Agenda of Development Assessment Panel

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 08/11/2017

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 08/11/2017

Item: 05

Subject: DA2016 - 995.1 Multi Dwelling Housing And Community Title Subdivision - Lot 252 DP 1223015 Philip Charley Drive, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Benjamin Roberts

Applicant: Land Dynamics Australia

Owner: GHG Residential Pty Ltd

Estimated Cost: $1,540,000

Parcel no: 66094

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2016 – 995.1 for a Multi Dwelling Housing and Community Title Subdivision at Lot 252, DP 1223015, Philip Charley Drive, Port Macquarie, be determined by refusing consent for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is inconsistent with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection. Specifically inconsistent with the adopted Mahers Headland Koala Plan of Management.

2. The proposed development will have a significant adverse impact on biodiversity and threatened species, specifically the Koala. Section 5A of the Act is not considered to be satisfied.

3. The proposed development does not satisfy relevant planning controls and the variation of these planning controls is not considered to be in the public interest.

4. The site is not suitable for the proposed development.

5. The proposed development does not satisfactorily respond to the site attributes and environmental conditions.

6. The proposed development would have an adverse cumulative impact on the environment attributes of the locality. Specifically it will result in the eroding of environmental conditions within identified core Koala habitat and an important Koala habitat corridor/ linkage.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for multi dwelling housing and community title subdivision, comprising six (6) dwellings, 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, three (3) submissions have been received.

1. BACKGROUND

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

The site has an area of approximately 4000m².

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:

· Tree removal

· Construction of 6 dwellings

· Community title subdivision

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Application Chronology

· 1 December 2015 – Pre-lodgement meeting with Council staff.

· 21 December 2016 – Application lodged.

· 5 January 2017 – Additional information and fee request.

· 9 January 2017 – Additional information and fees provided.

· 10 – 23 January 2017 – Public exhibition via neighbour notification.

· 10 January 2017 – Referral to NSW Rural Fire Service.

· 7 February 2017 – NSW RFS Bushfire Safety Authority received.

· 13 February 2017 – Meeting with applicant advising that preliminary review indicates, as per pre-lodgement advice, that proposal is inconsistent with the adopted Koala Plan of Management.

· 14 February 2017 – Additional information request to applicant.

· 28 April 2017 – Email to applicant chasing outstanding information. If not provided by 5 May 2017 application will be determined.

· 28 April 2017 – Applicant confirmation information to be provided by 5 May 2017.

· 5 April 2017 – Applicant advised amended plans will be lodged by 9 May 2017.

· 12 May 2017 – Revised plans lodged.

· 15 May 2017 – Revised bushfire assessment report lodged.

· 16 May 2017 – Revised plans and bushfire report referred to NSW RFS.

· 22 May – 5 June 2017 – Re-notification to adjoining neighbours.

· 5 June 2017 – Email to applicant advising that Council is not supportive of proposed land dedication and the amended proposal is still considered to be inconsistent with the Koala Plan of Management.

· 21 June 2017 – Amended plans lodged with proposed community title arrangement (i.e. no land dedication).

· 22 June 2017 – Additional information request.

· 19 July 2017 – Additional information received.

· 24 July 2017 – Additional information referred to NSW RFS.

· 27 July – 9 August 2017 – Re-notification to adjoining neighbours.

· 17 August 2017 – Revised bushfire safety authority received from NSW RFS.

· 18 August 2017 – Advice to applicant that modified proposal still considered to be inconsistent with adopted Koala plan of Management.

· 20 September 2017 – Meeting with applicant confirming staff position in that proposal as modified is inconsistent with the adopted Koala Plan of Management.

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 79C(1) Matters for Consideration

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

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) any Environmental Planning Instrument:

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection

The site is identified as core Koala habitat within the adopted Mahers Headland Koala Plan of Management (KPoM). The KPoM was developed and approved by Council and the NSW Department of Planning in conjunction with development consent issued for the Ascot Park subdivision (DA2005/547). A copy of the KPoM is provided as an attachment to this report.

Clause 9(2) provides that Council’s determination of the development application must not be inconsistent with the plan of management.

Council staff have formed the view that the development application is inconsistent with the plan of management. This view is based on the following:

- The primary aim of the KPoM is to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the survival and long-term population viability of Koalas within the Maher’s study area and surroundings.

- The objectives of the KPoM are to:

(i) Minimise disturbance to currently mapped areas of Core Koala Habitat.

(ii) Maintain and/or create habitat linkages/corridors throughout the study area to assist ongoing processes of dispersal, recruitment and gene flow within the larger Koala metapopulation.

The proposal will result in disturbance to core Koala habitat and does not maintain appropriate habitat linkages/corridors. It is evident from reviewing prior versions of the “Ascot Park” subdivision layout that core Koala habitat in this area, inclusive of this site, was identified as not only important Koala habitat but an important linkage/corridor. A copy of the first version of the Ascot park subdivision layout (not approved) with plotted Koala trees is provided as an attachment to this report. A copy of the approved subdivision layout with Koala food trees plotted is also attached to this report. It is evident and argued that one of the main reasons the KPoM was supported and subsequently adopted by Council and The NSW Department of Planning was due to the removal of residential lots from the subdivision layout in this area. The reasons for lot removal being to protect the identified Koala habitat and to provide an important linkage/corridor east-west across Philip Charley Drive within identified core koala habitat. Figure 1 within the adopted KPoM indicates the lots (marked in black) that were removed from the first version of the subdivision layout. The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the objectives and primary aim of the KPoM. The proposed reduction to the available habitat linkage/corridor to that of a 20m wide community title ‘reserve’ is not consistent the habitat linkages/corridors anticipated under the Koala Plan of Management.

Part 4 of the KPoM provides the criteria for development in core Koala habitat. Section (b) provides for the provisions of development in “medium (normal) use” areas. This site is core Koala habitat located within a “medium (normal) use” area. The first point provides that subdivision design must demonstrate maximum retention of preferred Koala food species >250mm DBHOB will be achieved where possible. The proposal fails to demonstrate maximum retention of these identified Koala food trees. For the reasons explained above the removal of significant Koala food trees from this site and provision of offset plantings in other locations is not considered appropriate.

It is evident that long term retention of Koala food trees in residential lots is unrealistic and reliance on isolated trees to provide cumulative Koala habitat in such lots is unsustainable. Apart from the habitat linkage/corridor this is also one of the reasons why residential lots were removed from the core Koala habitat in the original subdivision layout. History has shown, in this estate and others that inevitable pressure from future land owners from safety risks and ancillary forms of residential development ultimately results in tree removal in residential lots. This is highlighted in the number of Koala food trees remaining on residential lots in Ascot Park subdivision. Of the 15 nominated on residential lots to be retained only 5 remain.

It is the opinion of Council staff that the proposed development will result in a significant loss of identified key core Koala habitat and important Koala habitat corridor/ linkage both of which were intended to be protected under the adopted Maher’s Headland Koala Plan of Management.

In accordance with clause 9(2) of this policy and for the reasons outlined above the proposal is inconsistent with the adopted plan of management.

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 (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

BASIX certificates have been submitted demonstrating that the proposal will comply with the requirements of the SEPP.

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 multi dwelling housing and community title subdivision, 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 a permissible land use and is consistent with the zone objectives being that it will provide:

- for the housing needs of the community, and

- for a variety of housing types and densities

· Clause 4.1, the standard minimum lot size requirements do not apply as the proposal is for a community title scheme.

· Clause 4.3, the maximum overall height of the buildings above ground level complies with the standard height limit of 8.5m 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, the objective of this clause it to preserve the amenity of the area, including biodiversity values, through the preservation of trees and other vegetation. This clause applies to species prescribed by Development Control Plan 2013. The tree survey identified 29 Koala food trees (Tallowwoods) on the site all prescribed trees in Development Control Plan 2013. A total of 21 Koala food trees are proposed to be removed from the site to accommodate the proposed development. Six (6) are mature Koala food trees (>250mm DBH) and 15 are younger Koala food trees (100 - <250mm DBH). 8 Koala food trees (>250mm DBH) are proposed to be retained on site within lots. As detailed in comments under SEPP 44 heading, above in this report, the long term retention of Koala food trees in residential lots is not considered sustainable.

It is considered that the proposed development will not result in the preservation of identified trees and will not preserve the amenity of the area or biodiversity values. The proposal is not consistent with this clause.

· Clause 5.10, the site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage items or sites of significance.

· Clause 7.5, the site is shown as “Koala habitat area” on the Koala Habitat Map. The objective of this clause is to ensure that development is designed to retain koala habitat. Development consent must not be granted for development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development is consistent with the relevant provisions of any adopted plan of management prepared pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 – Koala Habitat Protection.

The proposal has not been designed to retain Koala habitat. The proposed development is inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the adopted Koala Plan of Management. Refer to detailed comments under SEPP 44 heading of this report.

· 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:

Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

The new Biodiversity Conservation Act commenced on 25 August 2017. The Biodiversity Conservation (Savings and Transitional) Regulation 2017 provides that all development applications lodged before commencement of this Act are to be considered under previous legislation. This application was lodged before commencement of this legislation and has been assessed under previous legislation.

Draft Koala habitat protection State Environmental Planning Policy

The Draft SEPP was publicly exhibited between 18 November 2016 and 3 March 2017 and the key changes proposed relate to:

- the definitions of koala habitat;

- list of trees species;

- list of councils; and

- development assessment process.

The proposed changes are still under review by the NSW Department of Planning and the Environment. Noting the site is subject to an existing adopted Koala Plan of Management the changes are not expected to have any effect on this proposed development.

(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	Water tanks are appropriately located	Yes
3.2.2.2	Articulation zone: • Min. 3m front setback • An entry feature or portico • A balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or verandah • A window box treatment • A bay window or similar feature • An awning or other feature over a window • A sun shading feature	There is a front porch to dwelling on lot 1 setback 4.309m from the Philip Charley Drive boundary within the articulation zone. There is a family room and front porch to dwelling on lot 3 setback 4.285m from the Gunsynd Chase boundary within the articulation zone. There is a walk in robe and ensuite to dwelling on lot 4 setback 3.143m from the Phar Lap Circuit.	Yes No* No*
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	Front setback to dwelling on lot 1 is 4.309m. Front setback to dwelling on lot 2 is 5.319m from the Gunsynd Chase frontage and 5.798m to the Philip Charely Drive frontage. Front setback to dwelling on lot 3 is 4.285m. Front setback to dwelling on lot 4 is 5.075m to the Gunsynd Chase frontage and 3.143m to the Phar Lap Circuit frontage. Front setback to dwelling on Lot 5 is 4.567m. Front setback to dwelling on Lot 6 is >4.5m.	No* Yes No* No* Yes Yes
3.2.2.3	Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front façade. Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided	Lot 1 dwelling garage setback 5.4m. >1m behind building line. Lot 2 dwelling garage setback 5.319m and forward of the building line. Lot 3 dwelling garage setback 5.408m. >1m behind building line. Lot 4 dwelling garage setback 5.408m. >1m behind building line. Lot 5 dwelling garage setback 5.702m. >1m behind building line. Lot 6 dwelling garage >5.5m setback & >1m behind building line.	No* No* No* No* Yes. Yes
	6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building	Width of garage door requirements are complied with.	Yes
	Driveway crossovers 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m width	Crossovers are maximum 5m wide and less than 1/3 of site frontage.	Yes
3.2.2.4	4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to site analysis and provision of private open space	>20m rear setback provided to the northern boundary.	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 only adjoining lot is to the north with >20m setback to proposed dwellings. There appears to be adequate building separation proposed between dwellings. Adequate building wall articulation is proposed.	Yes Yes Yes
3.2.2.6	35m2 min. private open space area including a useable 4x4m min. area which has 5% max. grade	Each dwelling contains a minimum of 35m² open space including a useable 4m x 4m area.	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 • Front fences and walls to have complimentary materials to context	No front fencing proposed.	N/A
3.2.2.8	No chain wire, solid timber, masonry or solid steel front fences	No front fencing proposed.	N/A
3.2.2.10	Privacy: • Direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. ie. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed • Privacy screen required if floor level > 1m height, window side/rear setback (other than bedroom) is less than 3m and sill height less than 1.5m • Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandahs etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m	No direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings 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	N/A
3.2.2.13 onwards	Jetties and boat ramps	N/A	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	While the extent of cut and fill proposed is not clear from the plans provided it appears to not exceed 1m given the floor levels nominated existing topography.	Yes
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontage	No retaining walls along road frontage proposed.	N/A
	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structure engineer	Retaining walls are proposed. No heights are shown on the plans. The retaining walls appear to not exceed 1m given the floor levels nominated existing topography. Condition recommended to require engineering certification for retaining walls >1m in height.	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	One hollow bearing tree is located on the site. It is proposed to be retained.	Yes
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100m diameter trunk at 1m above ground level and 3m from external wall of existing dwelling)	Tree survey identified 56 trees on this site. Twenty-nine (29) trees are identified as primary Koala food trees (Tallowwoods). Twenty-one (21) of these trees are proposed to be removed. Eight (8) trees (>250mm DBH) are proposed to be retained on site within lots and the proposed 20m wide community title ‘reserve’ lot. Refer to detail comments under SEPP 44 heading and flora and fauna headings of this report.	No*
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater	Refer to main body of report.	Yes
2.5.3.2	New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads	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	Driveway to each dwelling with combined driveway crossing to lots 5 and 6.	Yes
2.5.3.3	Parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1. Multi dwelling 1 space per 1 & 2 bedroom occupancies 1.5 spaces per 3+ bedroom occupancies 0.25 spaces per occupancy for visitor parking.	Proposal involves: 6 x 4 bedroom dwellings Therefore requirements are: 6 x 1.5 space = 9 spaces + 6 x 0.25 visitor = 1.5 spaces (rounded up) = 11 spaces in total. The development proposes a double garage to each dwelling providing 12 parking spaces with driveways available for visitor parking.	Yes
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Contributions apply.	Yes
2.5.3.12 and 2.5.3.13	Landscaping of parking areas	Suitable landscaping proposed.	Yes
2.5.3.14	Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified	Sealed driveway areas proposed.	Yes
2.5.3.15 and 2.5.3.16	Driveway grades first 6m or ‘parking area’ shall be 5% grade with transitions of 2m length	Driveway grades capable of satisfying Council standard driveway crossover requirements. Condition recommended for section 138 Roads Act permit	Yes
2.5.3.17	Parking areas to be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.	Stormwater drainage is capable of being managed as part of plumbing construction.	Yes

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 3.2.2.2 relating to the articulation zone and building elements within the articulation zone. The proposal includes building elements within the articulation zone that are not listed in the development provisions.

The relevant objectives are:

· Front setbacks should support an attractive streetscape.

Having regard for the development provisions and relevant objectives, the variations are not considered acceptable for the following reasons:

· There is a family room and front porch to the dwelling on lot 3 that is setback 4.285m from the Gunsynd Chase boundary within the articulation zone.

· There is a walk in robe and ensuite to the dwelling on lot 4 that is setback 3.143m from the Phar Lap Circuit

· The above building elements do not support an attractive streetscape.

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 3.2.2.2 relating to front setback provisions. Specifically the:

· Front setback to the dwelling on lot 1 is 4.309m.

· Front setback to the dwelling on lot 3 is 4.285m.

· Front setback to the dwelling on lot 4 is 5.075m to the Gunsynd Chase frontage and 3.143m to the Phar Lap Circuit frontage.

The relevant objectives are:

· Front setbacks should support an attractive streetscape.

Having regard for the development provisions and relevant objectives, the variations are not considered acceptable for the following reasons:

· There is no justification for the proposed reduced front setbacks.

· There is no apparent site constraint that warrants variation to the front setback provision.

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 3.2.2.3 requiring garages to be setback a minimum of 5.5m and at least 1m behind the building line. The proposal incorporates the following proposed variations:

· Lot 1 dwelling garage is setback 5.4m. >1m behind building line.

· Lot 2 dwelling garage is setback 5.319m and well forward of building line.

· Lot 3 dwelling garage is setback 5.408m. >1m behind building line.

· Lot 4 dwelling garage is setback 5.408m. >1m behind building line.

The relevant objectives are:

· To minimise the impact of garages and driveways on the streetscape, on street parking and amenity.

· To minimise the visual dominance of garages in the streetscape.

Having regard for the development provisions and relevant objectives, the variations are not considered acceptable for the following reasons:

· There is no justification for the proposed reduced garage setbacks.

· There is no apparent site constraint that warrants variation to the garages being setback less than the required 5.5m.

· The garage for dwelling 2 is located well forward of the building line and will provide a visual dominance along the streetscape of Gunsynd Chase. This will be exacerbated by the garage being locate on the corner.

Cumulatively, the proposed variations amount to adverse impacts that justify refusal of the application.

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

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

iv) any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

No matters prescribed by the regulations apply.

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

No Coastal Zone Management Plan applies to the 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 proposed variations to planning would result in a development that does not satisfactorily addresses the public domain. Refer to comments under DCP heading earlier in the report.

• The proposed variations to planning controls will result in a development that is inconsistent with existing residential development in the locality. Refer to comments under DCP heading earlier in the report.

• The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts to existing adjoining properties

• 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.

Roads, Traffic, Access, Parking and Manoeuvring

The site has frontage to Philip Charley Drive, Gunsynd Chase and Phar Lap Circuit. All of which are or will be sealed with kerb and gutter.

The site is currently vacant land. The road network is of sufficient capacity to accommodate the likely increased traffic to be generated from this development.

Vehicle access is proposed through individual driveways and a shared driveway to Lots 5 and 6.

Due to the type and size of the development additional public works are required in the form of cycleway along the frontage of Philip Charley Drive connecting to the existing cycleway opposite the playground and transition to that existing along Gunsynd Chase frontage.

Parking has been provided on-site within garages with additional parking provided available within the driveway.

Water Supply

Services exist. Detailed plans will be required to be submitted for assessment with the infrastructure Construction Certificate and S.68 application. Suitable conditions applied.

Sewer Supply

Services exist. Detailed plans will be required to be submitted for assessment with the infrastructure Construction Certificate and S.68 application. Suitable conditions applied.

Stormwater

The site naturally grades to the north-west. Stormwater is proposed to be disposed of via piped connection into Phar Lap Circuit. Stormwater is capable of being managed from the site. A detailed stormwater management plan will be required to be submitted for assessment with the infrastructure Construction Certificate. Suitable conditions applied.

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

A vegetation survey undertaken as part of the ecological impact assessment identified 56 trees on this site. The trees comprise Tallowwood, Sydney Blue Gum, Pink Bloodwood and Blackbutt species.

Twenty-nine (29) trees are identified as primary Koala food trees (Tallowwoods). Twenty-one (21) of these trees are proposed to be removed. Of these six (6) are mature trees (>250mm DBH) and 15 are younger trees (100 - <250mm DBH). Eight (8) trees (>250mm DBH) are proposed to be retained on site within lots and the proposed 20m wide community title ‘reserve’ lot.

It is understood that only two (2) of the remaining twenty-seven (27) non Koala food trees are proposed to be retained. One of these tree is a hollow bearing Blackbutt within the proposed 20m wide community title ‘reserve’ lot.

The application was supported by an ecological impact assessment prepared by Naturecall Environmental dated 6 July 2017. In summary the assessment concluded:

While the proposal will have a negative impact in terms of habitat modification and loss, provided the Mahers Headland CKPoM successfully achieves its overall objectives via effective implementation of its mitigation measures, it is unlikely to have significant impact on threatened species known or potentially occurring in the study area due to:

· Relatively small area of vegetation/potential habitat to be removed, with associated impacts not considered likely to be sufficient order of magnitude to place a local population at risk of extinction

· The proposal will have some negative impact on the current connectivity of the area via reduction in forest cover, however due to the proposal conforming to the mitigation measures of the Mahers Headland CKPoM, and modification of the development layout to provide a Koala corridor on site, this impact is not likely to significantly affect the connectivity for any threatened species, including the Koala.

· Habitat loss for the Koala is partially within the medium use area, and loss of Koala Food Trees >250mm DBH will be offset as per the Mahers Headland CKPoM provisions.

Council staff have reviewed the ecological impact assessment and have expressed reservations surrounding the conclusions provided in the ecological assessment report. It is the opinion of Council staff that the proposed development will result in a significant loss of identified key core Koala habitat and important Koala habitat corridor/ linkage both of which were intended to be protected under the adopted Maher’s Headland Koala Plan of Management. It is argued that the loss of this core habitat and connectivity will have significant adverse impacts on biodiversity and threatened species, specifically the Koala. Section 5A of the Act (the legislation in force at the time of the application being received) is not considered to be satisfied.

While there is a difference of opinion between respective professionals on the anticipated impact upon threatened species, irrespective of this, the matter of inconsistency with the adopted Koala Plan of Management remains.

Should the findings of the supporting ecological assessment report be correct the appropriate mechanism would be for these findings to form the basis of an application to amend the adopted Maher’s Headland Koala Plan of Management to enable applications of this nature to be considered on this site. This has not been done and would also require approval from the NSW Department of Planning.

Waste

Satisfactory arrangements are capable of being put into 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. It is noted that part of the site is subject to road traffic noise impacts that would warrant category 2 building construction standard for the dwelling on proposed Lot 5 in order to ensure acceptable internal noise levels meet industry standard. A condition has been applied to ensure this occurs.

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone. The application was supported by a bushfire assessment report prepared by a suitably qualified professional. The application was referred to NSW Rural Fire Service under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997. The RFS have issued a bushfire safety authority comprising a series of conditions that would form part of any development consent issued.

Safety, security and crime prevention

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

Social impacts in the locality

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

Economic impact in the locality

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

Site design and internal design

The proposed development does not satisfactorily respond to the site attributes and environmental conditions. Refer to comments under SEPP 44 and DCP 2013 headings within this report.

Construction

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

Cumulative impacts

The proposed development would have an adverse cumulative impact on the environment attributes of the locality. Specifically the proposal will result in the eroding of environmental conditions (i.e. nibbling effects) within identified core Koala habitat and an important Koala habitat corridor/ linkage.

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

The site has not been demonstrated to be suitable for the proposed development having regard to the environmental attributes identified within the adopted Maher’s Koala Plan of Management and streetscape provisions of DCP 2013.

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

Three (3) 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
Assurances have been provided by Land Dynamics that no high density housing was planned for this site. According to plans provided at the time of purchase there were no plans for multi-dwelling housing in this estate.	Noted. Council needs to consider the application as lodged, relevant planning controls and potential impacts of the proposal.
Council committee put a freeze on the land and declared it would remain vacant and continue to be a Koala corridor.	Noted. Council needs to consider the application as lodged, relevant planning controls and potential impacts of the proposal.
This estate was portrayed as a leafy tree studded estate. Most of the trees in the earlier stages of the subdivision no longer exist and we have serious doubts over the long term survival of those that do exist. This proposal will result in even more trees being removed from the estate.	Noted. Refer to comments under SEPP 44 and flora and fauna headings of this report.
Land Dynamics are increasingly unreliable with information and fail to communicate with existing residents in the estate.	Noted. This is not a planning consideration.
Existed residents invested in an estate based on the original subdivision plans and the concept should not be jeopardised for greedy developers. The area in question was always “open space” being part of a Koala corridor.	Noted. Refer to comments under SEPP 44 and flora and fauna headings of this report.
The proposal will result in increased vehicle movements opposite a children’s playground that could be quite dangerous.	The road network is of sufficient capacity to accommodate the likely increased traffic to be generated from this development. The location of driveways and manoeuvring expected is unlikely to result in any increase risk to children in the playground.
The proposal will devalue existing properties adjoining and close to the site.	This is not a planning consideration.
The removal of trees will impact on Koalas and other fauna using the site.	Noted. Refer to comments under SEPP 44 and flora and fauna headings of this report.
Placing a temporary sewer pump station on the site as proposed will present an environmental hazard.	Council is not supportive of any temporary sewer pump station arrangement. The development is capable of and be required to be serviced from the reticulated sewer supply.

(e) The Public Interest:

The proposed development does not satisfy key planning controls relating to flora and fauna and streetscape. The variations are not considered to be in the 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.

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 development is not consistent with the adopted Mahers Headland Koala Plan of Management, being a key planning control. The site is not suitable for the proposed development and is not considered to be in the public interest.

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

Attachments

1 View. DA2016 - 995.1 Site Plan

2 View. DA2016 - 995.1 Building Plans

3 View. DA2016 - 995.1 Subdivision Plan

4 View. DA2016 - 995.1 Services Plan

5 View. DA2016 - 995.1 Tree Protection Plan

6 View. DA2016 - 995.1 SoEE

7 View. DA2016 - 995.1 Bushfire Assessment Report

8 View. DA2016 - 995.1 Ecological Assessment Report

9 View. Ascot Park Approved Tree Removal Retention Plan

10 View. Ascot Park Original Subdivision Layout - not approved - with Koala trees plotted

11 View. Mahers Headland Koala Plan of Management - NSW Department of Planning & Council Approved Final Version July 2009

12 View. DA2016 - 995.1 Recommended Conditions

13 View. DA2016 - 995.1 Bushfire Safety Authority conditions NSW RFS

14 View. DA2016 - 995.1 Submission - Christie

15 View. DA2016 - 995.1 Submission - Jones

16 View. DA2016 - 995.1 Submission - Muffett

Member	23/08/17	13/09/17	27/09/17	11/10/17	25/10/17
Paul Drake	P	P	P	P	P
Robert Hussey	-	P	P	P	P
David Crofts (alternate member)	-	-	-		-
Dan Croft (Group Manager Development Assessment) (alternates) - Director Development & Environment - Development Assessment Planner	P	P P	P	P	P

1.0 OBJECTIVES

2.0 KEY FUNCTIONS

Delegated Authority of Panel

3.0 MEMBERSHIP

3.2 Non-Voting Members

3.3 Obligations of members

3.4 Member Tenure

3.5 Appointment of members

4.0 TIMETABLE OF MEETINGS

5.0 MEETING PRACTICES

5.2 Decision Making

5.3 Quorum

5.4 Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson

5.5 Secretariat

5.6 Recording of decisions

6.0 CONVENING OF “OUTCOME SPECIFIC” WORKING GROUPS

7.0 CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

8.0 LOBBYING