Agenda of Development Assessment Panel

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 25/09/2019

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, the undersigned, hereby 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:

Please submit to the Governance Support Officer at the Council Meeting.

(Refer to next page and the Code of Conduct)

Pecuniary Interest

4.1 A pecuniary interest is an interest that you have in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to you or a person referred to in clause 4.3.

4.2 You will 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 you might make in relation to the matter, or if the interest is of a kind specified in clause 4.6.

4.3 For the purposes of this Part, you will have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the pecuniary interest is:

(a) your interest, or

(b) the interest of your spouse or de facto partner, your relative, or your partner or employer, or

4.4 For the purposes of clause 4.3:

(a) Your “relative” is any of the following:

i) your parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child

ii) your spouse’s or de facto partner’s parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child

iii) the spouse or de facto partner of a person referred to in paragraphs (i) and (i)

(b) “de facto partner” has the same meaning as defined in section 21C of the Interpretation Act 1987.

4.5 You will not have a pecuniary interest in relation to a person referred to in subclauses 4.3(b) or (c)

(a) if you are unaware of the relevant pecuniary interest of your spouse, de facto partner, relative, partner, employer or company or other body, or

(b) just because the person is a member of, or is employed by, a council or a statutory body, or is employed by the Crown, or

(c) just because the person is a member of, or a delegate of a council to, a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter, so long as the person has no beneficial interest in any shares of the company or body.

Non-Pecuniary

5.1 Non-pecuniary interests are private or personal interests a council official has that do not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in clause 4.1 of this code. These commonly arise out of family or personal relationships, or out of involvement in sporting, social, religious or other cultural groups and associations, and may include an interest of a financial nature.

5.2 A non-pecuniary conflict of interest exists where a reasonable and informed person would perceive that you could be influenced by a private interest when carrying out your official functions in relation to a matter.

5.3 The personal or political views of a council official do not constitute a private interest for the purposes of clause 5.2.

5.4 Non-pecuniary conflicts of interest must be identified and appropriately managed to uphold community confidence in the probity of council decision-making. The onus is on you to identify any non-pecuniary conflict of interest you may have in matters that you deal with, to disclose the interest fully and in writing, and to take appropriate action to manage the conflict in accordance with this code.

5.5 When considering whether or not you have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter you are dealing with, it is always important to think about how others would view your situation.

Managing non-pecuniary conflicts of interest

5.6 Where you have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter for the purposes of clause 5.2, you must disclose the relevant private interest you have in relation to the matter fully and in writing as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the non-pecuniary conflict of interest and on each occasion on which the non-pecuniary conflict of interest arises in relation to the matter. In the case of members of council staff other than the general manager, such a disclosure is to be made to the staff member’s manager. In the case of the general manager, such a disclosure is to be made to the mayor.

5.7 If a disclosure is made at a council or committee meeting, both the disclosure and the nature of the interest must be recorded in the minutes on each occasion on which the non-pecuniary conflict of interest arises. This disclosure constitutes disclosure in writing for the purposes of clause 5.6.

5.8 How you manage a non-pecuniary conflict of interest will depend on whether or not it is significant.

5.9 As a general rule, a non-pecuniary conflict of interest will be significant where it does not involve a pecuniary interest for the purposes of clause 4.1, but it involves:

a) a relationship between a council official and another person who is affected by a decision or a matter under consideration that is particularly close, such as a current or former spouse or de facto partner, a relative for the purposes of clause 4.4 or another person from the council official’s extended family that the council official has a close personal relationship with, or another person living in the same household

b) other relationships with persons who are affected by a decision or a matter under consideration 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 the council official and an organisation (such as a sporting body, club, religious, cultural or charitable organisation, corporation or association) that is affected by a decision or a matter under consideration that is particularly strong. The strength of a council official’s affiliation with an organisation is to be determined by the extent to which they actively participate in the management, administration or other activities of the organisation.

d) membership, as the council’s representative, of the board or management committee of an organisation that is affected by a decision or a matter under consideration, in circumstances where the interests of the council and the organisation are potentially in conflict in relation to the particular matter

e) a financial interest (other than an interest of a type referred to in clause 4.6) that is not a pecuniary interest for the purposes of clause 4.1

f) the conferral or loss of a personal benefit other than one conferred or lost as a member of the community or a broader class of people affected by a decision.

5.10 Significant non-pecuniary conflicts of interest must be managed in one of two ways:

a) by not participating in consideration of, or decision making in relation to, the matter in which you have the significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest and the matter being allocated to another person for consideration or determination, or

b) if the significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest arises in relation to a matter under consideration at a council or committee meeting, by managing the conflict of interest as if you had a pecuniary interest in the matter by complying with clauses 4.28 and 4.29.

5.11 If you determine that you have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter that is not significant and does not require further action, when disclosing the interest you must also explain in writing why you consider that the non-pecuniary conflict of interest is not significant and does not require further action in the circumstances.

5.12 If you are a member of staff of council other than the general manager, the decision on which option should be taken to manage a non-pecuniary conflict of interest must be made in consultation with and at the direction of your manager. In the case of the general manager, the decision on which option should be taken to manage a non-pecuniary conflict of interest must be made in consultation with and at the direction of the mayor.

5.13 Despite clause 5.10(b), a councillor who has a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter, may participate in a decision to delegate consideration of the matter in question to another body or person.

5.14 Council committee members are not required to declare and manage a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in accordance with the requirements of this Part where it arises from an interest they have as a person chosen to represent the community, or as a member of a non-profit organisation or other community or special interest group, if they have been appointed to represent the organisation or group on the council committee.

SPECIAL DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST DECLARATION

This form must be completed using block letters or typed.

If there is insufficient space for all the information you are required to disclose,

you must attach an appendix which is to be properly identified and signed by you.

[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 the affected principal place of residence of the councillor or an associated person, company or body (the identified land)

Relationship of identified land to councillor

[Tick or cross one box.]

 The 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).

 An associated person of the councillor has an interest in the land.

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

MATTER GIVING RISE TO PECUNIARY INTEREST[1]

Nature of land that is subject to a change

in zone/planning control by proposed

LEP (the subject land2

[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 or associated person

[Tick or cross one box]

 Appreciable financial gain.

 Appreciable financial loss.

[If more than one pecuniary interest is to be declared, reprint the above box and fill in for each additional interest]

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

This form is to be retained by the council’s general manager and included in full in the minutes of the meeting

Last Updated: 3 June 2019

Important Information

This information is being collected for the purpose of making a special disclosure of pecuniary interests under clause 4.36(c) of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW (the Model Code of Conduct).

The special disclosure must relate only to a pecuniary interest that a councillor has in the councillor’s principal place of residence, or an interest another person (whose interests are relevant under clause 4.3 of the Model Code of Conduct) has in that person’s principal place of residence.

Clause 4.3 of the Model Code of Conduct states that you will have a pecuniary interest in a matter because of the pecuniary interest of your spouse or your de facto partner or your relative or because your business partner or employer has a pecuniary interest. You will 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.

“Relative” is defined by clause 4.4 of the Model Code of Conduct 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.

You must not make a special disclosure that you know or ought reasonably to know is false or misleading in a material particular. Complaints about breaches of these requirements are to be referred to the Office of Local Government and may result in disciplinary action by the Chief Executive of the Office of Local Government or the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

This form must be completed by you before the commencement of the council or council committee meeting at 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.

[1] Clause 4.1 of the Model Code of Conduct 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 clause 4.6 of the Model Code of Conduct.

2 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 clause 4.3 of the Model Code of Conduct has a proprietary interest

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 25/09/2019

Item: 05

Subject: DA2019 - 154.1 Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Construction of New Dwelling and Swimming Pool Lot 1 DP 612190 42 Lighthouse Road, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Benjamin Roberts

Applicant: K L Prados

Owner: K L Prados

Estimated Cost: $1,350,000

Parcel no: 19402

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2019 - 154 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling and swimming pool at Lot 1, DP 612190, No. 42 Lighthouse Road, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling and swimming pool 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 was received.

The application was considered by Council’s Development Assessment Panel (DAP) on 28 August 2019 and 11 September 2019 where the following was resolved:

CONSENSUS:

“That the determination by the Development Assessment Panel (DAP) of DA2019 - 154 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling and swimming pool at Lot 1 DP 612190, No.42 Lighthouse Road, Port Macquarie, be deferred to address the following:

1. The Applicant submit a more definitive stormwater management plan including

details of any swales which satisfactorily addresses management of stormwater on the site and demonstrates that the proposal will not be adversely impacted by the stormwater overland flow path traversing the property or cause adverse impacts to the neighbouring properties.

2. The Applicant submit written details to provide a detailed explanation of how the

stormwater management plan will work.

3. The Applicant submit updated amended development plans to reflect all details of the stormwater management proposed.

4. Council specialist stormwater assessment staff provide assessment comments of the review of the stormwater details to be submitted by the Applicant.”

Subsequent to the DAP meeting of 11 September 2019, in response to the above resolution the following comments are provided:

1. The Applicant has submitted an updated stormwater management plan details which satisfactorily demonstrates that stormwater can be managed on-site and not adversely impact neighbouring properties.

2. The Applicant has submitted supportive written documentation details to satisfactorily demonstrate that stormwater can be managed on-site and not adversely impact neighbouring properties.

3. The Applicant has submitted updated amended plans to reflect the amened stormwater management proposed.

4. Council specialist stormwater assessment staff have reviewed the additional stormwater details submitted by the Applicant. Updated assessment comments are provided under the ‘Stormwater’ section later in this report.

This report recommends that the subject development application as amended be approved subject to the conditions included in attachments.

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 3578m².

The site is zoned E4 Environmental Living 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:

· Demolition of existing dwelling and tree removal

· Construction of new dwelling and swimming pool

Refer to attachments at the end of this report for further details.

Application Chronology

· 11 March 2019 - Application lodged.

· 21 March to 3 April 2019 - Public exhibition via neighbour notification.

· 3 April 2019 - Additional information request. Site mapped as littoral rainforest under Coastal Management SEPP. Application is designated development. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and additional fees required.

· 2 May 2019 - Additional fees paid.

· 22 June 2019 - Environmental Impact Statement and revised plans received. Secondary dwelling and dog kennel removed from proposal.

· 4 July to 2 August 2019 - Re-exhibition as designated development via advertising and neighbour notification.

· 28 August 2019 - application considered by DAP and deferred for further information.

· 11 September 2019 - application considered by DAP and deferred for further information.

· 16 September 2019 - amended plans and additional information received

3. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 4.15(1) Matters for Consideration

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

(a) The provisions (where applicable) of:

(i) Any Environmental Planning Instrument

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection

There is 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 (Coastal Management) 2018

The site is partially mapped as littoral rainforest and within a proximity area to littoral rainforest under this policy.

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

In accordance with clause 10, the proposal is declared to be designated development. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which is consistent with the issued Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs). A copy of the issued SEARs and EIS are provided as attachments to this report.

The application was also supported by a site vegetation assessment, prepared by Biodiversity Australia, dated 24 May 2019. The assessment concluded:

“that the vegetation does not comprise Littoral Rainforest as it lacks key floristic and structural attributes. Vegetation on adjoining land to the south is also unlikely to qualify as Littoral Rainforest at present, however it would have the potential to regenerate into Littoral Rainforest if weeds are removed.

It is recommended that the Coastal SEPP mapping layer is amended to remove the Littoral Rainforest mapping from both the subject site and the adjoining land to the south.”

In accordance with clause 11, the proposal will not significantly impact on:

(a) the biophysical, hydrological or ecological integrity of the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest, or

(b) the quantity and quality of surface and ground water flows to and from the adjacent coastal wetland or littoral rainforest.

In accordance with clause 15, the proposed development is not likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on that land or other land.

In accordance with clause 16, there is no certified coastal management program that applies to the land.

The bulk, scale and size of the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding coastal and built environment. The site is predominately cleared and located within an area with established residential properties.

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

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

Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

· Clause 2.2 - The subject site is zoned E4 Environmental Living. In accordance with clause 2.3(1) and the E4 zone landuse table, the new dwelling and ancillary swimming pool is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the E4 zone are as follows:

o To provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special ecological, scientific or aesthetic values.

o To ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect on those values.

· Clause 2.3(2) - The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives as it is a permissible landuse and demonstrated no adverse impact on ecological values.

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

· Clause 4.3 - The maximum overall height of the building above ground level complies with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site. Refer to architectural plans with maximum building height envelope shown.

· Clause 5.10 - 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.

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

No draft instruments apply.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan (DCP) 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	Rainwater tank is located behind building line. Swimming pool is generously setback 41m from the Pacific Drive boundary.	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	Pergola and swimming pool structures are within the front setback. The structures are well setback from the Pacific Drive boundary.	Yes
3.2.2.3	Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front façade. Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided	Garage door setback is compliant with the minimum front setback requirements. Garage door recessed.	No. The pergola appears to be a form of off-street parking similar to a carport. It is considered acceptable given the generous setback to Pacific Drive, existing vegetation and open nature of the structure.
	6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building	Width of garage door is compliant with the maximum width requirements	Yes
	Driveway crossover 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m width	Driveway crossing width is compliant with the maximum width requirements	Yes
3.2.2.4	4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to site analysis and provision of private open space	A minimum 5m rear setback is now proposed with the amended proposal.	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 site slopes away from the east and having regard to the proposed cut and fill will present as single storey along the eastern boundary and two storey along the western boundary. The eastern side setback is 1.66m. The western side setback is 2m. The reduced western side setback is acceptable. Given the block orientation no adverse overshadowing impact will result to the adjoining property at 188 Pacific Drive. The building wall articulation is compliant and/or satisfactory to address the objective intent of the development provision.	Yes
3.2.2.6	35m2 min. private open space area including a useable 4x4m min. area which has 5% max. grade	The dwelling contains >35m² open space in one area including a useable 4m x 4m space.	Yes
3.2.2.7	Front fences: • If solid 1.2m max height and front setback 1.0m with landscaping • 3x3m min. splay for corner sites • Fences >1.2m to be 1.8m max. height for 50% or 6.0m max. length of street frontage with 25% openings • 0.9x0.9m splays adjoining driveway entrances	Detail of fencing not provided. Condition has been recommended requiring fencing details consistent with DCP be illustrated on building Construction Certificate plans.	Yes
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	Refer comments above.	Yes
3.2.2.10	Privacy: • Direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. ie. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed • Privacy screen required if floor level > 1m height, window side/rear setback (other than bedroom) is less than 3m and sill height less than 1.5m • Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandahs etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m	The two storey component along the western boundary contains bedroom and bathroom windows only. The upper floor north facing terrace is within 3m of the western boundary. No privacy screen is illustrated. The adjoining property at 188 Pacific Drive has a pool and outdoor living area orientated east which is partly within a 12m radius of the proposed upper terrace. To protect privacy between these areas a condition has been recommenced requiring a privacy screen to the west facing part of the upper floor terrace. Alternatively, increasing the planter box to achieve a minimum width of 1.8m will provide sufficient privacy.	Yes subject to the imposition of condition requiring privacy screen to west facing upper floor terrace or increasing the width of the planter box to a minimum of 1.8m Subject to the imposition of the recommended condition the proposal will not compromise privacy in the area due to the generous building separation and orientation of primary living and outdoor areas to the north.

*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 of approximately 1.5m proposed.	No but considered acceptable in this instance.
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontage	None proposed along road frontage.	N/A
	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structure engineer	Retaining wall over 1m proposed.	Yes Condition recommended to require engineering certification
	Combination of retaining wall and front fence height max 1.8m, max length 6.0m or 30% of frontage, fence component 25% transparent, and splay at corners and adjacent to driveway	No retaining wall front fence combination proposed.	N/A
2.3.3.8	Removal of hollow bearing trees	The Narrow-leaved Scribbly Gum was identified as containing some hollow bearing potential by the ecologist. The ecologist scored the tree as having a likely medium value of 12 in the hollow bearing tree assessment protocol. The ecologist noted the large dead branches and described the tree as looking dangerous. Consistent with the DCP provisions the ecologist recommends that if removed two replacement fauna nesting boxes ideally located on existing mature trees at the front of the property should be installed. The ecologist recommends these boxes be installed by an ecologist prior to removal of the tree and the tree removal also supervised by an ecologist.	The tree is in poor condition and is best characterised as dangerous. The best outcome would be for it to be removed and offsets measures be implemented as per the ecologist advice. Suitable conditions have been recommended.
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100m diameter trunk at 1m above ground level and 3m from external wall of existing dwelling)	The Narrow-leaved scribbly gum is a tree identified in as a Koala food tree. The tree is identified as dangerous and is proposed to be removed.	Consistent with the plan compensatory Koala habitat trees shall be provided at a ratio of 2:1. Suitable area and locations exist on site to accommodate replants. Conditions have been recommended.
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater	Refer to main body of report.	Yes
2.5.3.2	New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads	No new access proposed to arterial or distributor roads.	N/A
2.5.3.2	Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking	Driveway crossing minimal in width	Yes
2.5.3.3	Parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1. 1 space per single dwelling (behind building line)	Ample off-street parking is proposed.	Yes
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report.	N/A
2.5.3.12 and 2.5.3.13	Landscaping of parking areas	Single dwelling only. No specific landscaping requirements recommended.	N/A
2.5.3.14	Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified	Sealed driveway 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.	Single dwelling only. Stormwater drainage is capable of being managed as part of plumbing construction.	Yes

(iii) 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

Clause 92 - Demolition of buildings

Demolition of the existing dwelling onsite is capable of compliance with Australian Standard 2601-1991: The Demolition of Structures.

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

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

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

The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

There are no significant adverse privacy impacts. The adjoining dwelling to south (12 Daintree Lane) is setback approximately 20m from the boundary. The 20m setback is well vegetated with mature trees. The removal of the single Narrow-leaved scribbly gum from the rear of the property will not result in any adverse privacy impacts.

There is no adverse overshadowing impacts. The adjoining dwelling to south (12 Daintree Lane) is setback approximately 20m from the boundary. The proposal does not prevent adjoining properties from receiving 3 hours of sunlight to private open space and primary living areas on 21 June.

Access, Traffic and Transport

A new driveway is proposed in the south-western corner of the property directly onto Pacific Drive. This new driveway formed part of a previous application for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling that was approved 13 November 2018. A survey report and Arborist report supported this application, which subject to recommendations validated retention of a large Blackbutt tree within the Pacific Drive road reserve close to the new driveway. Conditions have been recommended (that were applied to the prior consent for alterations and additions) requiring tree protection for driveway works near the Blackbutt tree and a change to the title restriction, which currently prohibits direct vehicular access to Pacific Drive. It is also recommended that the prior consent (DA2018/489) be surrendered prior to issue of any building construction certificate to ensure there is no conflict between consents.

The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts in terms access, transport and traffic.

Water Supply Connection

Service available. Details required with section 68 application.

Sewer Connection

Service available. Details required with section 68 application.

Stormwater

There is no stormwater infrastructure available for direct connection to the development. The site is traversed by an existing natural gully and flowpath and the existing dwelling is drained to Pacific Drive via a dilapidated small diameter stormwater outlet.

Following the DAP resolution on 28 August 2019 to provide more information on stormwater management, the proponent’s architect met with Council’s Senior Stormwater Engineer on site. It was confirmed that an overland flow path was required around/through the site to allow for the conveyance of stormwater runoff from the existing natural gully traversing the site. In addition, the method via which stormwater flows flowing within the gully needed to be managed in such a way to not increase the volume, rate or location of discharge into the lower section of the gully on the adjoining downstream property. The rationale for this advice was to ensure that the development did not result in any negative impacts on adjoining properties. This approach was also a means of ensuring that the stormwater flows from upstream could be safely conveyed through the development site.

An amended concept plan was subsequently prepared and submitted to DAP on 11 September 2019 and included (amongst others), the relocation of the dwelling to provide an overland flowpath, an overland flow swale around the dwelling and an extensive piped drainage system to capture and convey flows through the site. The application was further deferred at the DAP meeting on 11 September 2019 generally on the basis that the submitted stormwater plan did not include enough detail to demonstrate the specifics of flows were captured and safely conveyed through the site. At this time, the plans were also inconsistent with the architectural details accompanying the submission. A written report summarising the stormwater concept was also sought at this time.

Following the DAP meeting, Council’s Senior Stormwater Engineer met with the Applicant’s Engineer to discuss options/requirements for the safe and efficient drainage of the site and the submission requirements.

An amended stormwater drainage plan and accompanying report was submitted to Council on Monday 16 September 2019. The amended stormwater drainage plan incorporates the following features:

· Provision of an extensive piped drainage system and overland flow swale to capture and convey flows generated by the natural gully traversing the site. The overland flowpath component includes a ‘v shaped swale’ located within the 5m building setback to the south and demonstrates that freeboard of 240mm is available to the adjoining floor levels. This freeboard is considered acceptable on the basis that it represents 275% of the depth of flows modelled to occur in the 1% AEP event.

· On-site stormwater detention facilities, designed to limit post development discharge to pre-development rates.

· Twin outlets, with one being a low-flow outlet to Pacific Dr via a 225mm diameter pipeline, and a second outlet being a surcharge pit (shown as pit 8 on the plans), discharging larger flows into the downstream part of the gully traversing the adjoining property. Modelling submitted within the plans and the accompanying report indicates that discharge from the site will be marginally less than the pre-development scenario for all storm events modelled.

Subject to detailed design and modelling at S.68 application stage, the proposal would result in a lessening of the volume and rate of runoff entering the natural gully traversing the adjoining downstream property, whilst also providing for the safe conveyance of stormwater flows from the upstream gully through the site.

The proposed drainage strategy is considered acceptable and no objections are raised with respect to the proposal from a stormwater perspective subject to the submission of detailed plans and calculations at S.68 application stage.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

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

Other land resources

The proposal will not sterilise any significant mineral or agricultural resource.

Water cycle

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

Soils

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

Air and microclimate

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

Flora and fauna

The proposed development includes removal of some exotic/ornamental plants and one Narrow-leaved Scribbly Gum in the south-eastern corner of the site. The Biodiversity Offset Scheme does not apply for the following reasons:

· The land wasn’t identified on the Biodiversity Values Map at the time the application was made;

· The extent of clearing is below the thresholds in Clause 7.2 of the Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017;

· The application of test of significance (5 part test) demonstrates that the development will not have a significant impact on biodiversity values.

The application was supported by a site vegetation assessment, prepared by Biodiversity Australia, dated 24 May 2019. The onsite assessment concludes:

It is recommended that the Coastal SEPP mapping layer is amended to remove the Littoral Rainforest mapping from both the subject site and the adjoining land to the south.”

This advice also formed part of the correspondence sent to the Department when seeking the Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs). It is noted that the SEARs issued by the Department have no specific requirements surrounding flora and fauna impacts. A copy of the issued SEARs is provided as an attachment this report.

The Narrow-leaved Scribbly Gum while recognised as dangerous does contain some hollowing bearing potential. Refer to comments in DCP table earlier within report.

Subsequent advice from the ecologist has confirmed that this tree is likely to have low habitat value and that its removal should be offset by the installation of two nest boxes within the existing mature eucalypts at the front of the property. The ecologist also recommends the nest boxes be installed by an ecologist prior to removal of the tree and that the tree removal be supervised by an ecologist. In addition and consistent with the DCP provisions two compensatory Koala food trees are to be provided on the site. Suitable conditions have been recommended.

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 identified as being bushfire prone. The applicant has submitted a Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) certificate prepared by a qualified professional.

A review of the certificate and assessment of bushfire risk having regard to section 4.3.5 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 including vegetation classification and slope concludes that a Bushfire Attack Level 19 shall be required.

Management of bushfire risk is acceptable subject to BAL construction levels being implemented and APZ being maintained. An appropriate condition has been recommended.

Safety, security and crime prevention

Social impacts in the locality

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

Economic impact in the locality

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

Site design and internal design

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

Construction

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

Cumulative Impacts

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

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

The proposal will fit into the locality and 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 Regulation

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

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
The setback to the rear boundary is too close and should be increased by a further 2m and established as a green buffer zone.	Refer to DCP table and comments. The dwelling setback at the rear has been increased to a minimum 5m setback and is now compliant with the DCP.
Responsibility for trimming vegetation on the common boundary.	Any existing or proposed vegetation removal or pruning is subject to the provisions of the adopted Development Control Plan 2013. The Trees (Disputes between neighbours) Act 2006 covers any disputes between neighbours involving trees.
There have been numerous complaints from neighbours regarding barking dogs at night. It is requested the proposed kennel be relocated north of the dwelling.	The kennel is no longer proposed under this application.
It is requested that the large gum tree proposed to be removed be retained. It provides privacy and is part of the local Koala habitat. If this is not possible then replacement plantings should be undertaken.	Refer to comments in flora and fauna and DCP table section of this report. Two nest boxes have been recommended by the ecologist to be provided onsite. Two replacement Koala tree plantings shall also be required consistent with DCP 2013 provisions. No adverse privacy impacts would result from the tree removal that would warrant refusal of this application.
It is requested that the rainwater tank abut the wall of the proposed building as opposed to being on the boundary fence.	The rainwater tank location will not have any adverse impacts to the southern neighbouring dwelling to warrant requesting relocation. The tank is set much lower that the southern neighbour and there is a significant separation distance between the tank and this adjacent dwelling.

(e) The Public Interest

The proposed development satisfies relevant planning controls and will not adversely impact on the wider public interest.

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

Not applicable.

5. CONCLUSION AND STATEMENT OF REASON

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

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

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

Attachments

1 View. DA2019 - 154. Recommended DA Conditions.

2 View. DA2019 - 154.1 Environmental Impact Statement

3 View. DA2019 - 154.1 Amended DA Plans.

4 View. DA2019 - 154.1 Stormwater Management Plan.

5 View. DA2019 - 154.1 Amended Stormwater Details

6 View. DA2019 - 154.1 Email Steggall - Scribbbly Gum Tree - HBT Potential and Recommended Nest Box Offsetting

7 View. DA2019 - 154.1 Ecology Advice - Vegetation Classification - Will Steggall

8 View. DA2019 - 154.1 SEARs Local Secretary - Environmental Assessment Requirements

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 25/09/2019

Item: 06

Subject: DA2019 - 200.1 Change of Use - Dwelling to Medical Centre at Lot 28 DP 264025, No. 14 Siren Road, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Chris Gardiner

Applicant: Encompass Drafting

Owner: J N & P J Cullen

Estimated Cost: $100,000

Parcel no: 22321

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA2018 - 200.1 for a Change of Use - Dwelling to Medical Centre at Lot 28, DP 264025, No. 14 Siren Road, 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 dwelling to medical centre at the subject site and provides an assessment of the application in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The proposal has been amended during the assessment of the application.

Following exhibition of the application, 38 submissions have been received.

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

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 2193m².

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential in accordance with the Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Environmental Plan 2011, as shown in the following zoning plan:

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Change of use from dwelling to medical centre;

· Alterations to existing building;

· Construction of associated access and car parking facilities.

Refer to attachments at the end of this report for further details.

Application Chronology

· 21 March 2019 - Application lodged.

· 1 April 2019 to 15 April 2019 - Neighbour notification.

· 15 May 2019 - Additional information requested from Applicant.

· 8 July 2019 - Additional information and amended plans submitted by Applicant.

· 24 July 2019 to 6 August 2019 - Application re-notified with amended plans and additional information.

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. 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. 64 – Advertising and Signage

The proposed development includes proposed signage in the form of two business identification signs (a 1.2m x 1.2m sign adjacent to the driveway, and a 1.2m x 1.2m sign fixed to the rear fence facing Lake Road).

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 proposal is considered to be consistent with the aims and objectives of the SEPP.	Yes
Schedule 1(1) Character of the area.	The area is characterised by low density residential uses and there are no other examples of signage in the immediate area. The signage could be considered to be compatible with the character of the area if it is of appropriate scale and any amenity impacts (such as illumination) can be appropriately managed. In this regard SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 permits wall signs up to 2.5m² without consent in a residential zone and this could be used as a guide for what should be considered appropriate. The proposal is for a business identification sign adjacent to the site access and having dimensions of 1.2m x 1.2m (1.44m²) and an additional business identification sign also having dimensions of 1.2m x 1.2m (1.44m²) fixed to the rear fence facing Lake Road. The plans do not specify the height of the sign structure adjacent to Siren Road, and a condition is recommended restricting the height to 1.2m to ensure that the scale of the sign is compatible with the residential character of the locality. Neither sign is proposed to be illuminated.	Yes
Schedule 1(2) Special areas.	The site is located in a residential area. As noted above, the signage is considered to be compatible with the residential setting.	Yes
Schedule 1(3) Views and vistas.	The signage would not adversely affect any views or vistas.	Yes
Schedule 1(4) Streetscape, setting or landscape.	The scale and proportions of the signage are appropriate for the streetscape setting. The signs would not protrude above buildings or the tree canopy.	Yes
Schedule 1(5) Site and building.	The scale and proportions of the signage are appropriate to the scale of the building.	Yes
Schedule 1(6) Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures.	None proposed.	N/A
Schedule 1(7) Illumination.	Neither sign is proposed to be illuminated.	N/A
Schedule 1(8) Safety.	The signage is not expected to adversely affect vehicular, cyclist, or pedestrian safety.	Yes

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Clause 57(1) - Health services facilities are permitted with consent by any person as the land is in a prescribed zone.

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 R2 Low Density Residential.

· Clause 2.3(1) and the R2 zone landuse table - The proposed development for a medical centre is a prohibited land use in the zone. However, the proposal is permissible in accordance with Clause 57(1) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

The objectives of the R2 zone are as follows:

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

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

o To provide for low density housing that does not compromise the environmental, scenic or landscape qualities of land.

Clause 2.3(2) - The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives having regard to the following:

o The proposal provides a medical service to meet the day to day needs of residents.

o The proposal would not increase the density of the existing development on the site.

· Clause 4.3 - The maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 6.3m which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

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

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

No draft instruments apply to the site.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

*DCP 2013: General Provisions*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
2.2.2.1	Signs primarily identifying products or services are not acceptable, even where relating to products or services available on that site.	Sign proposed to identify business name.	Yes
	Signage is not permitted outside property boundaries except where mounted upon buildings and clear of pedestrians and road traffic. No signage is permitted upon light or power poles or upon the nature strip (the area between the property boundary and constructed roadway). Limited directional signage and “A” frame signage may separately be approved by Council under the Roads Act 1993 or section 68 of the Local government Act 1993.	No signage proposed outside property boundaries.	Yes
	An on-building 'chalkboard' sign, for the purpose of describing services or goods for sale which vary on a regular basis generally should not be any larger than 1.5m2, and should contain a sign written heading indicating the premises to which it refers.	N/A	N/A
	On-premise signs should not project above or to the side of building facades	N/A	N/A
2.2.2.2	Where there is potential for light spill from signage in a non residential zone adjoining or adjacent to residential development, illuminated signage is to be fitted with a time switch to dim by 50% or turn off the light by 11pm each night, depending on the nature of the development.	No illumination of signage proposed.
2.7.2.2	Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline: · Casual surveillance and sightlines · Land use mix and activity generators · Definition of use and ownership · Lighting · Way finding · Predictable routes and entrapment locations	The proposed development is unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	1.2m of cut identified for retaining wall at front of car park. The excavation would not result in any adverse privacy, stormwater, or stability issues, subject to appropriate engineering of the retaining wall. The excavation would assist in reducing the visual impact of the proposed parking area.	No, but acceptable
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontages	Retaining wall up to 1.2m high. The retaining wall is proposed to support excavation for the car park and would not be visible from the street. Considered consistent with the objective of the provision.	No, but acceptable
	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structural engineer	Condition recommended requiring engineering certification of retaining wall
	Combination of retaining wall and front fence height	No retaining wall front fence combination proposed.	Yes
2.3.3.8 onwards	Removal of hollow bearing trees	None proposed to be removed.	Yes
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100mm diameter trunk and 3m outside dwelling footprint	The proposal includes removal of a number of existing trees that require consent. No Koala food trees are proposed to be removed, and offsets are not required.	Yes
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.2	New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads. Existing accesses rationalised or removed where practical	Access to local road.	Yes
2.5.3.2	Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking	Single driveway of acceptable width. Minimal reduction in existing street parking.	Yes
2.5.3.3	Off-street parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1. (Provision to consider reduced parking where supported by parking demand study)	For medical centres Table 2.5.1 requires 3 spaces per consultant, plus 1 space per 2 employees. The Statement of Environmental Effects indicates that the development would have 5 consultants and 2 employees, which would require a minimum of 16 off street parking spaces. The submitted proposal includes 21 spaces, which satisfies this requirement. Spaces 11 and 12 do not have sufficient aisle width and are not usable without demolition of the existing shed. Even with the loss of these spaces the development would provide 19 spaces, which is in excess of the DCP requirement.	Yes
2.5.3.4	Parking credits to be calculated for redevelopment or change of use	N/A	N/A
2.5.3.5	On-street parking permitted subject to justification	N/A	N/A
2.5.3.6	On street parking will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that: · that streetscape improvement works, such as landscaped bays and street trees are provided. · parking does not detract from the streetscape; and	N/A	N/A
2.5.3.7	Visitor parking to be easily accessible	Majority of customer parking located at the front of the site and easily accessible from Siren Road. Signage will be required to identify that additional parking is available at the rear of the site.	Yes
	Stacked parking permitted for medium density where visitor parking and 5.5m length achieved	N/A	N/A
	Parking layout in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1 and AS/NZS 2890.2	See comments under Parking and Manoeuvring later in this report.
	Parking spaces generally located behind building line	Part of the parking provision proposed forward of the building line. See comments under 2.5.3.12 and 2.5.3.13 below.
2.5.3.8	Accessible parking provided in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1, AS/NZS 2890.2 and AS 1428	One accessible space proposed.	Yes
2.5.3.8	Additional accessible spaces where development would have high volume of aged or disabled traffic	N/A	N/A
2.5.3.9	Bicycle and motorcycle parking considered and designed generally in accordance with the principles of AS2890.3	None proposed.	N/A
2.5.3.10	Parking concessions possible for conservation of heritage items	N/A	N/A
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.12 and 2.5.3.13	Landscaping of parking areas	The proposal includes a landscaped strip with a width of between 600mm and 850mm, which is less than the minimum of 3m recommended in the DCP.	No*
2.5.3.14	Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified	Condition recommended confirming this requirement.	Yes
2.5.3.15	Driveway grades for first 6m of ‘parking area’ shall be 5% grade (Note AS/NZS 2890.1 allows for steeper grades)	Capable of complying. Details to be submitted with the Section 138 and Construction Certificate applications.	Yes
2.5.3.16	Transitional grades min. 2m length	Capable of complying. Details to be submitted with the Section 138 and Construction Certificate applications.	Yes
2.5.3.17	Parking areas to be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.	See comments under Stormwater later in this report.
	Vehicle washing facilities – grassed area etc available.
	No direct discharge to K&G or swale drain
2.5.3.18	Car parking areas drained to swales, bio retention, rain gardens and infiltration areas	Capable of complying. Detailed design to be submitted at the Section 68/ Construction Certificate application stage.	Yes
2.5.3.19	Commercial development having a floor space less than 500m² need not provide a loading bay.	The proposal has a floor area of less than 500m² and does not require a loading bay.	Yes

The proposal seeks to vary Development Provision 2.5.3.12 in relation to the minimum width of landscaping for parking areas located forward of the building line.

The relevant objectives of the provision are as follows:

· Parking areas are visually pleasing and easily accessible;

· Parking areas shall be landscaped to:

- Provide shade;

- Improve the visual amenity of large, unrelieved hard stand areas;

- Provide a buffer between the road and neighbouring land uses.

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

· The width of the landscaped area is sufficient to provide visually pleasing landscaping of sufficient scale to soften the visual impact of the parking area.

· The proposal will retain mature shade trees, and the parking area is not of a scale that would warrant planting of additional large trees.

· The parking area would be excavated up to 1.2m below the existing ground level, which would also contribute to reducing the visual impact.

Based on the above assessment, the variations proposed to the provisions of the DCP are considered acceptable and the relevant objectives have been satisfied. Cumulatively, the variations do not amount to an adverse impact of 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:

Clause 92 - Demolition of buildings

Demolition work on the site is capable of compliance with this Australian Standard 2601 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 site has a general northerly street frontage orientation to Siren Road and a southerly orientation to Lake Road. The site and other properties on the southern side of Siren Road are not permitted vehicular access to Lake Road and have been designed with access off Siren Road.

Adjoining the site to the north, east, and west are low density residential uses typically consisting of single dwellings on lots with an area of approximately 2000m².

Adjoining the site to the south is multi dwelling housing and bulky goods premises on the southern side of Lake Road.

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

Roads

The site has road frontage to Siren Road. Adjacent to the site, Siren Road is a sealed public road under the care and control of Council. Siren Road is a local street with a 7.5m wide road pavement within a 19m road reserve. There is SE kerb and gutter present, with on-street parking currently being utilised in the street.

Traffic and Transport

The site is currently approved for residential use and is expected on average to generate 9 daily trips.

The application includes a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) from StreetWise Road Safety & Traffic Services Pty Ltd and dated 4 July 2019. The TIA estimates that the development would generate between 26 and 32 daily trips, based on data collected at the current premises where the business is being operated.

An assessment of the intersection of Fernhill Road and Siren Road found that traffic volumes warrant an upgrade to a channelised right turn CHR(s) intersection in accordance with Figure 2.26c of the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management, Part 6 – Intersections, Interchanges and Crossings. The traffic consultants consider that the existing intersection is acceptable for the following reasons:

· Sidra Modelling for the existing intersection based on 10 years traffic growth, the re-development of the old Bunnings site, plus the Medical Centre development, found that all scenarios resulted in a Level of Service (LOS) A and the intersection will continue operate within capacity.

· The existing intersection already exceeds the warrants for upgrade to CHR, and the development would only result in a minor increase in traffic.

· Council did not require the intersection to be upgraded as part of the re-development of the former Bunnings site.

It is considered that the traffic generation has been underestimated and the proposal would be more likely to generate in the order of 100 daily trips (based upon 5 consulting rooms, with 1 patient per hour from 8.30am to 5.00pm, and 7 employees). The addition in traffic associated with the development is likely to have some impact on the existing road network within the immediate locality, with some turning movements at the Siren Road / Fernhill Road intersection already impeded at current peak traffic volumes.

The redevelopment of the former Bunnings site at 215 Lake Road, under DA2018 - 1110.1 did not trigger the requirement for any upgrades to the intersection of the site access and Fernhill Road due to the proposed development having lower traffic generation than the existing approved use. There was no increase in traffic turning from Fernhill Road into Siren Road associated with this development.

The current proposal would create a clear increase in traffic turning right and left from Fernhill Road into Siren Road, as noted in the TIA (even with the low traffic generation rates assumed by the traffic consultant). It is considered that there is a clear nexus to require appropriate mitigation of traffic impacts based upon the increased traffic volumes at the intersection. It is recommended that the intersection be upgraded to a channelised right turn CHR(s) intersection in accordance with Figure 2.26c of the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management, Part 6 – Intersections, Interchanges and Crossings. The upgrade could be achieved with changes to the existing line marking and would not require widening of the road carriageway in Fernhill Road. A condition has been recommended confirming this requirement.

Siren Road is a local street in the Auspec classification, and has a design volume of up to 2000 vehicles per day. The street has capacity for the additional traffic generation anticipated for the development.

Site Frontage and Access

Vehicle access to the site is proposed though a single 6m wide access driveway to Siren Road. Access shall comply with Council AUSPEC and Australian Standards, and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements.

Due to the type and size of development, additional works are required to include:

· Concrete footpath paving (minimum 1.2m wide) along the full frontage

· Refer to recommended relevant conditions of consent.

Parking and Manoeuvring

Parking and driveway widths on site can comply with relevant Australian Standards (AS 2890) and conditions have been imposed to reflect these requirements. There is a non-conformance for the minimum aisle width down the eastern side of the building (AS2890.1 requires 3.6m, while 2.9m is available). This is considered acceptable only on the basis of the proposed staff only usage of the parking area, and the low traffic volumes anticipated.

Due to the restricted aisle width, a condition is recommended to restrict staff parking to the rear car park only with the front parking bays kept free for patients. This would assist in minimising the traffic flow down the side of the building. Convex mirrors and give way signage are also recommended.

The parking spaces numbered 11 and 12 will need to either be deleted, or the existing storage shed demolished to provide adequate aisle width.

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. The plans submitted with the Construction Certificate application will need to demonstrate the functionality of the turning bay in the front parking area, and also provide for a turning bay in the rear parking area.

Refer to relevant recommended conditions of consent.

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the development site has an existing 20mm metered water service. Final water service sizing will need to be determined by a hydraulic consultant to suit the domestic and commercial components of the development, as well as fire service and backflow protection requirements in accordance with AS3500. Minimum backflow protection for a medical centre is a Reduced Pressure Zone Device (RPZ) at the boundary.

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

Refer to relevant recommended conditions of consent.

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site is connected to Sewer via junction to the existing sewer manhole in the south eastern corner of the development site. The proposed development may discharge all sewage to the existing point of connection to Council’s sewer system. No additional loads are to be imposed on the existing sewer main, which runs inside the southern property boundary.

Refer to relevant recommended conditions of consent.

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the rear of the property and is currently un-serviced via the public piped drainage system.

The legal point of discharge for the proposed development is defined as either:

· a suitably sized transpiration pit, which can be demonstrated to effectively accommodate the runoff generated by the site; or

· a direct connection to Council’s stormwater pit/pipeline, which would involve an extension of the existing network within Lake Road.

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

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

· On site stormwater detention facilities to limit site stormwater discharge to pre development flow rates for all storm events up to and including the 100 year ARI event. Note that pre development discharge shall be calculated assuming that the site is a ‘greenfield’ development site as per AUSPEC requirements.

Refer to relevant recommended conditions of consent.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

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

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

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

Soils

The proposed development is 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 are unlikely to result in any adverse impacts on the existing air quality or result in any pollution. Standard precautionary site management condition recommended.

Flora and fauna

The Biodiversity Offset Scheme doesn’t apply for the following reasons:

· The land isn’t identified on the Biodiversity Values Map;

· The extent of clearing is below the thresholds in Clause 7.2 of the Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017;

· The application of test of significance (5 part test) demonstrates that the development will not have a significant impact on biodiversity values.

Waste

Adequate area is available at the rear of the site for storage of waste bins out of public view. The Applicant has indicated that they intend to use Council’s kerbside waste collection service for the development. If waste volumes increase in the future a private waste service will be required.

Medical/clinical waste shall be removed from the site by an approved waste contractor for disposal at an appropriately licenced facility and a condition is recommended confirming this requirement.

Standard precautionary site management condition recommended for construction activities.

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 and vibration

The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects indicates that the proposed hours of operation for the medical centre would be 7.00am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday, and 9.00am to 12.00pm Saturdays. The application has not been supported by a noise impact assessment.

Given the nature and location of the proposed development, it is considered that noise impacts can be adequately managed through restriction of hours of operation and fencing adjacent to parking and circulation areas. It is noted that the site adjoins Lake Road and has relatively high background noise levels.

A condition has been recommended requiring provision of 1.8m high solid boundary fencing to the eastern and western sides of the parking area and internal access roads prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

As the site is located in a low density residential context and noting significant concerns regarding noise impacts have been raised by nearby residents, it is recommended that the hours of operation be further restricted to 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday and 9.00am to 12.00pm Saturdays.

A condition is recommended restricting construction to standard construction hours.

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

In accordance with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, construction to the Deemed to Satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia is an acceptable construction solution for Class 5 to 8 buildings. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the aims and objectives of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 as it provides adequate road access, water supply, and utility services, and a defendable space around the perimeter of the building.

Safety, security and crime prevention

Social impacts in the locality

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

Economic impact in the locality

No adverse impacts expected. 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. Ongoing employment opportunities would also have an economic benefit.

Site design and internal design

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

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

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
The proposal is inconsistent with the character of the area.	It is noted that the proposed use is different to the established residential uses in the locality. However, a variety of land uses are permitted in the R2 Low Density Residential zone that are considered capable of being compatible with each other.
The site is large and it is of concern that the business my expand in the future.	Any future expansion would be subject to a separate application.
The site access is located on a blind corner and is not safe for the additional traffic.	The parking layout provides for vehicles to enter and exit the site driving forwards and the driveway location has safe sight distance in both directions.
The proposal does not adequately cater for service vehicles.	The applicant has indicated that the site is not expected to be serviced by a vehicle larger than a commercial van, which would be capable of utilising the parking spaces. Waste collection is proposed via Council’s kerbside collection service.
If the application is approved, hours should be restricted to 9.00am to 4.00pm Monday to Friday, with a maximum of 1-2 consultants. This would be more compatible with the residential environment.	More restrictive hours than those proposed by the Applicant have been recommended in the conditions of consent. It is not considered that there is sufficient grounds to further restrict the hours of operation or consultant numbers to those suggested.
The development would result in an increased generation of waste, which will result in amenity and environmental issues.	Waste from the proposed development is expected to be within the capacity of the existing waste service and the site has sufficient area for waste to be stored out of public view between collections. Medical waste will need to be collected by an appropriately licenced contractor.
Illumination of signage should not be permitted in a residential area.	The submitted plans have been amended to remove illumination from the signage.
Concern that the estate will turn into another medical precinct similar to Highfields Circuit and the area surrounding the Port Macquarie Private Hospital.	Given that medical centres are permissible in the R2 zone under State legislation, this possibility cannot be ruled out. However, the current examples of clustering of medical uses in Port Macquarie appear to be driven by proximity to the Base Hospital and Private Hospital. There are a number of examples of isolated medical uses in residential areas that have not resulted in similar clustering.
Vehicles parking on both sides of the road would result in a single traffic lane at a blind corner where it is difficult to see a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction.	Parking is already possible on both sides of the street as there are no parking restrictions in place. The proposed development provides off-street parking consistent with the DCP requirements and it cannot be assumed that the development would have a significant impact on street parking.
The poor layout of the proposed car park will result in people parking in the street rather than on the site.	The parking layout has been improved and the public component of the parking area is capable of complying with AS2890.
Patients of the service are likely to suffer from a range of mental health and behavioural issues. Erratic and aggressive behaviour, and inappropriate language would have adverse social impacts on nearby residents.	Considering the separation distance and recommended fencing, it is not considered that there is significant potential for such impacts.
Information provided by the proponent prior to lodging the application was misleading.	Noted.
The Applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects has not adequately considered the likely noise impacts of the development.	Noted. The staff assessment has considered the likely noise impacts and recommended conditions accordingly.
If the development is approved, would there be a need to get further approval for future changes to the activities?	If the development is granted consent, it would be necessary to either modify the consent or lodge a new application for any future expansion, change of the approved use, and changes to conditions of consent.
The Applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects has not characterised the development for the purpose of determining whether it is a permissible land use in the R2 zone Land Use Table.	The proposed use has not been clearly characterised in the Statement of Environmental Effects, but the use is considered to be best defined as a medical centre. *medical centre* means premises that are used for the purpose of providing health services (including preventative care, diagnosis, medical or surgical treatment, counselling or alternative therapies) to out-patients only, where such services are principally provided by health care professionals. It may include the ancillary provision of other health services. As noted earlier in this report, medical centres are prohibited in the R2 zone under the LEP Land Use Table, but are permitted with consent under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.
The application does not include any detailed assessment of the expected traffic impacts from the development.	A Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) has subsequently been submitted by the Applicant. The TIA was included in the re-notification of the proposal.
Community consultation was not carried out by the Applicant prior to lodging the application.	While Council encourages proponents to carry out their own community consultation prior to lodging an application, it is not a statutory requirement for a development of this nature.
There is no established need for the facility in the location proposed. An existing medical centre if available in Jindalee Road within a 5 minute walk for residents in the estate.	The need for the facility and its likely viability are not matters for consideration in the assessment of the application. It is noted that there are a broad range of medical disciplines, and it is generally not possible to provide all relevant services in a single location.
Siren Road was designed and built as a residential road. The width of the road does not for an increased volume of traffic. Two way traffic flow would be restricted if vehicles park in the street at the front of the site.	Siren Road has a 7.5m wide road pavement within a 19m road reserve and is classified under Auspec as a local street. Local streets are designed to accommodate up to 2000 vehicles per day, and the proposed development is well within the design capacity of the road. Parking of vehicles in residential streets provides natural traffic calming and reduces vehicle speeds.
The proposed one-way driveway is inadequate for the development and does not comply with AS 2890.2.	The driveway has been widened to 6.0m wide between the front car park and Siren Road to provide for two-way traffic flow. The single width (and non-compliant) part of the driveway to the eastern side of the building is limited in length and considered suitable for its intended use, as discussed earlier in this report.
The extent of Council’s notification was inadequate as the broader estate will be impacted by the proposal.	The extent of notification is considered to be consistent with the DCP requirements.
The stated number of deliveries to the facility is extremely underestimated.	Noted. The staff assessment of traffic impacts has not relied on the Applicant’s statement in this regard.
Good town planning should encourage developments of similar nature to concentrate in selected areas and not spread throughout established residential estates.	The planning controls provide for a range of compatible land uses in each zone. State legislation considers that health services facilities (including medical centres) are capable of being compatible with residential land uses.
Proposal will result in destruction of Koala habitat. The submitted plans do not show all existing trees on the site.	The plans have been amended to clearly identify all vegetation proposed to be removed for the development. No Koala food trees are proposed to be removed.
Loss of property value for nearby properties.	This is not a relevant matter for consideration in the assessment of the application.
Loss of neighbourhood connections and sense of community.	The hours of operation are generally outside the key times where social interactions in the community would be expected to occur (before and after work, and on weekends). The proposal would not sever any existing pedestrian or vehicular connections through the estate.
Excavation in the north-west corner of the site could affect the stability of boundary fencing and affect the health of the street tree.	The proposed excavation is outside the Tree Protection Zone of the street tree. A condition has been recommended requiring engineering certification of the proposed retaining wall to ensure that there is no impact on the stability of neighbouring property. The existing fence will be required to be replaced with a 1.8m high fence to manage acoustic and visual privacy impacts of the development.
The proposal is inconsistent with title restrictions registered on the land under DP 264025, which restrict development to a single dwelling only, except with the consent of Midway Marine Pty Ltd. The application does not include the required consent to release or vary the restriction.	In accordance with Clause 1.9A of the LEP any agreement, covenant or other similar instrument that restricts the carrying out of that development does not apply to the extent necessary to allow development to be carried out in accordance the Plan. The consent authority therefore doesn’t need to consider this restriction in making a decision on the application.
Loss of privacy to adjoining properties.	Conditions have been recommended requiring appropriate fencing adjacent to the parking areas and internal access to manage potential privacy impacts.
Inadequate amount of off-street parking. Medical practitioners often have multiple patients waiting at a time.	The proposal satisfies the DCP requirements for parking and the consent authority cannot impose a more onerous requirement.
The permeable surface for the rear parking area is not suitable for the proposed use.	Agreed. A condition has been recommended requiring a sealed surface for the rear parking area.
Medical centres should be located where there is a regular bus service to alleviate parking demand.	Given the nature of the medical services proposed, it is not expected that there would be a high utilisation of public transport even if a regular service was available.
Don’t want medical waste stored in the area. Concern about smell, vandalism, and needles on the ground.	Medical waste is proposed to be stored in a secure area in the building and collected by a licenced contractor.
The Applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects includes numerous examples of false or misleading information.	The likely impacts of the development have been carefully considered by staff, including aspects of the development that the Applicant stated that there would be no impact.
The submitted traffic assessment significantly underestimates the volume of traffic likely to be generated by the development. The report estimates that the number of visits to the site will equate to between 9 and 12 visits to the site per day (1.8 to 2.5 visits to each consultant per day). Based on 1 hour appointment times, there is expected to be approximately 50 visits to the site each day. The traffic impacts could be even greater if there are shorter appointment times or independent use of the gym.	Staff have considered the traffic generation for the development to be approximately 100 daily trips on weekdays, and made recommendations accordingly. The gym will not be permitted to operate independently of the medical centre, and therefore would not be anticipated to generate any additional traffic.
The design and layout of the car park does not comply with AS2890. Aisle widths are too narrow and some parking spaces require reversing manoeuvres and/or three point turns.	See comments under Parking and Manoeuvring earlier in this report demonstrating acceptability of the proposal.
Given the nature of the proposed use, it is expected that patients will include a high proportion of children with disabilities. The single accessible parking spaces proposed will be inadequate and lead to people parking off-site.	The proposal provides accessible car parking consistent with the minimum ratio specified in D3.5 of the National Construction Code. While additional accessible spaces can be encouraged given the nature of the use, it is not considered that the consent authority could require this.
The proposal is out of character with the established landscaped front setbacks in the locality and the visual impact on the streetscape is unacceptable. A minimum 2m wide landscaped buffer between the parking area and the front boundary should be provided.	The existing development in the locality includes a range of different landscape treatments to the front setback area. The majority of properties on the southern side of Siren Road have grassed front yards with limited landscaping and some mature trees (generally located in the road reserve). Other properties in the locality have more substantial landscaping. The overall character of the estate is defined by the retained mature native trees. The proposal involves construction of a parking area forward of the building line and landscaping is required to soften the visual impact of the hard stand area and integrate the development into the streetscape. The parking area forward of the building is proposed to be provided with a landscaped strip having a width of between 600mm and 850mm. This is considered appropriate to accommodate landscaping which will effectively soften the visual impact of the parking area in the streetscape. The parking area will be excavated up the 1.2m below existing ground level adjacent to the western boundary, which will also assist in screening the parking area. Having regard to the many concerns in the submissions regarding the potential impacts of vehicles parking in the street in the site frontage, it is not recommended that dense landscaping screen the parking area entirely from view. Patients are more likely to use the off-street parking is they can see that it is available.
The application includes very limited information in relation to the proposed use of the ‘gym’ shown on the plans. Depending on the proposed use, the gym there could be implications for traffic generation, parking and the permissibility of the development.	The gym is proposed to be used for physiotherapy and occupational therapy, which are part of the proposed medical centre use. A condition is recommended confirming that the gym cannot to operated independently.
The proposal would be better co-located with other medical services.	The benefits of co-location are a matter for the proponent to consider in their site selection. There is no planning requirement for medical services to be provided in clusters.
Concerned about comments in the traffic assessment that the intersection of Siren Road and Fernhill Road does not conform with standards.	A condition has been recommended requiring the intersection of Fernhill Road and Siren Road to be upgraded to provide a channelised right turn treatment into Siren Road.
The traffic assessment does not consider the impacts of the development on properties to the west of the site.	With the exception of any local residents to the west of the site using the service, all traffic will come from the east via Fernhill Road. The parking area provides for vehicles to turn around and exit the site driving forwards. It is considered that there is limited potential for vehicles to miss the site and continue driving west. No significant traffic impacts are expected west of the site.
Lack of street lighting in the locality will result in vehicles potentially colliding with pedestrians after hours.	The recommended hours of operation for the proposal would result in the use generally operating during daylight hours. There may be a short period during winter where the staff would exit the site at 5.00pm while it is dark. There is not considered to be justification to warrant any improvements to existing street lighting.
The estate has characteristics that make it unsuitable for future conversion to a commercial area.	Noted. The proposal relates to a permissible use under the current zoning. The estate is outside the Health and Education Precinct investigation area identified in Council’s Urban Growth Management Strategy, and is not identified for future investigation for commercial zoning.
The site is in a bushfire prone area and would be a hazard to clients of the centre.	Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006 has been considered earlier in this assessment.
The traffic surveys for the existing business were carried out over a period including school holidays and a number of public holidays and are misleading in relation to real traffic volumes.	Refer to assessment comments earlier in this report, including consideration that higher traffic generation rates are anticipated.
The provision of convex mirrors will be inadequate to ensure safety of the access to the staff car park.	The proposed treatment is considered satisfactory for the low volume of traffic movements to and from the rear car park. As the parking area is for staff only, it is expected that vehicles would generally be travelling in the same direction (arriving in the morning and leaving at close of business) and there is limited potential for traffic conflicts. Appropriate signage and a give way treatment have been recommended for the access road.
There is only one way in and out of the estate in an emergency.	This is an existing situation and the risk would not be significantly increased by the proposal.
The proposed 1.2m x 1.2m sign at the site frontage would restrict sight distance for exiting vehicles.	The proposed sign would not affect sight distance to vehicles in the road as the driver would be beyond the sign prior to entering Siren Road. To improve pedestrian safety, a condition is recommended requiring the sign to be a minimum of 900mm from the edge of the driveway. This would achieve a similar outcome to the splay requirements for front fences.
The increased hours of operation proposed in the amended Statement of Environmental Effects are not considered acceptable for a residential area.	Agreed. A condition has been recommended restricting hours of operation to what staff consider acceptable for a residential area.

(e) The Public Interest

The proposed development satisfies the objectives of the relevant planning controls and will not adversely impact on the wider public interest.

4. 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. DA2019 - 200.1 Recommended DA Conditions.

2 View. DA2019 - 200.1 Plans

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 25/09/2019

Item: 07

Subject: DA2019 - 422.1 Medical Centre at Lot 3 DP827711, Cnr of Botanic Drive and Sirius Drive, Lakewood.

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Steven Ford

Applicant: Encompass Drafting

Owner: CDM Futures Pty Ltd

Estimated Cost: $1,280,000

Parcel no: 22371

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2019 - 422.1 for a Medical Centre at Lot 3, DP 827711, Cnr of Botanic Drive and Sirius Drive, Lakewood, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a Medical 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 was received.

The proposal has been amended during the assessment of the application.

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

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 2870m².

The site is zoned B2 Local Centre 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:

· Subject land is currently vacant

· Proposed development is for a Medical Centre

· Unit 1 proposes 9 consultation rooms and 5 treatment rooms shared between 9 consultants

· Unit 2 and 3 proposes a Radiology and X-ray with 3 consultants.

· Access will be via 2 one-way driveways entering from Sirius Dr and exiting at Botanic Dr, as well as maintaining pedestrian links.

Refer to attachments at the end of this report for further details.

Application Chronology

· 15 May 2019 Pre-lodgement Meeting

· 14 June 2019 Application Lodged

· 25 June 2019 to 08 July 2019 Public Notification

· 27 June 2019 Submission received

· 08 August 2019 Traffic Impact Assessment, Engineering Plans and Subdivision Plans submitted

· 12 August 2019 Additional information received from Applicant - regarding assessment and submission concerns

· 14 August 2019 Site inspection

· 19 August 2019 Additional information and 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

The policy does not apply. The land is less than 1 hectare in size and not subject to a Koala Plan of Management (KPoM).

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. 64 – Advertising and Signage

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

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).	Building identification signage only which addressed Schedule 1 criteria	Yes
Schedule 1(1) Character of the area.	Business identification signage is consist with the B2 Local Centre zoning.	Yes
Schedule 1(2) Special areas.	Proposed signage will not detract from the adjoining developments amenity	Yes
Schedule 1(3) Views and vistas.	Will not impact any views	Yes
Schedule 1(4) Streetscape, setting or landscape.	The proposed signage is appropriate for this type of development.	Yes
Schedule 1(5) Site and building.	The proposed signage is appropriate scale to the proposed building.	Yes
Schedule 1(6) Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures.	N/A	Yes
Schedule 1(7) Illumination.	Appropriate illumination of signage will be conditioned to opening hours as well as avoidance of unacceptable glare/intensity.	Yes
Schedule 1(7) Safety.	No adverse safety impacts apparent	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 clauses 13 and 14 of the SEPP 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 impact on marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms;

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

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

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

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

h) overshadowing, wind funneling and the loss of views from public places to foreshores;

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

In accordance with Clause 15, the proposal is not likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on the land or other land.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Clause 57(1) - Health services facilities are permitted with consent by any person as the land is in a prescribed zone.

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 B2 Local Centre.

· Clause 2.3(1) and the B2 zone landuse table The proposed development for a medical centre is a permissible landuse with consent.

· The objectives of the B2 zone are as follows:

o To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area

o To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations

o To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling

o To ensure that new developments make a positive contribution to the streetscape and contribute to a safe public environment.

· 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 Provides community services and local employment opportunities

· Clause 4.3 - The maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 5.3m, which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5m applying to the site.

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

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

(ii) Any proposed instrument that is or has been placed on exhibition

No draft instruments apply to the site.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan (DCP) in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

*DCP 2013: General Provisions*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
2.2.2.1	Signs primarily identifying products or services are not acceptable, even where relating to products or services available on that site.	Proposal includes business identification signs associated with the proposed buildings.	Yes
	Signage is not permitted outside property boundaries except where mounted upon buildings and clear of pedestrians and road traffic. No signage is permitted upon light or power poles or upon the nature strip (the area between the property boundary and constructed roadway). Limited directional signage and “A” frame signage may separately be approved by Council under the Roads Act 1993 or section 68 of the Local government Act 1993.	None proposed outside property boundary.	Yes
	An on-building 'chalkboard' sign, for the purpose of describing services or goods for sale which vary on a regular basis generally should not be any larger than 1.5m2, and should contain a sign written heading indicating the premises to which it refers.	N/A	N/A
	On-premise signs should not project above or to the side of building facades	Signage does not project above or to the sides of the building.	Yes
2.2.2.2	Where there is potential for light spill from signage in a non residential zone adjoining or adjacent to residential development, illuminated signage is to be fitted with a time switch to dim by 50% or turn off the light by 11pm each night, depending on the nature of the development.	No information has been provided regarding illumination controls. Providing the design and separation from the proposed building to adjoining dwellings there are no adverse impacts apparent. However, for clarity a condition has been recommended regarding illumination for all signage.	Yes
2.7.2.2	Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline: · Casual surveillance and sightlines · Land use mix and activity generators · Definition of use and ownership · Lighting · Way finding · Predictable routes and entrapment locations	The proposed development is unlikely to create any concealment/entrapment areas or crime spots that would result in any identifiable loss of safety or reduction of security in the immediate area.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	Less than 1m cut or fill proposed.	Yes
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontages	None proposed at 1m.	N/A
	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structural engineer	A condition has been recommended regarding the maximum height of retaining wall.	Yes
	Combination of retaining wall and front fence height	N/A	N/A
2.3.3.8 onwards	Removal of hollow bearing trees	No hollow bearing trees present on the site.	Yes
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100mm diameter trunk and 3m outside dwelling footprint	9 trees to be removed from the proposed entry driveway. No significant trees identified, appropriate condition has been recommended to have a qualified arborist onsite during tree clearing works.	Yes
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.2	New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads. Existing accesses rationalised or removed where practical	Proposed driveways are rationalised. See Traffic Impact Assessment.	Yes
2.5.3.2	Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking	2 one-way driveways are proposed. Considering the size of the site and frontage, impacts on the street parking are limited.	Yes
2.5.3.3	Off-street parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1. Medical centres = 3 spaces per consultant + 1 per 2 employees	The proposed medical centre is to include 9 consultants and 6 employees, which requires 30 parking spaces in accordance with Table 2.5.1. The X-Ray tenancy will have 3 consultants and 3 admin staff, requiring 10.5 parking spaces in accordance with Table 2.5.1. Minimum number of 41 parking spaces required. 42 parking spaces are proposed inclusive of a disabled space. A condition is recommended limiting the number of practicing consultants and staff to reflect the available parking. Stage 2 of the development proposes formalising the easement along the western boundary to have 17 additional car parking spaces benefitting the adjoining Lakewood Shops.	Yes
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report.

(iii) Any planning agreement or draft planning agreement

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

(iv) The regulations

n/a

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

Context and Setting

The site has a general north-east street frontage orientation to Botanic and Sirius Drives.

Adjoining the site to the north are residential dwellings.

Adjoining the site to the east are residential dwellings.

Adjoining the site to the south is a service station.

Adjoining the site to the west is a shopping centre and loading bays.

The proposal is not anticipated to have any significant adverse impacts on existing adjoining properties and satisfactorily addresses the public domain.

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

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

The proposal would not have significant adverse lighting impacts however a condition of consent is recommended to ensure impacts are minimised.

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

There would be no significant 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 between the hours of 9am and 3pm.

Roads

The site has road frontage to Sirius and Botanic Drive. Adjacent to the site, Sirius and Botanic Drive are a sealed public road under the care and control of Council. Both roads are Local roads and includes kerb and gutter, footpath paving/shareways.

Traffic and Transport

The additional traffic associated with the development is unlikely to have any adverse impacts on the existing road network within the immediate locality. Council’s development engineering staff have reviewed the application and are satisfied with the finding of the supporting Traffic Impact Statement prepared by StreetWise Road Safety & Traffic Pty Ltd, July 2019.

Site Frontage and Access

Vehicle access to the site is proposed though two (one way) driveways entering at Sirius Drive and exiting on Botanic Drive. A Traffic Impact Assessment was provided. The assessment has determined that Ocean Drive, Sirius Drive and the local road network has the capacity to cater for the current volumes and future traffic volumes generated by the proposed development, with regard to safety, efficiency and with minimal delays and queues. All accesses shall comply with Council AUSPEC and Australian Standards, and conditions have been recommended to reflect these requirements.

Parking and Manoeuvring

A total of 42 parking 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.

Note: Stage 2 will formalise additional 17 car parking spaces over the eastern right of carriageway easement once negotiations with adjoining landowner has been finalised. This is additional car parking to service adjoining developments and is not critical to this assessment, however, is a positive outcome for resolving any potential existing parking issues.

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the development site is not currently serviced with water. Final water service sizing will need to be determined by a hydraulic consultant to suit the domestic and commercial components of the development, as well as fire service and backflow protection requirements in accordance with AS3500. Minimum backflow protection for a medical centre is a Reduced Pressure Zone Device (RPZ) at the boundary. Plans shall be provided to the Water & Sewer Section for approval. Conditions are recommended to ensure that these requirements are met.

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site is connected to Sewer via junction to the existing sewer main which runs inside of the western boundary of the development site. The proposed development is required to discharge all sewage to a new or proposed sewer manhole. Any abandoned sewer junctions are to be capped off at Council’s sewer main and Council notified to carry out an inspection prior to backfilling of this work. Plans shall be provided to the Water and Sewer Section for approval. Appropriate conditions have been recommended in this regard.

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the Botanic Drive street frontage and is currently serviced via a direct connection to the public piped drainage system.

The legal point of discharge for the proposed development is defined as a direct connection to Council’s existing piped stormwater system at northern corner of the site.

Stormwater from the proposed development is planned to be disposed via direct connection to an existing pit along the Botanic Drive frontage. Which is consistent with the above requirements.

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

· Water quality

Appropriate conditions have been recommended in this regard.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

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

As a precaution, a condition of consent has been recommended that works are to cease in the unexpected event heritage items are found. Works can only recommence when appropriate approvals are obtained for management and/or removal of the heritage item.

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 not have any significant adverse impacts on water resources and the water cycle.

Soils

The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on soils in terms of quality, erosion, stability and/or productivity subject to compliance with the recommended 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 not result in any significant adverse impacts on the existing air quality or result in any pollution. Standard precautionary site management condition is recommended.

Flora and fauna

The proposed development includes clearing of 9 trees. The Biodiversity Offset Scheme doesn’t apply for the following reasons:

· Given the location of the site in an established urban environment, and the nature of the proposal being acceptable by SEPP, LEP and DCP standards, the removal of the trees and their offset to a more suitable location was considered acceptable.

· The land isn’t identified on the Biodiversity Values Map;

· The extent of clearing is below the thresholds in Clause 7.2 of the Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017.

Minimum lot size of land (LEP Lot Size Map)	Area of Clearing
Less than 1 hectare	0.25 hectare or more

Waste

Satisfactory arrangements are in place for proposed storage and collection of waste and recyclables. No adverse impacts anticipated. Standard precautionary site management condition has been 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 and vibration

Any development of vacant land will increase noise and vibration. The construction and/or operations of the proposed development will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the existing air quality or result in any pollution providing the land zoning and potential demand. Standard precautionary site management condition recommended. Hours of operation conditions have been recommended to 8am to 7pm Monday to Saturday.

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone. The proposal includes no residential component and is not identified as a special fire protection purpose. The aims and objectives of the RFS Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 guidelines are satisfied.

Safety, security and crime prevention

Social impacts in the locality

Given the nature of the proposed development and its location, the proposal is not considered to have any significant adverse social impacts.

Economic impact in the locality

The proposal is not considered to have any significant adverse economic impacts on the locality. A likely positive impact is that the development will maintain employment in the construction industry, local employment and specialist medical services to the local area.

Site design and internal design

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

Construction

Construction impacts are considered capable of being managed, standard construction and site management conditions have been recommended.

Cumulative impacts

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

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

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

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

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

One written submission was received following public exhibition of the application.

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comment/Response
Traffic issues; there has been numerous near misses and accidents at the Woolworths entry and the Ocean Drive/Sirius Drive intersection, due to the already increased traffic volume from Woolworths & looking at the plans for the Proposed Development, it is only going to worsen.	The Applicant has provided a Traffic Impact Assessment for the proposal, which is attached to this report. The report suggests that increased traffic will not have adverse impacts to Sirius and Botanic Drive, and considers the impact on road safety as a low risk. The report confirms that Ocean Drive, Sirius Drive and Botanic Drive are adequate to cater for the future traffic volumes proposed by this development regarding safety, efficiency and queuing. The details submitted are considered acceptable.
There are already issues with speeding vehicles in Botanic Drive/Sirius Drive.	Noted. It is not anticipated that the proposed development will adversely impact existing traffic issues within the vicinity.
There is a Bus Stop adjacent to the proposed Sirius Drive entry where at school drop offs & pickups one lane of Sirius Drive is virtually blocked by the bus, with schoolchildren everywhere.	The proposed entry driveway will be approximately 20m from the existing bus stop. The Traffic Impact Assessment identifies that there may be some sight distance issues when buses are picking up or dropping off passengers but given the small number of bus trips per day, the potential for conflict is low. To further mitigate this, the driveway off Sirius Drive will be an entry only and not allow traffic to exit at this driveway and not turn right.
Botanic Drive entrance, plans indicate that this will be a dual entry for the Medical Centre and Woolworths, Botanic Drive is fully residential housing area, children & elderly residents have been nearly ran over by vehicles using the existing entry (Cars/Trucks exiting this one way only entry) to which the Council ensured residents it would only be used for entry and was noted on the Woolworths Development Application. (No Council enforcement of this, even though complaints have been made)	The proposed Botanic Drive driveway is an exit only. This is proposed to be conditioned to be delineated by appropriate signage and line marking. The traffic impact assessment suggests that the road network is capable of supporting the proposed development and both access points have adequate sight distance available.
Increased vehicle noise to residential area, operating 12 hours a day, 7 days a week.	The subject site is zoned B2 - Local Centre, and Medical Centres are a permissible use in the zone. Vehicle traffic will increase with any appropriate level of development within this zoning. The anticipate demand will not adversely impact the efficiency or safety of the local road network. An appropriate condition regarding noise is recommended including restricting hours of operation.

(e) The Public Interest

The proposed development satisfies relevant planning controls and will not adversely 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 7.12 contributions 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. DA2019 - 422.1 Recommended Conditions.

2 View. DA2019 - 422.1 Plans.

3 View. DA2019 - 422.1 Engineering Plans

4 View. DA2019 - 422.1 Proposed Strata Subdivision Plan

5 View. DA2019 - 422.1 Traffic Impact Assessment

6 View. DA2019 - 422.1 Contributions Quote

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 25/09/2019

Item: 08

Subject: DA2019 - 440.1 - Dwelling at Lot 613 DP 1228345, No. 30 Richwood Ridge, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Steven Ford

Applicant: Pycon Homes & Construction Pty Ltd

Owner: P F & C C Mare

Estimated Cost: $430,000

Parcel no: 66267

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2019 - 440.1 for a single dwelling at Lot 613, DP 1228345, No. 30 Richwood Ridge, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a Single Dwelling 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, 3 submissions have been received.

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

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 600.3m².

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:

· DA originally proposed a Dwelling, swimming pool and maximum 1.25m retaining wall above the existing retaining wall along the north-west corner boundaries.

· Applicant has deleted the swimming pool and proposed north-east retaining walls

· DA is only for a single dwelling

Refer to attachments at the end of this report for details.

Application Chronology

· 24 June 2019 - Application Lodged

· 27 June 2019 to 10/07/2019 - Public Notification with 3 submissions received

· 16 July 2019 - Request for Information sent to Applicant (Assessment and Submission issues)

· 14 August 2019 - Revised plans and response received from Applicant. (deleted proposed swimming pool and lowered proposed retaining walls)

· 25 August 2019 - Objection to revised plans received

· 05 September 2019 - Revised Plans received by Applicant. (deletion of proposed retaining walls to along north-east boundary)

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 (Coastal Management) 2018

The site is located within a proximity to a coastal wetland to the west.

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 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 impact on marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms;

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bulk, scale and size of the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding coastal and built environment. The site is cleared and located within an area zoned for residential purposes.

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

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.

· Clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table - A dwelling is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

o To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

· Clause 2.3(2) - The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives as it is a permissible landuse and consistent with the established residential locality. The proposal contributes to the range of housing options in the locality.

· Clause 4.3 - The maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is approximately 6.2 m which complies with the standard height limit of 8.5 m applying to the site.

· Clause 4.4 - The floor space ratio of 0.45:1 for the proposal complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

(ii) Any proposed instrument that is or has been placed on exhibition

No draft instruments apply to the site.

(iii) Any Development Control Plan (DCP) 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 tank along southern boundary location is behind the building line and is acceptable.	Yes
3.2.2.2	Articulation zone: • Min. 3m front setback • An entry feature or portico • A balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or verandah • A window box treatment • A bay window or similar feature • An awning or other feature over a window • A sun shading feature	The dwelling contains a portico in front of the building line. The portico does not exceed 25% of the articulation zone and is setback over 3.6m from the front boundary. This is consistent with other dwellings within the vicinity.	Yes
3.2.2.2	Front setback (Residential not R5 zone): • Min. 6.0m classified road • Min. 4.5m local road • Min. 3.0m secondary road • Min. 2.0m Laneway	Front building line setback is 4.97m , which is compliant with the minimum 4.5m front setback requirements.	Yes
3.2.2.3	Garage 5.5m min. and 1m behind front façade. Garage door recessed behind building line or eaves/overhangs provided	Garage door setback is 5.56m and behind the front building line. Garage door recessed.	Yes
	6m max. width of garage door/s and 50% max. width of building	Width of garage door are compliant with the maximum width requirements	Yes
	Driveway crossover 1/3 max. of site frontage and max. 5.0m width	Driveway crossing width are compliant with the maximum width requirements	Yes
3.2.2.4	4m min. rear setback. Variation subject to site analysis and provision of private open space	Minimum 5.55m rear setback. The rear setback requirements are complied with.	Yes
3.2.2.5	Side setbacks: • Ground floor = min. 0.9m • First floors & above = min. 3m setback or where it can be demonstrated that overshadowing not adverse = 0.9m min. • Building wall set in and out every 12m by 0.5m	The minimum side setback requirements are complied with a minimum 1.2m to the south and minimum 1.5m side setback to the northern boundary. The building wall articulation is compliant and satisfactory to address the objective intent of the development provision.	Yes
3.2.2.6	35m2 min. private open space area including a useable 4x4m min. area which has 5% max. grade	The dwelling contains a total of 170m²with >35m² open space in the one location including a useable 4m x 4m space.	Yes
3.2.2.7	Front fences: • If solid 1.2m max height and front setback 1.0m with landscaping • 3x3m min. splay for corner sites • Fences >1.2m to be 1.8m max. height for 50% or 6.0m max. length of street frontage with 25% openings • 0.9x0.9m splays adjoining driveway entrances	No fences proposed	N/A
3.2.2.8	Front fences and walls to have complimentary materials to context No chain wire, solid timber, masonry or solid steel front fences	N/A
3.2.2.10	Privacy: • Direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings screened when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. ie. 1.8m fence or privacy screening which has 25% max. openings and is permanently fixed • Privacy screen required if floor level > 1m height, window side/rear setback (other than bedroom) is less than 3m and sill height less than 1.5m • Privacy screens provided to balconies/verandahs etc which have <3m side/rear setback and floor level height >1m	No direct views between living areas of adjacent dwellings. Direct views are adequately screened or obscured when within 9m radius of any part of window of adjacent dwelling and within 12m of private open space areas of adjacent dwellings. Proposed primary living areas do not directly adjoin or overlook existing living areas. No privacy screens are recommended. Boundary fencing will provide adequate screening and privacy.	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	Proposed fill greater than 1m has been deleted from plans. No cut and fill greater than 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	Proposed retaining walls over 1m have been removed from the proposed plans. No retaining wall greater than 1 m proposed.	Yes
	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structure engineer	No retaining wall proposed greater than 1m.	N/A
	Combination of retaining wall and front fence height max 1.8m, max length 6.0m or 30% of frontage, fence component 25% transparent, and splay at corners and adjacent to driveway	No retaining wall front fence combination proposed.	N/A
2.3.3.8	Removal of hollow bearing trees	No trees proposed to be removed	N/A
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100m diameter trunk at 1m above ground level and 3m from external wall of existing dwelling)	No trees proposed to be removed	N/A
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.2	New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads	No new access proposed to arterial or distribution road.	N/A
2.5.3.2	Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking	Driveway crossing is 5m and will not impact available street parking	Yes
2.5.3.3	Parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1. 1 space per single dwelling (behind building line)	Capacity for more than 1 parking space behind the building line has been provided for.	Yes
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report.	N/A
2.5.3.12 and 2.5.3.13	Landscaping of parking areas	Single dwelling only with 1 domestic driveway. No specific landscaping requirements recommended.	N/A
2.5.3.14	Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified	Sealed driveway 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.	Single dwelling only with 1 domestic driveway. Stormwater drainage is capable of being managed as part of plumbing construction.	Yes

Based on the above assessment, cumulatively, there are no adverse impacts or a significance that would justify refusal of the application.

(iii) Any planning agreement or draft planning agreement

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

(iv) The Regulation

Nil

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

Context and Setting

The proposal will not have any significant adverse impacts on existing adjoining properties and satisfactorily addresses the public domain.

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

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

The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

There are no significant adverse privacy impacts.

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

Access, Traffic and Transport

The proposal will not have any significant adverse impacts in terms access, transport and traffic. The existing road network will satisfactorily cater for any increase in traffic generation as a result of the development.

Water Supply Connection

Service available – details required with S.68 application. Appropriate condition recommended.

Sewer Connection

Service available – details required with S.68 application. Appropriate condition recommended.

Stormwater

Proposed impacts of stormwater for the development can be managed, with roof water and landscaping diverted to either onsite water tanks or stormwater drainage.

Service available – details required with S.68 application. Appropriate condition recommended.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

This site does not contain or adjoin any known heritage item or site of significance. The site is considered to be disturbed land.

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 not have any significant adverse impacts on water resources and the water cycle.

Soils

The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on soils in terms of quality, erosion, stability and/or productivity subject to a recommended standard condition requiring erosion and sediment controls to be in place prior to and during construction.

Air and microclimate

Flora and fauna

Construction of the proposed development will not require any removal/clearing of any native vegetation and therefore does not trigger the biodiversity offsets scheme. Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 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

The construction of the proposed development will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the existing air quality or result in any pollution. Standard precautionary site management condition recommended.

Bushfire

The site is identified as being bushfire prone.

The Applicant has submitted a bushfire report prepared by a Certified Consultant.

An assessment of bushfire risk having regard to section 4.3.5 of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 including vegetation classification and slope concludes that a Bushfire Attack Level 12.5 shall be required.

Management of bushfire risk is acceptable subject to BAL construction levels being implemented and APZ being maintained. An appropriate condition is recommended.

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 the dwelling overlooking common and private areas.

Social impacts in the locality

Given the nature of the proposed development and its location the proposal is not considered to have any significant adverse social impacts.

Economic impact in the locality

The proposal is not considered to have any significant adverse economic impacts on the locality. 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.

Construction

Construction impacts are considered capable of being managed, standard construction and site management conditions have been recommended.

Cumulative impacts

The proposed development is not considered to have any significant 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

Three (3) Objectors written submissions were received following public exhibition of the application and during the assessment period.

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

Submission Issue/Summary	Planning Comments/Response
Final height of dividing fence and retaining wall on the original DA plans was 3960mm, being a 1.25m retaining wall extension and 1.8m boundary fence above the existing boundary retaining wall along the north-east corner. Concerns with are overshadowing, reduction of views/natural light, structural concerns and visually prominent from adjoining properties and the streetscape.	Concerns have been acknowledged by the Applicant and revised plans submitted deleting the proposed retaining wall extensions along the rear boundary and the north west corner of the site. It is noted that the 1.8m high fence has been constructed above the existing retaining wall and will not be changed by the proposed development. A 1.8m high dividing fence above the existing retaining wall is considered reasonable as it will ensure adequate screening and privacy to adjoining properties from the developments elevated position, or adversely impact solar access to adjoining properties. Concerns regarding the north-west corner and rear boundary have been satisfied.
Excessive cut and fill, no engineering plans or consent from adjoining landowners.	Noted. Structural engineering plans are usually conditioned to be supplied before the release of the Construction Certificate. However, there is no proposed cut or fill greater than 1m shown on the latest revised plans. The cut and fill greater than 1m has been deleted from the plans. The remaining retaining wall proposed at the front of the northern boundary is maximum 600mm high and approximately 3m in length. No apparent adverse impacts other than the proximity to the boundary are anticipated. This can be resolved on engineering plans for clarity and can be conditioned as part of the consent. Concerns regarding excessive cut and fill has been satisfied by the revised plans.
The proposed development does not comply with the Contract for the Purchase and Sale of Land 2016 dated 22 December 2016 over Lot 613	Noted. Notwithstanding, the extension to the rear retaining wall has been removed and has satisfied the Developer’s concerns. This concern has been resolved.
The proponents design is not consistent with Fence Detail Plan by the Developer either in design, height or material.	Noted. This issue has been resolved by removing the proposed block retaining wall extension at the rear boundary and north-east corner, as well as, including timber building materials.
The wall of the house to the boundary is only setback 900mm to the southern boundary and contains the air conditioning unit which is loud and noisy. Concerns with overshadowing of pool at No. 32 and it requires full sun.	The proposed setback is a minimum 1.2m and stepped to 1.9m. Additionally, the proposed development is a single storey dwelling and is not elevated along the southern boundary elevation meeting the objectives of the DCP 2013 with regards to side setbacks, articulation, solar access and height controls of the LEP 2011. Therefore there does not appear to be any adverse impacts to adjoining private open space.
There is no southern elevation plan to see any plans for the perimeter fence adjoining lot 613. There is currently a 1800mm fence. Concerns if there were any plans to alter this fence in any way and object to any increase in height from the existing 1800mm.	Noted. The Applicant has confirmed that no changes to the existing southern boundary fence height are proposed.
The proposed elevation and fill at the rear of their house is significant and such that privacy to adjoining properties will be impacted and the integrity of my fence may be impacted if fill is placed over the existing fence. Occupants will effectively be able to look over into my yard and the noise will also carry over	Noted. The proposed rear fill has been removed from the revised plans. The existing boundary fence along the southern elevation will satisfactorily provide adequate screening and privacy within the context of adjoining properties and private open space.

(e) The Public Interest

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

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS APPLICABLE

Single dwelling only, therefore additional contributions do not apply.

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. DA2019 - 440.1 Plans

2 View. DA2019 - 440.1 Recommended Conditions

AGENDA Development Assessment Panel 25/09/2019

Item: 09

Subject: DA 2019 - 388.1, Boarding House at Lot 334 DP 216093, No. 14 The Jib, Port Macquarie

Report Author: Development Assessment Planner, Beau Spry

Applicant: Mr Matthew Morris & Mr Nathan Shields C/- King & Campbell Pty Ltd

Owner: Matthew Morris and Nathan Shields

Estimated Cost: $350,000

Parcel no: 23590

Alignment with Delivery Program

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

RECOMMENDATION

That DA 2019-388.1 for a Boarding House at Lot 334, DP 216093, No. 14 The Jib, Port Macquarie, be determined by granting consent subject to the recommended conditions.

Executive Summary

This report considers a development application for a boarding house 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 was received.

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

1. BACKGROUND

Existing Sites Features and Surrounding Development

The site has an area of 767.8 m².

The site has frontage to The Jib and slopes gently towards the north.

There are existing dwellings to the north, east and south and a vacant block and existing dwellings to the west.

The site is traversed at the southern end by an existing stormwater pipeline. There is an existing stormwater junction towards the south-eastern corner of the site.

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

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

The area surrounding the site comprises a mix of single and two storey residential development with a small number of medium density developments (two-storey units) occurring within the locality.

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

Key aspects of the proposal include the following:

· Tree removal and proposed offset planting on a Council reserve; and

· Construction of a single-storey boarding house including 7 boarding rooms

Refer to attachments at the end of this report for further details.

Application Chronology

· 30 May 2019 - Application lodged with Council

· 5 - 21 June 2019 - Neighbour Notification

· 26 June 2019 - Site inspection

· 19 July - 20 August 2019 - Additional information requested and 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. Fourteen (14) koala food trees are proposed to be removed and offset as part of the proposal, the detail of which are discussed elsewhere in this report.

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 (Coastal Management) 2018

The site is not located within a coastal use area or coastal environment area.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The proposal includes a seven (7)-bedroom boarding house and Division 3 of the SEPP applies. The following assessment table provides an assessment checklist against the Division 3 requirements of this SEPP:

Applicable clauses for consideration	Comments	Satisfactory
Clause 26 Land to which Division applies	The land is zoned R1 General Residential and the Division applies.	Yes
Clause 27 Development to which Division applies	In accordance with subclause (1) the land is in an R1 zone and the development is a boarding house.	Yes
Clause 28	Consent is required for the boarding house and has been sought in this application.	Yes
Clause 29(1)(a) Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent – density and scale	(a) The maximum floor space ratio specified for the site under the PMH LEP 2011 is 0.65:1. The proposed floor space ratio at 0.47:1 is compliant with this requirement. (b) Not relevant – the site is zoned R1 General Residential.	Yes
Clause 29(2)(a) Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent – building height	Consent cannot be refused on the grounds of building height if the building height of all proposed buildings is not more than the maximum building height permitted under another environmental planning instrument for any building on the land. The LEP Height of Buildings Map identifies a maximum building height of 8.5m above existing ground level for the site. A maximum building height of 8.5m applies to the site under the PMH LEP 2011. The proposed boarding house is single storey with max 5.4m building height. Accordingly, the proposed development will not exceed the maximum building height of 8.5m permitted under the PMH LEP 2011.	Yes
Clause 29(2)(b) Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent – landscaped area	Consent cannot be refused on the grounds of landscaped area if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located. The proposal includes a stepped, decorative front entry wall, which is setback 1m from the front boundary. On the street-side of this will be landscape plantings. This setback treatment will provide an attractive visual screen for the car park and bin storage area. Additionally the proposed front entry wall will be consistent in scale and character to the front fence on adjoining Lot 335 DP216093 (12 The Jib). On this basis, the proposed landscape treatment is considered to be compatible with the streetscape.	Yes
Clause 29(2)(c) Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent – solar access	Consent cannot be refused on the grounds of solar access where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter. The proposed boarding house provides one communal living room within the south-western corner that is directly accessible to the rear yard and drying area, and will receive adequate solar access.	Yes
Clause 29(2)(d) Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent – private open space	Consent cannot be refused on the grounds of private open space if at least the following private open space areas are provided (other than the front setback area): (i) one area of at least 20 square meters with a minimum dimension of 3 meters is provided for the use of the lodgers, (ii) if accommodation is provided on site for a boarding house manager—one area of at least 8 square meters with a minimum dimension of 2.5 meters is provided adjacent to that accommodation, The proposed private open space (POS) is provided to the rear of the Boarding House, directly accessible from the internal common room. The POS has minimum dimensions of 5.5m x 18m and an area of approximately 99m². An on-site manager is not proposed.	Yes
Clause 29(2)(e) Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent – parking	Consent cannot be refused on the grounds of parking if: (iia) in the case of development not carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider—at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and (iii) in the case of any development—not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site. The proposed boarding house is not being carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider. Therefore, 0.5 parking spaces are required to be provided for each boarding room (bedroom). The proposal is for 7 boarding rooms and requires 3.5 (rounded to 4) spaces. The application proposes 4 car parking spaces (including 1 accessible space), and 1 motorcycle parking space. The development therefore satisfies the minimum parking requirements and consent cannot be refused on this basis.	Yes
Clause 29(2)(f) Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent – accommodation size.	Consent cannot be refused on the grounds of accommodation size if each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least: (i) 12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or (ii) 16 square metres in any other case. The proposed boarding rooms are proposed to permit use by a maximum of 2 adult lodgers at any one time. Each unit has a gross floor area (GFA) of greater than 41m² including kitchen and bathroom facilities or 23m² excluding the private kitchen and bathroom facilities (as a restrictive requirement of this SEPP). The accommodation therefore exceed the minimum size for two adult lodgers. Consent cannot be refused on the basis of accommodation size.	Yes
Clause 29(3) A boarding house may have private kitchen or bathroom facilities in each boarding room but is not required to have those facilities in any boarding room.	Each proposed boarding room has private bathroom and kitchen facilities.	Yes
Clause 29(4) A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in subclause (1) or (2).	Noted.	n/a
Clause 30 - Standards for boarding houses (1) A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it is satisfied of each of the following: (a) if a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided, (b) no boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 square metres, (c) no boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers, (d) adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger, (e) if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager, (f) (Repealed) (g) if the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposes, no part of the ground floor of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use, (h) at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.	(a) The proposal includes 7 bedrooms and provides 1 communal living area satisfying the minimum dimensions of 29(2)(d). (b) The proposed boarding rooms have a GFA of approximately 23m², with this area excluding the private kitchen and bathroom areas, thus not exceeding the 25m² GFA limit. (c) The Statement of Environmental Effects indicates that not more than two adult lodgers are proposed per room. A condition is recommended confirming this restriction. (d) Private bathroom and kitchen facilities are proposed for each boarding room. The facilities are considered satisfactory for the number of lodgers proposed. (e) The proposal includes 7 bedrooms, each with a maximum capacity of 2 adult lodgers, or 14 lodgers in total. (g) The site is not on land zoned for commercial purposes. (h) A suitable area has been set aside within the parking area to enable 2 bicycle and 1 motorcycle spaces to be accommodated.	Yes
Clause 30A - Character of local area A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.	The area surrounding the site comprises a mix of single and two storey residential development with a small number of medium density developments occurring within the locality (two storey units at 4 The Jib and 30 The Boom). The proposed building has been limited to single storey construction and provided within an articulated frontage that includes a front entry wall, similar in height to the front fence on the adjoining site (12 The Jib). The front elevation also includes a mix of building materials to ensure visual interest. Landscaping is proposed in front of the proposed entry wall as well as the front of the boarding house. In addition, the proposal is consistent with the floor space ratio requirements for the residential locality and is permissible with consent in the zone. Based on the above, it is submitted that the proposed boarding house is sufficiently compatible with the character of the surrounding locality.	Yes
Clause 52 – No subdivision of boarding houses A consent authority must not grant consent to the strata subdivision or community title subdivision of a boarding house.	The application does not propose strata or community title subdivision of the boarding house.	Yes

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

A BASIX certificate is not required for the proposed boarding house as it has an area greater than 300m². Accordingly, the proposed Boarding House is a Class 3 building. Building Classes 3 and 5 to 9 buildings are not subject to BASIX, BCA sub-section J(B) applies the provisions of the national BCA Section J relevant to class 3 and Class 5 to 9 buildings.

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.

· Clause 2.3(1) and the R1 zone landuse table - The dwelling (or ancillary structure to a dwelling) is a permissible landuse with consent.

The objectives of the R1 zone are as follows:

o To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

· Clause 2.3(2) - The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives having regard to the following:

o the proposal is a permissible landuse;

· Clause 4.3 - The maximum overall height of the building above ground level (existing) is 6.30m which complies with the standard height limit of 8.50m applying to the site.

· Clause 4.4 - The floor space ratio of the proposal is 0.47:1.0 which complies with the maximum 0.65:1 floor space ratio applying to the site.

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

· Clause 6.2 - Satisfactory arrangements are in place for provision of essential public utility infrastructure including stormwater, water and sewer infrastructure to service the development within an urban release area.

(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 (DCP) in force

Port Macquarie-Hastings Development Control Plan 2013

*DCP 2013: General Provisions*
DCP Objective	Development Provisions	Proposed	Complies
2.7.2.2	Design addresses generic principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guideline: · Casual surveillance and sightlines · Land use mix and activity generators · Definition of use and ownership · Lighting · Way finding · Predictable routes and entrapment locations	The proposed building design includes access to boarding rooms from ground level to each unit which would minimise opportunities for entrapment and concealment. Good casual surveillance is available for the car park and communal open space areas from the boarding rooms and communal living rooms. Boundary fencing is proposed to be well defined and would limit access to the driveway and pedestrian path from The Jib. Lighting is proposed within the development to improve safety at night and a condition is recommended to ensure that the lighting does not cause nuisance to neighbouring property.	Yes
2.3.3.1	Cut and fill 1.0m max. 1m outside the perimeter of the external building walls	The proposed cut and fill will not exceed 1m.	Yes
2.3.3.2	1m max. height retaining walls along road frontages	No retaining walls proposed along road frontage.	n/a
	Any retaining wall >1.0 in height to be certified by structural engineer	Condition recommended requiring certification of retaining walls.	Yes
	Combination of retaining wall and front fence height	No retaining wall and front fence combination proposed.	n/a
2.3.3.8 onwards	Removal of hollow bearing trees	The Arborist report did not identify any Hollow Bearing Trees.	n/a
2.6.3.1	Tree removal (3m or higher with 100mm diameter trunk and 3m outside dwelling footprint	Proposal includes removal of 19 Trees surveyed on lot 334, including: 13 Melaleuca quinquenervia (Secondary koala browse spp.) 1 Melaleuca linariifolia 1 Eucalyptus tereticornis (Primary koala browse spp.) High ISA Risk/ TPZ SRZ incursion. 1 Casuarina glauca 2 Corymbia intermedia 1 Ficus elastic Compensatory replanting is required at a minimum 1:1 ratio for Primary and Secondary trees removed at proposed Council owned sites at Lot 30 DP 263203 Lady Nelson Drive and Lot 46 DP 733281 The Jib. Refer to more specific details later in this report.	Yes
2.4.3	Bushfire risk, Acid sulphate soils, Flooding, Contamination, Airspace protection, Noise and Stormwater	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.2	New accesses not permitted from arterial or distributor roads. Existing accesses rationalised or removed where practical	No access to arterial or collector road proposed.	Yes
2.5.3.2	Driveway crossing/s minimal in number and width including maximising street parking	Driveway crossing of acceptable width with maximised retention of street parking.	Yes
2.5.3.3	Off-street parking in accordance with Table 2.5.1.	Table 2.5.1 requires boarding houses to have a minimum of 1 space per 2 bedrooms. This is the same rate as required by SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and adequate parking is proposed.	Yes
2.5.3.7	Visitor parking to be easily accessible	Parking for residents and visitors considered to be easily accessible.	Yes
2.5.3.7	Parking in accordance with AS 2890.1	Parking capable of complying with AS2890. Conditions recommended requiring design and certification of parking areas to this standard.	Yes
2.5.3.9	Bicycle and motorcycle parking considered and designed generally in accordance with the principles of AS2890.3	Bicycle and motorcycle parking proposed as part of the development. Conditions recommended requiring design and certification of parking areas to this standard.	Yes
2.5.3.11	Section 94 contributions	Refer to main body of report.
2.5.3.12	Landscaping of parking areas	Landscaping of the proposed car park has been provided to the front of the car park and around the edges.	Yes
2.5.3.14	Sealed driveway surfaces unless justified	Driveway and parking areas proposed to be sealed.	Yes
2.5.3.15	Driveway grades for first 6m of ‘parking area’ shall be 5% grade (Note AS/NZS 2890.1 permits steeper grades)	Driveway grades capable of complying. Condition recommended requiring details with the Construction Certificate and Section 138 applications.	Yes
2.5.3.16	Transitional grades min. 2m length		Yes
2.5.3.17	Parking areas to be designed to avoid concentrations of water runoff on the surface.	Details of proposed stormwater management have been submitted with the application. See comments under ‘Stormwater’ later in this report.	Yes
2.5.3.17	No direct discharge to K&G or swale drain
2.5.3.18	Car parking areas drained to swales, bio retention, rain gardens and infiltration areas

(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

None prescribed

(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 Settings

The site has a frontage to The Jib. Adjoining the site are further R1 residential uses. The proposal is considered to be sufficiently compatible with other residential development in the locality and adequately addresses planning controls for the area.

The proposal does not have significant adverse lighting impacts.

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

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

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 and tenancy is proposed/existing.

Access, Traffic and Transport

The site has road frontage to The Jib. The Jib is a sealed public collector road under the care and control of Council. The proposal will be unlikely to have any adverse impacts in terms access, transport and traffic. The existing road network will satisfactorily cater for any increase in traffic generation as a result of the development.

Parking and Manoeuvring

A total of 4 parking spaces, including 1 accessible space, have been provided on-site in a carpark to the front of the proposal. Additionally motorcycle and bicycle parking is also provided. Parking and driveway widths on site are capable of complying with relevant Australian Standards (AS 2890) and conditions are recommended to reflect these requirements.

Water Supply Connection

Council records indicate that the development site has no existing metered water service. The site is fronted by a 100mm AC water main on the same side of street.

Final water service sizing will need to be determined by a hydraulic consultant to suit the domestic and commercial components of the development. Fire service and backflow protection requirements must be addressed in accordance with AS 3500.

A condition has been recommended to reflect these requirements.

Sewer Connection

Council records indicate that the development site is connected to sewer via junction to the existing sewer line that runs outside the northern property boundary. The proposed development must discharge sewage to an existing or proposed sewer manhole.

A condition has been recommended to reflect these requirements.

Stormwater

The site naturally grades towards the street and is currently unserviced.

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

Stormwater from the proposed development is planned to be disposed mainly to the existing stormwater pipe (with easement to be created over) and the front portion to drain to a kerb outlet.

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

· As the site is traversed by an existing stormwater pipeline, a dilapidation report is required to be undertaken pre and post works to ensure that the structural integrity of the public stormwater infrastructure is not impacted upon by the proposed development. In this regard an easement will be required to be created over this pipe.

Appropriate conditions have been recommended in this regard to reflect these requirements.

Other Utilities

Telecommunication and electricity services are available to the site.

Heritage

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

Other land resources

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

Water cycle

The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on water resources and the water cycle.

Soils

The proposed development will not have any significant 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

Flora and fauna

Construction of the proposed development will require removal/clearing of nineteen (19) trees as detailed on the Arborists Report dated 14 May 2019 attached to this report. The following comments are provided to justify the appropriateness of recommending support to the removal of the subject trees:

· The site is zoned residential and surrounded by existing urban development.

· The existing vegetation is an isolated patch and is not mapped in biodiversity values mapping.

· It is considered more appropriate to require planting of appropriate habitat plantings in a more suitable location as detailed shown below. The recommended condition is to require:

o (B195) Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, a suitably experienced Bush Regeneration Contractor shall arrange for planting of fourteen (14) trees across Lot 30 DP 263203 Lady Nelson Drive and Lot 46 DP 733281 The Jib, Port Macquarie to the satisfaction of Council. Evidence of plantings being completed shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. Eucalyptus robusta and/or Eucalyptus microcorys can be planted in the eastern end at 8m centres, with stems no closer than 20m to private property boundaries to the east. Trees are to be mulched and deer-proof guarded.

· The location of the proposed offset on Council land is detailed below:

cid:image005.png@01D56301.07DC8FB0

Subject to requiring the offset planting to be completed prior to construction commencing, the proposal will be unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on biodiversity or threatened species of flora and fauna subject to the recommended consent condition. Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act is considered to be satisfied.

Waste

Satisfactory arrangements are in place for proposed storage and collection of waste and recyclables. No adverse impacts anticipated. Standard precautionary site management condition recommended.

Energy

The proposal includes measures to address energy efficiency and will be required to comply with the requirements of Section J of the Building Code of Australia. No adverse impacts anticipated.

Noise and vibration

Bushfire

The site is not identified as being bushfire prone.

Safety, security and crime prevention

Social impacts in the locality

Given the nature of the proposed development and its location the proposal is not considered to have any significant adverse social impacts.

Economic impact in the locality

The proposal is not considered to have any significant adverse economic impacts on the locality. 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.

Construction

Construction impacts are considered capable of being managed, standard construction and site management conditions have been recommended.

Cumulative impacts

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

(c) The suitability of the site for the development

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

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

One (1) written submission has been received following neighbour notification of the application.

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

Submission Issue

Planning Comment/Response

Impact on character of the street, noise and disturbance to all existing homes along the street are single / double family per house.

For a new development to be visually compatible with its context, it should contain, or at least respond to, the essential elements that make up the character of the surrounding urban environment. The most important contributor to urban character is the relationship of built form to surrounding space, a relationship that is created by building height, setbacks and landscaping.

In this regard the proposed building height is compliant with the maximum building height of 8.5m and the front and side setbacks satisfy the planning controls. Satisfactory landscaping is proposed, and the frontage has been designed to complement existing neighbouring frontages.

It should be noted that the area surrounding the site also comprises a mix of single and two storey residential development with a number of medium density developments occurring within the locality (two storey units at 4 The Jib and 30 The Boom).

Parking and traffic:

· Traffic increase if 14 adults do move in. Where will the residents park their cars?

· Where will visitors / maintenance workers park?

· The street is a very narrow street that already has trouble accommodating the bus that runs through the Jib, especially when there are cars parked out on the street;

· Addition to the already current congestion of traffic in the street, which is another potential safety hazard.

The proposed parking complies with the minimum required by parking requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

The existing street has capacity for the anticipated additional traffic having regard to Council’s AUSPEC road design requirements.

The street is considered wide enough to park cars on either side of the driveway, should it be necessary.

The Removal of mature trees:

· Concerns around the amount of tree clearing with no attempt to retain any trees;

· Potential impact on birdlife;

The site is zoned residential and surrounded by existing urban development. The existing vegetation is an isolated patch not having any identifiable significant ecological value.

The proposal includes a significant amount of tree offset planting on Council land. Council’s Natural Resources Section have reviewed and supported the proposal on the basis of the tree offset proposal.

Given the location of the site in an established urban environment, and the nature of the proposal being acceptable by SEPP, LEP and DCP standards, the removal of the trees ad their offset was considered acceptable.

Social and safety concerns:

· Capacity and supervision concerns;

· Need for manager to be onsite;

Given the proposed capacity of the boarding house, a manager is not required as per the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.

The proposal has identified a maximum of 2 adults per room and this is reflected in the conditions.

(e) The Public Interest

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

The proposed development satisfies relevant planning controls and will not have any significant adverse impacts on the wider public interest.

Ecologically Sustainable Development and Precautionary Principle

Ecologically sustainable development requires the effective integration of economic and environmental considerations in decision-making processes.

The four principles of ecologically sustainable development are:

· the precautionary principle,

· intergenerational equity,

· conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity,

· improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms.

The principles of ESD require that a balance needs to be struck between the man-made development and in this case, the need to appropriately offset the natural vegetation. Based on the assessment provided in the report and with recommended conditions of consent, it is considered an appropriate balance has been struck.

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 7.11 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. DA2019 - 388.1 Plans

2 View. DA2019 - 388.1 Recommended DA Conditions

Member	24/04/19	22/05/19	12/06/19	24/07/19	28/08/19	11/09/19
Paul Drake	P	P	P	P	P	P
Robert Hussey	P	P			P	P
David Crofts (alternate member)			P	P
Dan Croft (Group Manager Development Assessment) (alternates) - Director Development & Environment - Development Assessment Planner	P	P	P	P	P	A P

1.0 OBJECTIVES

2.0 KEY FUNCTIONS

Delegated Authority of Panel

3.0 MEMBERSHIP

3.2 Non-Voting Members

3.3 Obligations of members

3.4 Member Tenure

3.5 Appointment of members

4.0 TIMETABLE OF MEETINGS

5.0 MEETING PRACTICES

5.2 Decision Making

5.3 Quorum

5.4 Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson

5.5 Secretariat

5.6 Recording of decisions

6.0 CONVENING OF “OUTCOME SPECIFIC” WORKING GROUPS

7.0 CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

8.0 LOBBYING

4.1 A pecuniary interest is an interest that you have in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to you or a person referred to in clause 4.3.

4.2 You will 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 you might make in relation to the matter, or if the interest is of a kind specified in clause 4.6.

4.3 For the purposes of this Part, you will have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the pecuniary interest is:

4.4 For the purposes of clause 4.3:

4.5 You will not have a pecuniary interest in relation to a person referred to in subclauses 4.3(b) or (c)

5.2 A non-pecuniary conflict of interest exists where a reasonable and informed person would perceive that you could be influenced by a private interest when carrying out your official functions in relation to a matter.

5.3 The personal or political views of a council official do not constitute a private interest for the purposes of clause 5.2.

5.5 When considering whether or not you have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter you are dealing with, it is always important to think about how others would view your situation.

Managing non-pecuniary conflicts of interest

5.7 If a disclosure is made at a council or committee meeting, both the disclosure and the nature of the interest must be recorded in the minutes on each occasion on which the non-pecuniary conflict of interest arises. This disclosure constitutes disclosure in writing for the purposes of clause 5.6.

5.8 How you manage a non-pecuniary conflict of interest will depend on whether or not it is significant.

5.9 As a general rule, a non-pecuniary conflict of interest will be significant where it does not involve a pecuniary interest for the purposes of clause 4.1, but it involves:

5.10 Significant non-pecuniary conflicts of interest must be managed in one of two ways:

5.13 Despite clause 5.10(b), a councillor who has a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest in a matter, may participate in a decision to delegate consideration of the matter in question to another body or person.