Agenda of Development Assessment Panel

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 24/04/2019

Item: 04

Subject: DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

RECOMMENDATION

That Disclosures of Interest be presented

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST DECLARATION

Name of Meeting: ………………………………………………………………………..

Meeting Date: ………………………………………………………………………..

Item Number: ………………………………………………………………………..

Subject: ………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………….……………...…..

I, ..................................................................................... declare the following interest:

Pecuniary:

Take no part in the consideration and voting and be out of sight of the meeting.

Non-Pecuniary - Significant Interest:

Take no part in the consideration and voting and be out of sight of the meeting.

Non-Pecuniary - Less than Significant Interest:

May participate in consideration and voting.

For the reason that: ....................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................

Name: …………………………………………………….

Signed: ......................................................................... Date: ..................................

(Further explanation is provided on the next page)

Further Explanation

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

A conflict of interest exists where a reasonable and informed person would perceive that a Council official could be influenced by a private interest when carrying out their public duty. Interests can be of two types: pecuniary or non-pecuniary.

All interests, whether pecuniary or non-pecuniary are required to be fully disclosed and in writing.

Pecuniary Interest

A pecuniary interest is an interest that a Council official has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the Council official. (section 442)

A Council official will also be taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter if that Council official’s spouse or de facto partner or a relative of the Council official or a partner or employer of the Council official, or a company or other body of which the Council official, or a nominee, partner or employer of the Council official is a member, has a pecuniary interest in the matter. (section 443)

The Council official must not take part in the consideration or voting on the matter and leave and be out of sight of the meeting. The Council official must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting of the Council at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed, or at any time during which the council is voting on any question in relation to the matter. (section 451)

Non-Pecuniary

A non-pecuniary interest is an interest that is private or personal that the Council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Act.

Non-pecuniary interests commonly arise out of family, or personal relationships, or involvement in sporting, social or other cultural groups and associations and may include an interest of a financial nature.

The political views of a Councillor do not constitute a private interest.

The management of a non-pecuniary interest will depend on whether or not it is significant.

Non Pecuniary – Significant Interest

As a general rule, a non-pecuniary conflict of interest will be significant where a matter does not raise a pecuniary interest, but it involves:

(a) A relationship between a Council official and another person that is particularly close, for example, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child of the Council official or of the Council official’s spouse, current or former spouse or partner, de facto or other person living in the same household.

(b) Other relationships that are particularly close, such as friendships and business relationships. Closeness is defined by the nature of the friendship or business relationship, the frequency of contact and the duration of the friendship or relationship.

(c) An affiliation between a Council official an organisation, sporting body, club, corporation or association that is particularly strong.

If a Council official declares a non-pecuniary significant interest it must be managed in one of two ways:

1. Remove the source of the conflict, by relinquishing or divesting the interest that creates the conflict, or reallocating the conflicting duties to another Council official.

2. Have no involvement in the matter, by taking no part in the consideration or voting on the matter and leave and be out of sight of the meeting, as if the provisions in section 451(2) apply.

Non Pecuniary – Less than Significant Interest

If a Council official has declared a non-pecuniary less than significant interest and it does not require further action, they must provide an explanation of why they consider that the conflict does not require further action in the circumstances.

SPECIAL DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST DECLARATION

[insert full name of councillor]

In the matter of

[insert name of environmental planning instrument]

Which is to be considered at a meeting of the

[insert name of meeting]

Held on

[insert date of meeting]

PECUNIARY INTEREST

Address of land in which councillor or an associated person, company or body has a proprietary interest (the identified land)ⁱ

Relationship of identified land to councillor

[Tick or cross one box.]

 Councillor has interest in the land (e.g. is owner or has other interest arising out of a mortgage, lease trust, option or contract, or otherwise).

 Associated person of councillor has interest in the land.

 Associated company or body of councillor has interest in the land.

MATTER GIVING RISE TO PECUNIARY INTEREST

Nature of land that is subject to a change

in zone/planning control by proposed

LEP (the subject landⁱⁱⁱ

[Tick or cross one box]

 The identified land.

 Land that adjoins or is adjacent to or is in proximity to the identified land.

Current zone/planning control

[Insert name of current planning instrument and identify relevant zone/planning control applying to the subject land]

Proposed change of zone/planning control

[Insert name of proposed LEP and identify proposed change of zone/planning control applying to the subject land]

Effect of proposed change of zone/planning control on councillor

[Tick or cross one box]

 Appreciable financial gain.

 Appreciable financial loss.

Councillor’s Name: …………………………………………

Councillor’s Signature: ………………………………. Date: ………………..

Important Information

This information is being collected for the purpose of making a special disclosure of pecuniary interests under sections 451 (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1993. You must not make a special disclosure that you know or ought reasonably to know is false or misleading in a material particular. Complaints made about contraventions of these requirements may be referred by the Director-General to the Local Government Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary Tribunal.

This form must be completed by you before the commencement of the council or council committee meeting in respect of which the special disclosure is being made. The completed form must be tabled at the meeting. Everyone is entitled to inspect it. The special disclosure must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

i. Section 443 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that you may have a pecuniary interest in a matter because of the pecuniary interest of your spouse or your de facto partner or your relative^iv or because your business partner or employer has a pecuniary interest. You may also have a pecuniary interest in a matter because you, your nominee, your business partner or your employer is a member of a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.

ii. Section 442 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that a pecuniary interest is an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person. A person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to the matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in section 448 of that Act (for example, an interest as an elector or as a ratepayer or person liable to pay a charge).

iii. A pecuniary interest may arise by way of a change of permissible use of land adjoining, adjacent to or in proximity to land in which a councillor or a person, company or body referred to in section 443 (1) (b) or (c) of the Local Government Act 1993 has a proprietary interest..

iv. Relative is defined by the Local Government Act 1993 as meaning your, your spouse’s or your de facto partner’s parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child and the spouse or de facto partner of any of those persons.

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 24/04/2019

Item: 05

Subject: Section 4.55 Modification DA2004 - 687.6 To Modify The Hours Of Operation of Existing Sawmill At Lot 1 DP 1065577, Old Kempsey Road, Gum Scrub

Report Author: Fiona Tierney

83Applicant: Hopkins Consultants Pty Ltd

Owner: D J & O V Hayden

Estimated Cost: Nil

Parcel no: 43591

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That the section 4.55 modification to DA 2004 – 687.6 to modify hours of operation of an existing sawmill at Lot 1, DP 1065577, No. 269 Old Kempsey Rd, Gum Scrub, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a Section 4.55 modification application to modify the hours of operation of an existing sawmill 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.

Development consent was granted by Council on 16 October 2004 for a sawmill upgrade and office. A modification to the sawmill to modify hours of operation and change the approved Saturday operation to Sunday was granted on 24 April 2018. This consent was issued for a trial period of 12 months and this application seeks to obtain consent for these changes to be approved on a permanent basis.

As a condition of the 12-month trial period the applicant was advised that:

“The above amended times are approved for a trial period of twelve (12) months form the date of determination of modification five (5). Upon expiration of the twelve (12) month trial period, the hours of operation are to revert back to the previous approved hours of operation, unless a further modification is submitted and approved. A complaints register is also to be kept and detail any associated actions taken to rectify issues raised. The complaints register is to be provided to Council at the end of the twelve (12) month trial period. It should be noted that the date of determination of modification five (5) is to be 16 April 2018 and the twelve (12) month trial period for the amended hours of operation will cease on 26 April 2019.”

Following exhibition of the application, 3 submissions have been received.

This report recommends that the section 4.55 modification application for DA 2004 – 687.6 be approved.

1. BACKGROUND

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

The site has an area of 14.65ha.

The site was zoned 1(a4) Rural Agricultural in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2001, 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:

· Modification to the hours of operation for Monday to Friday from the current approved hours 7am-6pm to the proposed 7am-9pm and restrict extended hours (6pm-9pm) for general maintenance only.

· Swap the current approved hours from Saturday to Sunday and restrict time to 8am-6pm for general maintenance only.

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Application Chronology

· 22 January 2018 - Application received.

· 29 January 2018 – 12 February 2018- Neighbour notification of proposal.

· 12 April 2018 – Site inspection.

· 26 April 2018 - 12-month consent issued by Council’s Development Assessment Panel.

· 19 March 2019- Application received.

· 26 March 2019 - 8 April 2019- neighbour notification.

· 14 April 2019 - Inspection of site (Sunday) to assess activity/noise/traffic.

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 or modifications that require a condition imposed by a Minister, public authority or approval body to be amended. Each type of modification must be considered as being substantially the same to that which was originally consented to.

The proposal is considered to be a S.4.55(1A) and remains substantially the same development to that which was originally lodged and consented to and will have minimal environmental impact. In particular, the only change relates to a change in operating hours and a swap from Saturday to Sunday for operation. No further change to the Mill operations is proposed. Having regard to the above, the proposed modification is not considered to alter the fundamental essence of the original development.

Much of the matters raised in submissions relate to ongoing issues with the operation of the Mill in general terms and not necessarily in relation to the subject changes applied for under this application. It was noted at the site inspection that dust generation of the trucks is significant and that care must be taken on bends with risk that trucks moving at speed may be present. It is recommended that a review be conducted to ensure compliance with overall conditions.

Are there any condition(s) of consent imposed by a Minister, government or public authority that require modification?

No.

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 Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013.

Any submissions made concerning the modification?

During the original modification thirteen (13) submissions were received.

During exhibition of the new/continued modification three (3) submissions were received.

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
Road Safety.	The proposal does not intend to alter the volumes of traffic to the site and is not the subject of this application. The applicant has liaised with staff and drivers in relation to incidents and advised of the keeping of a register to note and respond to complaints.
Dust generation. Health Concerns. Road should be sealed	The proposal does not intend to alter the volumes of traffic to the site and are not the subject of this application. In specific relation to this modification, the site was inspected on a Sunday. Whilst some movement of employee vehicles was observed, no deliveries or truck movements was observed. The road was required to be upgraded in width and with a gravel top as part of the 2004/2005 consent. Council has previously considered upgrade f the surface but this is not currently recognised as a part of the works program.
Roads deteriorating.	The proposal does not intend to alter the volumes of traffic to the site and are not the subject of this application. As part of the existing consent the section of road between Gum Scrub Rd and the Mill was upgraded to Council requirements ( width increase and gravel base 200mm thick) in recognition of increased traffic movements.
Health and enjoyment of residents diminished from traffic.	The proposal does not intend to alter the volumes of traffic to the site and are not the subject of this application.
Noise - object to change/expansion of hours.	Conditions are to be applied relating to noise. Maintenance activities only are permitted during these expanded hours and no additional logging truck movements to and from the site are permitted at these times. In specific relation to this modification, the site was inspected on a Sunday. Whilst some movement of employee vehicles was observed, no deliveries or truck movements was observed. In effect, impacts are reduced by an additional day due to the removal of logging trucks on both Saturday and Sunday. Trucks are permitted on Saturdays under the current consent. Refer to noise comments below.
Religious precedent - will this set standard for hours of operation.	Regardless of religious beliefs, applications are assessed on merit. On balance, the variation is considered acceptable. The varied proposal has operated for 12 months without any noise complaints. One complaint was noted for a single incident of a truck arriving earlier than 7am. The proposal is for an increase in hours to enable maintenance. No Timber Mill operations are permitted. Conditions relating to noise and permissible activities is to be applied to the consent.

Any matters referred to in section 79C (1)/4.15 relevant to the modification?

Overall, the proposed development remains consistent with the original s79C/4.15 assessment. Refer to comments provided in the original DAP assessment attached to this report. Comments on notable changes are included below.

Noise

It’s proposed to modify the existing development consent condition (which restricts operation of the sawmill to 7am-6pm Mondays to Saturdays) to allow for maintenance work to be carried out in the evenings until 9pm, Mondays to Fridays. The proposal is also seeking to swap the Saturday operating hours to Sundays, with no work on Saturdays.

If approved the new operating hours will be 7am to 9pm Mondays to Fridays and 8am to 6pm on Sundays. General sawmill operations will remain at the pre-approved hours of 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday and general maintenance work only from 6pm to 9pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 6pm on Sundays.

The EMM noise report dated 13 November 2017 indicates that noise levels from the general maintenance work proposed to be carried out from 6pm to 9pm Monday to Friday after the mill has closed and from 8am to 6pm on Sundays will be at an acceptable level (<35dB(A)) for the rural location at the closest residence not associated with the sawmill.

The newly introduced “Noise Policy for Industry” NSW EPA October 2017 sets the amenity level for a rural area during the day at 50 decibels and during the evening at 45dB(A) so the predicted <35dB(A) is deemed to be satisfactory.

No complaints have been received to Council or the sawmill in relation to noise issue at the site during the 12-month trial period.

Proposed changes to conditions

Refer to attached draft recommended consent with conditions subject to change being highlighted in red.

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

As per original application it has been considered that the change to hours and exchange of days will not result in any adverse impact to the local road network. Accordingly, development contributions are not applicable in this case.

5. CONCLUSION

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

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

Attachments

1 View. DA2004 - 687.6 Modification of consent

2 View. DA2004 - 687.6 Public plans and documents

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 24/04/2019

Item: 06

Subject: DA2018 - 472.1 Change of Use - Dwelling to Centre Based Childcare Centre - Lot 6 DP 262151, No.120 Hindman Street, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Benjamin Roberts

Applicant: Robert Smallwood

Owner: D Edgar

Estimated Cost: $245,000

Parcel no: 9385

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2017 - 663.1 for a change of use from a dwelling to a centre based childcare centre at Lot 6, DP 262151, No. 120 Hindman Street, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a change of use from a dwelling to a centre based childcare centre at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

This report recommends that the development application be approved subject to conditions.

1. BACKGROUND

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

The site has an area of 1014m².

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

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Change of use from dwelling to medical centre with associated fit out, car parking and signage.

· Facility to cater for a maximum of 24 children.

· Hours of operation 7am to 6pm Mondays to Fridays.

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Application Chronology

· 29 June 2018 - Application lodged.

· 9 July 2018 - Additional information request (RFS cheque).

· 12 to 25 July 2018 - Public exhibition via neighbour notification.

· 6 August 2018 - Additional information request (BCA report, access and stormwater issues).

· 7 August 2018 - Stormwater response provided from applicant.

· 15 August 2018 - Access response provided from applicant.

· 16 August 2018 - Additional information request (stormwater management issue).

· 23 August 2018 - Bushfire Safety Authority conditions received from NSW RFS.

· 5 September 2018 - Additional information request (preliminary stormwater management plan required demonstrating onsite detention capable).

· 19 October 2018 - Preliminary stormwater management plan provided.

· 24 October 2018 - Additional details required for stormwater management.

· 8 November 2018 - Additional stormwater details provided.

· 14 December 2018 - Advice to applicant that single lane access still of concern.

· 27 February 2019 - Traffic assessment and fire safety upgrade report lodged.

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 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

The site has an area of less than 1 hectare therefore the requirements for this SEPP do not require consideration.

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

In accordance with clause 7, 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 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 64 - Advertising and Signage

The proposed development includes proposed advertising signage in the form of business identification advertising.

The signage comprises a business identification sign on the front courtyard fence of the Hindman Street frontage. The sign is proposed to be illuminated until 9pm each day.

In accordance with clause 7, this SEPP prevails over the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 in the event of any inconsistency.

The following assessment table provides an assessment checklist against the Schedule 1 requirements of this SEPP:

Applicable clauses for consideration	Comments	Satisfactory
Clause 8(a) Consistent with objectives of the policy as set out in Clause 3(1)(a).	The signage is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character for the immediate locality. The signage will provide effective communication in a suitable location on the site having regard to the existing context.	Yes
Schedule 1(1) Character of the area.		Yes
Schedule 1(2) Special areas.	The signage is limited in scale and is compatible with the existing context.	Yes
Schedule 1(3) Views and vistas.	The signage will not have any identifiable adverse impacts on important views or vistas.	Yes
Schedule 1(4) Streetscape, setting or landscape.	The scale and proportion of the signage is appropriate to existing streetscapes and setting. The signage does not protrude above the proposed front wall.	Yes
Schedule 1(5) Site and building.	The size of the signage is compatible with the building design features and desired functioning of the site.	Yes
Schedule 1(6) Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures.	No logos are proposed as part of the business identification signage.	Yes
Schedule 1(7) Illumination.	The illumination should be restricted to 9pm consistent with DCP provisions.	Yes
Schedule 1(7) Safety.	The signage will not result in any identifiable public road safety concerns in the locality.	Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

The site is located within a coastal environment area.

In accordance with clause 7, this SEPP prevails over the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 in the event of any inconsistency.

Having regard to clause 13 of the SEPP the proposed development is not considered likely to result in any of the following:

a) any adverse impact on existing, safe access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a disability,

b) any adverse impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places;

c) any adverse impacts on the cultural and built environment heritage;

d) any adverse impacts the use of the surf zone;

e) any adverse impact on the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands;

f) overshadowing, wind funnelling and the loss of views from public places to foreshores;

State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Childcare Facilities) 2017

In accordance with clause 22 concurrence of the Regulatory Authority is not required. The application has demonstrated that the indoor and outdoor unencumbered space requirements comply with the relevant regulations.

In accordance with clause 23 the consent authority must take into consideration any applicable provisions of the Child Care Planning Guideline.

Consideration has been given to the relevant matters for consideration and objectives outlined in the guideline. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the guidelines.

State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011

The capital investment value is less than $5 million and the proposed development is not recognised as regionally significant development.

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

· Clause 2.2 - The subject site is zoned R1 general residential.

· In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, the proposed development for a childcare centre is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

o To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

o The proposal is a permissible landuse;

o The proposal will provide for an additional service to meet the day to day needs of residents;

· Clause 2.7 - The partial demolition of the existing dwelling requires consent as it does not fit within the provisions of SEPP (Exempt and Complying) 2008.

· Clause 4.3 - The maximum overall height of the building above ground level complies with the building height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

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

· Clause 5.10 – Heritage. The site does not contain or adjoin any listed archaeological heritage items.

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

No draft instruments apply.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan in force:

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

No specific building controls apply to a development of this nature. The following applicable general provisions are addressed in the table below:

Requirement	Proposed	Complies
2.2 Advertising and signage	The signage is intended to identify the business. The signage does not project above or the side of building facades.	Yes
2.5 Transport, Traffic Management, Access and Carparking Childcare Centres: 1 space per 4 children and set down and pick up area.	The proposed development will have a maximum of 24 children and therefore require 6 spaces. 7 off-street parking spaces are proposed. There is no formal set down and pick up area. Given all children are required to be signed in by parents, a set down and pickup area is not practical. Satisfactory landscaping is proposed to soften the impact of the at grade car parking area and building on the site. Refer to further comments later in report addressing traffic and access.	Yes
2.7 Social Impact Assessment and Crime Prevention	No adverse crime risk potential identified with design layout of the centre. Adequate boundary fencing is provided to the centre has been designed to provide surveillance of outdoor areas.	Yes

(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.

iv) Any matters prescribed by the Regulations:

Fire safety and other considerations - Clause 93

The application involves a building change of use. In accordance with this clause the consent authority is to take into consideration whether the fire protection and structural capacity of the building will be appropriate to the building’s proposed use.

The application was supported by a fire safety upgrading report prepared by David Pensini of Building Certification and Environmental services dated 22 October 2018.

The report identified a number of upgrading measures. Subject to the implementation of these upgrade measures the building will be appropriate for the proposed use as a childcare facility.

Demolition of buildings AS 2601:

Part demolition of the existing building is capable of compliance with this Australian Standard and is recommended to be conditioned.

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

The proposal is unlikely to have any adverse impacts on existing adjoining properties and satisfactorily addresses the public domain. The building form is well articulated with a clear entrance defined from the proposed at grade carpark.

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

The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

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

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.

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

Roads, Traffic and Transport

The site has road frontage to Hindman Street. Hindman Street is a sealed public road under the care and control of Council. Hindman Street is a collector road with a 11.5m road formation within a 20m road reserve.

The proposed access to the site is directly from Hindman Street via a new 5.5m wide driveway alongside the western boundary. The driveway will provide access between the building and western boundary fence to 6 off-street car parking behind the building. One disabled parking space is located out front of the building.

The part of the driveway between the building and driveway for a length of 19m will be a minimum 4.5m wide and limit vehicle movements to one-way.

The application is supported by a Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Street Wise Road Safety and Traffic Services dated 27 February 2019. The key findings of the study and recommendations are provided as follows:

· Hindman Street and the local road network has the capacity to cater for the future traffic volumes generated by the proposed Childcare Centre, with safety, efficiency and with minimal impacts. The following recommendations should be considered to further improve road safety in the vicinity of the future childcare centre:

· Minimise kerbside parking on the southern side of Hindman Street (across the frontage of the future childcare centre) through education of the childcare centre users.

· Consideration should be given to the future landscaping of the childcare centre, and also the height and location of any future boundary fence/wall, to ensure sight distance for vehicles entering and exiting the site aren’t compromised.

· Preparation of a Traffic Management Plan for pedestrian movements, staff & parent parking and vehicle movements in & around the proposed childcare centre to ensure maximum safety for all users. The TMP should be regularly updated and publicised to all users

· Review traffic volumes, patterns and onsite traffic safety when the site is fully operational. Revise onsite Traffic Management Plan, if required.

· It is proposed that incoming vehicles will have priority over exiting vehicles, and a queuing space suitable for 1 vehicle will be provided at the front of the site. Also, to ensure the short section of one-way movements are undertaken as safely as possible, it is proposed to provide the following measures:

o Provide painted centreline in all sections of 2-way movement to ensure vehicles are correctly positioned on driveway

o Provide signage to ensure drivers are aware of one-way movements, priorities, and location to wait

o Provide education and regular updates (i.e. newsletters, emails etc) to ensure all users of the site are aware of the carparking and access requirements

o Provision of suitable signage within the carpark to make drivers aware of the one-way driveway, and the requirement to check for oncoming vehicles.

· The safety and efficiency of the carpark and access should be reviewed once the proposed childcare centre is completed and fully operational (say 12 months after opening).

· Provide signage to warn exiting vehicles about the potential for pedestrians in the vicinity of the childcare centre.

Council’s development engineering section have reviewed the proposal and traffic impact assessment and agree that the increase in traffic from this development will not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding road network. It is also considered that having regard to the anticipated traffic volumes for a 24 place facility and the referenced provision of AS2890 that the one-way movement for the 19m length is acceptable subject to the educational and signage measures recommended within the traffic impact assessment.

Site Frontage & Access

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

Parking and Manoeuvring

A total of 7 parking spaces (including 1 disabled spaces) have been provided on-site. Parking and driveway widths on site can comply with relevant Australian Standards (AS 2890) and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

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

Pedestrians

Foot paving is required across the full frontage. Suitable conditions have been recommended.

Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the rear and is currently unserviced. The site is benefitted by an easement for drainage located within the adjoining lot to the rear, however this easement is not piped. The construction of a pipeline in this easement would necessitate the placement of some 80m+ of stormwater pipeline, construction of numerous pits and outlet protection. The applicant has indicated that the scale of works associated with activating this existing easement for drainage is not feasible and has proposed an alternate drainage solution involving the disposal of stormwater runoff on-site.

In this regard, a stormwater drainage plan has been submitted which incorporates a combination of stormwater treatment measures including:

· Rainwater storage,

· On-site detention,

· On-site absorption/dispersion trenches, and

· An above ground rainwater storage area,

All of which have been conceptually designed to limit the volume and rate of stormwater discharge to pre-development rates. Doing so ensures that the development results in no change in runoff directed to adjoining downstream property.

Conditions have been recommended requiring that detailed hydraulic modelling be undertaken and submitted with the subsequent Construction Certificate application to demonstrate that the proposed drainage system achieves the abovementioned aims. The modelling must be undertaken in accordance with Australian Rainfall and Runoff 016 and shall demonstrate compliance for all storm events up to and including the 1% AEP event and for a range of durations.

Refer to relevant recommended conditions of consent.

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the development site has an existing 20mm metered water service from the 100 AC water main on the same side of Hindman Street.

Final water service sizings will need to be determined by a hydraulic consultant, as well as fire service coverage to AS 2419 and backflow protection requirements in accordance with AS3500. Minimum water service sizing for commercial developments is 25mm.

Refer to relevant recommended conditions of consent.

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site is currently connected to sewer via a junction to a manhole located on the northern boundary.

Council records indicate that there is an existing manhole in very close proximity to the proposed driveway. The engineering plans need to provide adequate levels on the driveway, surrounding ground and the manhole lid to determine if any further works are required on the manhole, i.e. raising/lowering the lid.

Detailed plans will be required to be submitted for assessment with the S.68 application. Refer to relevant recommended conditions of consent.

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 & Micro-climate

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 & Fauna

Construction of the proposed development will not require any removal/clearing of

any significant vegetation and therefore will be unlikely to have any significant

adverse impacts on biodiversity or threatened species of flora and fauna.

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 Section J of the Building Code of Australia. No adverse impacts anticipated.

Noise & Vibration

The proposed hours of operation are 7am to 6pm weekdays only. A condition confirming these operational hours has been recommended. A condition restricting construction work to standard hours is also recommended.

Childcare centres have the potential to result in noise impacts for adjoining residential occupants. Outdoor play areas experience a high level of activity and are

subsequently the central noise source emanating from a childcare centre.

The outdoor play area is located behind the building and illustrated on the plans. 1.8m high colourbond fencing exists along western, eastern and southern boundaries. Having regard to the proposed hours of operation, existing fencing and building separation distances it is anticipated that no significant adverse noise impacts would result that could warrant refusal of the application.

Natural Hazards

The site is identified as being bushfire prone. In accordance with Section 100B -

Rural Fires Act 1997 - the application proposes development of bushfire prone land

for a Special Fire Protection Purpose.

The applicant has submitted a bushfire report. The report has carried out an assessment under Section 100B requirements. The Commissioner has assessed the development and has issued a Bushfire Safety Authority consisting of a series of conditions. These conditions comprise part of the recommended conditions attached to this report.

Safety, Security & 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 Impact 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 and

operation of the development.

Site Design and Internal Design

The proposed development design satisfactorily responds to the site attributes and

will fit into the locality. No adverse impacts likely.

Construction

No potential adverse impacts identified to neighbouring properties with the

construction of the proposal.

Cumulative Impacts

The proposed development is not expected to have any adverse cumulative impacts

on the natural or built environment or the social and economic attributes of the

locality.

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

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

proposed development. Site constraints have been adequately addressed and

appropriate conditions of consent recommended.

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

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

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
A childcare centre is incompatible with the existing retirement village adjoining the property to the rear of the site. The decision to reside in this retirement village was based on the peace and quiet it provides. The dividing fence is only 2 to 3 metres from my balcony where I spend a lot of time. I would be adversely impacted by noise from children at the facility.	Childcare centres are a permissible land use within the residential zone. The proposal adequately addresses relevant planning controls and is considered suitable and not incompatible with the existing and adjoining land uses. The balcony of the adjoining retirement village unit in question is setback 5m from the boundary and separated by an existing minimum 1.8m high colour bond fence. The primary outdoor play area is located in the south eastern portion of the site and does not immediately adjoining the balcony. Having regard to the proposed hours of operation, building separation and fencing the proposal will not result in any significant amenity impact that would warrant refusal of the application.

Submission Issue/Summary

Planning Comment/Response

A childcare centre is incompatible with the existing retirement village adjoining the property to the rear of the site. The decision to reside in this retirement village was based on the peace and quiet it provides. The dividing fence is only 2 to 3 metres from my balcony where I spend a lot of time. I would be adversely impacted by noise from children at the facility.

Childcare centres are a permissible land use within the residential zone. The proposal adequately addresses relevant planning controls and is considered suitable and not incompatible with the existing and adjoining land uses. The balcony of the adjoining retirement village unit in question is setback 5m from the boundary and separated by an existing minimum 1.8m high colour bond fence. The primary outdoor play area is located in the south eastern portion of the site and does not immediately adjoining the balcony. Having regard to the proposed hours of operation, building separation and fencing the proposal will not result in any significant amenity impact that would warrant refusal of the application.

(e) The Public Interest:

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

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

· Development contributions will be required under Section 7.12 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

· In accordance with clause 2.9(2) of Development Contribution Assessment Policy charges for development involving a change of use where the combined total of the water supply and sewerage head works charges do not exceed $2,000 will be exempted. The proposal qualifies for this exemption.

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.

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

1 View. DA2018 - 472.1 Recommended conditions

2 View. DA2018 - 472.1 Traffic assessment report

3 View. DA2018 - 472.1 Plans

4 View. DA2018 - 472.1 Contributions estimate

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 24/04/2019

Item: 07

Subject: DA2018 - 876.1 - Demolition of Existing Dwelling, Dual Occupancy and Torrens Title Subdivision - Lot 272 DP 236277, No. 45 The Summit Road, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Patrick Galbraith-Robertson

Applicant: G & G Schwarzel

Owner: G & G Schwarzel

Estimated Cost: $1.176M

Parcel no: 23910

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2018 - 876.1 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of dual occupancy with torrens title subdivision at Lot 272, DP 236277, No. 45 The Summit Road, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a Development Application for demolition of an existing dwelling, dual occupancy and Torrens title subdivision at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Following exhibition of the application, 10 submissions have been received.

The proposal has been amended during the assessment of the DA including reducing the building height to be compliant with the 8.5m building height standard.

This DA was previously report to Council’s Development Assessment Panel (DAP) on the 13 March 2019. The following resolution was made at this DAP meeting:

CONSENSUS:

That DA2018 – 876 be deferred to enable:

1. Re-examination of the floor space ratio calculations, particularly noting the nominated alfresco areas.

2. Redesign of dwelling 2 so as to be more sensitive to the view impacts from the development on 47 The Summit Road. Height poles are to be erected at the northern and southern extremity of the eastern elevation of dwelling 2 as proposed on the site to enable a more informed assessment of view impacts.

The Applicant has subsequently submitted additional information and amended plans in response to the DAP’s recommendation. The amended plans (excluding floor plans) and additional information received are attached to this report (amended areas are highlighted on the plans by green circles). The amendments relate to a re-design of the south east corner of dwelling 2 (stair well) so as to improve view availability to the neighbouring property. The lower floor alfresco areas have been redesigned so as they are no longer capable of being considered floor area in floor space ratio calculations. There is also a slight reduction in floor area of both units that has resulted in a reduction in floor space ratio from 0.65:1 to 0.6:1. As the amendments were considered to lessen the impact of the proposal they were not re-notified however the original submissions are still addressed in the report.

The Applicant will have height guides erected for the purposes of the DAP members to inspect the view impacts prior to the meeting this report is being made to (same as below photos).

The following photos have also been taken by the assessing officer on 15 April 2019 for the DAP’s consideration:

Photo of view from kitchen window of No.47 The Summit Road showing height guide at the south-eastern corner of proposed dwelling 2

Photo of view from front living room bay window of No.47 The Summit Road showing height guide at the south-eastern corner of proposed dwelling 2

2 Photos of views from deck of No.47 The Summit Road showing height guide at the south-eastern corner of proposed dwelling 2

Photo of views from living room window on west side of No.47 The Summit Road showing height guide at the south-eastern corner of proposed dwelling 2

Photo of views from dining room window on north-west side of No.47 The Summit Road showing height guide of the first floor deck level (not roof of remainder) at the north-eastern corner of proposed dwelling 2

Photo of views from rear deck on north side of No.47 The Summit Road showing height guide of the first floor deck level (not roof of remainder) at the north-eastern corner of proposed dwelling 2

1. BACKGROUND

Existing sites features and surrounding development

The site has an area of 752.31m2.

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 (2012):

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Demolition of existing dwelling

· Construction of dual occupancy including 2 detached dwellings

· 1 into 2 lot Torrens title subdivision

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Application Chronology

· 22 October 2018 – DA lodged with Council

· 30 October to 12 November 2018 - Neighbour notification of proposal

· 6 December 2018 – Additional information requested – submission issues and stormwater concerns

· 13 December 2018 – Additional information requested – height, driveway, fencing, character, floor space ratio, windows, kitchenette and view impacts issues to address

· 11 February 2019 – Amended plans and additional information received

· 13 March 2019 - DAP meeting

· 5 April 2019 - amended plans received

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 4.15(1) Matters for Consideration

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) Any Environmental Planning Instrument:

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 62 – Sustainable Aquaculture

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 and Clause 5.5 of Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

The site is located within a proximity area to Littoral Rainforest.

In accordance with clause 7, this SEPP prevails over the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 in the event of any inconsistency.

Having regard to clauses 13 and 14 of the SEPP and clause 5.5 of the Port Macquarie-Hastings LEP 2011 the proposed development is not considered likely to result in any of the following:

a) any adverse impact on integrity and resilience of the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment;

b) any adverse impacts coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes;

c) any adverse impacts on marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms;

d) any adverse impact on marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms;

e) any adverse impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places;

f) any adverse impacts on the cultural and built environment heritage;

g) any adverse impacts the use of the surf zone;

h) any adverse impact on the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands;

i) overshadowing, wind funnelling and the loss of views from public places to foreshores;

The bulk, scale and size of the proposed development is sufficiently compatible with the surrounding coastal and built environment noting the zoning and planning controls applying to the site. The site is predominately cleared and located within an area zoned for residential purposes.

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

A BASIX certificate has been submitted demonstrating that the proposal will comply with the requirements of the SEPP. Amended plans have been submitted during the assessment of the DA which will require an updated BASIX certificate. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure that the commitments are incorporated into the development and certified at Construction Certificate and Occupation Certificate stage.

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

· Clause 2.2, the subject site is zoned R1 general residential. In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table, the proposed development for a dual occupancy 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 contribute to the range of residential housing in the area

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

· Clause 4.1- (4A), the minimum lot sizes do not apply to the proposal as it is characterised as dual occupancy.

· Clause 4.3 - the maximum overall height of the buildings above ground level (existing) is 8.3m which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

· Clause 4.4 - the floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.6 :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 decks/ verandahs within the articulation zone. The decks/ verandahs do not technically exceed 25% of the articulation zone and is setback the minimum 3m.	Yes
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 building line setback requirementscomply with the exception of the south-western corner of Lot A/Dwelling 1	Yes/No*
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.	Yes
	6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building	Width of garage door requirements are complied with.	Yes
	Driveway crossover 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m width	Driveway crossing width requirements are complied with.	Yes
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 and much greater than the minimum 4m setback.	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 wall articulation is compliant and satisfies the objectives of the development provision. A review of the shadow diagram and inspection of the site and neighbouring properties has identified that the overshadowing impacts are not of a sufficient magnitude in time to warrant refusing consent to the proposal. The proposal does not prevent adjoining properties from receiving 3 hours of sunlight to private open space and primary living areas on 21 June.	Yes
3.2.2.6	35m2 min. private open space area including a useable 4x4m min. area which has 5% max. grade	Each occupancy contains 35m² open space in one area 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	No fences proposed	N/A
3.2.2.8	Front fences and walls to have complimentary materials to context No chain wire, solid timber, masonry or solid steel front fences	No 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 screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. Privacy screens are proposed on the rear decks in particular – as amended.	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	Yes
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontage	None proposed	N/A
	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structure engineer	No retaining wall likely >1m Condition also recommended to require engineering certification	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
	Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking	Driveway crossings are minimal in width including maximising street parking	Yes
2.5.3.3	Parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1. Dwelling/dual occupancies 1 space per dwelling/occupancy (behind building line). 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 2 x 4 bedroom dwellings. Therefore 2 x 1 spaces = 2 spaces required. The development proposes 4+ parking spaces.	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 limited 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. 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

Note: Subdivision provisions of the DCP (except battleaxe handle width) 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.

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision relating to front setback and articulation zone technically on the south-west corner of dwelling 1/Lot A. The below and aerial image showing boundaries and marked up image by the assessing officer shows the distance as approximately 1.9m to the splay in the front boundary returning to the western neighbour’s boundary.

The relevant single objective is:

Front setbacks should support an attractive streetscape.

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

· The subject section of the front of the building deck dwelling 1/Lot A is setback 3.731m to the primary frontage which is a greater setback than the minimum 3m setback permitted as a section of articulation zone.

· The western neighbour’s front boundary is in line with the primary frontage line of the subject dwelling 1 Lot A.

· There will be no discernible adverse impact on the streetscape given the primary alignment of the primary front boundary in the context of the remainder of the street.

· The western side setback is compliant with the DCP.

· It could technically be argued that the subject second boundary is a secondary frontage due to the change in the angle of the continuous boundaries fronting the road reservation area.

Based on the above assessment, the variation proposed to the provisions of the DCP is considered acceptable and the relevant objectives have been satisfied. The variation does 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:

NSW Coastal Policy 1997

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

Demolition of buildings AS 2601 – Clause 92

Demolition of the existing building on the site is capable of compliance with this Australian Standard and is recommended to be conditioned.

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

Context and setting

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

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

• There are no adverse impacts on existing view sharing.

• There are no adverse privacy impacts.

View sharing

During the neighbour notification period concerns surrounding view loss were raised by two (2) neighbours to the east and west of the subject development at no.s 43 and 47 The Summit.

The location of the neighbours relative to the development site is shown below:

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

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

Step 1

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

Comments:

No. 43 The Summit Road enjoys views from the front of dwelling of the coast, North Brother Mountain with glimpses of land/water interface and beach. From the rear of the dwelling across the development site there is a glimpse view of the Ocean.

The front views are considered to be valuable and iconic particularly of North Brother Mountain. The significance of the front views is considered to be high and the rear view to be low.

No 47 The Summit Road enjoys views partly across the development site side boundary from the front of dwelling of the coast, North Brother Mountain with glimpses of land/water interface and beach. From the rear of this home distant views are enjoyed across the development site from the dining room of the distant mountain views including Bago Bluff and Cairncross Mountain. The front view from the kitchen particularly is considered to be valuable and iconic particularly of North Brother Mountain and the rear view is valuable but moderately significant but considered not iconic. See below photos taken by the assessing officer:

View from kitchen window of No. 47 The Summit Road:

Views from rear of No.47 The Summit Road upper floor dining room:

Step 2

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

Comments:

Affected views (as described above) from No. 43 The Summit are obtained from the upper habitable bedroom level which is not the primary living area. Views are obtained from both a standing position.

Affected views (as described above) from No.47 The Summit are obtained from the upper habitable levels which are the primary living areas (dining room and kitchen). Views are obtained from both a sitting and standing position in the rear dining room and primary from a standing position in the kitchen at the front of the dwelling.

Step 3

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

Comments:

The extent of the impact upon the affected views enjoyed from No. 43 The Summit Road is considered minor as it is from an upper floor bedroom.

The extent of view loss upon the affected views enjoyed from No.47 The Summit Road from the front kitchen window is considered to be devastating however the view is across the eastern boundary of the development site and the kitchen room is setback approximately 11m from the front boundary. The extent of view loss of the distant mountains from the rear dining room of this dwelling will be severe however the view is across the eastern boundary of the development site.

Step 4

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

Comments:

The proposal (as amended) complies with the maximum building height of 8.5m set for the immediate locality. The front section of the dwellings is also 2 storey and less than 8.5m in height. There are no non-compliances with the provisions of DCP 2013 with the exception of the front south-western front corner splay which has no discernible impact on the streetscape having regard to the planning controls which permit the proposal including a reduced front setback with a limited articulation zone for both dwellings.

The proposal will have a devastating impact on the view from No.47 The Summit Road’s kitchen window however it is considered that even if the proposal was setback 6 or 8m the impact would still be significant and the view is across a side boundary of the development site. The Applicant has been made aware of these impacts however considers that the proposal complies with Council controls and views across the side boundaries should have limited consideration. As stated in the principles above, taking all of a view all away cannot be called view sharing, although it may, in some circumstances (such as the subject proposal) be reasonable.

In conclusion with regard to view sharing impacts, based upon the above it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and unable to be refused on the grounds of view sharing impacts to neighbouring properties.

Overshadowing

The impacts of potential overshadowing the neighbours has been raised with the Applicant during the assessment of the DA. The below diagram has been provided which provides an indication of shadows which will be generated at the winter solstice at the key times between 9am and 3pm.

A review of the above diagram and inspection of the site and neighbouring properties has identified that the overshadowing impacts are not of a sufficient magnitude in time to warrant refusing consent to the proposal. The proposal does not prevent adjoining properties from receiving 3 hours of sunlight to private open space and primary living areas on 21 June.

Roads

The site has road frontage to The Summit Road, which is a sealed road under the care and control of Council. The Summit Road is a Local road with an upright kerb and gutter. The pavement width is approximately 8m wide.

Traffic and Transport

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

Site Frontage & Access

Vehicle access to the site is proposed though individual driveways to the Summit Road. Access shall comply with Council AUSPEC and Australian Standards, and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

Parking and Manoeuvring

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

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the development site has an existing 20mm sealed service from the 100mm diameter AC water main on the opposite side of The Summit Road. An additional water service is required to service the development. Engineering plans are required to show all existing and proposed water services to the lot.

Final water service sizing will need to be determined by a hydraulic consultant to suit the development as well as addressing fire service coverage to AS 2419 and backflow protection.

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

Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site has an existing sewer junction from the AC sewer main which runs inside the northern boundary the development. Torrens title subdivision shall require provision of an additional sewer service. Engineering plans shall be required as part of the Subdivision Works (Infrastructure) application.

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

Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the rear.

The legal point of discharge for the proposed development is defined as a direct connection to Council’s kerb and gutter with the use of an approved adaptor (one per lot only). The rear garden area located below the level of the pavement shall drain to a rubble drain/soak away. Details shall be provided as part of the S68 application.

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

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

· On site stormwater detention facilities

Refer to relevant conditions of consent.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site. Evidence of satisfactory arrangements with the relevant utility authorities for provision to each proposed lot will be required prior to Subdivision Certificate approval.

Heritage

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

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

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 not require any removal/clearing of any identified significant vegetation and therefore will be unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on biodiversity or threatened species of flora and fauna. 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.

Noise and vibration

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

Bushfire

The site is not identified as being bushfire prone.

Safety, security and crime prevention

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 sufficiently fit into the locality based upon compliance with the planning controls (including a minor front setback variation) applying to the site and the site attributes are conducive to the proposed development.

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

Ten (10) written submissions have been received following public exhibition of the application.

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
The proposal will have a devastating effect on the iconic view of North Brother Mountain from the kitchen of 47 The Summit Road. The proposal is forward of other residences in the street.	View sharing impacts to 43 and 47 The Summit Road have been assessed earlier in this report. The building height has been reduced be compliant with the 8.5m building height limit. Further amendments have been made to the plans post DAP meeting in March to improve view sharing.
The proposal will severely restrict the view to the north-west to the airport, Bago and Cairncross Mountains from the dining room of 47 The Summit Road.
There are no other dual occupancies between the corner of Roma Terrace and the Summit Road.	The residential zoning and Development Control Plan permit the development to be proposed on the site. The proposal (as amended) has been assessed as being acceptable and suitable to the site. The planning controls permit a change in character in type of housing.
The proposed building height is 0.8m over the 8.5m building height restriction and is considered excessive. The height exceedance adversely impacts upon 43 The Summit Road.	The proposal has been amended to comply with the 8.5m building height limit with a proposed maximum height of 8.3m.
There is little justification for the clause 4.6 variation to building height.
Concern with privacy impacts to 43 The Summit Road including from the rear decks and rear yard. Request screening of decks to be angled to the south.	The Applicant has reviewed the screening along the western elevation of dwelling 1/Lot A and this is considered acceptable to satisfy the standard requirements of the Development Control Plan 2013.
Request height poles to be erected including the finished floor levels.	The Applicant has erected height poles post macrh DAP meeting. The proposal to comply with the 8.5m building height standard and address all privacy requirements of Development Control Plan 2013.
Proposal will have significant overshadowing impacts to ground floor rumpus, side of house and private open space of 43 The Summit Road in the morning periods mid winter.	This request has been forwarded to the Applicant for consideration. The Applicant has not proposed any change to the western side setback of dwelling 1/Lot A and justified their position that the proposal will not result in any adverse overshadowing impacts to this neighbour based upon existing orientation and permitted standards in the Development Control Plan. A review of the shadow diagrams provided and inspection of the site and neighbouring properties has identified that the overshadowing impacts are not of a sufficient magnitude in time to warrant refusing consent to the proposal. The proposal does not prevent adjoining properties from receiving 3 hours of sunlight to private open space and primary living areas on 21 June.
The side setback is requested to be increased to a minimum 3m to reduce the overshadowing impacts to 43 The Summit.
The proposal will eliminate the ocean views from one window and reduce them from another at 43 The Summit. The area of impact appears to be related to the height exceedance and side setback should be increased to 3m minimum.	View sharing impacts to 43 and 47 The Summit Road have been assessed earlier in this report. The building height has been reduced be compliant with the 8.5m building height limit. Further amendments have been made post DAP meeting in March 2019 to improve the view availability to 43 The Summit.
Council should verify the proximity of the building to the south-west front corner splay.	Refer to assessment under the Development Control Plan 2013 and variation recommended to be supported due to this technicality.
Request a dilapidation report of neighbouring 43 The Summit Road be carried out prior to issue of a Construction Certificate including the existing sewer running under the home.	This concern has been forwarded to the Applicant for consideration. The Applicant has advised that given the limited excavation proposed, likely nature of construction and side setbacks it is considered unnecessary to require a specialist dilapidation report prior to construction commencing. The justification provided from the Applicant is considered acceptable and it is noted that a qualified and experienced engineer would be required to design and certify structural capacity of the proposed buildings including excavation and filling.
The floor space ratio is estimated to be 0.81:1 and is requested to be reviewed.	The gross floor space of the dwellings internally within the buildings has been amended and the ratio has been recalculated to be compliant with the 0.65:1 standard - amended plans achieve FSR of 0.6:1.
Details of the retaining walls in the rear yard and implications on fencing should be provided.	Additional details have been shown on the amended plans (attached to this report) including a proposed new boundary fence. The filled area complies with Council’s Development Control Plan 2013.
The proposal will increase the living density and will negatively impact on the amenity of 43 The Summit Road in regards to sleeping quarters and areas of outdoor play for the children.	The residential zoning and Development Control Plan permit the development to be proposed on the site. The proposal (as amended) has been assessed as being acceptable and suitable to the site. State Government legislation imposes a requirement that Council is not permitted to require more onus standards above DCP controls where a proposal complies with the deemed to comply Development Control provisions.
The proposal does not respect and reflect the neighbourhood and street character in its design. Just because a building code allows a height limit does not mean that it should be maintained to the maximum.	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 now compliant with the maximum building height of 8.5m, the front setback and side setback DCP guidelines and satisfactory landscaping is proposed. The proposal as read from the street is 2 storeys and there are numerous other 2 storey dwellings that have been approved and/or constructed within the immediate The Summit Road locality. The proposal is not located within a nominated conservation area.
The proposal will be a stark contrast to the rest of the current housing in the street.
The large bulky nature of the proposed buildings will impact the outlook and dominate the private open space of 43 the Summit.
Unit 1 has a 12m frontage and land sizes are 370m2 which is much smaller than the LEP and surrounding houses.	The residential zoning and Development Control Plan permits the development to be proposed on the site. The proposal (as amended) has been assessed as being acceptable and suitable to the site.
The proposal will have impacts on the value of 43 The Summit Road and 70A Bangalay Drive.	Any potential impacts on property values is not a matter for consideration in the assessment of the Development Application under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
The proposed subdivision will increase traffic and on street parking is already busy.	The additional traffic associated with the development is unlikely to have any adverse impacts to the existing road network within the immediate locality. The proposal provides for compliant off-street carparking and opportunity for casual visitor parking within the driveways behind the front property boundaries.
There are already four townhouses at 27-31 The Summit.	Noted.
If the proposal is passed other similar developments will occur.	The zoning and planning controls permit this type of housing where the site conditions allow.
How is parking going to be provided for 2 to 3 cars and there is serious parking issues in the street.	The proposal provides for compliant off-street carparking and opportunity for casual visitor parking within the driveways behind the front property boundaries.
There is no detailed landscape plan to show how the frontage could be sympathetic to surrounding areas.	The Applicant has provided an indicative concept landscape plan which proposes a limited area of low water use shrubs and ground cover in the front setback particularly where visible from the public domain. Given the extent of other numerous homes with only front yards of lawn it is difficult to recommend full landscaping of the front yard. There are no specific requirements in Council’s Development Control Plan 2013 to specify landscaping also.
The proposal will allow for direct visibility into the backyards of 70 and 70A Bangalay Drive which backs on the development and all privacy will be removed.	The typical 12m distance privacy separation distance standard in Development Control Plan 2013 is satisfied and it is noted that existing trees within 70 and 70A Bangalay Drive provide some obscuring of direct views as intended by the Development Control Plan.
The proposal will reduce the privacy of the bedrooms of 48 The Summit Road.	Any privacy potential privacy impacts to bedrooms is not a matter for considered under Council’s Development Control Plan 2013.
Additional catchment in a stormwater event will discharge onto 70 The Summit Road. Question whether the developer installing stormwater drainage/onsite detention to collect from the rear and drain to the front of the block.	Additional stormwater detail has been submitted during the assessment of the DA which proposes charged stormwater lines back to The Summit for the building itself. Refer to additional comments earlier in this report addressing Stormwater impacts and recommended conditions of consent.

(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 as justified and is unlikely to impact on the wider public interest.

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

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

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

5. CONCLUSION AND STATEMENT OF REASON

The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Attachments

1 View. DA2018 - 876.1. Recommended conditions.

2 View. DA2018 - 876.1 Contribution Estimate

3 View. DA2018 - 876.1. 45 The Summit submission to DAP 12-04-19.

4 View. DA2018 - 876.1.Plans.

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 24/04/2019

Item: 08

Subject: DA2018 - 952.1 Multi Dwelling Housing and Torrens Title Subdivision, Lot 434 to 437 DP1244641, Manikato Way Port Macquarie

Report Author: Steven Ford

Applicant: Port City Developments Pty Ltd

Owner: Charlestown Projects Pty Ltd

Estimated Cost: $3,084,000

Parcel no: 68059, 68060, 68061 & 68062

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2018/952 for a Multi Dwelling Housing and Torrens Title Subdivision at Lot 434, 435, 436 & 437, DP 1244641, No. 4, 6, 8 & 10 Manikato Way PORT MACQUARIE, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

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

Following exhibition of the application, 1 submission was received.

This report recommends that the development application be approved subject to conditions.

1. BACKGROUND

Existing sites features and Surrounding development

The site has a total area of 2,422.6m².

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:

· Multi Dwelling Housing (4 x 4 bedroom attached dwellings and 4x 4 bedroom dwellings)

· 4 into 8 Torrens Title Subdivision

Refer to attachments at the end of this report.

Application Chronology

· 08 November 2018 - Application lodged

· 16 - 29 November 2018 - Neighbour notification of the proposal

· 11 March 2019 - Additional Information and amended plans received

· 25 March 2019 - Shadow diagram received

· 10 April 2019 - Additional information regarding stormwater servicing plans received

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 4.15(1) Matters for Consideration

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) Any Environmental Planning Instrument:

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

The site is subject to the adopted Mahers Headland/Area 13/Area 14 Koala Plan of Management. No tree removal is proposed and the proposal is consistent 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 (Coastal Management) 2018 and Clause 5.5 of Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

The site is located within a coastal use area / coastal environment area.