance with this requirement.	Yes
3.3.2.30	Direct views between living room windows to be screened where: · Ground floor windows are within 9m of windows in an adjoining dwelling. · Other floors are within a 12m radius. · Living room windows are within 12m radius of the principal area of private open space of other dwellings.	Direct views adequately screened by existing building design.	Yes
	Direct views may be screened with either a 1.8m high fence or wall, or screening that has maximum 25% openings.	Existing screening satisfies these requirements.	Yes
	Windows in habitable rooms screened if >1m above ground level and wall set back <3m.	Existing screening satisfies these requirements.	Yes
	Balconies, decks, etc screened if <3m from boundary and floor area >3m² and floor level >1m above ground level.	Existing balconies adequately screened.	Yes
3.3.2.32	Barrier free access to at least 20% of dwellings provided.	Proposal does not include any dwellings.	n/a
3.3.2.46	For developments of < 6 dwellings individual waste management permitted. Designated area to be provided for storage of bins: · not visible from street, · easily accessible, · not adjoining private or communal space, windows or clothes drying areas, · on hard stand area, · close to street and a tap for washing, · maintained free of pests.	Waste storage area nominated on the submitted plans and expected to be adequate for the scale of the proposal. An arrangement is in place for the bins to be placed at the kerb for collection and returned to the storage location.	Yes

*DCP 2013: General Provisions*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
2.7.2.2	Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline: · Casual surveillance and sightlines · Land use mix and activity generators · Definition of use and ownership · Lighting · Way finding · Predictable routes and entrapment locations	The proposed development will be unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	Existing building. No cut or fill proposed.	Yes
2.3.3.8 onwards	Removal of hollow bearing trees	None proposed to be removed.	Yes
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100mm diameter trunk and 3m outside dwelling footprint	None proposed to be removed.	Yes
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.3	Off-street parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1	Tourist and visitor accommodation requires 1.1 spaces per unit, plus 1 space per 2 employees (onsite at any one time), plus 1 space for any onsite manager. The proposal includes 4 guest bedrooms, but would be let out as a single dwelling rather than individual rooms. The DCP therefore only strictly requires 1.1 (rounded to 2) parking spaces as there would be no employees on site. The submissions received on the proposal indicate that there are regularly 4 or more vehicles at the site when the building has been occupied as tourist accommodation in the past. The Applicant has submitted a plan showing that the site is capable of accommodating 4 off-street parking spaces and a space suitable for boat trailers. Commercial developments are generally not permitted to have stacked car parking. However, given that the building would be let in its entirety and the group of guests will know each other, it is reasonable to consider that a stacked parking arrangement could work for the proposed use.	Yes
2.5.3.7	Visitor parking to be easily accessible	Parking at front of the site.	Yes
	Stacked parking permitted for medium density where visitor parking and 5.5m length achieved	Proposal is not for medium density housing.	n/a
	Parking in accordance with AS 2890.1	Commercial developments are generally not permitted to have stacked car parking. However, given that the building would be let in its entirety and the group of guests will know each other, it is reasonable to consider that a stacked parking arrangement could work for the proposed use.	No, but acceptable
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.14	Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified	Existing driveway has a sealed surface.	Yes

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

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

iv) any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

NSW Coastal Policy 1997

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and strategic actions of this policy. See comments earlier under SEPP 71 - Coastal Protection.

Fire Safety and other considerations – Clause 93

This clause requires the consent authority to take into consideration whether the fire protection and structural capacity of the building will be appropriate to the building’s proposed use. Consent to change the use of the building must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that the building complies (or will, when completed, comply) with such of the Category 1 fire safety provisions as are applicable to the building’s proposed use.

The Applicant has submitted a report prepared by Innova Services and dated 4 September 2017 addressing this matter. The report confirms that the proposal will involve a change of building classification under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) from Class 1a to Class 3.

The existing building does not satisfy the deemed to satisfy provisions of the BCA in relation to fire resisting construction, protection of openings in external walls, and smoke hazard management for a Class 3 building. Innova Services have proposed a performance solution in this regard. The strategy is essentially to reduce the useable floor area of the building to less than 300m² and restrict the number of occupants to a maximum of 12 persons. The building would then be provided with the fire safety measures applicable to a Class 1b building. A lockable door is proposed to be installed in the first floor hallway to prevent access to the games room, office/study, and northern balcony. A second lockable door is also proposed to a storage area off bedroom 2.

The proposed strategy is not considered acceptable for the following reasons:

· The lockable door relies on self-regulation to ensure that access for guests is not provided to this part of the building;

· The first floor storage area, games room, office/study, and northern balcony would still potentially contribute to the fuel load in the event of a fire and could affect the safety of occupants of the other parts of the building (part of which is located directly below these rooms).

For the performance solution to be supported it is considered necessary that these parts of the building be fire separated from the remainder of the building with an appropriate form of construction.

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 easterly and northerly street frontage orientation to The Peninsula.

Adjoining the site to the north, east, and south are two storey dwellings.

Adjoining the site to the west is South Harbour. Numerous other residential properties back onto South Harbour in the locality.

Roads

The site has road frontage to The Peninsula.

Adjacent to the site, The Peninsula is a sealed public road under the care and control of Council.

Traffic and Transport

The site is currently approved for a dwelling house expected to generate 9 daily trips. The proposed use is expected to generate more variable traffic depending on the number of vehicles used by the guests staying at the premises, and the total number of guests. The traffic associated with the use would not adversely impact the existing road network in the locality.

Site Frontage & Access

Vehicle access to the site is proposed via an existing driveway crossover to The Peninsula. No frontage works or changes to the existing access are proposed.

Parking and Manoeuvring

A total of 4 parking spaces have been proposed on-site. Commercial developments are generally not permitted to have stacked car parking. However, given that the building would be let in its entirety and the group of guests will know each other, it is reasonable to consider that a stacked parking arrangement could work for the proposed use.

It is considered that a larger commercial parking facility to AS 2890 would adversely impact the residential character of the area, and the potential for future conversion of the site back to a dwelling.

Water Supply Connection

The site has an existing water supply connection. No new water supply work is proposed for the development.

Sewer Connection

The site has an existing sewer connection. No new sewerage work is proposed for the development.

Stormwater

The proposal is for a change of use of the existing building and would not increase the amount of impervious area or existing arrangements for stormwater management.

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

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

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

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

The Applicant has advised that the site contains 2 x general waste bins, 2 x recyclable waste bins, and 1 x green waste bin. The Applicant pays the applicable rates for a weekly collection of the bins.

There is an existing screened bin storage area adjacent to the access gate. The proponent has an arrangement for a local contractor to place the bins at the kerb for collection and return them to the storage location.

Waste management arrangements are considered satisfactory for the proposed use.

Energy

No adverse impacts anticipated.

Noise and vibration

The Applicant has provided a letter from Acoustic Logic dated 31 August 2017 in relation to the potential noise impacts of the development. The letter provides the following comments:

“Port Macquarie-Hasting Council Development Control Plan (DCP) does not contain any applicable acoustic criteria in relation to ensuing the development retains a satisfactory level of noise amenity.

Typically, in the event local Councils DCP don’t contain any applicable acoustic criteria, the NSW EPA Industrial Noise Policy (INP) is typically adopted. However, this document states that the applicable acoustic criteria are specifically for ‘industrial noise’ only (i.e. mechanical plant etc.). As for the noise associated with patrons utilising the outdoor entertainment areas there are no applicable acoustic criteria at local or state level.

Therefore, as there is no noise emission requirements in the DCP or at any state level which can be applied, the design is suitable for compliance with section 3.3.3.6 in relation to acoustics.

However, it is the opinion of the applicant that the amenity of the area is still important and therefore will propose the following management controls into the rental agreement.

· Outdoor areas are to be used only for quiet social activities, similar to any typical external area of a residential property (i.e. dining, swimming etc.).

· Amplified music is permitted in the outdoor areas between the hours of 7am and 10pm, however must be to kept minimal.

· Pool area not to be used after 10pm and before 7am.

· As part of the rental agreement an operational requirement must be complied with (above). In the event these rules are not complied with, and a noise compliant is received, further actions will be taken between owner and renter.

While it is acknowledged that the DCP does not set specific acoustic criteria for this type of development, it is not considered that the noise impacts can be deemed acceptable simply for this fact. The impacts of the development (including noise) still remain a merit consideration in the assessment of the application.

The potential outdoor noise in the alfresco/pool area could be assessed in the same way as outdoor patron/dining noise for cafes, pubs, restaurants and the like (i.e. people talking, amplified music, car door slams - arriving/leaving etc.). The NSW Industrial Noise Policy Table 2.1 Amenity Criteria for a suburban area is ANL of 45dB(A) during the Evening (6-10pm) with a recommended maximum of 50dB(A). Noting that the proposal is not strictly for an industrial use, this could still be used as a benchmark for testing the amenity impacts of the proposal and whether any mitigation measures are necessary.

During the evening is when it is expected that noise generated at the premises (outside evening meals with talking/music) is most likely to cause a nuisance or disturbance to neighbours. The large size of the building, ability to accommodate 12 guests at any one time and having no on site manager lead to an environment where the management of noise impacts are problematic.

The submitted application does not appropriately assess the noise impacts of the development or recommend any mitigation measures necessary to ensure that impacts on neighbours are acceptable.

Bushfire

The site is not identified as being bushfire prone.

Safety, security and crime prevention

There is nothing about the design of the building that would particularly facilitate crime in the locality. It is noted from the submissions received that the reported incidents of theft occurred off the site. Passive surveillance in the area appears to be effective and the thefts were noticed by other residents in the locality.

On-site management is not expected to be effective in preventing crime that occurs off the site.

Social impacts in the locality

The submissions received on the application detail significant social impacts arising from the previous unlawful use of the premises for tourist and visitor accommodation. Some such impacts include:

· Regular sleep loss;

· Mental health issues including anxiety;

· Loss of community cohesion;

· Neighbours are forced to change their way of life to protect themselves and their children from seeing/hearing things that would typically be considered socially inappropriate.

· Theft and vandalism in the area.

· Fear of harm when approaching guests about inappropriate behaviour.

Given the transient nature of guests, there is not the same sense of social obligation/consequences that would be expected for permanent residents. Likewise, enforcement consequences are likely to be less effective in the event of breaches as the short-term guests have generally left and been replaced by a new group.

No effective strategy has been proposed by the Applicant that is likely to result in such impacts being any different in the future. In lieu of a site specific plan of management for the development, the Applicant has suggested that it is more appropriate to adopt the Holiday and Short-Term Rental Code of Conduct – National Version 24 March 2015.

It is noted that Stayz is a participating organisation of the Code, and it is assumed that the premises has been operated in accordance with the Code of Conduct since 2016. Given the extent of issues that have been experienced by nearby residents during that time, it appears that the Code of Conduct has been ineffective in managing the behaviour of guests and providing a mechanism for affected neighbours to report and resolve issues.

In the submitted version of the Code, the Applicant has not completed the template Terms and Conditions between Owners and Guest (Schedule A) or the House Rules for Guests and Visitors (Schedule B).

The document is not considered likely to be effective in managing the social impacts of the development.

Economic impact in the locality

It is expected that the proposed development would have some positive economic impacts through tourism and other associated expenditure in the area by guests.

The previous economic benefits generated by the expenditure of permanent residents in the Port Macquarie area would be lost as a result of the proposed change of use. The application has not provided any analysis to determine whether the economic benefits of the proposed tourist accommodation would outweigh the benefits of a permanent residence.

Profits from the business are expected to leave the area as the owners are not a local company.

Site design and internal design

The existing building on the site has been designed as a permanent residential dwelling. The building setbacks are consistent with what would be expected for a dwelling, and the building layout has main living areas at the rear of the site overlooking the water. Other dwellings in the locality are designed in a similar manner with indoor and outdoor living spaces oriented to the rear. A publicly accessible footpath also passes through the rear of the site along the foreshore.

The building design increases the potential for noise and behaviour of guests to adversely impact on adjoining residents and the public.

Construction

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

Cumulative impacts

Without adequate controls in place tourist and visitor accommodation has the potential to cumulatively affect the amenity of residential areas. There is also potential for a cumulative loss of housing supply to tourist accommodation where this is intended to be the principal use and there is no associated permanent residential use.

Natural Hazards

See comments earlier in this report regarding flooding and acid sulphate soils.

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

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development in the context of natural hazards applicable to the site.

However, it has not been demonstrated that the use is suitable for the site in the context of the likely impacts on the locality.

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

49 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
No curfew for noise. Would normally be around 10pm in a motel or caravan park.	The submitted letter from Acoustic Logic dated 31 August 2017 recommends that no amplified music or use of the pool area be permitted between 10pm and 7am. However, it is noted that there is no on-site or local management proposed that could enforce this curfew.
No supervision/on-site management.	Noted. The management strategies proposed by the Applicant are unlikely to be effective without any form of management or supervision.
Precedent for other homes in residential areas.	Proposal is not considered likely to create an undesirable precedent given that the LEP permits tourist and visitor accommodation with consent in the R1 General Residential zone.
People using the public footpath at the rear of the premises are subjected to rubbish thrown from the premises and the anti-social behaviour that can be seen in the rear pool/terrace area.	No effective strategy for managing/preventing anti-social behaviour has been proposed by the Applicant.
Noise: · Late at night/early morning; · Travels further across waterway; · Those in the area that work require a reasonable night sleep. This is not possible with constant late night noise. · Nearby residents cannot open their windows or doors for cool breeze on summer nights due to the noise. · No acoustic controls have been proposed in the application.	See comments earlier in this report under Noise and Vibration.
Permanent residents respect their neighbours and try to maintain quiet amenity of the area. People on holiday are there to have a good time and do not show the same respect.	Noted.
Number of people the building can accommodate is not conducive to attracting normal family groups.	Agreed. Maximum occupancy of the building could potentially be restricted by a condition of consent. However, this is considered unlikely to be effective where there is no on-site management to control the number of guests and their visitors.
Social impact - sleep deprivation and health impacts on local residents.	The evidence submitted in the submissions demonstrates that this has been an issue during the period that the premises operated as tourist and visitor accommodation without consent. No effective management strategy have been proposed by the Applicant to prevent future sleep disturbance.
Loss of property value for surrounding properties.	This is not a relevant matter for consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Increased traffic and inadequate off-street parking.	See comments earlier in this report regarding traffic and parking.
Loss of safety and security for nearby properties from the many transient occupants of the property. Previous unlawful use of the property as holiday accommodation has resulted in theft of items from nearby properties.	There is nothing about the design of the building that would particularly facilitate crime in the locality. It is noted from the submissions that the reported incidents of theft occurred off the site. Passive surveillance in the area appears to be effective and the thefts were noticed by other residents in the locality. On-site management is not expected to be effective in preventing crime that occurs off the site.
Residents who bought in the area did not expect to be near short-term tourist and visitor accommodation.	Tourist and visitor accommodation is permissible with consent in the R1 General Residential zone, which would have been identified in the conveyancing documentation when residents bought into the area.
The influx of boats and jet skis cause pollution and don’t abide by maritime laws.	Maritime laws cannot be enforced/altered by Council as part of this proposal. This is a matter the relevant maritime authorities.
The site is not suitable for tourist accommodation as it is located away from tourist attractions and town centre services.	Proximity to tourist attractions and town centre services is not a requirement for tourist and visitor accommodation under the adopted planning controls.
Loss of visual and acoustic privacy.	Visual privacy is considered to be satisfactorily addressed in the existing building design as noted in the DCP assessment. The application has not demonstrated that acoustic privacy between the development and adjoining residences could be satisfactorily protected.
Contrary to the Statement of Environmental Effects, the development is inconsistent with the nature of the surrounding area.	Noted. The relevant consideration is whether the proposed development is compatible with surrounding development. It is not necessary for the proposal to be the same as surrounding development considering the range of permissible uses in the zone. The compatibility of the proposal has been considered throughout this assessment.
The development is not making a positive contribution to the local economy. The owners of the property do not live in Port Macquarie and the profits leave the area. The property also takes business from other legitimate accommodation providers.	See comments earlier in this report under Economic impacts in the locality.
The building is not designed to minimise off-site impacts.	Agreed. An appropriate scale and effective management would be required to ensure satisfactory off-site impacts.
Any limit on the number of guest will have no effect as there is no-one on site to monitor numbers.	Agreed.
Standard parking rates in Chapter 2.5 of DCP 2013 are insufficient for the nature of accommodation proposed. The site has regularly had more vehicles than can be accommodated by the available parking during its unlawful use. The garage area is used for storage of the owner’s goods and is not fully available for parking.	See comments earlier under DCP regarding off-street parking.
The existing design does not satisfy the acoustic privacy requirements in 3.3.2.26 of DCP 2013. Busy, noisy areas are located near the side and rear boundaries rather than the street.	See comments earlier under DCP regarding this provision.
Pool safety issues.	The swimming pool has been inspected by Council’s Compliance Officer (Swimming Pools) and was found to not have a compliant barrier. A direction under Section 23 of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 was issued on 22 August 2017 and requires the swimming pool to be provided with a compliant barrier (or temporary barrier) within 32 days. It is recommended that if the proposal is granted consent, a condition be imposed requiring a compliant barrier to be in place prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate for the proposed new use.
Fire safety issues.	See comments earlier in this report under Clause 93 regarding necessary fire safety upgrades.
Regular intervention by Police to control noise and anti-social behaviour at the premises is a waste of Police resources.	Agreed. On-site management would likely reduce the need for Police intervention.
The impacts of the development are proven as they have been experienced by nearby property owners during the unlawful use of the premises as holiday accommodation.	Noted.
Figures 10 and 11 in the Statement of Environmental Effects do not establish precedent for the proposal. The maps depict properties advertised on Stayz and Airbnb, and do not necessarily show tourist accommodation that has been approved by Council. The maps also show a clustering of tourist accommodation around the town centre and town fringe areas, with little similar development in proximity to the subject site.	Holiday accommodation is common throughout residential areas in the Local Government Area. Whether or not there are precedents within the area is not considered relevant given that the use is permissible with consent under the LEP. The assessment needs to consider whether the proposal is compatible with nearby land uses in the context of the site.
Proposal is not consistent with the objectives of the R1 General Residential zone.	Agreed. See comments earlier under LEP.
The Statement of Environmental Effects uses misleading outdated photographs that do not show the proximity of more recently constructed adjoining dwellings.	Noted. The photographs supplied in the Statement of Environmental Effects have not been relied upon in the assessment of the application. The site has been inspected as part of the assessment.
Littering and waste management.	See comments earlier in this report under Waste.
The Statement of Environmental Effects does not address Chapter 3.3 of DCP 2013 in full.	See comments earlier in this report under DCP.
The proposal is not consistent with the stated purpose of Chapter 3.3 of DCP 2013.	The purpose of Chapter 3.3 of the DCP is considered to be satisfied where a proposed development complies with the development provisions in that Chapter, or is consistent with the objectives of the provisions. See comments earlier in this report under DCP for a full assessment of the relevant provisions of Chapter 3.3.
A site analysis plan has not been submitted for the development.	A site analysis plan has been submitted by the Applicant in response to an additional information request.
The proposal does not meet the development provisions or objectives of 3.3.2.6 of DCP 2013 in relation to side setbacks.	See comments earlier in this report under DCP.
Proposal is contrary to SEPP 71 as the actions of guests at the premises effectively restrict access along the waterway.	The land at the rear of the site does not meet the definition of ‘coastal foreshore’ in SEPP 71.
The building includes a number of additional rooms capable of being used as bedrooms. Numbers cannot effectively be regulated and are excessive for the area.	Agreed. The existing furniture layout was checked during the inspection of the site and it was found that the building contained 3 x double beds, 5 x single beds, and the games room contained 2 x double futons and a double mattress. The amended plans submitted by the Applicant show beds for 10 people and are generally consistent with the layout observed during the site inspection. The amended plans include installation of a lockable door, which would prevent guests from accessing the study and rumpus/games rom on the first floor. The building could comfortably sleep more than 10 people and the Applicant has not proposed any effective management strategy to control the number of occupants and visitors.
No effective means of managing the behaviour of guests has been proposed.	Agreed. A generic Code of Conduct has been submitted with the application. However, as noted earlier in this report, the Code is unlikely to be effective on its own. It has been demonstrated during the period that the premises was operating without consent that guests are not observing any Code of Conduct.
The past performance of the premises during its unlawful use is relevant in evaluating the likely impacts, their acceptability and required mitigation measures, as confirmed in Jonah Pty Limited v Pittwater Council [2006] NSWLEC 99.	Noted. Below is the relevant extract from the judgement of Preston CJ in the referenced case: “38 For instance, past conduct (regardless of whether it is unlawful) may have given rise to unacceptable impacts, such as unacceptable acoustic impacts on adjoining properties. The experience of impacts of the past use could be relevant in evaluating, first, the likely impacts of a prospective use for which consent is sought of the same or similar character, extent, intensity and other features as the past use, secondly, the acceptability of the likely impacts and thirdly, if likely impacts are considered to be unacceptable, the appropriate measures that ought to be adopted to mitigate the likely impacts to an acceptable level. Past use would, therefore, be of relevance but it is for proper planning reasons, not because the past use happened to be unlawful. The unlawfulness of the past use is not relevant.”
The owners of the property have had a sufficient ‘trial period’ during the 8 months of unlawful use and have demonstrated that they are not able/willing to manage adverse impacts on the residents of the area. Council should not entertain allowing a further trial period by granting a time limited consent.	Agreed. However, if the Applicant were to propose measures that made the development substantially different to what has operated unlawfully in the past it is considered that a time limited consent could still be considered.
Applicant’s proposal to self-regulate using the HRIA Code of Conduct will be ineffective, as has been proven over the last year.	Agreed.
Amplified music is not acceptable in the area on the canals at any time day or night.	Amplified music can be acceptable in a normal residential setting, providing that the volume and time is appropriate, and should not be prohibited. However, the submitted acoustic assessment has not determined acceptable limits for amplified music or proposed any effective management strategies to protect the amenity of neighbours.
Pool hour should be restricted to industry standard of 8.00am to 8.30pm.	Noted. As with amplified music, the submitted acoustic assessment has not determined appropriate hours for use of the pool.
The fire safety strategy relies on self-regulation of a lockable door. Past performance suggests that self-regulation will not work.	Noted. See comments under Fire safety and other considerations - Clause 93.

(e) The Public Interest:

The proposed development has not been demonstrated to be consistent with the relevant planning controls, and adequate measures have not been proposed to protect the amenity of the locality. There have been a significant number of submissions received in response to the notification of the proposal, which include evidence of the impacts that have been caused by the development during the time that it has operated without consent.

There is evidence that the use has required regular Police intervention to manage noise and anti-social behaviour, which is not an efficient use of Police resources.

Approval of the proposal is therefore not considered to be in the public interest.

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

· Development contributions will not 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 not be required under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 towards roads, open space, community cultural services, emergency services and administration buildings.

5. CONCLUSION

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

Issues raised during assessment and public exhibition of the application have been considered in the assessment of the application. Given the extent of impacts associated with the proposal and the lack of effective strategies proposed to manage the impacts it is not considered that conditions would effectively manage the likely impacts.

The site has not been demonstrated to be suitable for the proposed use, and the development is likely to have the same noise and social impacts that have been documented during the previous unlawful use. The development is not consistent with the provisions and objectives of the applicable planning controls and would not be in the public interest.

It is recommended that the application be refused for the reasons detailed earlier in this report.

Attachments

1 View. DA2017 - 326.1 Plans

2 View. DA2017 - 326.1 Complete Set Of Submissions

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 13/09/2017

Item: 06

Subject: DA2017 - 291 Change Of Use From Tourist To Residential Accommodation And Planning Agreement Beachcomber - Lot 0 SP66988 No 54 William Street, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Patrick Galbraith-Robertson

Applicant: The Owner’s – Strata Plan 66988 CARE King and Campbell Pty Ltd

Owner: The Owner’s – Strata Plan 66988

Estimated Cost: $120,000

Parcel no: 38474

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Beachcomber Apartments Planning Agreement be supported and the General Manager enter into and execute the Agreement.

2. That DA 2017 - 291 for a change of use from tourist to residential accommodation at SP 66988, No. 54 William Street, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a Development Application (DA) and associated Planning Agreement for a change of use from tourist to residential accommodation at the subject site and provides an assessment of the DA in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

This matter is being reported to the Development Assessment Panel (DAP) as DAP has delegation to recommend to the General Manager of Council enter into Planning Agreements.

Following exhibition of the application and draft Planning Agreement, no submissions have been received.

1. BACKGROUND

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

The site has an area of 2453m2.

The site is zoned R4 high density residential in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, as shown in the following zoning plan:

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

The site is identified as SP66988 and is located on the corner of Lord, William and Church Streets, Port Macquarie.

The site contains the existing three (3) storey Beachcomber Resort which contains 23 separate strata titled units and basement parking accessible off Church Street.

The site maintains frontage to Church, Lord and William Streets.

The existing three (3) storey Beachcomber resort was granted consent under DA1999/1249 to contain a total of 22 Holliday Units, 25 basement parking spaces and 1 parking space off William Street.

A strata subdivision of the resort was completed in 2000 separating each of the individual units and common property areas, including parking spaces. Amendments to the strata plan were completed in 2006 (DA2006/417) which resulted in the creation of an additional ground floor unit.

The site contains perimeter fencing and landscaping with gated pedestrian access available on Lord and William Streets.

The site contains a large communal area including cabana, seating, BBQ and swimming pool.

The site is surrounded by residential development with Rotary Park including playground, observatory and public seating located to the north-east of the site. Town’s Beach is located approximately 200 metres to the north-east of the site. The Port Macquarie town centre is located approximately 700 metres west of the site.

A number of residential flat buildings are located to the east of the site along William Street.

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Change of use – holiday apartments to residential flat building. No physical changes to the existing apartments or registered strata plan are proposed as a part of the proposed change of use

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Application Chronology

· 10 April 2017 – DA lodged with Council

· 28 April to 11 May 2017 – Neighbour notification of proposal

· 5 June 2017 – Owner’s consent clarification provided

· 22 June 2017 – Applicant offered draft Planning Agreement.

· 26 June to 23 August 2017 – Exhibition of draft Planning Agreement

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 79C(1) Matters for Consideration

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) any Environmental Planning Instrument:

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

Whilst not technically required, a BASIX Certificate has been submitted. No specific measures are required to be complied with. No conditions are recommended in this regard.

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;

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 R4 high density residential. In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R4 zone landuse table, the proposed development for a residential flat building is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R4 zone are as follows:

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

o To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

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

o To provide for tourist and visitor accommodation in key tourist precincts of urban areas of the Council area, while also encouraging increased population levels.

o To encourage development that has regard to the desired future character of streets and supports active and safe uses at pedestrian level.

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

o The proposal is a permissible landuse;

o The proposed change of use will provide permanent residential occupation options for the community within an established residential area that is close to the CBD and beaches;

o The proposed change of use will provide one and two bedroom housing options within a high density environment; and

o The proposed change of use will encourage an increased population within an established residential area.

· 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 to the site.

(iii) any Development Control Plan in force:

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

Section 2.5 – Transport, Traffic Management, Access and Car Parking

The site contains a total of 26 parking spaces which consists of 25 basement parking spaces including 23 allocated spaces (one to each unit) and two (2) visitor spaces, and 1 disabled space available off William Street.

The development contains 23 separate units consisting of 18 x 2 bedroom units and 5 x 1 bedroom units.

In accordance with the numerical parking provisions of the DCP 2013 (apartment rate - 1.1 per unit + 1 per 2 employees (onsite at any one time) + 1 for on-site manager.), the existing development generates a 26.3 (say rounded up to 27) space parking demand.

The proposed change of use to a residential flat building would require the site to contain a total of 28.75 (say rounded up 29) off-street parking spaces in accordance with the following numerical parking rate (residential flat buildings):

1 per 1 or 2 bedroom unit + 1 visitors’ space per 4 per units

The development is therefore considered to be 2 spaces short of that required by the DCP. As a result of the numerical shortfall, the proposal includes an offer to enter into a planning agreement with respect to the payment of a monetary contribution. Details of the offer are contained within draft Planning Agreement attached to this report.

The objectives of the DCP in relation to provision of off-street parking are as follows:

- Adequate provision is made for off-street parking commensurate with volume and turnover of traffic likely to be generated by the development.

- To ensure no adverse impacts on traffic and road function.

Having regard to the above-mentioned objectives, a variation is recommended to be supported to permit the 2 space shortfall for the following reasons:

1. It is not practical to provide more off-street parking on the site.

2. The building is existing.

3. The shortfall is minor with only a two (2) space shortfall.

4. The Applicant has offered to enter into a Planning Agreement to address the offset of parking shortfall, which has been typically accepted in other similar circumstances.

5. There is no identifiable adverse impacts to traffic and road function identified.

6. There is existing on street parking available within two (2) of the street frontages – Lord Street and Church Streets.

Section 3.3 – Residential Flat Development, Tourist and Visitor Accommodation, Mixed Use Development

The proposed change of use does not seek to carry out any physical changes to the existing building (outside of water meter upgrades). The existing building was built in 2000, prior to Council’s adoption of the current, in force DCP. The existing building is therefore not consistent with a number of design provisions.

It is considered that the only Development Provisions that require consideration relate to private open space, communal open space and housing affordability. In this regard, the subject site contains a large (approximately 700m2), northern facing area of private open space. This area contains a pool, cabana and BBQ area. This landscaped area will remain as common property with each unit sharing access to the area. In addition to the landscaped pool area, each unit contains private open space areas.

Private open space and communal open space

It is noted that the majority of balcony areas contain dimensions less than the recommended 2 metres in width due to their curved alignment and ground floor apartments having an area less than recommended 35m2.

The objectives of the DCP in relation to provision of private open space are as follows:

- To encourage useable private open space which meets the occupants requirements for privacy, safety, access, outdoor activities and landscaping.

Having regard to the above objective a variation is recommended to be supported for the following reasons:

1. The large north facing landscaped and pool area is available for all tenancies use;

2. The landscaped pool open space area occupies approximately 700m2;

3. The landscaped pool open space area includes two cabanas and two BBQ facilities thereby allowing use by multiple users.

4. The site is located within walking distance (<400m) to the following features:

- Rotary Park which includes a children’s playground, open space area, observatory and picnic shelters;

- Town Beach (including kiosk);

- Town swimming pool;

- Tennis courts;

- Sporting fields;

Social dimensions and housing affordability

The existing development is located within close proximity to areas of open space and recreation (park and Town Beach) and is considered to capable of providing an affordable lifestyle opportunity. The development also contains 1 and 2 bedroom units with both types occurring on the ground and upper floors.

(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:

The Applicant has made a written offer to enter into a Planning Agreement to provide a monetary contribution in lieu of providing the two (2) on-site car parking spaces. The agreement provides for a development contribution of $44,728.80 towards the cost of the provision by Council of public car parking or the upgrading of pedestrian or traffic facilities in the local area of the development. The Applicant has signed the agreement which was publicly notified for the relevant statutory period of 28 days with no submissions received.

The Planning Agreement is required to recommended to be supported and a condition of consent to require it to be completed prior to Occupation and/or within 3 months of the date of this consent.

iv) any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

NSW Coastal Policy 1997

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and strategic actions of this policy. (See Clause 5.5 of LEP 2011 & Assessment Officers Assessment Table under section (b) for assessment against Coastal Policy Objectives).

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

No Coastal Zone Management Plan applies to the subject site.

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

Context and setting

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

There are no significant adverse privacy impacts. Adequate building separation is proposed/existing.

Traffic and Transport

Any potential increase in traffic associated with the change of use development is unlikely to have any adverse impacts to the existing road network within the immediate locality.

Water Supply Connection

The proposal includes fire hydrant coverage to be upgraded in order to satisfy the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. This is the only physical work proposed as a part of the application. In this regard, a condition is recommended to obtain a Section 68 permit under the Local Government Act 1993.

No other changes to existing arrangements proposed.

Sewer Connection

No change to existing arrangements proposed.

Stormwater

No change to existing arrangements proposed.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

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

Waste

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

Energy

No adverse impacts anticipated.

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.

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 permanent residential accommodation change will improve natural surveillance within the locality and openings from each dwelling overlook common and private areas.

Social impacts in the locality

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

Economic impact in the locality

No adverse impacts identified.

Site design and internal design

The proposed development design satisfactorily responds to the site attributes and will fit into the locality.

No amendments to the current strata plan are proposed as a part of this application. In this regard, it is noted that each unit is currently on a separate strata lot and includes an allocated parking space.

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:

No written submissions have been received following public exhibition of the application and draft Planning Agreement.

(e) The Public Interest:

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

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

No contributions are applicable to the proposal under a Council adopted Contributions Plan. Note draft Planning Agreement requires payment of contributions

5. CONCLUSION

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

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

Attachments

1 View. DA2017 - 291.1 SOEE

2 View. DA2017 - 291.1 Appendix A SP 66988

3 View. DA2017 - 291.1 Appendix B SP 80060

4 View. DA2017 - 291.1 DRAFT Beachcomber Apartments Planning Agreement

5 View. DA2017 - 291.1 Recommended Conditions

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 13/09/2017

Item: 07

Subject: DA2017 - 596.1 Alterations And Additions To Dwelling And Construction Of Shed - Lot 34 DP 245450, No 16 Camden Head Road, Dunbogan

Report Author: Anthony Crane

Applicant: R R Holland

Owner: R E Devries

Estimated Cost: $473,000

Parcel no: 3384

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2017 – 596.1 for alterations and additions to dwelling and construction of shed at Lot 34, DP 245450, No. 16 Camden Head Road, Dunbogan be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a [description of development] at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

1. BACKGROUND

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

The site has an area of 713m².

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:

· Addition of a family room and verandah to the 1^st floor of the front of the existing dwelling, a small (2.16m2) addition to the western side of the 1^st floor, a small (4.6m2) addition to the rear of the 1^st floor and the erection of a detached shed in the rear yard.

· Proposed detached shed at the rear of the site.

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Application Chronology

· Application lodged 12/07/2017.

· Adjoining property owners notified - 25/07/2017 (expiry date 15/08/2017).

· Submission from adjoining neighbour to west lodged - 05/08/2017.

· Meeting on site with objector (C Anderson) - 24/08/2017.

· Further comments and advising no addition to original objection - 24/08/2017.

· Further comments - 28/08/2017.

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. 62 – Sustainable Aquaculture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

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

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

o To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

· Clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 7.5 m for dwelling & 5.7m for shed which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5 m applying to the site.

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

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

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

· Clause 7.1, the site is mapped as potentially containing class 3 acid sulphate soils (>1.0m). The proposed development includes dwelling additions & detached shed, however no excavation extending 0.9m below the natural surface level is proposed, therefore no adverse impacts are expected to occur to the acid sulphate soils found on site.

· Clause 7.3, the site is land within a mapped “flood planning area” (Land subject to flood discharge of 1:100 annual recurrence interval flood event (plus 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 affect on flood behaviour that would result in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties;

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

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

(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

It should be noted that there is no specific section of DCP 2013 relevant to home businesses (where no work is involved). Therefore, the key is to ensure compliance with the General Provisions - see below.

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	5.7m Yes 68.6m2 -- 11 degs. Rear yard	No Yes No Yes Yes
3.2.2.2	Articulation zone: • Min. 3m front setback • An entry feature or portico • A balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or verandah • A window box treatment • A bay window or similar feature • An awning or other feature over a window • A sun shading feature	The dwelling contains a verandah within the articulation zone. The verandah does not exceed 25% of the articulation zone and is still setback over 3m.	Yes
3.2.2.2	Front setback (Residential not R5 zone): • Min. 6.0m classified road • Min. 4.5m local road • Min. 3.0m secondary road • Min. 2.0m Laneway	Front building line setback is compliant with the minimum 4.5m front setback requirements.	Yes
3.2.2.3	Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front façade. Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided	N/A
	6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building	N/A
	Driveway crossover 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m width	Existing
3.2.2.4	4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to site analysis and provision of private open space	The rear setback requirements are complied with.	Yes
3.2.2.5	Side setbacks: • Ground floor = min. 0.9m • First floors & above = min. 3m setback or where it can be demonstrated that overshadowing not adverse = 0.9m min. • Building wall set in and out every 12m by 0.5m	The minimum side setback requirements are complied with. The building wall articulation is compliant and/or satisfactory to address the objective intent of the development provision.	Yes
3.2.2.6	35m2 min. private open space area including a useable 4x4m min. area which has 5% max. grade	The dwelling contains 35m² open space in one area including a useable 4m x 4m space.	Yes
3.2.2.7	Front fences: • If solid 1.2m max height and front setback 1.0m with landscaping • 3x3m min. splay for corner sites • Fences >1.2m to be 1.8m max. height for 50% or 6.0m max. length of street frontage with 25% openings • 0.9x0.9m splays adjoining driveway entrances	No fences proposed	N/A
3.2.2.8	Front fences and walls to have complimentary materials to context No chain wire, solid timber, masonry or solid steel front fences	N/A
3.2.2.10	Privacy: • Direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. ie. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed • Privacy screen required if floor level > 1m height, window side/rear setback (other than bedroom) is less than 3m and sill height less than 1.5m • Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandahs etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m	No direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. No privacy screens are recommended.	Yes
3.2.2.11	Roof terraces	N/A
3.2.2.13 onwards	Jetties and boat ramps	N/A

*DCP 2013: General Provisions*
	Requirements	Proposed	Complies
2.7.2.2	Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline	No concealment or entrapment areas proposed. Adequate casual surveillance available.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	Cut and fill <1.0m change 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	Yes
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontage	None proposed	N/A
	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structure engineer	No retaining wall likely >1m	Yes
	Combination of retaining wall and front fence height max 1.8m, max length 6.0m or 30% of frontage, fence component 25% transparent, and splay at corners and adjacent to driveway	No retaining wall front fence combination proposed.	N/A
2.3.3.8	Removal of hollow bearing trees	No trees proposed to be removed	N/A
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100m diameter trunk at 1m above ground level and 3m from external wall of existing dwelling)	No trees proposed to be removed	N/A
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.2	New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads	No new access proposed to arterial or distribution road.	N/A
2.5.3.2	Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking	N/A
2.5.3.3	Parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1. 1 space per single dwelling (behind building line)	1 or capacity for more than 1 parking space behind the building line has been provided for.	Yes
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.12 and 2.5.3.13	Landscaping of parking areas	N/A
2.5.3.14	Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified	N/A
2.5.3.15 and 2.5.3.16	Driveway grades first 6m or ‘parking area’ shall be 5% grade with transitions of 2m length	N/A
2.5.3.17	Parking areas to be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.	N/A

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision relating to Cl. 3.2.2.1 “The height of an outbuilding, etc, should not be more than 4.8m above ground level (existing). AND “The maximum area of the building should be 60m2.”

The relevant objectives are: “To facilitate and sustain certain development as ancillary development.”

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

· The shed will only be 8.6m2 over the standard which is considered to be minor.

· The overall height of the shed will exceed the standard by 900mm as a result of raising the floor level 900mm to comply with the requirements of Port Macquarie-Hastings Flood Policy 2015.

· The American barn style of the shed is to provide enough internal clearance to house the owner’s equipment for his hobby.

· The shed is lokcated in the rear of the yard and does not give rise to any adverse on the streetscape.

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

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

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

iv) any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

NSW Coastal Policy 1997

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

Demolition of buildings AS 2601 – Clause 66 (b)

Demolition of the existing carport on the site is capable of compliance with this Australian Standard and does not require special conditions.

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

None 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

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

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

• There are no adverse impacts on existing view sharing.

• There are no adverse privacy impacts.

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

Access, transport and traffic

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

Water Supply

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

Sewer

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

Stormwater

Service available – details required with S.68 application

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

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

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

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

Air and microclimate

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

Flora and fauna

Waste

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

Energy

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

Noise and vibration

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

Bushfire

The site is not identified as being bushfire prone.

Safety, security and crime prevention

Social impacts in the locality

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

Economic impact in the locality

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

Site design and internal design

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

Construction

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

Cumulative impacts

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

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

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

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

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

Following exhibition in accordance with DCP 2013, one submission has been received.

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
Extension to deck at front will overlook entertaining space (deck) & reduce privacy & amenity.	Proposed deck extension will be 5.02m from side boundary and is predominantely orientated toward the road. Deck of No.14 is open to street and public park opposite.
Kitchen of No.16 will overlook deck area of No. 14.	Kitchen is on opposite side of dwelling and will not overlook No.14. Adequate separation provided.
Request privacy screens to be erected on western side of proposed extensions.	Proposed extensions will be over 5m from side boundary. Overlooking of the neighbouring rear yard is limited due to the proposed deck being located at the front of the dwelling.
Request proposed louvred windows on western side be opaque for privacy.	Louvred windows will be over 5.0m from side boundary.
Objection to bulk & scale of proposed shed. Shed will be visible from southern windows.	Shed will be marginally over 60m2. A number of dwellings in caravan park to rear also clearly visible from southern elevation. The siting of the shed at the rear of the property is considered to adequately manage any bulk and scale impacts.
Proposed shed is oversized and not in keeping with surrounding built environment	There are several sheds in vicinity of subject property. Proposed shed will be approx. 900mm over 4.8m limit so floor level will comply with flood policy.
Purpose of shed not made clear.	Shed will be used for applicant’s hobby. Consent will be conditioned to not use shed for habitable, commercial or industrial purposes.
No reference to colour of shed cladding.	Condition to be imposed requiring compatible, appropriate colour.

(e) The Public Interest:

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

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

N/A

5. CONCLUSION

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

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

Attachments

1 View. DA2017 - 596.1 Plans

2 View. DA2017 - 596.1 Recommended Conditions

3 View. DA2017 - 596.1 Submission - Anderson 05082017

4 View. DA2017 - 596.1 Submission - Anderson 28082017

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 13/09/2017

Item: 08

Subject: DA2017 - 496.1 Dual Occupancy And Torrens Title Subdivision - Lot 1 DP 1231421, No 5A Ochre View, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Fiona Tierney

Applicant: Collins w Collins

Owner: G B & S Kook

Estimated Cost: 366,500

Parcel no: 66684

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2017 - 496.1 for a dual occupancy and torrens title subdivision at Lot 1, DP 1231421, No. 5A Ochre View, Port Macquarie be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

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

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

1. BACKGROUND

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

The site has an area of 494.9m².

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

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Subdivision of the land into two Torrens title lots;

· Construction of a dwelling on each lot.

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Application Chronology

· 9 June 2017 - Application lodged.

· 27 June 2017 to 10 July 2017 - Neighbour notification of the proposal.

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 79C(1) Matters for Consideration

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) any Environmental Planning Instrument:

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

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

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

BASIX certificates (number 827338S and 827345S) have been submitted demonstrating that the proposal will comply with the requirements of the SEPP. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure that the commitments are incorporated into the development and certified at Occupation Certificate stage.

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

· Clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned R1 General Residential. In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, the proposed development for a dual occupancy (detached) is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

o To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

o The proposal is a permissible landuse;

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

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

· Clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 3.754m which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

· Clause 4.4, the floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.45:1 which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

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

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

· Clause 7.13, satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential services including water supply, electricity supply, sewer infrastructure, stormwater drainage and suitable road access to service the development. Provision of electricity will be subject to obtaining satisfactory arrangements certification prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate as recommended by a condition of consent.

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

No draft instruments apply to the site.

(iii) any Development Control Plan in force:

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

*DCP 2013: Dwellings, Dual occupancies, Dwelling houses, Multi dwelling houses & Ancillary development*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
3.2.2.2	Articulation zone: • Min. 3m front setback • An entry feature or portico • A balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or verandah • A window box treatment • A bay window or similar feature • An awning or other feature over a window • A sun shading feature	Unit 1 Patio at 4.406m Unit 2 Patio at 4.424m	Yes
3.2.2.2	Front setback (Residential not R5 zone): · Min. 4.5m local road	Unit 1 front setback to local road-6.384m ( to main dwelling) Patio forward Unit 2 front setback to local road- 6.393m ( to main dwelling) Patio forward	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 5.845m setback and more than 1 metre behind the building line.	Yes
	6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building	Unit 1: 3.2m wide and 33.6% of building width. Unit 2: 3.2m wide and 33.6% of building width.	Yes
	Driveway crossover 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m width	3m wide and 28.3% of site frontage.	Yes
3.2.2.4	4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to site analysis and provision of private open space	Minimum 1.5m rear setback	No*
3.2.2.5	Side setbacks: · Ground floor min. 0.9m · First floors & above min. 3m setback, unless demonstrated that adjoining property primary living areas & POS unaffected. · Building wall set in and out every 12m by 0.5m.	N- 57mm to garage. Setback is acceptable due to location adjoining reserve. No adverse privacy or overshadowing impact. Building wall articulation satisfactory.	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.	Both dwellings have minimum 35m² private open space including 4m x4m area accessible from living room.	Yes
3.2.2.7	Front fences: · If solid 1.2m max height and front setback 1.0m with landscaping · 3x3m min. splay for corner sites · Fences >1.2m to be 1.8m max. height for 50% or 6.0m max. length of street frontage with 25% openings · 0.9x0.9m splays adjoining driveway entrances (Fig 3.3 of AS2890.1 2004 overrides this standard by requiring a min 2.5x2m splay for driveway entrances) See David Troemel for info.	1.5m high timber fence fence on top of 1.0m high retaining wall. The fence is less than 50% of the site frontage. Condition recommended requiring fence to be minimum 25% transparent in accordance with DCP provisions.	Yes, subject to condition.
3.2.2.8	· Front fences and walls to have complimentary materials to context · No chain wire, solid timber, masonry or solid steel	Fencing material considered generally satisfactory.	Yes
3.2.2.10	Privacy: · Direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. ie. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed · Privacy screen required if floor level > 1m height, window side/rear setback (other than bedroom) is less than 3m and sill height less than 1.5m · Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandas etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m	Privacy is addressed through building design, separation distance, and fencing/screening.	Yes

*DCP 2013: General Provisions*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
2.7.2.2	Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline: · Casual surveillance and sightlines · Land use mix and activity generators · Definition of use and ownership · Lighting · Way finding · Predictable routes and entrapment locations	The proposed development will be unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area. The increase in housing density will improve natural surveillance within the locality and openings from each dwelling overlook common and private areas.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	Up to 1.5m of cut.	No*
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontages	Maximum 0.3m retaining wall along road frontage.	Yes
	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structural engineer		Yes
	Combination of retaining wall and front fence height	Maximum 0.3m retaining wall along road frontage with 1.5m fence.	Yes
2.3.3.8 onwards	Removal of hollow bearing trees	None proposed to be removed.	Yes
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100mm diameter trunk and 3m outside dwelling footprint	None proposed to be removed.	Yes
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.2	New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads. Existing accesses rationalised or removed where practical	Access from local road.	Yes
2.5.3.2	Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking	2 single driveways 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	single garage for each dwelling.	Yes
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.14	Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified	Concrete.	Yes
2.5.3.15	Driveway grades for first 6m of ‘parking area’ shall be 5% grade (Note AS/NZS 2890.1 permits steeper grades)	Capable of complying.	Yes
2.5.3.16	Transitional grades min. 2m length	Capable of complying. Long section will be required prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.	Yes

*DCP 2013: Chapter 3.6 - Subdivision*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
3.6.3.2	Subdivision of dual occupancy development or multi dwelling housing where permissible in the LEP may create allotments smaller than 450m² if: · Each lot to be created is part of a community or strata title scheme, or · Is part of an integrated Torrens title housing development.	Proposal is an integrated Torrens title housing development and includes creation of 2 lots smaller than 450m².
3.6.3.3	Council may consider permitting Torrens Title battleaxe allotments for ―infill development where it is demonstrated that; · 5 full length of the driveway; and · addresses privacy between the rear lot and the rear open space of the front lot by the provision of adequate screening, larger lot size and setbacks; and · extends utilities to the end of the axe handle; and · there is sufficient space for garbage collection on the frontage.		Yes
3.6.3.4	Lots are to be designed to allow the construction of a dwelling, which does not involve more than 1m cut, or fill, measured from natural ground level, outside the dwellings external walls.	Proposal includes construction of dwelling on each lot and has detailed the extent of cut and fill.	Yes
3.6.3.20	Water supply to meet Council’s design specifications.	See comments later in this report under Water Supply Connection.	Yes
3.6.3.21	All lots connected to reclaimed water if available.	available.	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.	Standard condition recommended confirming this requirement.	Yes
3.6.3.34	All service infrastructure should be underground unless otherwise approved by Council.	Condition recommended requiring satisfactory arrangements certification from electricity and telecommunications authorities.	Yes

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 3.2.2.4 in relation to the minimum rear setback of each unit. The relevant objectives are:

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

· To provide useable yard areas and open space.

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

· The adjoining property to the north is at a higher elevation and the reduced setback would not adversely affect natural light and ventilation between the dwellings. Dwellings located on battle axe lots are generally set back from handle.

· A useable yard area would be retained within the front courtyards.

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 3.2.2.5 in relation to minimum side setbacks. 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 reduced setback occurs along the boundary of a reserve.

(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:

Nil

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 westerly street frontage orientation to Ochre View.

Single storey dwellings adjoin the site. 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.

Overshadowing

There are no adverse overshadowing impacts.

Roads

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

Traffic and Transport

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

Site Frontage & Access

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

Parking and Manoeuvring

A total of 2 parking spaces have been provided on-site within garages with additional parking provided available within the driveway. Parking and driveway widths on site can comply with relevant Australian Standards (AS 2890) and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

Water Supply Connection

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

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

Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

Sewer Connection

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

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

Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the street frontage.

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

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

Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

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

Heritage

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

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

Air and microclimate

Flora and fauna

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 identified as being bushfire prone. A report has been submitted by a qualified consultant and referred to the Rural Fire Service. A BAL level of 12.5 is required to be provided.

Safety, security and crime prevention

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

Social impacts in the locality

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

Economic impact in the locality

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

Site design and internal design

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

Construction

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

Cumulative Impacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
Out of character- most dual occupancies under single roof	Considered to be in keeping with the character of the area- a variety of dual occupancies and multi-dwelling housing exist in the area together with single dwellings
Visually prominent due to courtyards in front and will encourage use of front area for washing etc.	Courtyard walls are permitted under the DCP and applicant proposes compliance with 25% transparency clause. Secondary utility area for the drying of clothes exist within side setback areas – refer to plans
Lots too small- has been created from a lot that has already been subdivided	Lot sizes are permissible as part of an integrated development. POS requirements have been satisfied.

(e) The Public Interest:

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

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

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

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

5. CONCLUSION

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

Attachments

1 View. DA2017 - 496.1 Plans

2 View. DA2017 - 496.1 Recommended Conditions

3 View. DA2017 - 496.1 Submission - Whaites

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 13/09/2017

Item: 09

Subject: DA2017 - 557.1 Dual Occupancy & Strata Subdivision - Lot 26 DP 1219489, Boltwood Way Thrumster

Report Author: Deb McKenzie

Applicant: K S & J Dable

Owner: K S & J Dable

Estimated Cost: $750000

Parcel no: 65622

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2017 - 557.1 for a dual occupancy and strata subdivision at Lot 26, DP 1219489, Boltwood Way, Thrumster be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

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

1. BACKGROUND

Existing sites features and surrounding development

The site has an area of 820.5m²

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

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Proposed dual occupancy and strata subdivision

· Each dwelling to comprise three (3) bedrooms and double garage

· Access to both dwelling via domestic crossovers and driveways off Boltwood Way

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Application Chronology

· 30 June 2017 Application lodged

· 11 July 2017 – 24 July 2017 Notification

· 12 July 2017 Submission received

· 09 August 2017 Information emailed to submitter

· Attempts to contact submitter by phone to discuss submission not successful

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

The site is cleared of vegetation. No impact on any koala food trees. 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 (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

A BASIX certificate (number 834614M) has been submitted demonstrating that the proposal will comply with the requirements of the SEPP. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure that the commitments are incorporated into the development and certified at Occupation Certificate stage.

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

o To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

In accordance with Clause 2.3(2), the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives as it is a permissible landuse, contributes to the range of housing options available for the community and consistent with the residential locality.

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

•

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

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	None	N/A
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	Corner site – min building line variation from 4.5m down to 3m for corner of habitable room in Unit 1.	Acceptable
3.2.2.2	Front setback (Residential not R5 zone): • Min. 6.0m classified road • Min. 4.5m local road or within 20% of adjoining dwelling if on corner lot • Min. 3.0m secondary road • Min. 2.0m Laneway	Generally complies with 4.5m setback, except for minor variations for corners of Unit 1.	No, considered acceptable due to corner block constraints and articulation of front facades.
3.2.2.3	Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front façade. Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided	Garage of Unit 1 is not behind habitable area of dwelling due to corner block and orientation of access to Boltwood Way.	No, considered suitable – corner block with limited secondary frontage. Not considered to be an adverse impact on streetscape.
	6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building	5.4m opening = 24% and 50% of width of dwellings.	Yes
	Driveway crossover 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m width	Able to comply. Details to be provided in S138 application.	Yes
	Garage and driveway provided on each frontage for dual occupancy on corner lot	Driveways provided to Boltwood Way as frontage to Carmac Avenue is limited. Council’s Development Engineer’s advise that proposed driveways locations are acceptable.	Considered acceptable.
3.2.2.4	4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to site analysis and provision of private open space	Corner block – no rear setback requirement.	Yes
3.2.2.5	Side setbacks: • Ground floor = min. 0.9m • Building wall set in and out every 12m by 0.5m	1.4m side boundary to Unit 1; 1.345m side setback to Unit 2. 900mm to dividing fence between dwellings.	Yes
3.2.2.6	35m² min. private open space area including a useable 4x4m min. area which has 5% max. grade	Unit 1: POS in front of dwelling. 69sqm. Unit 2: POS at rear of dwelling – 60sqm. POS areas for both dwellings acceptable dimensions.	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	No direct views to another dwelling nor within 12m of private open space areas. Unit 1 POS in front of dwelling. Requires privacy fencing as per DCP requirements – conditions of consent proposed.	Yes

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

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

iv) any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

New South Wales Coastal Policy:

Nil

Demolition of buildings AS 2601:

Nil

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

Nil

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

Context and setting

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

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

• There is no adverse impact on existing view sharing.

• There is no unacceptable privacy impacts.

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

•

• Access, transport and traffic

Water, Sewer, Stormwater Supply

Service available – details required with S.68 application.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

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

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

•

Soils

Air and microclimate

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

Flora and fauna

Site is cleared. No requirements.

Waste

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

Energy

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

Noise and vibration

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

Condition of consent to apply that each dwelling is constructed so as to meet the requirements for Category 2 noise level building construction in accordance with AS3671-1989 Acoustics - Road Traffic Noise Intrusion - Building Siting and Construction. Details demonstrating compliance are to be illustrated on the Construction Certificate Plans.

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone. The dwellings are to be constructed so as to comply with the Bush Fire Attack (BAL) 12.5 requirements of Australian Standard 3959. Condition of consent to apply.

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 (i.e. increased expenditure in the area).

Site design and internal design

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

Construction

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

Cumulative impacts

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

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

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

Potential site constraints of bushfire and flood mapping have been adequately addressed by the proposed building location.

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

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

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

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

Car Parking – Road is very narrow and already congested by neighbours who do not park in their driveways or double garages. It is difficult to reverse or enter the road as it is now with the number of car parks on the road.

The application provides two parking spaces for each dwelling, satisfying the minimum parking requirements with the DCP. Access into the site is compliant.

(e) The Public Interest:

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

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

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

5. CONCLUSION

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

Attachments

1 View. DA2017 - 557.1 Plans

2 View. DA2017 - 557.1 Recommended Conditions

3 View. DA2017 - 557.1 Submission - Moy

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 13/09/2017

Item: 10

Subject: DA2017 - 605.1 Home Business - Lot 5 DP 20579, 13 Swift Street, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Clint Tink

Applicant: M K & T A Cockshutt

Owner: M K & T A Cockshutt

Estimated Cost: N/A

Parcel no: 22895

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2017 – 605.1 for a home business at Lot 5, DP 20579, No. 13 Swift Street, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for the continued operation of a home business (swimming, cycle and strength classes) at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

It should be noted that originally the site obtained approval for the home business via DA2016 - 276. The consent was approved by DAP on 22 June 2016 and limited to an initial twelve (12) month period.

Prior to the twelve (12) month period lapsing, the consent required any continued operation be approved by either a s96 modification or new development application. The applicant subsequently lodged a s96 modification on 21 June 2017 and the s96 assessment process commenced.

Upon reviewing the conditions of consent for DA2016 - 276, the modification to extend the operation period had to be determined, not just lodged, before the twelve (12) month expiry (i.e. 22 June 2017). As a result, timing did not allow the modification to be determined before such a date and the applicant was advised to withdraw and re-lodge as a new development application. The applicant withdrew the modification to DA2016 - 276 on 27 July 2017 and also re-lodged a new DA2017 - 605 for the home business on 17 July 2017.

Following exhibition of the modification to DA2016 - 276, two (2) submissions were received. While the modification to DA2016 - 276 was withdrawn, the new DA2017 – 605 proposed the same development (i.e. home business). Given the development remained the same, the notification of DA2017 - 605 advised the public that submissions received on the modification to DA2016 - 276 would be transferred to DA2017 - 605.

Based on the above, the two (2) submissions on the modification plus an additional submission on DA2017 - 605, resulted in three (3) submissions to the proposal.

1. BACKGROUND

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

The site has an area of 613.4m².

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, as shown in the following zoning plan:

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:

· DA2014 - 260 - Approved additions to the existing dwelling and also the construction of a swimming pool.

· DA2016 - 276 - Approved a home business onsite for a twelve (12) month period. A copy of the DAP report for DA2016 - 276 is attached to the end of this report for context.

· The current DA2017 - 605 requests the continuance of the home business with some further changes. In terms of the home business, the occupant of the house will still provide a mixture of swimming, cycle and strength training classes/lessons. Swimming lessons will occur in the pool onsite, while cycle and strength classes will occur in the rear (northern) ground floor room. The application requests a five (5) year approval, compared to the twelve (12) month approval issued under DA2016 - 276.

· Lessons/classes are proposed to occur 9am and 6pm, Monday to Friday, which is the same as the DA2016 - 276 approval. This includes swimming lessons and one (1) one (1) hour strength and conditioning class.

· The exception to the above hours is that the applicant also proposes two (2) one (1) hour cycle classes per week, Monday to Friday, before 8:00pm. It should be noted that DA2016 - 276 also approved two (2) one (1) hour cycle classes per week. However, the cycle classes were set to two specific days/times.

· Applicant proposes a maximum of eight (8) people per class, which is two (2) more than the six (6) allowed under DA2016 - 276. In addition, DA2016 - 276 also required no overlapping of classes with a 15min change over period. The applicant requests the new DA allow overlapping of the strength and conditioning class with swimming lessons.

· Applicant requests thirty (30) hours of lessons/classes compared to the twenty (20) hours approved under DA2016 - 276.

· No music is played during the cycle classes and communication occurs via a headset. Music is to be played during the strength and conditioning class but windows etc are proposed to be kept closed.

· One non-resident employee may be required.

· Except as listed above (overlap of swim lesson and strength class), the applicant will continue to stagger classes with a 15min gap to reduce overlapping of attendees and parking.

· Pumps associated with the pool will not start until allowable hours under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Application Chronology

· 11/2/2015 - DA2014 - 260.1 for dwelling additions and pool approved.

· 22/6/2017 - DA2016 - 276.1 for home business approved by DAP.

· 21/6/2017 - Modification to DA2016 - 276 lodged with Council.

· 3/7/2017 - Applicant was advised to withdraw the modification as it was considered to have lapsed.

· 4-17/7/2017 - Modification notification period. Two (2) submissions received.

· 17/7/2017 - DA2017 - 605 lodged with Council.

· 27/7/2017 - Modification withdrawn.

· 1-14/8/2017 - DA2017 - 605 notification period. People were advised that the submissions to the modification would be transferred over. One additional submission received.

· 29/8/2017 - Site inspection carried out.

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 79C(1) Matters for Consideration

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) any Environmental Planning Instrument:

State Environmental Planning Policy 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

There is no Koala Plan of Management on the site. Additionally, the site is less than one hectare in area and does not require any koala tree removal.

Based on the above, no further investigations are required.

State Environmental Planning Policy 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. In addition, no physical works are proposed with the development being a use only.

State Environmental Planning Policy 62 - Sustainable Aquaculture

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

In addition, during the site inspection, no adverse impacts from the use were occurring to the adjoining watercourse.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage

No signage proposed.

State Environmental Planning Policy 71 – Coastal Protection