Development
Assessment Panel
CHARTER
1.0 OBJECTIVES
To assist in managing Council's development assessment
function by providing independent and expert determinations of development
applications that fall outside of staff delegations.
2.0 KEY FUNCTIONS
·
To review development application reports and conditions;
·
To determine development
applications outside of staff delegations;
·
To refer development applications
to Council for determination where necessary;
·
To provide a forum for objectors and applicants
to make submissions on applications
before the Development Assessment Panel
(DAP);
·
To maintain transparency in the determination of development
applications.
Delegated Authority of Panel
Pursuant to
Section 377 of the Local Government Act, 1993 delegation to:
·
Determine development applications under Part 4
of the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act 1979 having
regard to the relevant environmental planning instruments,
development control plans and Council policies.
·
Vary, modify or release restrictions as to use
and/or covenants created by Section 88B instruments under the Conveyancing Act
1919 in relation to development applications for subdivisions being considered
by the panel.
·
Determine Koala Plans of Management under State
Environmental Planning Policy 44 - Koala Habitat Protection associated with
development applications being considered by the Panel.
Noting the trigger to escalate
decision making to Council as highlighted in section 5.2.
3.0
MEMBERSHIP
3.1
Voting
Members
·
Two independent external members. One of the
independent external members to be the Chairperson.
·
Group Manager Development Assessment (alternate
- Director Development & Environment or Development Assessment Planner)
The independent external members shall have expertise in
one or more of the following areas: planning, architecture, heritage, the
environment, urban design, economics, traffic and transport, law, engineering,
government and public administration.
3.2
Non-Voting Members
·
Not applicable
3.3 Obligations
of members
·
Members must act faithfully and diligently and
in accordance with this Charter.
·
Members must comply with Council's Code of Conduct.
·
Except as required to properly perform their
duties, DAP members must not
disclose any confidential information (as advised by Council) obtained in connection with the DAP functions.
·
Members will have read and be familiar with the
documents and information provided by Council prior
to attending a DAP meeting.
·
Members must act in accordance with Council's
Workplace Health and Safety Policies and Procedures
·
External members of the Panel are not authorised
to speak to the media on behalf of Council. Council officers that are members
of the Committee are bound by the
existing operational delegations in relation to speaking to the media.
·
Staff members shall not vote on matters before
the Panel if they have been the principle author of the development assessment report.
3.4
Member Tenure
·
The independent external members will be
appointed for the term of four (4) years
maximum in which the end of the tenure of these members would occur in a
cascading arrangement.
3.5 Appointment
of members
·
The independent external members (including the
Chair) shall be appointed by the General Manager following an external
Expression of Interest process.
·
Staff members of the Panel are in accordance
with this Charter.
4.0 TIMETABLE
OF MEETINGS
·
The Development Assessment Panel will generally
meet on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday each month at 2.00pm at the Port Macquarie
offices of Council.
·
Special Meetings of the Panel may be convened by
the Director Development & Environment Services with three (3) days notice.
5.0
MEETING PRACTICES
5.1
Meeting
Format
·
At all Meetings of the Panel the Chairperson
shall occupy the Chair and preside. The Chair will be responsible for keeping
of order at meetings.
·
Meetings shall be open to the public.
·
The Panel will hear from applicants
and objectors or their r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .
·
Where considered necessary, the Panel will
conduct site inspections which will
be open to the public.
5.2
Decision Making
·
Decisions are to be made by consensus. Where
consensus is not possible on any item, that item is to be referred to Council
for a decision.
·
All development applications involving a
proposed variation to a development standard
greater than 10% under Clause
4.6 of the Local Environmental Plan will be
considered by the Panel and recommendation made to the Council for a decision.
5.3
Quorum
·
All members (2 independent external members and
1 staff member) must be present at a
meeting to form a quorum.
5.4
Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson
·
Independent Chair (alternate, second independent member)
5.5
Secretariat
·
The Director Development &n Environment is
to be responsible for ensuring that the Panel has adequate secretariat support.
The secretariat will ensure that the business paper and supporting papers are
circulated at least three (3) days prior to
each meeting. Minutes shall be appropriately approved and circulated to each
member within three (3) weeks of a meeting being held.
·
The format of and the preparation and publishing
of the Business Paper and Minutes shall be similar to the format for Ordinary
Council Meetings.
5.6
Recording of decisions
·
Minutes will record decisions and how each
member votes for each item before the Panel.
6.0 CONVENING
OF “OUTCOME SPECIFIC” WORKING GROUPS
Not applicable.
7.0 CONFIDENTIALITY
AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
·
Members of the Panel must comply with the
applicable provisions of Council’s Code of Conduct. It is the personal
responsibility of members to comply with the standards in the Code of Conduct
and regularly review their personal circumstances with this in mind.
·
Panel members must declare any conflict of
interests at the start of each meeting or before discussion of a relevant item
or topic. Details of any conflicts of interest should be appropriately minuted.
Where members are deemed to have a real or perceived conflict of interest, it
may be appropriate they be excused from deliberations on the issue where the
conflict of interest may exist. A Panel meeting may be postponed where there is
no quorum.
8.0 LOBBYING
·
All members and applicants are to adhere to
Council’s Lobbying policy. Outside of
scheduled Development Assessment Panel meetings, applicants, their
representatives, Councillors, Council staff and the general public are not to
lobby Panel members via meetings, telephone conversations, correspondence and
the like. Adequate opportunity will be provided at Panel inspections or
meetings for applicants, their representatives and the general public to make
verbal submissions in relation to Business Paper items.
AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 08/08/2018
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
|
By
[insert full name of councillor]
|
|
|
In the
matter of
[insert name of environmental planning instrument]
|
|
|
Which is
to be considered at a meeting of the
[insert name of meeting]
|
|
|
Held on
[insert date of meeting]
|
|
|
PECUNIARY
INTEREST
|
|
Address of land in which councillor or an
associated person, company or body has a proprietary interest (the identified
land)i
|
|
|
Relationship of identified land to councillor
[Tick or cross one box.]
|
Councillor
has interest in the land (e.g. is owner or has other interest arising out of
a mortgage, lease trust, option or contract, or otherwise).
Associated
person of councillor has interest in the land.
Associated
company or body of councillor has interest in the land.
|
|
MATTER
GIVING RISE TO PECUNIARY INTEREST
|
|
Nature of land that is subject to a change
in zone/planning control by proposed
LEP (the subject land iii
[Tick or cross one box]
|
The
identified land.
Land
that adjoins or is adjacent to or is in proximity to the identified land.
|
|
Current zone/planning control
[Insert name of current planning instrument and
identify relevant zone/planning control applying to the subject land]
|
|
|
Proposed change of zone/planning control
[Insert name of proposed LEP and identify
proposed change of zone/planning control applying to the subject land]
|
|
|
Effect of proposed change of zone/planning control
on councillor
[Tick or cross one box]
|
Appreciable
financial gain.
Appreciable
financial loss.
|
|
|
|
Councillor’s
Name: …………………………………………
Councillor’s
Signature:
……………………………….
Date: ………………..
Important Information
This information is being
collected for the purpose of making a special disclosure of pecuniary interests
under sections 451 (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1993.
You must not make a special disclosure that you know or ought reasonably to
know is false or misleading in a material particular. Complaints made
about contraventions of these requirements may be referred by the
Director-General to the Local Government Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary
Tribunal.
This form must be completed by
you before the commencement of the council or council committee meeting in
respect of which the special disclosure is being made. The
completed form must be tabled at the meeting. Everyone is entitled to
inspect it. The special disclosure must be recorded in the minutes of the
meeting.
i.
Section 443 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that
you may have a pecuniary interest in a matter because of the pecuniary interest
of your spouse or your de facto partner or your relativeiv or
because your business partner or employer has a pecuniary interest. You may
also have a pecuniary interest in a matter because you, your nominee, your
business partner or your employer is a member of a company or other body that
has a pecuniary interest in the matter.
ii.
Section 442 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that a pecuniary
interest is an interest that a person has in a matter because of a
reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to
the person. A person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the
interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded
as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to the
matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in section 448 of that
Act (for example, an interest as an elector or as a ratepayer or person liable
to pay a charge).
iii.
A pecuniary interest may arise by way of a change of permissible use of land
adjoining, adjacent to or in proximity to land in which a councillor or a
person, company or body referred to in section 443 (1) (b) or (c) of the
Local Government Act 1993 has a proprietary interest..
iv.
Relative is defined by the Local Government Act 1993 as
meaning your, your spouse’s or your de facto partner’s parent,
grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or
adopted child and the spouse or de facto partner of any of those persons.
AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 08/08/2018
Item: 05
Subject: Section 4.55 Modification DA2015 - 871.3 -
Modification To Design Of Dwelling 1 - Lots 1 & 2 DP1230318, 27A & 27C
Verbena Avenue, Port Macquarie
Report
Author: Patrick Galbraith-Robertson
|
Applicant: D
McCosh CARE Collins W Collins
Owner: PJM
International
Estimated Cost: N/A
Alignment with Delivery
Program
4.3.1 Undertake transparent
and efficient development assessment in accordance with relevant legislation.
|
|
RECOMMENDATION
That
Section 4.55 Modification to DA2015 – 871.3 for a modification to dwelling 1 at Lots 1 & 2,
DP 1230318, No. 27A & 27C Verbena Avenue, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting the modified consent subject
to the recommended conditions as modified.
|
Executive
Summary
This report considers a Section
4.55(1A) modification of consent application at the subject
site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Being a Section 4.55 modification,
the modified proposal has only been assessed against the legislation and
related planning guidelines in place at the time of the original assessment.
Following exhibition of the
application, one (1) submission has been
received.
1. BACKGROUND
Existing
sites features and surrounding development
The current site has had the
subdivision component and dwelling 2 component of the proposal completed under
the subject DA.
The subject Lot 1 (the subject of
the modified dwelling 1 design) has an area of 334.6m².
The
site is zoned R1 general residential in
accordance with the Port Macquarie- Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011,
which was in force at the time of the original application, 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 (Nearmap: July 2018):
2. DESCRIPTION OF
DEVELOPMENT
Key aspects of the modified proposal (as amended following
neighbour notification) include the following:
· Dwelling
1 lower floor change in floor layout to WC and laundry and add double hung
window to east wall adjacent stairway;
· Dwelling
1 upper floor remove window above stairway to rumpus with south wall add double
hung window unit to west wall adjacent to stair way leading to rumpus.
Refer
to attachments at the end of this report.
Application Chronology
· 26
January 2016 - Original DA2015 – 871 approved for multi- dwelling housing
and subdivision including two new additional dwellings to be completed in a
staged manner.
· 10
October 2018 – Modification application approved – minor change to
internal drainage easement and boundaries
· 22
June 2018 - Subject modification application lodged with Council.
· 12
– 25 July 2018 – Neighbour notification of subject modification
proposal
3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT
Is
the proposal substantially the same?
Section 4.55 of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 enables the modification of consents and
categorises modifications into three categories - S.4.55(1) for modifications
involving minor error, mis-description or miscalculation; S.4.55(1A) for
modifications involving minimal environmental impact; and S.4.55(2) for other
modifications. Each type of modification must be considered as being
substantially the same to that which was originally consented to.
The subject application is being
considered under the provisions of Section 4.55(1A).
The proposal is considered to be
substantially the same development to that which was originally lodged and
consented to and will have minimal environmental impact when making a comparison
between the original and proposed modified proposal. In particular, the main
changes occur to the design of dwelling 1 only which are considered to be
minor.
Having regard to the above, the
proposed modification is not considered to alter the fundamental essence of the
original development and is considered within the scope of a modification
application.
Are there any condition(s)
of consent imposed by a Minister, government or public authority that require
modification?
No
changes to any conditions imposed by a Minister, government or public
authority.
Does
the application require notification/advertising in accordance with the
regulations and/or any Development Control Plan?
Neighbour
notification has been undertaken in accordance with the DCP.
Any
submissions made concerning the modification?
One (1) written submission has been received following
public exhibition via neighbour notification of the application.
The issues raised in the submission received have been
forwarded to the Applicant during the assessment of the DA to respond to.
Key issues raised in the submissions received and comments
in response to the issues are provided as follows:
|
Submission
Issue/Summary
|
Planning
Comment/Response
|
|
More
time should have been taken to assess the impact of the proposed development
on the privacy of the existing dwelling.
|
The
original proposal did not have a significant privacy impact between the
existing and proposed dwelling. The Applicant has chosen however to improve
the privacy with a change in window location and design.
|
|
Understood
that the Land and Environment Court approved the original development.
|
The
original development was approved by Council.
|
|
Concern
with proposal’s compatibility with character and surrounding residences
and existing resident’s wellbeing.
|
The
original development was approved by Council. The development was assessed as
being suitable for the site having regard to the planning policies in place
and merit considerations for suitability made under section 79C of the Act at
the time of original assessment.
|
|
Concern
with timeframe of first dwelling to be constructed – 8 months
|
Council
has no control over the timeframe for construction unless a complaint is
received and it is agreed that the issue is potentially causing a significant
adverse impact to warrant potential compliance action.
|
Any matters referred to in
section 4.15 relevant to the modification?
Overall, the proposed development
remains consistent with the original s79C assessment. Areas of the original
assessment impacted by the changes or with revised comments are outlined below:
Port Macquarie-Hastings Local
Environmental Plan 2011
The
above LEP was in place at the original time of assessment and determination of
this DA.
The
subject section of the original development site was zoned R1 general
residential under this LEP. The subject modified dwelling, as part of a multi
dwelling housing and subdivision, remains permissible on the site.
Port
Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013:
The
above DCP was in place at the original time of
assessment and determination of this DA.
It is
important to note that internal amenity issues within the cluster housing
development are not strictly required to be considered by the development
control provisions in place at the time of the original approval. In this
regard, the modified proposal does not change any of the aspects of the
development to require reconsideration under this DCP.
The original proposal did not
have a significant privacy impact between the existing and proposed dwelling.
The Applicant has chosen however to improve the privacy with a change in window
location and design.
Other
issues of merit impacts from the original assessment that have been revisited
due to the modification are listed below:
Context,
setting and site suitability
The modified proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse
impacts to existing adjoining properties or the public domain.
The modified proposal adequately
addresses planning controls for the area.
There are no significant adverse
privacy impacts identified with the modified changes proposed. Adequate
building separation is proposed/existing.
The proposal will fit into the
locality and the site attributes are conducive to the proposed development.
4. DEVELOPMENT
CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE
Applicable development contributions to each dwelling as
modified and/or lot if released first will need to be reassessed/checked at
Subdivision Certificate and Construction Certificate stage for each of the
dwellings (whichever occurs first). No change to conditions are required in
this regard.
5. CONCLUSION AND
STATEMENT OF REASON
The application has been assessed in accordance with
Section 4.55 and 4.15 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.
The site remains 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 modification
application be approved, subject to the recommended modified conditions of
consent provided in the attachment section of this report.
|
Attachments
1View. DA
2015 - 871.3 Recommended DA Consent Conditions
2View. DA
2015 - 871.3 Plans
3View. DA2015
- 871.3 Submission
|
AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 08/08/2018
Item: 06
Subject: DA2018 - 340 - Two Semi-detached Dwellings
With Torrens Title Subdivision - Lot 1 DP 1222707, 65 Yaluma Drive, Port
Macquarie
Report
Author: Patrick Galbraith-Robertson
|
Applicant: RA
Witt
Owner: RA
& TC Witt
Estimated Cost: $660K
Alignment with Delivery
Program
4.3.1 Undertake transparent
and efficient development assessment in accordance with relevant legislation.
|
|
RECOMMENDATION
That
DA2018 - 340 for two semi-detached
dwellings with torrens title subdivision at Lot 1, DP 1222707, No. 65 Yaluma
Drive, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the
recommended consent conditions.
|
Executive
Summary
This
report considers a development application for a two semi-detached
dwellings with 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, four (4) submissions have been
received.
1. BACKGROUND
Existing sites features and Surrounding development
The site has an area of 640.8m2.
The
site has frontage to Yaluma Drive and slopes from front to rear.
There
is an existing dwelling to the south, vacant land to the east and a road
reserve to the west with a public footpath.
There
is an existing stormwater drainage easement of variable width that runs along
the southern boundary and a second drainage easement of 1.5m wide that cuts
across the site towards the eastern boundary line. There is an existing
stormwater junction in the south-western corner of the site.
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
photographs (2012 and nearmap 2018):
2. DESCRIPTION OF
DEVELOPMENT
Key aspects of the proposal include the following:
· Tree removal and proposed offset planting of a Council
reserve; and
· Construction of dual occupancy consisting of two (2)
attached two-storey, Torrens titled dwellings with individual driveway accesses
provided to each dwelling.
Refer
to attachments at the end of this report.
Application Chronology
· 8
May 2018 – DA lodged with Council
· 15 May 2018 – Additional information requested
– Bushfire report and additional fees
· 18 to 31 May 2018 – Neighbour notification of
proposal
· 30 May 2018 – Copies of submissions forwarded to
Applicant for consideration
· 31 May 2018 – Bushfire report received
· 1 June 2018 - Bushfire report forwarded on the NSW Rural
Fire Service for concurrence
· 18 June 2018 – Additional information received in
response to neighbour concerns raised
· 28 June 2018 – Additional information requested on
offset planting
· 3 July 2018 – Bushfire Safety Authority received from
the NSW Rural Fire Service
· 11 July 2018 – Meeting with Applicant to discuss
assessment issues
· 24 July 2018 – Council staff confirmation provided on
offset tree planting location provided to Applicant
3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT
Section 4.15(1) Matters for Consideration
In determining the application, Council is required to take
into consideration the following matters as are relevant to the development
that apply to the land to which the development application relates:
(a) The provisions (where
applicable) of:
(i) any Environmental
Planning Instrument:
State Environmental Planning Policy No.44 – Koala
Habitat Protection
There is a Koala Plan of Management (KPoM) on the site
referred to as the Vieceli Port Macquarie SEPP 44 Assessment and Koala
Management Plan, prepared by EcoPro dated September 1999. A copy of this
KPoM is attached to this report. Comments addressing this KPoM is addressed
later in this report under the flora and fauna section. Additionally, the site
is less than 1 hectare 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 (Building
Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
BASIX certificates 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
semi-detached dwellings is a permissible landuse with consent.
The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:
• To provide for the
housing needs of the community.
• To provide for a
variety of housing types and densities.
• To enable other land
uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of
residents.
In accordance with Clause 2.3(2),
the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives having regard to the
following:
o the proposal is a permissible
landuse;
o the proposal will provide for
an appropriate alternative form of residential housing
· Clause
4.1(4A) , the minimum lot sizes for the torrens title component of the proposal
do not apply to the proposal as it is characterised as semi-detached dwelling
or multi dwelling housing development.
· Clause
4.3, the maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing)
is 8.36m (Unit 2) 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 is 0.62:1.0 which complies with the
maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.
· 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
|
|
|
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
|
The development contains a porch for both dwellings within
the articulation zone. The porches do not exceed 25% of the articulation zone
and are setback a minimum 3m.
|
Yes
|
|
Front setback (Residential not R5 zone):
• Min.
4.5m local road
|
>4.5m - front building line setback requirements are
complied with.
|
Yes
|
|
3.2.2.3
|
Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front façade.
Garage door recessed behind building line or
eaves/overhangs provided
|
Garage door setback requirements are complied with however
garage itself within 5.5m
|
Yes/No*
|
|
6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of
building
|
Width of garage door requirements are unable to be
complied with – 53% however are no wider than 6m each in width
|
No*&Yes
|
|
Driveway crossover 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m
width
|
Driveway crossing width requirements are unable be
complied with – 38%
|
No*
|
|
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 –
minimum. 4.6m
|
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 side setbacks within 3.0m will not result in any adverse impacts to
neighbouring properties.
The wall articulation is compliant and satisfies the
objectives 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
|
Unit 1 contains >35m² open space including useable
3m x 4.7m and 3.5m x 4.7m areas.
Unit 2 contains >35m² open including useable 2.5m
x 4.4m and 4.0m x 6.2m areas.
Technically the min. 4x4m <5% grade areas do not
comply.
|
Yes/No*
|
|
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 main living areas of adjacent
dwellings when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling
and between main living areas and decks within 12m of private open space
areas of adjacent dwellings.
No privacy screens are recommended. A privacy screen is
shown for Unit 1 on the western deck for a drying area on
|
Yes
|
|
DCP 2013: General Provisions
|
|
|
Requirements
|
Proposed
|
Complies
|
|
2.7.2.2
|
Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design guideline
|
No concealment or entrapment areas proposed. Adequate
casual surveillance available.
|
Yes
|
|
2.3.3.1
|
Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the
external building walls
|
Cut and fill <1.0m change 1m outside the perimeter of
the external building walls for Unit 1
Cut >1.0m at 1.5m outside perimeter of external
building walls for Unit 2
|
Yes
No*
|
|
2.3.3.2
|
1m max. height retaining walls along road frontage
|
None proposed
|
N/A
|
|
Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by
structure engineer
|
Condition recommended to require engineering certification
for retaining walls
|
Yes – capable compliance
|
|
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 that are hollow bearing
|
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)
|
5 trees proposed to be removed – refer to comments
|
Refer to comments later in report to address offset
planting
|
|
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 distributor road.
|
N/A
|
|
Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including
maximising street parking
|
Driveway crossing(s) are minimal in width including
retaining potential for street parking in this section of Yaluma Drive
|
Yes
|
|
2.5.3.3
|
Parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1.
Dwelling/dual occupancies
1 space per dwelling/occupancy (behind building line).
|
Proposal includes 4 parking spaces within 2 double garages
+ capacity for parking in driveways
|
Yes
|
|
2.5.3.11
|
Section 94 contributions
|
Contributions apply - refer to ET calc and NOP.
|
Yes
|
|
2.5.3.12 and 2.5.3.13
|
Landscaping of parking areas
|
Suitable landscaping proposed around driveway/parking
locations.
|
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.
|
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
|
Note: Subdivision provisions of the DCP are aimed at the
creation of vacant lots (i.e. not lots within an integrated housing proposal
such as this) and have therefore been excluded from the above assessment.
Servicing requirements are discussed later in this report.
Departure/variation
sought from the DCP
The proposal seeks to vary the Development Provision
relating to the technical requirement for a minimum 4x4m area at <5% grade
within the private open space for each dwelling.
The relevant objectives are:
To encourage useable private open space for dwellings to
meet the occupants requirements for privacy, safety, access, outdoor activities
and landscaping.
Having regard for the development provisions and relevant
objectives, the variation is considered acceptable for the following reasons:
· Both dwellings
have 2 usable outdoor living spaces which are greater in 1 direction than 4m. The useable areas are capable of being sufficient to
provide satisfactory amenity to the future occupants.
· The rear yard
areas are greater than 35m2.
· Due to the site
contours, location of drainage easements and restrictions on use of land, the
rear yard will have a grade greater than 5%.
The proposal seeks to vary the Development Provision
relating to the garage door widths occupying more than the recommended maximum
50% proportion of building width and because of the angle front boundary the
perpendicular garage setback is less than 5.5m
from front boundary.
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 variation is considered acceptable for the following reasons:
· The proposed
garage doors are each 5.0m wide, with Unit 1’s garage door occupying 53%
of the total combined building width, both minimally exceeding the 50% guide.
· The garage door
widths are less than the permitted 6m width individually.
· Both dwellings are
two storey as presented to the streetscape. The proposed façade design
is well-articulated and integrates various external materials and finishes,
creating visual interest that reduces visual dominance of the proposed garages
to the streetscape.
· Street parking is
possible between the driveways.
· The proposal
provides a varied setback to the proposed garages due to the angled nature of
the front boundary line. Otherwise a 5.5m length is possible to permit vehicle
to parking in the driveways off-street.
The proposal seeks to vary the Development Provision
relating to the site cut exceeding 1.0m for Unit 2. The proposal includes a site cut of 1.5m adjacent to the eastern
boundary.
The relevant objectives are:
To ensure that design of any building or structure
integrates with the topography of the land to:
• Minimise the extent of site
disturbance caused by excessive cut and fill to the site.
• Ensure there is no damage or
instability to adjoining properties caused by excavation or filling and fill
regrading
• Ensure that there is no adverse alteration to the
drainage of adjoining properties.
• Ensure the privacy of adjoining dwellings and
private open space are protected.
•
Ensure that adequate stormwater drainage is provided around the perimeter of buildings
and that overflow paths are provided.
Having regard for the development provisions and relevant
objectives, the variation is considered acceptable for the following reasons:
· The Applicant has
stated that the proposed cut is to allow for the proposed Bedroom 3 to be
constructed without requiring a wet wall construction.
· The proposed cut
that is in excess of 1.0m extends for an overall length of approximately 2.35m
and is positioned 986mm from the boundary line.
· The position and
extent of the proposed cut will have minimal impacts on neighbouring properties
with regards to future development stability, drainage and privacy. Adequate
drainage provisions for the proposed development will be incorporated in the
construction.
· A standard condition
is recommended to require engineering certification for the retaining walls as
part of the project.
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 7.4, or any draft
planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section
7.4:
No planning agreement has been offered or entered into
relating to the site.
iv) any matters prescribed by the
Regulations:
N/A
(v) Any Coastal Zone Management Plan
None applicable.
(b) The
likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the
natural and built environments, 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.
• For a new development to be visually compatible with its
context, it should contain, or at least respond to, the essential elements that
make up the character of the surrounding urban environment. The most important
contributor to urban character is the relationship of built form to surrounding
space, a relationship that is created by building height, setbacks and
landscaping. In this regard, the proposed building height is compliant with the
maximum building height of 8.5m, the front setback and side setback DCP
guidelines and satisfactory landscaping is proposed. It is also noted that
other 2 storey dwellings have been approved and/or constructed within the
immediate Yaluma Drive locality. The proposal is not located within a nominated
conservation area.
• The proposal is considered to be sufficiently consistent
with other residential development in the locality and adequately addresses
planning controls.
• There
are no identifiable adverse impacts on existing view
sharing within the locality. It is noted that the proposed buildings are
compliant with the building height limit for the site.
• There are no adverse privacy impacts. The Applicant has
provided additional details to address a submission received which is addressed
later in this report under the submissions section.
• There are no adverse overshadowing impacts. The Applicant
has provided additional details to address a submission received which is
addressed later in this report under the submissions section. The proposal does
not prevent adjoining properties from receiving 3 hours of sunlight to the
principal private open space areas and primary living areas on 21 June.
Access, transport and traffic
The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts in
terms of access, transport and traffic. The existing road network will
satisfactorily cater for any increase in traffic generation as a result of the
development.
The proposal provides compliant parking of-street in
accordance with Council’s Parking Code under Development Control Plan
2013.
With regard to garbage trucks being able to continue to
service the properties within Yaluma Drive, Council’s AUSPEC D1 specifies
that the radius of cul-de-sac heads shall be 9m. An 18m diameter is existing
which indicates compliance with typical standards.
Water Supply Connection
Council records indicate that the development site has an
existing 20mm sealed water service from the 100 PVC water main on the same side
of Yaluma Drive. Each proposed lot shall have an individual water service. Path
boxes shall be installed on the existing water services where located under
driveways at no cost to Council.
Details are to be shown on the engineering plans. Detailed
plans will be required to be submitted for assessment with the Section 68 Local
Government Act 1993 application.
Sewer Connection
Council records indicate that the
development site is connected to Sewer via junction to the existing sewer line
that traverses the development site. Each proposed lot requires an individual
connection to Council’s sewer system. Engineering plans are required to
detail how the dwellings will avoid placing additional loads on the existing
sewer infrastructure.
Stormwater
The
site naturally grades towards the rear and there is an existing stormwater
drainage easement of variable width that runs along the southern boundary and a
second drainage easement of 1.5m wide that cuts across the site towards the
eastern boundary line. There is an existing stormwater junction in the
south-western corner of the site.
The legal point of discharge for the proposed development is
defined as a direct connection to the existing inter-allotment drainage system
servicing the site.
A draft Subdivision Construction Plan has been submitted
which includes satisfactory details of the existing and proposed stormwater
junctions and other private drainage infrastructure likely to be proposed.
With regard to the upper level deck of Unit 2, whilst it is
not desirable to have a structure over an easement for drainage (restricts
future maintenance access), the terms of the easement and Council’s
current AUSPEC Specifications do not preclude structures over easements.
Further, recent practice has been to allow eaves to overhang easements for
drainage if the structure is at least 3m above ground level. This allows access
for maintenance via typical maintenance vehicles – small rubber tracked excavator
as a worst case scenario.
In this scenario, the proposed structure is located greater
than 3m above the existing ground level, meaning that typical maintenance
equipment can work within the easement, with supporting columns located clear.
In addition, this easement is not utilised for overland flow, as there is a
separate easement for overland flows located along the rear boundary.
Subject to the provision of a structural design for the
supporting column footing to demonstrate that both no load is placed on the
pipeline and that the structure is not destabilised by any future maintenance
works within the easement, no objections are raised towards the proposed
development. An appropriate consent condition is recommended.
Both dwellings are capable of draining to the existing
point of connection and the system has adequate capacity for the subject
development. 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.
In accordance with Councils AUSPEC requirements, the
following must be incorporated into the stormwater drainage plan:
· The legal point of
discharge for the proposed development is defined as the existing
interallotment drainage.
· The design shall
provide details of any components of the existing stormwater drainage system
servicing the site that are to be retained.
Other Utilities
Telecommunication and electricity services are available to
the site.
Evidence of satisfactory arrangements with the relevant
utility authorities for provision to each proposed lot will be required prior
to Subdivision Certificate approval (E068).
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.
Water cycle
The proposed development will be unlikely to have any
adverse impacts on water resources and the water cycle.
Soils
The proposed development will be unlikely to have any
adverse impacts on soils in terms of quality, erosion, stability and/or
productivity subject to a standard condition requiring erosion and sediment
controls to be in place prior to and during construction.
Air and microclimate
The construction and/or operations of the proposed
development will be unlikely to result in any adverse impacts on the existing
air quality or result in any pollution. Standard precautionary site management
condition recommended.
Flora and fauna
Construction of the proposed development will require
removal/clearing of five (5) trees as detailed on the Tree Removal plan dated 7
May 2018 attached to this report. There is an existing KPoM applying to the
site referred to as Vieceli Port Macquarie SEPP 44 Assessment and Koala
Management Plan, prepared by EcoPro dated September 1999. The following
comments are provided to justify the appropriateness of recommending support to
the removal of the subject trees:
1. Whilst
there was good intention to require the plantings to be completed in the
locations on this site, their long term retention with regard to proximity to a
single building on the site even within the approved envelope is not considered
practical.
2. It
is considered more appropriate to require planting of appropriate habitat
plantings in a more suitable location as detailed shown below. The recommended
condition is to require:
·
Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, a suitably
experienced Bush Regeneration Contractor shall arrange for planting of eight
(8) trees on Lot 137 DP846604, Birchwood Court, Port Macquarie to the
satisfaction of Council. Evidence of plantings being completed shall be
provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a
Construction Certificate.
Swamp mahoganies can be
planted in the eastern end at 10 m centres, with stems no closer than 20m to
private property boundaries to the north.
Trees are to be mulched and
deer-proof guarded.
3. The
KPoM was approved in 1999 and has a provision which states/refers to a historic
provision which enabled tree removal under the historic Tree Preservation Order
(TPO) which was in place at the time. The TPO requires that replacement
planting of koala food trees be provided for any trees that are removed by residents.
It is considered that this provision provides scope for reviewing any tree
removal on the site as individual trees are not nominated for retention.
4. One
(1) tree is proposed to be retaining in the south-eastern corner of the site.
Location for offset planting below which is Council Land:
In addition to the above, it has been identified during the
assessment that the restriction as to user that also applies to the area of
trees to be removed requires Council to approve the variation to the restriction.
In this regard, the General Manager has supported the variation to the
restriction as to user subject to the Development Assessment Panel granting
consent to the proposal.
Subject to requiring the offset planting to be completed
prior to construction commencing, the proposal will be unlikely to have any
significant adverse impacts on biodiversity or threatened species of flora and
fauna subject to the recommended consent condition. Part 7 of the Biodiversity
Conservation Act is considered to be satisfied.
Waste
Satisfactory arrangements are in place for proposed storage
and collection of waste and recyclables. No adverse impacts anticipated.
Standard precautionary site management condition recommended.
Energy
The proposal includes measures to address energy efficiency
and will be required to comply with the requirements of BASIX. No adverse
impacts anticipated.
Noise and vibration
No adverse impacts anticipated. Condition recommended to
restrict construction to standard construction hours.
Bushfire
In accordance with Section 100B - Rural Fires Act 1997 - the
application proposes subdivision of bush fire prone land that could lawfully be
used for residential purposes. As a result, the Applicant has submitted a
bushfire report prepared by a Certified Consultant. The report was forwarded to
the NSW Rural Fire Service who have since issued a Bushfire Safety Authority,
which will be incorporated into the consent.
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 of bushfire risk have been adequately
addressed and appropriate conditions of consent recommended.
(d) Any submissions made in accordance
with this Act or the Regulations:
Four (4) 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
|
|
Impact on views to 64 Yaluma Drive.
|
The existing dwelling at
64 Yaluma Drive is a single storey dwelling that does not appear to have been
designed to access available views to the south ie no outdoor living
areas providing visual access to views – only a bedroom and garage at
the front to Yaluma Drive.
The distant views to the
south comprise of bushland, hinterland, North Brother Mountain and a
new subdivision stage currently under construction.
With the height of the
existing dwelling any construction on the subject site would present some
obstruction to the southern views although this impact is not considered to
be significant and is not of a sufficient weight to warrant a redesign of the
proposal.
|
|
Impact
of additional traffic given small diameter cul-de-sac and potential
development of 94 Yaluma Drive.
|
The proposal will be unlikely to
have any adverse impacts in terms of access, transport and traffic. The
existing road network will satisfactorily cater for any increase in traffic
generation as a result of the development.
The proposal provides compliant
parking off-street in accordance with Council’s Parking Code under
Development Control Plan 2013.
The
potential development of the neighbouring 94 Yaluma Drive will need to be
reassessed at the time of such a proposal.
|
|
There
are 13 non-compliances with proposal.
|
Following
a detailed assessment of the proposal, the following variations are proposed:
· The driveway widths combined are 38% in width and 1.17m
in combined width above the recommended standard. Street parking will still
be possible between the driveways and no adverse streetscape impacts are
identified to warrant recommending refusal.
· The garage door widths are 53% in width and 0.57m in combined
width above the recommended standard. The garage doors are less than the
permitted 6m each individually however.
· The garages are technically closer than 5.5m to the front
boundary because of the angle of the front boundary otherwise providing a 5.5m
driveway length.
· The private open space areas technically do not provide
for the minimum 4mx4m areas however have significantly more than 35m2 in open
space area and provides for two useable areas.
· The
proposal includes a site cut of 1.5m adjacent to the eastern boundary. The
proposed cut is to allow for the proposed Bedroom 3 to be constructed without
requiring a wet wall construction.
All
variations are considered to be justified given the nature of the site and
design response to the site conditions.
Cumulatively, the variations do not amount to an
adverse impact or a significance that would justify refusal of the
application.
|
|
The
type of dwelling does not complement the existing neighbourhood.
|
For
a new development to be visually compatible with its context, it should
contain, or at least respond to, the essential elements that make up the
character of the surrounding urban environment. The most important
contributor to urban character is the relationship of built form to
surrounding space, a relationship that is created by building height,
setbacks and landscaping. In this regard, the proposed building height is
compliant with the maximum building height of 8.5m, the front setback and
side setback DCP guidelines and satisfactory landscaping is proposed. It is
also noted that other 2 storey dwellings have been approved and/or
constructed within the immediate Yaluma Drive locality.
|
|
Removal
of koala preferred trees on the site disregarding that the trees were planted
under Council’s direction previously.
|
Whilst there was good intention
to require the plantings to be completed in the locations on this site, their
long term retention with regard to proximity to a single building on the site
even within the approved envelope is not considered to be practical.
|
|
Land
was at one time deemed a koala corridor but an abundant removal of trees
during recent construction has removed this corridor.
|
It is considered more
appropriate to require planting of appropriate habitat plantings in a more
suitable location as detailed earlier in this report.
|
|
Unit 2
has a maximum height of approximately 9.86m being well above the 8.5m height
limit.
|
Unit 2
is a maximum 8.36m in building height and complies with the maximum 8.5m
building height limit. Building height is measured from existing ground level
and does not include the section of building below the existing ground level
as is in part the case for the subject proposal.
|
|
Waste
management trucks have difficulty in manoeuvring in cul de sac and any
vehicular parking in this area would make the truck access unsafe.
|
With regard to garbage trucks
being able to continue to service the properties within Yaluma Drive,
Council’s engineering AUSPEC guidelines D1 specifies that the radius of
cul-de-sac heads shall be 9m. An 18m diameter is existing which indicates
compliance with typical standards.
Each
of the dwellings provide for a double garage parking space and a suitable
driveway length to permit additional stacked parking in front of the garages.
The
proposed driveways have also been positioned to allow for on-street parking
between the driveways, or position of bins on collection day.
|
|
The
dwellings will remove the privacy in backyard of 16 Horizons Parkway.
|
The
rear neighbouring property has a swimming pool and covered alfresco adjacent
to the rear boundary line. The swimming pool is setback 3.8m from the rear
boundary line. There is a large covered deck to the front of the dwelling
which appears to be the primary outdoor living area.
The
proposal provides increased rear setbacks which result in a minimum
separation of 14.189m from the edge of Unit 1's upper floor deck to
the rear neighbour’s alfresco. The separation to the edge of Unit 2's
upper floor deck is 15.862m.
The
separation proposed is considered to be satisfactory and meets the 12m
separation requirements for principal private open space areas.
The
applicant has submitted a plan showing a line of sign cross-section which is
shown below this table.
|
|
The
dwellings will cast a shadow in winter months to 16 Horizons Parkway which
will deny essential sunlight.
|
Additional
shadow diagrams have been submitted by the applicant during the assessment of
the DA. The shadow diagrams are shown below this table and satisfactorily
demonstrate that the proposal does not overshadow the pool or alfresco at
9am, it does however, shadow the rear bedroom wall/window. At 12 noon the
proposal marginally overshadows the pool but not the alfresco or any
other part of the dwelling. At 3pm, the proposal does not overshadow the rear
neighbouring property.
|
(e) The Public Interest:
The proposed development will be in the wider public
interest with provision of appropriate additional housing.
The proposed development satisfies relevant planning
controls and is not expected to impact on the wider public interest.
4. DEVELOPMENT
CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE
· 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 AND
STATEMENT OF REASON
The application has been assessed
in accordance with Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act 1979.
Issues raised during assessment
and public exhibition of the application have been considered in the assessment
of the application. Where relevant, conditions have been recommended to manage
the impacts attributed to these issues.
The site is considered suitable
for the proposed development and the proposal adequately addresses relevant
planning controls. The development is not considered to be contrary to the
public's interest and will not result a significant adverse social,
environmental or economic impact. It is recommended that the application be
approved, subject to the recommended conditions of consent provided in the
attachment section of this report.
|
Attachments
1View. DA2018
- 340.1 DA Consent Conditions
2View. DA2018
- 340.1 Plans and Supporting Documents
3View. DA2018
- 340.1 Submissions
|
